Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Drug Prohibition - Immoral and Un-American

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 9:07:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is an essay/rant I wrote on my blog in which I make the case against drug prohibition based on the natural right of individuals to make dangerous choices, as long as they don't hurt others. Since most of my roughly 600 facebook friends (the people most likely to read my posts and argue with me) are not as intelligent as the average active person on DDO, I'm posting it here to hopefully get some more intelligent responses.....

Drug prohibition of any sort infringes on personal freedom. One of the most fundamental ideas upon which America was founded is that each citizen should have the right to do what they want with their body and property, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. One infringes on another's rights by harming them or stealing what that person rightfully owns. Quite simply, if you're not infringing on anyone else's rights, who has a right to stop you and on what basis? Because doing certain drugs will inevitably lead to the usage of heavier ones? Because it's "bad for you"? Well, 1) who gets to decide what's good and what's bad for every citizen, 2) who says they know better than you about what should go in your body, and 3) how do they have the right to dictate your own personal health choices?

Smoking is pretty darn bad for you but nobody would stand for it if it was against the law to buy, sell, or use cigarettes. And rightfully so. Because as individuals, we have the right to our life, and thus we have the right to make crappy choices – even dangerous ones! It's not the government's job to legislate morality or what a bunch of respected officials decide is a good kind of lifestyle. For one thing, not everybody agrees on what is a good choice of lifestyle… Even if smoking pot were unequivocally the most disgusting, unhealthy practice on the planet, I'm sure there would still be plenty of people who'd choose to smoke it even with a guaranteed shortened lifespan.

The government might say that being a total pothead will shorten your life, but so might being an alcoholic, smoking cigarettes, eating too much food, and being anorexic. Why does the government not outlaw those things, if like pot they are harmful in excess? If somebody feels like the obesity that comes with food addiction is a worthy price to pay for the enjoyment they feel when they "binge eat", that is rightfully their choice; it may be a ridiculously stupid one, but on what moral grounds can anyone or anything force you to stop eating as much food as you'd like?

The same argument applies to outlandish regulations set forth by the Food and Drug Administration that forbid Americans from consuming certain foods, drinks, and medicines that it has deemed unhealthy. One current regulation: the interstate sale of raw milk. Yes, the government will seriously arrest you for selling milk that the FDA rules is not up to its standards. As strange as it may sound, the common sense argument that people should be able to drink whatever milk they want is the very same one I'm making in favor of drug legalization. The concept and the logic are no different: we all own our bodies, so if our bodies are our property, how can a government justly deny us full usage of that property? And when government is afforded the ability to do just that, are we not all just property of the government? That's a scary thought, and an even scarier reality.

Life is full of choices – sometimes we make good ones and sometimes we mess up. But it's our right to mess up, and not the government's job to parent and "baby" us the way it sees fit. Unless of course we live in a country where each citizen is the government's property, and I don't think many Americans believe that's how individuals should exist in a just society. (Oh wait, I forgot about the liberals.) Individuals have the right to make dangerous choices (though it should be noted that drugs like marijuana are substantially less dangerous and far more beneficial than legal drugs like alcohol). This is one of the most basic principles of American freedom. America's Founding Fathers, though in profound disagreement on many important issues, would at least mostly agree on this.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 9:13:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The only reason I support drug prohibition is because it harms other people, not just the user. Don't make me bring in the second hand smoke and drug-influenced crime statistics.

Until you can remove the majority of these instances from the equation, people using drugs have no right to harm the people around them or, if they have kids, the children around them.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 9:17:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 9:13:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
The only reason I support drug prohibition is because it harms other people, not just the user. Don't make me bring in the second hand smoke and drug-influenced crime statistics.

Until you can remove the majority of these instances from the equation, people using drugs have no right to harm the people around them or, if they have kids, the children around them.

The most harmful second-hand smoke derives from tobacco, which is completely legal, as well as its poisonous additives.

All drugs are legal, you realize. It's also legal to use any drug that exists.

It is illegal for those who are not federally sanctioned to sell certain drugs, and it is illegal to buy drugs from those people.

It's all money, brah. If you have an issue with drugs themselves, then I hope you don't drink soda, coffee, tea, or alcohol.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 9:18:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 9:13:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
The only reason I support drug prohibition is because it harms other people, not just the user. Don't make me bring in the second hand smoke and drug-influenced crime statistics.

Until you can remove the majority of these instances from the equation, people using drugs have no right to harm the people around them or, if they have kids, the children around them.

So let's say somebody's shooting heroin by themselves or with a friend alone in their house. The vast majority of people who do drugs aren't by default harming others in the process and they shouldn't be punished solely for using drugs... Isn't that a bit like saying that since there's so much drinking and driving, nobody should be allowed to drink? It's a whole different story when you harm other people but more often than not, that's not done by the act of using drugs itself.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 9:29:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 9:17:12 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/10/2011 9:13:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
The only reason I support drug prohibition is because it harms other people, not just the user. Don't make me bring in the second hand smoke and drug-influenced crime statistics.

Until you can remove the majority of these instances from the equation, people using drugs have no right to harm the people around them or, if they have kids, the children around them.

The most harmful second-hand smoke derives from tobacco, which is completely legal, as well as its poisonous additives.

Can't speak for him but maybe he was referring to cigs/tobacco also, I don't know.

All drugs are legal, you realize. It's also legal to use any drug that exists.

What does that mean? If it's legal to use any drug that exists, why can't I smoke pot or snort coke or shoot heroin in front of a cop? I'm not rejecting what you're saying, I'm probably just misunderstanding it.

It is illegal for those who are not federally sanctioned to sell certain drugs, and it is illegal to buy drugs from those people.

...What about possession? It's obviously not only the act of illegal selling or buying that is against the law. If I'm walking down the street with a few grams of pot in my pocket and a joint in my hand and a cop sees me... Enough said. I suspect I'm just not understanding your point correctly...

It's all money, brah. If you have an issue with drugs themselves, then I hope you don't drink soda, coffee, tea, or alcohol.

100% agreed. I've smoked pot before and people have yelled at me and said "I don't need pot to have a good time! But you're obviously dependent on pot to function!" I always respond that a) most people drink alcohol at parties and with friends every once in a while; it's a social occasion; why can't pot be used for the same way (aside from the fact that it's illegal of course)?

b) What about coffee???? Coffee is ridiculously addicting and sooo many people literally can't function without it. Oh, it's totally okay to be a slave to your addicting coffee but smoking non-chemically addicting pot every once in a while is the end of the f*cking world?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 9:36:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 9:29:22 PM, jat93 wrote:
All drugs are legal, you realize. It's also legal to use any drug that exists.

What does that mean? If it's legal to use any drug that exists, why can't I smoke pot or snort coke or shoot heroin in front of a cop? I'm not rejecting what you're saying, I'm probably just misunderstanding it.

Because the way they establish control (since incentive didn't work) is by distinguishing drugs you get from federally sanctioned corporations and those you get from "street pharmacists."

In other words, a cop would arrest you for smoking a joint, but he will not arrest you for taking Sativex, Marinol, or Dronabinal.

He will arrest you for blowing coke, but he will not arrest you for having received Cocaine Hydrochloride.

A cop will arrest you for shooting up heroin, but not for taking Morphine.

It is illegal for those who are not federally sanctioned to sell certain drugs, and it is illegal to buy drugs from those people.

...What about possession? It's obviously not only the act of illegal selling or buying that is against the law. If I'm walking down the street with a few grams of pot in my pocket and a joint in my hand and a cop sees me... Enough said. I suspect I'm just not understanding your point correctly...

To add to the point I made above, possession is only illegal, because the form it's in is indicative of where you bought it. If it's in the proper form, it is not illegal to possess them (unless it seems as though you've been taking them and you're driving).
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 10:52:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Here's why drugs should be illegal:
First, drug usage is not a victimless crime and society bears a huge burden for the costs inflected by drug users. So the point that it isn't the government's business is just false. Second, drug laws, despite fanciful claims to the contrary, actually work. When prohibition was ended, alcohol usage tripled. The government can protect (in part) its citizens from the dangers of drugs and spare taxpayers much (though not all) of the burden of caring for a drugged up society--and it should. [1]

We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts.The Legalization Lobby claims that the fight against drugs cannot be won. However, overall drug use is down by more than a third in the last twenty years. Cocaine use has dropped by an astounding 70 percent and 95 percent of Americans do not use drugs. This is success by any standards. [2]

Smoked marijuana is not scientifically approved medicine. Marinol, the legal version of medical marijuana, is approved by science. According to the Institute of Medicine, there is no future in smoked marijuana as medicine. However, the prescription drug Marinol—a legal and safe version of medical marijuana which isolates the active ingredient, THC—has been studied and approved by the FDA as safe medicine. The difference is that you have to get a prescription for Marinol from a licensed physician. You can't buy it on a street corner, and you don't smoke it. [2]

Drug control spending is a minor portion of the U.S. budget. Compared to the social costs of drug abuse and addiction, government spending on drug control is minimal. The Legalization Lobby claims that the United States has wasted billions of dollars in its anti-drug efforts. But for those kids saved from drug addiction, this is hardly wasted dollars. Moreover, our fight against drug abuse and addiction is an ongoing struggle that should be treated like any other social problem. Would we give up on education or poverty simply because we haven't eliminated all problems? Compared to the social costs of drug abuse and addiction—whether in taxpayer dollars or in pain and suffering—government spending on drug control is minimal. [2]

http://www.r21.org...[1]
http://www.thenextgreatgeneration.com... [2]
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 3:24:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would debate you on it being un-American. The country is full of contradictions and hypocrisy in it's history, and we have an outward value of absolute freedom, but it gets tangled with a compulsive need to regulate morality and behavior, while simultaneously and irrationally, protecting status quo. There are numerous examples of this in our history.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 5:42:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 10:52:28 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Here's why drugs should be illegal:
First, drug usage is not a victimless crime and society bears a huge burden for the costs inflected by drug users. So the point that it isn't the government's business is just false. Second, drug laws, despite fanciful claims to the contrary, actually work. When prohibition was ended, alcohol usage tripled. The government can protect (in part) its citizens from the dangers of drugs and spare taxpayers much (though not all) of the burden of caring for a drugged up society--and it should. [1]

We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts.The Legalization Lobby claims that the fight against drugs cannot be won. However, overall drug use is down by more than a third in the last twenty years. Cocaine use has dropped by an astounding 70 percent and 95 percent of Americans do not use drugs. This is success by any standards. [2]

Smoked marijuana is not scientifically approved medicine. Marinol, the legal version of medical marijuana, is approved by science. According to the Institute of Medicine, there is no future in smoked marijuana as medicine. However, the prescription drug Marinol—a legal and safe version of medical marijuana which isolates the active ingredient, THC—has been studied and approved by the FDA as safe medicine. The difference is that you have to get a prescription for Marinol from a licensed physician. You can't buy it on a street corner, and you don't smoke it. [2]

Drug control spending is a minor portion of the U.S. budget. Compared to the social costs of drug abuse and addiction, government spending on drug control is minimal. The Legalization Lobby claims that the United States has wasted billions of dollars in its anti-drug efforts. But for those kids saved from drug addiction, this is hardly wasted dollars. Moreover, our fight against drug abuse and addiction is an ongoing struggle that should be treated like any other social problem. Would we give up on education or poverty simply because we haven't eliminated all problems? Compared to the social costs of drug abuse and addiction—whether in taxpayer dollars or in pain and suffering—government spending on drug control is minimal. [2]

http://www.r21.org...[1]
http://www.thenextgreatgeneration.com... [2]

People die of lung cancer and liver failure and alcohol poisoning every single year, and yet the Government does nothing about it.

Peole smoke and drink themselves into early graves at great cost to their families, financial and emotional, and yet the Government does nothing about it.

People do this despite knowing the dangers and having access to information about those dangers, and yet the Government does nothing about it.

The Government itself profits from every single sale of tobacco and alcohol, as every sale of them has a tax attached.

As for the potential of marijuana to kill, your own Department of Justice claims that as medical substances, cannabis, even that which includes the THC, is LESS dangerous than other medicines. Despite intensive studies, no fatality has ever been recorded with marijuana was the definitive killer, and those that have died after smoking it have only done so because they were f*cking stupid enough to take cocktails of drugs.

Even if your pills really were any healthier, the act of ingestion is irrelevant. You've managed to turn a joint into a pill, the pill is mildly healthier in the sense that it will kill you even less than something that couldn't kill you already, so great. How can you then oppose handing out pills with the same potency?

It comes down to the same thing time and again. Given the extent to which modern science has investigated and tested the drug, nobody can say we don't know about it. It's effects on people with hitherto incurable conditions like HIV and Alzeimers are well published enough and recognised by the same federal bodies that say "no you can't have it"

You trust the Government to stop this, and yet you seem unaware of the greater potential of the drug. Yes, it gets people high, but then isn't that better than giving them cancer or destroying their friggin' liver?

If we're going to have a vice we might as well make it a vice we can all just chill out and enjoy with the full knowledge that won't kill us 20 years down the line.

It has short term but genuine medical benefits in pill form and it can ease pain, help a lack of appetite and there's not a goddamn thing to say it can't be regulated the same way Tobacco and Alcohol are.

Trusting the establishment never got anyone very far y'know. Just because people elected them doesn't mean they know what's best for you.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 7:28:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 3:24:07 AM, innomen wrote:
I would debate you on it being un-American. The country is full of contradictions and hypocrisy in it's history, and we have an outward value of absolute freedom, but it gets tangled with a compulsive need to regulate morality and behavior, while simultaneously and irrationally, protecting status quo. There are numerous examples of this in our history.

uh, careful which part of the country you're referring to because sweeping generalizations like this are often utter nonsense. What you seemed to describe was conservatism and the Republican agenda.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
lotus_flower
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 7:36:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree with you completely. It is ridiculous, and the war on drugs is an utter failure.
"Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."
- Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
*******************************************************
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 7:57:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The reason why alchohol isn't illegal is because it is a common beverage. So go ahaed its your mistake, but I belive certian restrictions are needed for illegal drugs, because no other medicine makes you shizophreinic and kills all your brain cells making you a drag on society.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 8:40:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Media demonization of drugs is a heavy influence on how the Government classifies illegal drugs. The major factor keeping alcohol and tobacco legal is the historical traditions. It does not seem likely to me that the media will be able to portray traditional drugs in the same light as the new drugs on the block.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 8:46:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 7:28:54 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/11/2011 3:24:07 AM, innomen wrote:
I would debate you on it being un-American. The country is full of contradictions and hypocrisy in it's history, and we have an outward value of absolute freedom, but it gets tangled with a compulsive need to regulate morality and behavior, while simultaneously and irrationally, protecting status quo. There are numerous examples of this in our history.

uh, careful which part of the country you're referring to because sweeping generalizations like this are often utter nonsense. What you seemed to describe was conservatism and the Republican agenda.

Hate to break this too you Ike, but that directly applies to both parties, or do you really think either established party does not have a heavily vested interest in the status quo? 85% of the people that hate congress would disagree with you.

Innomen is not talking about political parties anyway, he is talking about how Americans have historically behaved.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 10:58:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 3:24:07 AM, innomen wrote:
I would debate you on it being un-American. The country is full of contradictions and hypocrisy in it's history, and we have an outward value of absolute freedom, but it gets tangled with a compulsive need to regulate morality and behavior, while simultaneously and irrationally, protecting status quo. There are numerous examples of this in our history.

I guess you just misunderstood what I mean by Un-American. I mean the ideas and philosophy this country was founded upon, as espoused in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, the writings of various Founding Fathers and really the general spirit of the times in which America was created. The common link between all of those is the respect for individual liberty. And thus the privacy of the individual... That's why, unless I'm much mistaken, drugs were legal for the first 150 years of America's existence. Because they just didn't view it as the role of government to be legislating morality or personal health choices.

"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson, author of America.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 11:08:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 7:28:54 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/11/2011 3:24:07 AM, innomen wrote:
I would debate you on it being un-American. The country is full of contradictions and hypocrisy in it's history, and we have an outward value of absolute freedom, but it gets tangled with a compulsive need to regulate morality and behavior, while simultaneously and irrationally, protecting status quo. There are numerous examples of this in our history.

uh, careful which part of the country you're referring to because sweeping generalizations like this are often utter nonsense. What you seemed to describe was conservatism and the Republican agenda.

That's 100% incorrect, because drug prohibition and "legislating morality" really started during the age of the Progressives. Which of course is nearly synonymous nowadays with liberalism, and for good reason. You know, those guys who thought the federal government should play a larger role in our personal lives. The antithesis of conservatism.

Funny enough, the conservatism you're talking about is probably neoconservatism, which is not true conservatism. True conservatism = more or less libertarianism, as you'll see if you look at conservatism from the founding of America until around the 1920s (possibly a bit later). Neoconservatism, the philosophy which currently dominates the Republican party, is heavily influenced by liberal progressives such as Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, and perhaps most of all Trotskyism (Leon Trotsky's theory of Marxism).

Your notion of "conservatism", and the current Republican party, are far more liberal/progressive than they are conservative.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 11:12:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 9:18:48 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/10/2011 9:13:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
The only reason I support drug prohibition is because it harms other people, not just the user. Don't make me bring in the second hand smoke and drug-influenced crime statistics.

Until you can remove the majority of these instances from the equation, people using drugs have no right to harm the people around them or, if they have kids, the children around them.

So let's say somebody's shooting heroin by themselves or with a friend alone in their house. The vast majority of people who do drugs aren't by default harming others in the process and they shouldn't be punished solely for using drugs... Isn't that a bit like saying that since there's so much drinking and driving, nobody should be allowed to drink? It's a whole different story when you harm other people but more often than not, that's not done by the act of using drugs itself.

No, it's like saying that drunk drivers are so often a danger to others, that they should be stopped BEFORE causing harm to others.

What you're asking for is a completely reactionary law (it isn't a crime until AFTER you harm someone). If we apply absolute reactionary law to drunk driving, then drunk driving would be perfectly legal, and "drunk crashing" would be treated as any crash. If you killed someone in a DD crash, it would be treated no differently than if you killed them in a normal neglagent at-fault crash.

However, society has decided that safety is more important, and so has approved preventative laws, which are designed to stop a crime before it happens, by making one, some, or all of the pre-requistes for that crime, illegal (in this case, drunk driving is a pre-req from drunk crashing). Of course, it can go too far (in many people's opinion) and view that the very existance of alcohol is a pre-req and so that should be made illegal, but that merely shows that this is on a sliding scale, rather than a dichotomy.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 11:21:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The problems with recreational drugs are that a) they are mostly unnecessary, b) they are highly potentially harmful to oneself and one's environment. A good ban would get rid of the negative effects.

The problem I have with a ban is that I have lost faith in how good it can be in our world. Even Iran can't keep itself clean of drugs. Why should any other country.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 11:30:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 11:08:39 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/11/2011 7:28:54 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/11/2011 3:24:07 AM, innomen wrote:
I would debate you on it being un-American. The country is full of contradictions and hypocrisy in it's history, and we have an outward value of absolute freedom, but it gets tangled with a compulsive need to regulate morality and behavior, while simultaneously and irrationally, protecting status quo. There are numerous examples of this in our history.

uh, careful which part of the country you're referring to because sweeping generalizations like this are often utter nonsense. What you seemed to describe was conservatism and the Republican agenda.

That's 100% incorrect, because drug prohibition and "legislating morality" really started during the age of the Progressives. Which of course is nearly synonymous nowadays with liberalism, and for good reason. You know, those guys who thought the federal government should play a larger role in our personal lives. The antithesis of conservatism.

Funny enough, the conservatism you're talking about is probably neoconservatism, which is not true conservatism. True conservatism = more or less libertarianism, as you'll see if you look at conservatism from the founding of America until around the 1920s (possibly a bit later). Neoconservatism, the philosophy which currently dominates the Republican party, is heavily influenced by liberal progressives such as Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, and perhaps most of all Trotskyism (Leon Trotsky's theory of Marxism).

Your notion of "conservatism", and the current Republican party, are far more liberal/progressive than they are conservative.

No, drug prohibition is implemented with the safety of bystanders in mind, not the safety of users. What is this roaming theory that the government cares what you do with your body?

You should also note that Liberal regulations are always done solely with the safety of innocents in mind. There must be federal regulations in society and in the economy so that the power and security of the average citizen is not undermined. Whereas, conservative (excuse me, neoconservative) regulations are often purely religiously or corporately driven.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 11:31:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 5:42:03 AM, Veridas wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:52:28 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Here's why drugs should be illegal:
First, drug usage is not a victimless crime and society bears a huge burden for the costs inflected by drug users. So the point that it isn't the government's business is just false. Second, drug laws, despite fanciful claims to the contrary, actually work. When prohibition was ended, alcohol usage tripled. The government can protect (in part) its citizens from the dangers of drugs and spare taxpayers much (though not all) of the burden of caring for a drugged up society--and it should. [1]

We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts.The Legalization Lobby claims that the fight against drugs cannot be won. However, overall drug use is down by more than a third in the last twenty years. Cocaine use has dropped by an astounding 70 percent and 95 percent of Americans do not use drugs. This is success by any standards. [2]

Smoked marijuana is not scientifically approved medicine. Marinol, the legal version of medical marijuana, is approved by science. According to the Institute of Medicine, there is no future in smoked marijuana as medicine. However, the prescription drug Marinol—a legal and safe version of medical marijuana which isolates the active ingredient, THC—has been studied and approved by the FDA as safe medicine. The difference is that you have to get a prescription for Marinol from a licensed physician. You can't buy it on a street corner, and you don't smoke it. [2]

Drug control spending is a minor portion of the U.S. budget. Compared to the social costs of drug abuse and addiction, government spending on drug control is minimal. The Legalization Lobby claims that the United States has wasted billions of dollars in its anti-drug efforts. But for those kids saved from drug addiction, this is hardly wasted dollars. Moreover, our fight against drug abuse and addiction is an ongoing struggle that should be treated like any other social problem. Would we give up on education or poverty simply because we haven't eliminated all problems? Compared to the social costs of drug abuse and addiction—whether in taxpayer dollars or in pain and suffering—government spending on drug control is minimal. [2]

http://www.r21.org...[1]
http://www.thenextgreatgeneration.com... [2]

People die of lung cancer and liver failure and alcohol poisoning every single year, and yet the Government does nothing about it.

Really... the government does nothing about it?


Peole smoke and drink themselves into early graves at great cost to their families, financial and emotional, and yet the Government does nothing about it.

People do this despite knowing the dangers and having access to information about those dangers, and yet the Government does nothing about it.

The Government itself profits from every single sale of tobacco and alcohol, as every sale of them has a tax attached.

As for the potential of marijuana to kill, your own Department of Justice claims that as medical substances, cannabis, even that which includes the THC, is LESS dangerous than other medicines. Despite intensive studies, no fatality has ever been recorded with marijuana was the definitive killer, and those that have died after smoking it have only done so because they were f*cking stupid enough to take cocktails of drugs.

Nicotine has never killed anyone either. It has always been the other chemicals that are added by big businesses into cigarettes to make them more addicting and "enjoyable" to users. There is no reason to think that marijuana would not follow the same path.

I've actually done a debate on this about Nicotine vs THC and showed that, while both are pretty much never going to kill you, Nicotine is less likely to kill you.

You should also note, that this topic is about ALL drugs, not just marijuana.


Even if your pills really were any healthier, the act of ingestion is irrelevant. You've managed to turn a joint into a pill, the pill is mildly healthier in the sense that it will kill you even less than something that couldn't kill you already, so great. How can you then oppose handing out pills with the same potency?

No it's not, inhaling smoke (from any substance) is very bad for your lungs. It isn't the nicotine that is filling smokers' lungs with tar and cancer.


It comes down to the same thing time and again. Given the extent to which modern science has investigated and tested the drug, nobody can say we don't know about it. It's effects on people with hitherto incurable conditions like HIV and Alzeimers are well published enough and recognised by the same federal bodies that say "no you can't have it"

You trust the Government to stop this, and yet you seem unaware of the greater potential of the drug. Yes, it gets people high, but then isn't that better than giving them cancer or destroying their friggin' liver?

"getting high" is not the only effect, so it is not honest to list only the "positives" of marijuana vs only the negatives of alcohol and tobacco.


If we're going to have a vice we might as well make it a vice we can all just chill out and enjoy with the full knowledge that won't kill us 20 years down the line.

That depends on how much you smoke. If people smoked 1 cigarette every few days, it would never kill them, and if you smoked 30 joints a day, you'd get cancer in 20 years.

Everything in moderation.


It has short term but genuine medical benefits in pill form and it can ease pain, help a lack of appetite and there's not a goddamn thing to say it can't be regulated the same way Tobacco and Alcohol are.

Trusting the establishment never got anyone very far y'know. Just because people elected them doesn't mean they know what's best for you.

Got Obama pretty far.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 5:24:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 11:30:27 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/11/2011 11:08:39 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/11/2011 7:28:54 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/11/2011 3:24:07 AM, innomen wrote:
I would debate you on it being un-American. The country is full of contradictions and hypocrisy in it's history, and we have an outward value of absolute freedom, but it gets tangled with a compulsive need to regulate morality and behavior, while simultaneously and irrationally, protecting status quo. There are numerous examples of this in our history.

uh, careful which part of the country you're referring to because sweeping generalizations like this are often utter nonsense. What you seemed to describe was conservatism and the Republican agenda.

That's 100% incorrect, because drug prohibition and "legislating morality" really started during the age of the Progressives. Which of course is nearly synonymous nowadays with liberalism, and for good reason. You know, those guys who thought the federal government should play a larger role in our personal lives. The antithesis of conservatism.

Funny enough, the conservatism you're talking about is probably neoconservatism, which is not true conservatism. True conservatism = more or less libertarianism, as you'll see if you look at conservatism from the founding of America until around the 1920s (possibly a bit later). Neoconservatism, the philosophy which currently dominates the Republican party, is heavily influenced by liberal progressives such as Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, and perhaps most of all Trotskyism (Leon Trotsky's theory of Marxism).

Your notion of "conservatism", and the current Republican party, are far more liberal/progressive than they are conservative.

No, drug prohibition is implemented with the safety of bystanders in mind, not the safety of users. What is this roaming theory that the government cares what you do with your body?

Um, that's completely irrelevant... Nothing I said has anything to do with that and it does not contradict anything I said in the post you replied to.... And by the way, though you seem to try to defend absolutely everything about modern liberalism and blame Republicans for all the world's evils, shouldn't you know that it's the liberals these days pushing for drug legalization and the Republicans pushing for prohibition? Guess you have more in common with those Republicans than you think.


You should also note that Liberal regulations are always done solely with the safety of innocents in mind. There must be federal regulations in society and in the economy so that the power and security of the average citizen is not undermined. Whereas, conservative (excuse me, neoconservative) regulations are often purely religiously or corporately driven.

Hahahahaha. This might be the most naive thing I've heard all day. Laughable. It's ridiculous how you think that all liberal regulations are solely for the benefit of the citizens, or even the average citizens - as if liberal politicians who push for those regulations are not susceptible to the corruption that obviously plagues all levels of government! Don't be so hopelessly partisan. Washington doesn't really work where it's the values of the politicians that drive legislation. Welcome to reality. Ever hear of lobbyists, for one? Liberals and their regulations are every bit as guilty of "corporatism" as the Republicans. As if no liberal laws are corporately driven.... Time to open your eyes.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 5:05:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ore_Ele said:
Really... the government does nothing about it?

Well to say the Government does nothing in relation to alcohol and tobacco is probably a bit unfair.

After all, as I said earlier, they certainly profit from the sales of alcohol and tobacco.

Ore_Ele said:
Nicotine has never killed anyone either. It has always been the other chemicals that are added by big businesses into cigarettes to make them more addicting and "enjoyable" to users. There is no reason to think that marijuana would not follow the same path.

Given that it takes between half a miligram to one miligram per one kilogram to attain a Median Lethal Dosage, Nicotine is considered "highly toxic" and it's toxicity is regarded as higher than that of cocaine.

Even if that was irrelevant, people tend to smoke tobacco. While Nicotine is an addition to that, deaths from tobacco use rated something along the lines of a hundred million deaths over the course of the 20th century. Note that that would be about a hundred million more than the amount killed by weed.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Ore_Ele said:
I've actually done a debate on this about Nicotine vs THC and showed that, while both are pretty much never going to kill you, Nicotine is less likely to kill you.

If you're going to play the odds then frankly I'm sure I could find some part of cigarettes that does kill. You know, like tobacco. Versus some part of weed that doesn't, you know, like the pill version.

Ore_Ele said:
You should also note, that this topic is about ALL drugs, not just marijuana.

Then why aren't you using paracetamol as an argument for your side? Let's not be coy, the legalisation of crack or heroine isn't exactly an issue of the day, it's weed legalisation. Just because Jat doesn't talk about weed specifically doesn't mean that isn't what he's getting at.

Ore_Ele said:
No it's not, inhaling smoke (from any substance) is very bad for your lungs. It isn't the nicotine that is filling smokers' lungs with tar and cancer.

So you're saying the pill is less healthy than smoking because...smoking is bad. Ok. Forgive me for not quite seeing the connection there.

Ore_Ele said:
"getting high" is not the only effect, so it is not honest to list only the "positives" of marijuana vs only the negatives of alcohol and tobacco.

I notice you ignored all the positives entirely, so you're playing the same game. I also notice you seem keen to overlook the effects of tobacco in favour of focussing on the effects of nicotine. At least I'm not confusing Drug A with Drug B.

Ore_Ele said:
That depends on how much you smoke. If people smoked 1 cigarette every few days, it would never kill them, and if you smoked 30 joints a day, you'd get cancer in 20 years.

Apparantely for every cigarette you smoke, you shorten your lifespan by eleven minutes.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Funnily enough there isn't a "health issues" section in the marijuana article.

While looking for one, though, I found this. A little graph plotted by the UK-based medical group "Lancet" plotting the dependency versus harm of several drugs. See where cannabis is? Great, now see if you can find out where tobacco is.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Ore_Ele said:
Got Obama pretty far.

Got Nixon pretty far too. What's your point?
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 8:37:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 1:57:56 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Why is personal freedom important?

Because everyone needs a say in their community.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 7:57:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 1:57:56 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Why is personal freedom important?

Because people have differing opinions on what is right, wrong, healthy, unhealthy, etc., so generally, people should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies and properties as long as they don't harm those of other people. The alternative to allowing personal freedom is having some government or forceful agency dictating the agenda for everyone under its jurisdiction, but this doesn't work out because everybody has different opinions about what's good and healthy and worthwhile and what's not. Pretty simple I think...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 9:00:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/10/2011 9:13:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
The only reason I support drug prohibition is because it harms other people, not just the user. Don't make me bring in the second hand smoke and drug-influenced crime statistics.


http://www.druglibrary.org...
http://www.annualreviews.org...

Until you can remove the majority of these instances from the equation, people using drugs have no right to harm the people around them or, if they have kids, the children around them.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross