Drug Law

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.

The Pessimist wrote: dr wu23 wrote: 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.   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.

Edited by dr wu23 - September 07 2013 at 10:42

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

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.

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.

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.

CPicard wrote: 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".

No one can take Edward Penishands seriously.

and a violation of the oath doctors take

Liberty without responsability.

Yeah, that's why we need to legalize drugs.