Drug Law

If my kids started doing drugs, I would be concerned and would try to make sure that they were at least using them healthily. But I don't think it should be made illegal

Luna wrote: What do I vote if I couldn't care less?

This comment suffices.  Thanks for letting us know. 

Luna wrote: What do I vote if I couldn't care less?

Damn I should have put that as an option... Wait, it already is an option. Don't vote

In response to the comments above regarding high school/college/university/whatever party drinking culture... I would say that the heroin/coke/meth/ket party culture is far less prominent than alcohol party culture. What is the reason for this other than the social stigma attached to it through illegalisation?

Furthermore, is there a safe way to use these drugs? Really? I think the fundamental part of their danger is the addictiveness of these substances, so I'd be very surprised to hear that there is a safe method of taking these drugs. I'm a smoker myself, and as we all know nicotine is highly addictive. Consequently I don't believe there is a safe way to smoke, because no matter how you take nicotine, all nicotine products will be eventually highly detrimentally to your health due to how "moreish" it is.

As far as the moral issue of human liberty goes... I'm on the fence here. I support free speech, but I also agree with political correctness. In a sense, political correctness contradicts free speech as a dialectic to reach a new thesis on the moderation of speech, and I think it is a good thing. To me, decriminalisation would be the new thesis created by the dialectic of legalisation of drugs against their current illegality. More common than not, morals do not coincide with effective law.

The Pessimist wrote: Luna wrote: That probably came off as more cynical and bitchy than I wanted.  I guess my point is that I don't do drugs or know any people who abuse drugs, therefore this doesn't affect me directly or indirectly. As a result, I can't be bothered to care about "what's good for everyone" because no one should have the power to do that. [JUST LIKE THE PEOPLE CRIMINALIZING DRUGS, RIGHT????????] Firstly, drugs effect a lot of people. It's a compassion thing. Secondly, if no one should have the power to decide what is best for everyone, how would that function in a society? Society can't function without laws. It can't just be a massive free for all. I understand your ideal, but it can't function, and so we have to take the most moral form of government which is in my view a democratic one.

thellama73 wrote: I voted decriminalization, because legalization implies that the government has some kind of legitimate right to tell me what I can and can't put in my body.

"...And here started a flood of dirty jokes..."

CPicard wrote: thellama73 wrote: I voted decriminalization, because legalization implies that the government has some kind of legitimate right to tell me what I can and can't put in my body. "...And here started a flood of dirty jokes..."

I don't think the government should control that kind of putting things in bodies either.

twseel wrote: Triceratopsoil wrote: 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

Triceratopsoil wrote: twseel wrote: Triceratopsoil wrote: 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.

Dean wrote: 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?

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.