Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Drug Law
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedDrug Law
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Poll Question: What is your position on drug legislation??
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
4 [13.79%]
11 [37.93%]
14 [48.28%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Smurph View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 11 2012
Location: Columbus&NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 3167 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2013 at 21:09
Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:

Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

Because that is what you would want done if it is one of your loved ones who Od'ed


You would be surprised to learn what I already did to my "loved ones".

My ears are more than open.
http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/



wtf
Back to Top
CPicard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2013 at 21:05
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

Because that is what you would want done if it is one of your loved ones who Od'ed


You would be surprised to learn what I already did to my "loved ones".
Back to Top
Dayvenkirq View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2013 at 20:17
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

I don't think it's a complex question. The reasons why recreational drugs are prohibited in most countries are political and nothing to do with the well being of a nations citizens.

How many times has the CIA and major global banks been caught trafficking drugs, laundering drug money etc? You get caught with an ounce of weed of you, in the UK, that could be deemed enough to be dealing. Worst case scenario it could land you over 10 years in prison. Meanwhile in Afghanistan US marines are instructed not to try and stop the opium poppy farming, because it could antagonise the locals. What does much of the revenue from the illegal drug trade fund? That's right, terrorism. Why are we in Afghanistan (oficially)? That's right, to fight terrorism..

It's a twisted world underpinned with dubious and contradictory morality. Personally I'm all for legalisation of drugs in principle. Such an initiative would have some serious teething problems, but ultimately it would, in my opinion, settle down as the market is regulated taxed and controlled.
I don't think it's about whether or not the government cares about the national well-being. It's more about the society expecting the government to control the society. That is, some of us want others to be controlled. I don't expect the government to care about us.
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2013 at 15:26
Because that is what you would want done if it is one of your loved ones who Od'ed
Back to Top
CPicard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2013 at 15:18
Legalize the drugs, but stop reanimating people having O.D.s.
If someone suffers lethal wounds after a car crash because of DUI, no reanimation.
No medical care for people suffering of the consequences of the use of drugs.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2013 at 11:42
Legalization, we already have laws on the books for any illegal misbehaviour people may do while on drugs.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2013 at 07:36
I don't think it's a complex question. The reasons why recreational drugs are prohibited in most countries are political and nothing to do with the well being of a nations citizens.

How many times has the CIA and major global banks been caught trafficking drugs, laundering drug money etc? You get caught with an ounce of weed of you, in the UK, that could be deemed enough to be dealing. Worst case scenario it could land you over 10 years in prison. Meanwhile in Afghanistan US marines are instructed not to try and stop the opium poppy farming, because it could antagonise the locals. What does much of the revenue from the illegal drug trade fund? That's right, terrorism. Why are we in Afghanistan (oficially)? That's right, to fight terrorism..

It's a twisted world underpinned with dubious and contradictory morality. Personally I'm all for legalisation of drugs in principle. Such an initiative would have some serious teething problems, but ultimately it would, in my opinion, settle down as the market is regulated taxed and controlled.
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Back to Top
Earendil View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 17 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1584 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 09 2013 at 15:18
I think it should be a non-issue for decriminalization, but there's plenty of room for debate on whether all or some drugs should be legalized, which is what I want to have happen at this point- discussion.
Back to Top
Dayvenkirq View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 08 2013 at 23:01
I do respect the principle of preserving life, liberty, and property, but whether I should pick legalization or decriminalization is a difficult matter. I would say it depends on which drug we are talking about specifically.

Edited by Dayvenkirq - September 08 2013 at 23:06
Back to Top
Metalmarsh89 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 15 2013
Location: Oregon, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2673 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 08 2013 at 11:51
I opted decriminalization. The way I see it, anything that comes naturally from the earth should have no laws bound to it. People should not be prosecuted for what they grow in their garden and consume, whether it be pumpkins or hemp. But that's another matter. Anything that is created synthetically, whether it be food, drug, or medication, should have a much stricter ruling. So yes, I'm all for legalizing weed, but not heroin.
Back to Top
dr wu23 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20659 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2013 at 10:32
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

Originally posted by Triceratopsoil Triceratopsoil wrote:

Originally posted by twseel twseel wrote:

Originally posted by Triceratopsoil Triceratopsoil wrote:

Originally posted by twseel twseel wrote:

If you could forbid something for being harmful and addictive you could instantly prohibit the use of many popular video games and Sudoku(for example).


By that logic, you could describe literally any hobby ever as harmful and addictive.
Indeed. Any hobby that pulls you to sitting inside for a long time will be as harmful as drugs on the long term.
Drugs is only forbidden because the addictive pleasure comes from an otherwise harmless substance instead of a fun concept.


Well, no.  There is a pretty obvious physical difference when you are actually putting foreign plants or chemicals in your body.  Even drugs that aren't proven to be chemically addicting at all - and something like pot is NOT an example of that, though it is less addicting that alcohol or tobacco - are affecting your body in a way that a sport or book or whatever isn't.

If a child drops acid it can and probably will have a negative effect on their development.  The same is not true of listening to music.

This is why nobody (in politics) really favours legalizing recreational drugs outright.  Some regulation is necessary.
 
What age do you consider 'a child' and why would it , a psychedelic, automatically have a 'negative effect'..?
 


I agree with the vagueness of the first issue you mentioned, but a psychedelic would be more likely to harm a child due to it activating certain parts of the developing brain prematurely. If we consider an adult to be someone who's brain and body are fully developed then we are talking 21/22 years of age. Mind altering substances generally have negative effects on the brain, which are magnified when a brain is developing.

 
Activating certain parts of the brain..? Psychedelics don't  really 'activate' anything from what I understand. They can distort , alter, or  enhance  some sense perceptions which is what causes the 'psychedelic' aspects.
There is no actual 'physical harm' to any structures from what I have read over the years unless one has abused them.
 In lower doses they have been shown to be  beneficial in several types of psychological problems and many scientists were using them in therapy back in the late 50's and early 60's with very encouraging results until the gubbermint banned them due to them being abused by the counter culture movement and others.
Having said that I am not advocating their use as recreational drugs but it's interesting how the pharmaceuticals are allowed to dispense drugs that are much worse for people yet make millions from them.
Just an observation.
btw an excellent book that goes into the whole saga about lsd and related issues is called Acid Dreams by Lee and Shlain.


Edited by dr wu23 - September 07 2013 at 10:42
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
Back to Top
The Pessimist View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2013 at 18:46
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

Originally posted by Triceratopsoil Triceratopsoil wrote:

Originally posted by twseel twseel wrote:

Originally posted by Triceratopsoil Triceratopsoil wrote:

Originally posted by twseel twseel wrote:

If you could forbid something for being harmful and addictive you could instantly prohibit the use of many popular video games and Sudoku(for example).


By that logic, you could describe literally any hobby ever as harmful and addictive.
Indeed. Any hobby that pulls you to sitting inside for a long time will be as harmful as drugs on the long term.
Drugs is only forbidden because the addictive pleasure comes from an otherwise harmless substance instead of a fun concept.


Well, no.  There is a pretty obvious physical difference when you are actually putting foreign plants or chemicals in your body.  Even drugs that aren't proven to be chemically addicting at all - and something like pot is NOT an example of that, though it is less addicting that alcohol or tobacco - are affecting your body in a way that a sport or book or whatever isn't.

If a child drops acid it can and probably will have a negative effect on their development.  The same is not true of listening to music.

This is why nobody (in politics) really favours legalizing recreational drugs outright.  Some regulation is necessary.
 
What age do you consider 'a child' and why would it , a psychedelic, automatically have a 'negative effect'..?
 


I agree with the vagueness of the first issue you mentioned, but a psychedelic would be more likely to harm a child due to it activating certain parts of the developing brain prematurely. If we consider an adult to be someone who's brain and body are fully developed then we are talking 21/22 years of age. Mind altering substances generally have negative effects on the brain, which are magnified when a brain is developing.

Dean, I agree with you, perhaps my statement was a tad careless and ambiguous... I meant to really ask what your views were on penalizing possession?
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg
Back to Top
dr wu23 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20659 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2013 at 13:07
Originally posted by Triceratopsoil Triceratopsoil wrote:

Originally posted by twseel twseel wrote:

Originally posted by Triceratopsoil Triceratopsoil wrote:

Originally posted by twseel twseel wrote:

If you could forbid something for being harmful and addictive you could instantly prohibit the use of many popular video games and Sudoku(for example).


By that logic, you could describe literally any hobby ever as harmful and addictive.
Indeed. Any hobby that pulls you to sitting inside for a long time will be as harmful as drugs on the long term.
Drugs is only forbidden because the addictive pleasure comes from an otherwise harmless substance instead of a fun concept.


Well, no.  There is a pretty obvious physical difference when you are actually putting foreign plants or chemicals in your body.  Even drugs that aren't proven to be chemically addicting at all - and something like pot is NOT an example of that, though it is less addicting that alcohol or tobacco - are affecting your body in a way that a sport or book or whatever isn't.

If a child drops acid it can and probably will have a negative effect on their development.  The same is not true of listening to music.

This is why nobody (in politics) really favours legalizing recreational drugs outright.  Some regulation is necessary.
 
What age do you consider 'a child' and why would it , a psychedelic, automatically have a 'negative effect'..?
 
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2013 at 12:42
In the end, it is absurd to tell someone what substance they can or cannot put in their body. But when you consider the addictive potential of heroin or meth, I think we all can recognize the problem isn't so black and white. In some areas at least.

I support full legalization (18+ years of age) for marijuana and psychedelics and decriminalization for everything else except crack, meth, PCP, and other similarly addictive, destructive, and unpredictable drugs. Heroin and coke I'm on the fence about.
My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2013 at 12:14
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:


How do you feel about addiction being approached as a genuine medical condition (which it is) as opposed to being a criminal act?
Addiction isn't a criminal act and I can't think of a Western government that regards it as one. You can get thrown in the pokey for engaging in an illegal activity associated with, or is a direct or indirect consequence of, your addiction, but not for just being an addict - you cannot be arrested for being addicted, but you can for possession. I would imagine, (based upon my own nicotine addiction), that the chances of finding an addict not in possession is remote. Also it is very rare to become addicted to illegal substances without indulging in a criminal activity. In that respect the law is blind to whether you are addicted or not (or how harmful or addictive the substance is). Almost half the UK prison population has an addiction problem, while I'm reluctant to make a causal connection, it is not unreasonable to assume that most of those were arrested and charged from offences relating to their drug addiction, whether that is possesion or mugging an old lady for money to feed the addiction.
What?
Back to Top
The Pessimist View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2013 at 11:38
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

I mean just look at the price of Nicorette products... It's cheaper to buy cigarettes!
Except they aren't more expensive - they are deliberately priced to be more or less the same as cigarettes, which in turn are artificially priced by excise tax alledgedly as a deterrent to buying them (and that single fact blows any idea of a libertarianism self-regulalting free-market out of the water). The rationale behind the price-rigging of Nicorette type products is to stop them becoming a replacement or enhancement for cigarettes.
 
 
I couldn't give a crap whether drugs are banned, decriminalised or legalised because I don't expect that it would make a whole load of difference. When laudanum, cocaine and opium were not illegal there was still drug abuse, addiction, health damage and death, and there was still direct and indirect criminal activity associated with it. I guess that fewer idiots will be buying drugs cut with strychnine or baking soda, or making spliffs with vegetable stock cubes, or paying $100 an oz for chanterelle or death cap mushrooms if they were legal but people are dying from drinking counterfeit alcohol and they are dying from legal highs so I doubt that's going to change much either. Prohibition is another mixed bag of inconclusive results, abundant in false-positives, false-negatives, ill-formed causal associations and biased cherry-picking. The positive aspects of drug-use are also littered with selective data-mining, (as much as I admire Bill Hicks as a humourous social culture observer he was making a joke, not a sharp socio-cultural comment on the use of drugs in the creation of music). The only people who really gain out of legalising drugs are the governments that cream off their percentage at every step in the production, distribution and retail process and the Big Pharmaceutical corporations who will now be producing and marketting the legal products ... and we all trust those two paragons of virtue don't we guys.
 
 
We cannot change attitudes towards drugs with legislation and authoritative campaigns - the only people that affects are those that are rabidly opposed to drugs in the first place (cue letter to the Daily Mail by "Outraged of Tunbridge Wells").
 
IMO drugs (and that goes for alcohol and nicotine too) should be de-cooled - not by make being a dope, a druggie, a crackhead, a junkie, a drunkard, a smoker even more of a social stygma than it already is, (because everyone already knows that), but by peer pressure that regards anyone who indulges even casually as being a bit of a dick and a seriously uncool one at that. (I'm a nicotine adict btw).
 


How do you feel about addiction being approached as a genuine medical condition (which it is) as opposed to being a criminal act?
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2013 at 08:21
I support full legalization of all drugs, but as a gradual process; despite my somewhat radical libertarian views I'm willing to acknowledge that legalizing all drugs all at once will probably just create more problems.  The first step is to decriminalize, to scale down the  "drug wars," and to end the most terrible atrocities of the present system.  Then legalize the softer drugs, then gradually the harder ones; it will give time for society (and especially the education system) to catch up.
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
twseel View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 15 2012
Location: abroad
Status: Offline
Points: 22767 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2013 at 05:14
Originally posted by Triceratopsoil Triceratopsoil wrote:





Originally posted by twseel twseel wrote:


Originally posted by Triceratopsoil Triceratopsoil wrote:


Originally posted by twseel twseel wrote:

If you could forbid something for being harmful and addictive you could instantly prohibit the use of many popular video games and Sudoku(for example).
By that logic, you could describe literally any hobby ever as harmful and addictive.
Indeed. Any hobby that pulls you to sitting inside for a long time will be as harmful as drugs on the long term.
Drugs is only forbidden because the addictive pleasure comes from an otherwise harmless substance instead of a fun concept.
Well, no.  There is a pretty obvious physical difference when you are actually putting foreign plants or chemicals in your body.  Even drugs that aren't proven to be chemically addicting at all - and something like pot is NOT an example of that, though it is less addicting that alcohol or tobacco - are affecting your body in a way that a sport or book or whatever isn't.If a child drops acid it can and probably will have a negative effect on their development.  The same is not true of listening to music.This is why nobody (in politics) really favours legalizing recreational drugs outright.  Some regulation is necessary.


I know the actual effects differ, and that is due to the present substance. The point is that the concept of a harmful addiction is the same as with presumably milder addictions.
I think if drug use gets punished we should also consider punishing any other unhealthy addiction like gaming.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2013 at 04:18
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

I mean just look at the price of Nicorette products... It's cheaper to buy cigarettes!
Except they aren't more expensive - they are deliberately priced to be more or less the same as cigarettes, which in turn are artificially priced by excise tax alledgedly as a deterrent to buying them (and that single fact blows any idea of a libertarianism self-regulalting free-market out of the water). The rationale behind the price-rigging of Nicorette type products is to stop them becoming a replacement or enhancement for cigarettes.
 
 
I couldn't give a crap whether drugs are banned, decriminalised or legalised because I don't expect that it would make a whole load of difference. When laudanum, cocaine and opium were not illegal there was still drug abuse, addiction, health damage and death, and there was still direct and indirect criminal activity associated with it. I guess that fewer idiots will be buying drugs cut with strychnine or baking soda, or making spliffs with vegetable stock cubes, or paying $100 an oz for chanterelle or death cap mushrooms if they were legal but people are dying from drinking counterfeit alcohol and they are dying from legal highs so I doubt that's going to change much either. Prohibition is another mixed bag of inconclusive results, abundant in false-positives, false-negatives, ill-formed causal associations and biased cherry-picking. The positive aspects of drug-use are also littered with selective data-mining, (as much as I admire Bill Hicks as a humourous social culture observer he was making a joke, not a sharp socio-cultural comment on the use of drugs in the creation of music). The only people who really gain out of legalising drugs are the governments that cream off their percentage at every step in the production, distribution and retail process and the Big Pharmaceutical corporations who will now be producing and marketting the legal products ... and we all trust those two paragons of virtue don't we guys.
 
 
We cannot change attitudes towards drugs with legislation and authoritative campaigns - the only people that affects are those that are rabidly opposed to drugs in the first place (cue letter to the Daily Mail by "Outraged of Tunbridge Wells").
 
IMO drugs (and that goes for alcohol and nicotine too) should be de-cooled - not by make being a dope, a druggie, a crackhead, a junkie, a drunkard, a smoker even more of a social stygma than it already is, (because everyone already knows that), but by peer pressure that regards anyone who indulges even casually as being a bit of a dick and a seriously uncool one at that. (I'm a nicotine adict btw).
 
What?
Back to Top
Triceratopsoil View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 03 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 18016 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2013 at 00:58
Originally posted by twseel twseel wrote:

Originally posted by Triceratopsoil Triceratopsoil wrote:

Originally posted by twseel twseel wrote:

If you could forbid something for being harmful and addictive you could instantly prohibit the use of many popular video games and Sudoku(for example).


By that logic, you could describe literally any hobby ever as harmful and addictive.
Indeed. Any hobby that pulls you to sitting inside for a long time will be as harmful as drugs on the long term.
Drugs is only forbidden because the addictive pleasure comes from an otherwise harmless substance instead of a fun concept.


Well, no.  There is a pretty obvious physical difference when you are actually putting foreign plants or chemicals in your body.  Even drugs that aren't proven to be chemically addicting at all - and something like pot is NOT an example of that, though it is less addicting that alcohol or tobacco - are affecting your body in a way that a sport or book or whatever isn't.

If a child drops acid it can and probably will have a negative effect on their development.  The same is not true of listening to music.

This is why nobody (in politics) really favours legalizing recreational drugs outright.  Some regulation is necessary.


Edited by Triceratopsoil - September 06 2013 at 01:01
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.358 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.