Prohibition: Why didn't the government learn from thier mistake? page 2

66 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Quote mining ruins this place.

Why would I chose to argue against things I agree with, or that don’t have anything to do with what I’m saying?

Treatment is cheaper than incarceration, and saying that taxes for medical expenses effect everyone is a different debate entirely and includes things other than drug treatment. It doesn’t at all address my point that incarceration for crimes that don’t negatively effect other people is absurd and expensive, in fact it strengthens it.

Good thing I never said anything about the costs then, right?

 
Flag Post

NaturalReject,

If someone can prove to me that legalizing murder would drop murder rates, I would be more than happy to hold the opinion that murder should be legalized.

I sincerely doubt someone can though.

Now that is troublesome. I certainly know some people that would kill me if they were legally allowed. So I should kill them first. Now translate that to the world. I still don’t think you meant this seriously, or you really haven’t considered the consequences. Note that saying you doubt someone can prove this to you doesn’t make your stance of agreeing to it any more valid.

Tryko,

This is the reason why I am against drug consumption when the impact is negative overall since the overall happiness is reduced.

You somehow implied this sentence isn’t that important, or was kind of obvious, but this is exactly the sentence that needs to be addressed. How is overal happiness reduced? Drug usage affects you and you alone. Your neighbour shouldn’t even need to know. And if they do find out easily, you’d probably get your drugs illegally any way (since you’re addicted). In that case, you’re not being a burden on society due to the drugs, but due to getting yourself addicted to something and not working.

The people that make profit out of other’s mysery are the guilty ones and for those people a law is needed because humans are simply not intelligent enough and you can tell many of them whatever you want but they won’t stop unless there is potential punishment.

You’ve switched into an entirely different direction. I myself despise advertisements, as they’re often manipulative and full of lies. These people use the dumb masses to sell their products. I guess firms which sell cigarettes do more or less the same thing. I may, potentially, agree with you to a certain extent, but I haven’t made my mind up on this yet. It’s more likely to cause a lot of trouble.

Once again I did not write what you suggest I had written. I do not want to ban suicide (mostly because of similar reasons like above). I even think that euthanasia should always be allowed since this allows psychiatrists to advise those people and prevents all the misery caused by unelaborate or failed suicides.

You started about the costs incurred would you commit suicide. I’m not sure what else I should have concluded.

The paragraph was loaded because I thought that you support and encourage the consumption of drugs. The facts however are still true.

No, it’s making connections where there are none. If I support legality of drugs I don’t support the massacre of thousands of children.

You clearly misunderstand me. The point is not whether a gun is sentient, I used it as an example to show you why causing harm indirectly is AS BAD AS causing it directly because as you said you still caused it. I think that we both share a similar opinion.

Causes go from direct to indirect, to slightly related, to unrelated. The “this is bad” factor is not an on/off button. It’s a downwards slope here. If you cause direct harm, you’re violating the law. If you cause indirect harm, you could certainly be applicable for prosecution. If you’re slightly related to harm being caused, you might get a fine. If whatever you did was unrelated, you are not punished at all. There are probably more categories, especially since the slope should be a straight line downwards, but it’s hopefully explained.

It seemed to me as if your only goal is to prove me wrong because you only appeared to destroy my arguments without suggesting a better solution.

I apologise if that wasn’t made clear, but my stance is pretty much your opposite if I argue against your stance, and it’s roughly the same when I agree.

Maybe I am just used to other, more constructive standards of discussion from philosophy class.

I’m not sure where I’ve been destructive, or something similar, but generally I’m only not constructive when suggestions made are aiming to remove equality and impose regulations just to bugger a particular group of people.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Quote mining ruins this place.

Why would I chose to argue against things I agree with, or that don’t have anything to do with what I’m saying?

Treatment is cheaper than incarceration, and saying that taxes for medical expenses effect everyone is a different debate entirely and includes things other than drug treatment. It doesn’t at all address my point that incarceration for crimes that don’t negatively effect other people is absurd and expensive, in fact it strengthens it.

Good thing I never said anything about the costs then, right?

What ARE you saying, then? I said drug use affects no one but the individual, and that 80% of the damage caused to the individual comes from lack of understanding. The unavoidable effects of addiction (implying that there are ways to mitigate addictiveness) and the actual physical harm that a very small minority of often demonized drugs cause is the other 20%. These numbers are obviously representative, but describe my argument. Your response is that I was saying people don’t wake up in hospital beds because of drug use, which isn’t addressing any of the things I said, and isn’t a direct quote at all as you implied. I presumed you were associating the costs of treatment with being what affects others, but that isn’t your implication apparently. What is?

 
Flag Post
Why stop at prostitution and drugs? Legalize murder, and less people will get killed. Right?

Oh christ, why must people always make this false association. Prostitution, drugs, alcohol and gambling are assumed to be victimless acts. Doing something to your own body is not in the same area as doing something to someone else’s body.

Legalization is not the answer.
Education is.

What a joke. I would only support both approaches being pursued, not education only. “Educating the people” is meaningless, there is extensive education about marijuana and yet many teens are doing it regularly. The whole idea that we can simply educate people to make them not commit crime is just idealism.
but when people are under the influence they become a danger to themselves, and those around them.

People are already a danger to themselves and those around them. It’s also not accurate to assume that legalizing drugs will increase these “horrible acts” that drug users commit, as if you look at statistics from the Netherlands and Portugal, drug related violence and even sometimes drug use goes down after decriminalization/legalization.
It’s a tricky issue to justify legalization. How can we legalize these products, but also do it in a safe manner, so no one gets hurt?

Simple. Take drug seizure and drug use prevention off the minds of law enforcement, so they can focus on the people actually doing harm to others.
It’s a slippery slope.

Yes I agree, you have committed a slippery slope fallacy.
but accommodating such behavior may be more expensive in the long run.

You’re going to say that it is detestable for people to ruin their bodies willingly with their own money, but condone policemen who waste taxpayer dollars pursuing these people, often doing damage to them as well?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Now that is troublesome. I certainly know some people that would kill me if they were legally allowed. So I should kill them first. Now translate that to the world. I still don’t think you meant this seriously, or you really haven’t considered the consequences. Note that saying you doubt someone can prove this to you doesn’t make your stance of agreeing to it any more valid.

You misinterpreted the last bit. I doubt that someone can prove that legalizing murder would drop murder rates. I very much believe murder rates would soar if it was legalized, for the reasons you mention.

Originally posted by TheBSG:

I said drug use affects no one but the individual

…which is what I disagreed with.

Your response is that I was saying people don’t wake up in hospital beds because of drug use, which isn’t addressing any of the things I said

It addresses you saying that someone doing drugs is only affecting him/her self, because someone in a hospital bed surely does affect others than him or herself.

I presumed you were associating the costs of treatment with being what affects others, but that isn’t your implication apparently. What is?

Well, first of all there are the people who need to take care of the overdosing drug users. I can only imagine what kind of psychological hell it must be to take care of people OD-ing. Many drugs can make users extremely agressive too, meaning that they pose physical threats to the hospital staff trying to save their lives.

Secondly, medical treatment isn’t infinite. When drug users require medical attention, they will lessen other’s possibility to get treatment. On the low end of this scale there are patients having to spend another ten minutes in the waiting room. On the high end there is the innocent car crash victim dying because all medical personel where busy treating drug users. Maybe not the most common scenario, but a quite possible one, especially in smaller towns where hospitals aren’t that big.

Originally posted by ohmylanta:

Oh christ, why must people always make this false association. Prostitution, drugs, alcohol and gambling are assumed to be victimless acts. Doing something to your own body is not in the same area as doing something to someone else’s body.

I never said it was the same, did I?

 
Flag Post

So the thing you said you weren’t saying about costs was exactly what you were saying… see my response to that argument, then. You’re making a comment on socialized health care, not on drug treatment. The costs are more for incarceration than for medical treatment, and the social results are far more productive and effective. Someone has to deal with drug users in both societies, but in the one we have now, individuals with drug problems remain a permanent burden to society, where treatment, although sometimes chronic and long lasting, actually turns many users into healthy, contributing members of society. Putting a gun in someone’s face for being coked out is never ever going to help them. Putting handcuffs on a kid who smoked a joint isn’t going to teach him anything but to despise police. I’ll repeat it again: The ways drugs affect others are not mitigated by making them illegal, and in-fact encourages those who use drugs to be more of a burden on society than they would have been. Common sense, and more importantly data, proves this.

 
Flag Post
I never said it was the same, did I?

You certainly implied it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Edit for Karma: A complete and utter aside, but I used to argue against seatbelt laws too, until a safety officer visiting my highschool back in the day explained that the dead weight of passengers and drivers of cars cause a significant percentage of deaths in accidents that would have otherwise not been fatal. Even individual drivers without passengers have flown through their windshield and killed people in the other vehicle or even previously uninvolved vehicles in collisions that were otherwise minor. Motorcyclists are one of the biggest contributors to deaths by impact from someone else’s ragdoll body hitting them.

I’m not sure why ya consider U.S. motorcycle HELMET & auto//truck seat belts laws an “aside”,,, BUT, the very fact that these laws ENFORCE—as in FORCE—ppl to comply to behavior that is overwhelmingly predominately ONLY for their OWN PERSONAL benefit is what this whole thread is about: The govt. going into areas of social management that it really has little-to-NO business being….for a host of reasons.

I’ve already given the obvious reason for the two above. Now, I wanna show who is behind the govt.‘s “invasion” into ppl’s lives. It’s the insurance lobby that did it. I feel that wearing a safety device that protects ONLY you (TheGSG’s exclusions above noted) should be between you and your God and your insurance company. THAT is exactly why govt. made those laws…..to make it ea$ier on the insur. co.’s…to save them $$$$$.

As I stated before….SAFTEY = SENSE.
However, it is NOT the govt.‘s place to micro-manage our lives. Air bags, crash-crumble-zones, etc. for the manufactures to put in their cars…I’m fine w/ because it is on a large scale and is easily enforceable. Wasting a Law Officer’s time to stop & ticket someone for not wearing a helmet or seat belt is a waste of resources. So much so that here in Kansas, we set the fine at the lowest available…$5. Not many cops are gonna stop ya for that crap….I think the statement on the sensibility of govt. enforced seat belt wearing was clearly made.

There has to be some COMMON SENSE used when applying laws to problems. Seriously, how many innocent ppl are injured//killed by “ragdoll” bodies hurling through the air because the other person(s) weren’t wearing a seat belt? Motorcycles and seat belts aren’t an issue…never have been. When the need for a helmut comes into play, ANY ability for the rider to have for MY protection is well passed. The same thing can be virtually said for seat belts & cars. Are we seriously going to present the extreeeeemly UNLIKELY event of an ejected body hitting an innocent as a GOOD REASON to make EVERYONE wear seat belts? THIS is why ppl tend to NOT respect laws….they HAVE TO MAKE SENSE.

Making laws that are hard (for a variety of reasons) to enforce are near-senseless, also. Law enforcement is already undermaned, budget-tight, etc. Rather than be looking for the vicious seat-belt-avoider,,,,I want the law getting the speeders,,,,the tail-gaters,,,,the overly agressive drivers…..THOSE ARE THE PPL WHO KILL on the highways//streets.

Govt. clearly has to be rational in its management of a society via the laws it makes & enforces. If it isn’t….it certainly can’t expect the society to react rationally to those laws.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ohmylanta:

Prostitution, drugs, alcohol and gambling are assumed to be victimless acts.

You are incorrect here.
These are not victimless crimes. The victim is the user of these forms of “recreation”.
And remember, when you assume you make an ass out of “u” and me.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Draconavin:
Originally posted by ohmylanta:

Prostitution, drugs, alcohol and gambling are assumed to be victimless acts.

You are incorrect here.
These are not victimless crimes. The victim is the user of these forms of “recreation”.
And remember, when you assume you make an ass out of “u” and me.

Usually, Draco….I think (admire?) your thoughts on issues are some of the best on SD.
However, here I think ya’re being a tad “harsh”,,,on both ohmy & on concepts of what “recreation” is….and maybe even doing some “hair-splitting” on the term “victim”.

Ohmy is very correct in saying p, d, & g are ASSUMED to be victimless. Plus, HE didn’t say HE assumed it….he just stated the concept as something many ppl do. AND, donchya think ya’re entering “subjective” territory when ya say: ""The victim is the user of these forms of "recreation""? Yes, I can’t say that there isn’t some “negative fallout” from participation in these activities,,, but, if ya’ll allow the “hidden” pun, there most certainly is some negative FALLout from rock climbing. Plus, just where does the “negativity” from participation in p, d, & g begin…and wouldn’t this initiation be different w/ each person,,,,and maybe even different from time to time w/ a particular individual. I just can’t see p, d, & g as being IMMEDIATELY bad from the get-go.

At the least, me thinketh ye might be appearing to be a weeebit “religiously zealous” in POSSIBLY considering the user to be a “vicitim” because these activities are seen as SINS.

 
Flag Post

All I’m trying to get across is that it’s ok to allow people to have options, and freedoms to do what they please.
The only issue I truly have is that sometimes people don’t know where to draw the line.
Even if the police, and government do draw the lines a bit too far from certain liberties.
I sometimes believe it is a necessary evil to be strict on certain issues in comparison to others, until we can allow the governmental policies to be loosened in society, so that such recreational enjoyment can be done in a safe manner with very little negative repercussions.

I’m all for liberty and freedom, but at what cost?
I don’t enjoy people hurting themselves. That is where I draw the line. Some drugs are labelled as soft drugs while other drugs are labelled as hard drugs. Even so, the soft drugs may not be safe for all people. Some people will have to be discriminated against because they have proclivity to addictive tendencies, or lack control. Not everyone will be able to enjoy recreational drugs. For the most part I don’t think safe recreational drugs exist at this point in time.

There still needs to be a lot of testing, and research done until any street drug can be considered safe for consumption.

I also wonder why are people so focused on doing drugs in the first place? Aren’t there other more enjoyable things you can do as an alternative to taking said drug? I know it’s a different experience, and all, but does it really justify the usage? We are curious, so we try certain drugs, and I will admit I did a little bit of experimenting in my younger years in spite of my better judgement because I was curious.
However, when we get trapped in that behavior, it can not be good for anyone.

I also do believe punishment should not be incarceration in a jail cell, but being sent to a rehabilitation center to get clean.
That’s the only main issue with the war on drugs I have, personally. The method of punishment does not fit the crime.

 
Flag Post

You’re saying lots of things, but accomplishing very little in the ways of valid arguments. You want research for these drugs? Then let’s stop scheduling them out of research. You want safety and lack of abuse? Let’s switch from patented drugs that ruin the body to those “evil hard drugs” that actually do a million times better and when taken effectively, are safer? You want people to draw the line to avoid a completely unexplained evil that you refer to repeatedly but cannot define when asked to and keep switching up it’s face? Give people the education, respect, and tools to make informed decisions.

None of the things you’re saying are good reasons to lock people up for taking drugs. I always find it hilarious that people who have this opinion that drugs are a scourge on society that needs to be locked away, also experimented with drugs themselves. You’re a drug survivor, man! It’s almost like the vast majority of people can handle and tolerate drug use in moderation?

Karma: I think we should look up the numbers before you sweep it under the rug. I haven’t looked yet, but I do know the chances of passengers’ and drivers’ limp bodies killing eachother in their own car is quite high, and I also know that motorcyclists trajectory bodies are incredibly dangerous to others. I also agree with you on your sentiment though, and think people should only be fined for seatbelt and helmet violations if they are in an accident, or are already pulled over for something else.

 
Flag Post
The victim is the user of these forms of “recreation”.

Why do you think anyone has the right to tell you what to do with your own body? People who do drugs do become addicted and often seek to end addictions, but you must admit that in a society more helpful towards drug users they would get better treatment. I for one hold that, at a certain age, you cannot be a victim of your own actions.

And remember, when you assume you make an ass out of “u” and me.

And when you try to combat real arguments with this, you just make an ass out of yourself. The acts I had mentioned were assumed to be victimless acts not because we predict them to be, but because in the majority of cases drug use is not forced upon someone. There is a difference between assuming something about the unknown and assuming something based on statistics.

 
Flag Post

You know that I agree with what both of what you guys are saying right? (to an extent)
I know your argument. The only qualms I have with the current treatment of “prohibition(if you can call it that)” is the punishment aspect.
That is all.
I am for rehabilitation not jail time.

BTW
I don’t believe drugs are evil. That would be a naive assumption.

 
Flag Post

It’s not clear what you’re arguing in favor, then? It seems that a lot of people here argue in favor of one thing, while essentially agreeing with all of the goals, logic, and results of ending prohibition. It seems like there just needs to be that extra moral dig against drugs that seems so necessary. The demonizing of these things is kind of silly if you’ve ever actually tried any of them, even the hard ones, as opposed to say Oxycontin which is one of the worst and unnecessary drugs ever invented. I mean, you guys realize, half of your beliefs about drugs are constructed by the drug companies that lobby to keep them illegal, right? People are starting to use god damned ambien as a recreational drug, mostly because getting the entirely safe and worlds more enjoyable psilocybin is illegal and difficult. People will use drugs, and that’s why drug companies can put out the exact same effects with nine times the damage in a pill form that can be patented.

 
Flag Post

I guess I support what the OP calls prohibition to an extent, but I disagree with how the punishment is chosen.
I don’t believe in legalizing street drugs. I only believe in using drugs to help the individual if it’s necessary.
I am advocating making better choices. You can have a perfectly good time while abstaining from street drugs.
The same can be said about gambling, and prostitution.
Although, it really depends on the source of supply, and how well the person can control themselves, but not go overboard.

I’m trying to find a middle ground.
Not being the person who says just because some people can control their intake it should be made legal, and people can do whatever they want without a care in the world.
And of course, I disagree with the other argument that everything should be banned because, again, a few people go out of control because they have a proclivity to do so.

I’m probably not doing a very good job since I am receiving some backlash by the two of you, as well as karma thinking I have suddenly become a zealot, somehow.

Although, I hope you can see what I am trying to propose in my position, at least somewhat?

 
Flag Post

For one, you’re characterizing street drugs as if they’re this magical world of their own, when they are absolutely not. We are simply advocating the legalization of these drugs in the same way real, awful, harmful drugs like Oxycontin are used. Heroin, when taken just like one of those “non-street” drugs, is far more healthy than literally any of its alternatives. This isn’t an opinion, but absolute 100% fact. Heroin doesn’t damage your liver, cause brain bleeding, or even ulcers, when taken correctly. It’s alternatives, no matter if they’re abused or not, causes damage to your liver, has the potential to thin your blood significantly, and it’s problems are even far more damaging when abused than the abuse of heroin. Yet Oxycontin is legal in the way you seem to be opposing we legalize those “street drugs.”

You’re making a false attribution to our arguments. We aren’t saying there are no consequences to people’s illicit and abusive use of drugs in our model. If someone takes even cannabis and that can be linked to their causing a crime of any kind, I can safely assume all of us who are pro-decriminalization would be for a harsher punishment related to intoxication. However, until someone has actually committed a crime or identified themselves as having problems, we cannot treat them like they’re harming others or even themselves, because they’re not doing it yet. If we treated people with problems like they have problems, and people without problems like they’re self respecting, intelligent adults, problems will be solved. That isn’t conjecture either, as it has been heavily shown to work everywhere.

There isn’t a middle ground between prohibition and non-prohibition that isn’t still prohibition. We’re talking a lot about drugs here, but one of my biggest arguments in favor of decriminalization has nothing to do with the recreational enjoyment of these things either: Gang violence is HALTED when decriminalization is enacted. They switch over to human trade and gambling, which should also be legalized and regulated to further avoid violent black markets. People are always going to do things that aren’t exactly prim and neat: We can either treat them like they don’t exist and can be gotten rid of or fixed, or we can be practical about the situation and regulate and educate people’s decisions instead of keep them in the dark, figuratively and literally.

PCP for instance, when taken in moderation and with the right mindset, which is difficult when it’s illicit and hard purchase and thus used in higher amounts when obtained, is one of the most peaceful and happy of “street” drugs. It gives a sense of confidence and control over one’s life that many people seek, and have a difficult time achieving while depressed, and would be able to do on their own with help from a drug like PCP. However, a small part of the population reacts with strong doses of adrenaline if they consume PHP. The wrong mindset, or the feeling of paranoia or danger can make PHP a dangerous and violent drug. With that understanding, would you rather have people who are already going to use PHP have A. An understanding of how to properly take the drug and what mechanisms are necessary to counteract it if needed, or B. A feeling of paranoia and judgement, coupled with a lack of understanding and no potential salvation but being arrested and fined? What would your middle C option be? Keep making them get it from drug dealers that cut it with laundry detergent and then a stern talking to if they’re caught fighting cops with a broken arm? It’s just not effective to keep things people will do either way in the dark.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Draconavin:


I am advocating making better choices. You can have a perfectly good time while abstaining from street drugs.
The same can be said about gambling, and prostitution.

So far i only see taking away the choice without having good arguments to why. 1. Not everyone can have a perfectly good time without street-drugs or prostitution(don´t know about gambling though). What people consider a good time is subjective and for some sex and/or drugs are unbeatable or at least very hard to replace.

I’m trying to find a middle ground.
Not being the person who says just because some people can control their intake it should be made legal, and people can do whatever they want without a care in the world.
And of course, I disagree with the other argument that everything should be banned because, again, a few people go out of control because they have a proclivity to do so.

I’m probably not doing a very good job since I am receiving some backlash by the two of you, as well as karma thinking I have suddenly become a zealot, somehow.

Although, I hope you can see what I am trying to propose in my position, at least somewhat?

The middle ground of the above (as far as i can see it) is not banning drugs, gambling and prostitution but regulating them. Like Alcohol and Smoking.
The Netherlands used to be(and at least to an extent still is) a good example on how regulating Marijuana and Prostitution could be done. And Germany is a somewhat good example on how gambling can be regulated.

 
Flag Post

We should arrest people who participate in extreme sports, because all they’re doing is endangering themselves (and in many cases other people) for enjoyment, when there are far more fun things to do like play online videogames and argue in forums. This line of thinking doesn’t even need to be addressed Johnny, it’s morally authoritative and has no place in government.

 
Flag Post

True. I am all for regulation and hyperbolization.
I kid on the hyperbolization, but I won’t convince anyone here :P

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Draconavin:

All I’m trying to get across is that it’s ok to allow people to have options, and freedoms to do what they please.
The only issue I truly have is that sometimes people don’t know where to draw the line.
Even if the police, and government do draw the lines a bit too far from certain liberties.
I sometimes believe it is a necessary evil to be strict on certain issues in comparison to others, until we can allow the governmental policies to be loosened in society, so that such recreational enjoyment can be done in a safe manner with very little negative repercussions.

I see NOTHING at all wrong w/ your “sentiments” on this…I even FULLY agree w/ ya on it.
HOWEVER, this is more along the lines of Utopian living. Doesn’t the govt. already scare ya enough as it is w/ all of its very complex and oddly “restrictive” machinations it now has? Thinking it could do the job ya’re hoping for above just isn’t something I can “believe it”.

I’m all for liberty and freedom, but at what cost?
I don’t enjoy people hurting themselves. That is where I draw the line. Some drugs are labelled as soft drugs while other drugs are labelled as hard drugs. Even so, the soft drugs may not be safe for all people. Some people will have to be discriminated against because they have proclivity to addictive tendencies, or lack control. Not everyone will be able to enjoy recreational drugs. For the most part I don’t think safe recreational drugs exist at this point in time.

Bro,,,I truly admire and at the same time feel sad for ya because ya are at the very place I was when I was your age. The pain of other ppl STILL affects me, I’ve just finally managed to learn to cope w/ it and realize I am not RESPONSIBLE for all of it….and, that an entity like govt.—even though its INTENT might be as honorable as yours—my “vast”(lol) experience has been that the beauracrucy of govt is one of the worst ways to acomplish what ya’re wanting there. Charitable organizations do a whole lot better job….even though a lot of what they help w/ are things they help because they consider them to be a sin. It’s a lot like what the Salvation Army does for the guys who need a meal….they have to listen to a sermon before they get the food.

There still needs to be a lot of testing, and research done until any street drug can be considered safe for consumption.

Of course….this makes complete sense. BUT, ya kinda gotta go w/ this: a whoooole lot of them have ALREADY BEENTESTED” and show that ppl don’t “drop like flies”….lol. Seriously, I agree, more research than simple widespread usage could ensure a much safer usage for all…and esp. for a few (allergic, etc.).

I also wonder why are people so focused on doing drugs in the first place? Aren’t there other more enjoyable things you can do as an alternative to taking said drug? I know it’s a different experience, and all, but does it really justify the usage? We are curious, so we try certain drugs, and I will admit I did a little bit of experimenting in my younger years in spite of my better judgement because I was curious.
However, when we get trapped in that behavior, it can not be good for anyone.

While I completely understand and find merit in what ya’re saying…not all ppl are that seriously “focused” on doing drugs….they simply use them “recreationally” much like booze (even along with booze). Please don’t lump all “drug users” in a group of total fuckups. Are all alcolhol drinkers slobering drunks? Life is hard, it’s complex, it’s frustrating…..what someone opts to “use” to take the edge off in order to cope w/ life really isn’t up to me to define nor is it up to society—-WITHIN REASONAL SPECIFIC LIMITS.

That, my forum friend, is where the problem comes in. Just as there are as many ppl who have differeing views on how to cope w/ life…..there are just as many who have views on what methods are okay and which ones aren’t so “okay”. Think about the religious zealots that think many things are an abomination (not just drugs). In fact, the very OP of this thread begins w/ prohibiting booze because of it being “sin gin”.
I also do believe punishment should not be incarceration in a jail cell, but being sent to a rehabilitation center to get clean.
That’s the only main issue with the war on drugs I have, personally. The method of punishment does not fit the crime.

I have NO problem w/ rehab over incarseration…it makes a whole lot more sense. BUT, I think ya’ll find that for some of the ppl….ya’ll need a “revolving door” for them. Severe drug, booze, etc. usage is usually a sign of strong emotional issues. I’d think that addressing these “needs” would be a daunting task for a govt. controlled rehab unit.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

You’re [Draconavin] saying lots of things, but accomplishing very little in the ways of valid arguments. You want research for these drugs? Then let’s stop scheduling them out of research. You want safety and lack of abuse? Let’s switch from patented drugs that ruin the body to those “evil hard drugs” that actually do a million times better and when taken effectively, are safer? You want people to draw the line to avoid a completely unexplained evil that you refer to repeatedly but cannot define when asked to and keep switching up it’s face? Give people the education, respect, and tools to make informed decisions.

Yeah, I agree (as much as it pains me to come down on Dracon) that he needs to sorta PICK ONE….be it a hard reality-of-life stance,,, or, his “wouldn’t-it-be-great-if-only”. There is NOTHING AT ALL WRONG w/ having a dream and searching for ways to achieve it. BUT, things JUST HAVE TO BE KEPT IN PERSPECTIVE…reality dictates we handle the problems of the moment FIRST and do the “dreaming” when we can.

I also understand some of the “problem” w/ legal vs. illegal drugs & their usage. YOU start to bite into it when ya talked about ""scheduling them out of research"". The American drug industry wants complete control of the market. It uses the govt. to try to eliminate the “competition”….along w/ whipping into a frenzy the religious zealots who hate “druggies”. I’ve never figured out why “medicine” is the only drug (as opposed to rec.) that the drug companies want to market.

None of the things you’re saying are good reasons to lock people up for taking drugs. I always find it hilarious that people who have this opinion that drugs are a scourge on society that needs to be locked away, also experimented with drugs themselves.

I didn’t read it that Dracon wanted to lock ppl up…..he actually totally prefers rehab over jail.

You’re a drug survivor, man! It’s almost like the vast majority of people can handle and tolerate drug use in moderation?

Can? Or can’t handle…..? Because, as I see it, a very large majority DOES handle “rec” drugs quite well…esp. if ya toss in alcohol. I’d like to know the percentage of “rehab-needing” drunks as opposed to “rehab-needing” street rec. drug users. We all know there are a lot of ppl going to rehab for LEGAL drug abuse.
Karma: I think we should look up the numbers before you sweep it under the rug. I haven’t looked yet, but I do know the chances of passengers’ and drivers’ limp bodies killing each other in their own car is quite high,

I agree that these numbers would be interesting to know. Yet, I feel confident to stand by my GUESTIMENT that they are extremely small. That is if ya quit moving the goal posts on me…lol. I said innocent ppl (outside of the car) being hit by EJECTED bodies. Those IN a vehicle (NOT KIDS) aren’t so “innocent”. The driver is responsible for the safety of those in the car….the adults can refuse to go unless ALL are belted. Otherwise, they KNOW & TAKE the risk….as opposed to ppl OUTSIDE of the vehicle.

and I also know that motorcyclists trajectory bodies are incredibly dangerous to others.

I guess I have to regret bring motorcycles into consideration. YOU are adding a consideration that doesn’t exist. The govt. isn’t—in any way at all—wanting motorcycles to have seat belts. It is the HELMET law I’m speaking of. A helmet does very, VERY little to ensure the safety of those not on the cycle.

I also agree with you on your sentiment though, and think people should only be fined for seat belt and helmet violations if they are in an accident, or are already pulled over for something else.

LOL…no, that (mostly) isn’t my “sentiments”. I’m against the govt. “dictating” (doing the insur. co.‘s bidding) that ppl do things for their own good. I’ve already stated that such should be the domain of the individual & his God & his insurance co. If the medical//death payout was dramatically REDUCED because the seat belt(s) weren’t being worn….THAT (money) is what usually “motivates” ppl to do the “right thing”. Ppl resent it when they are “TOLD TO DO” most anything….esp. adults. Dracon is right,,,,education…EDUCATIONEDUCATION. BTW, I think YOU are behind this idea…yes?

At one time, here in Kansas, a ticket for not wearing a seat belt had to be given when a stop was made for another offense. Last year, it was made a “stoppable offense”. BUT, (and this is where I’m not all that sure of how it breaks down w/ jurisdictions…city, county, etc.) each jurisdiction was allowed fee options that ranged as low as $5…..and that is what Wichita opted for,,,making a statement of what they thought about the law. I believe this year, the minimum JUMPS ALL THE WAY up to $10. Do ya see why I’m not a big fan of govt. sensibility? LOL

One other thing I’d like to say about ticketing AFTER the incident….and, it ain’t pretty. There was some debate here about whether a woman who didn’t belt in her child (baby?) should get the ticket….WHEN HER CHILD WAS KILLED BECAUSE IT WASN’T BELTED. Hadn’t the woman been “punished” enough? What are YOUR thoughts on this?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Draconavin:

You know that I agree with what both of what you guys are saying right? (to an extent)
I know your argument. The only qualms I have with the current treatment of “prohibition(if you can call it that)” is the punishment aspect.
That is all.
I am for rehabilitation not jail time.

BTW
I don’t believe drugs are evil. That would be a naive assumption.

Dracon…I haven’t yet seen anyone arguing FOR the concept of incarceration,,,at least for most levels of “illegal” drug use. There doesn’t seem to be much jail time for the poor souls who abuse LEGAL drugs. What is the difference then? Could it be that the one makes drug companies rich and the other makes a drug lord in Columbia rich? Wouldn’t America be a lot better off if it was the supplier and raked in some of that huge money (in “sin” taxes…like tobacco & booze) being spent on illegal drugs?

I think most rational ppl are highly in favor of promotion of EDUCATION….pretty much at any point along the downward spiral of incapacitating addiction….esp. compared to jail. Let me be sure ya’re aware that a lot of “junkies” don’t work….that is if ya don’t included a never-ending quest to find money for the next fix. This work includes “boosting” goods from a store that are sold for a penny on the dollar to money for the day’s fix. This work includes vile acts of prostitution to get the drugs…..drugs to dull the senses so one can do the vile acts….spriral,,spiral,,spiral…right on down to OD. There are street ministries out there on the sidewalks doing their best to “educate” these ppl. BUT, one “over the edge”….rational education really doesn’t do much good.

Considering there is a good home life (most of those who are hard core addicts have a shit family history),,,the education HAS TO BEGIN THERE. But, guess what, most parents do the typical thing about talking to their kid: believe their kid is immune (isn’t around it) to the issue….believe their kid will automatically “do the right thing” when they come across drugs (& booze)….are afraid their kid will ask them if THEY ever did drugs (esp. as a kid)….OR, even crazier, either totally look the other way or even see their kid’s drug//booze use as being a perfectly natural thing in life—a “rite of passage” into adulthood….esp. when it comes to underage drinking. Do ya want me to list all of the rationalizations?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
There was some debate here about whether a woman who didn’t belt in her child (baby?) should get the ticket….WHEN HER CHILD WAS KILLED BECAUSE IT WASN’T BELTED. Hadn’t the woman been “punished” enough? What are YOUR thoughts on this?

I would wonder why it wasn’t belted in the first place. It’s the law, after all, and for good reason. Did she forget, or was she just exercising her right to be stupid by failing to buckle?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
There was some debate here about whether a woman who didn’t belt in her child (baby?) should get the ticket….WHEN HER CHILD WAS KILLED BECAUSE IT WASN’T BELTED. Hadn’t the woman been “punished” enough? What are YOUR thoughts on this?

I would wonder why it wasn’t belted in the first place. (1) It’s the law, after all, and for good reason. (2) Did she forget, (3)or was she just exercising her right to be stupid by failing to buckle?

Hmmmm....Interesting "summation" of some of the more pertinent issues being discussed in this thread.

(1) YES, having a law--a guideline, a "rule" for NEEDED (so needed that punishment is merited) rational behavior--that protects those who haven't the ability (age of reason) to provide adequated security for them selves makies, in these cases perfect sense FOR THOSE WHO HAVE LITTLE OR NO SENSE. At least no sense when it comes to having "common" sense ,,,"sense" that isn't all that "common" amongst ppl in a society. As incredible as it may seem (< sarcasm), there actually are some ppl that probably shouldn't reproduce....probably shouldn't (Dracon, this one is for YOU) "experiment" in areas (drugs, booze, high-intensity driving, etc.) that present "challenges" the rest of us easily manage.

(2) Did she forget? Again, I point out that not all ppl are of the same//equal capabilities...in all aspects of life. Even each individual (esp. me) tends to have, sometimes, a very wide gamut of capabilities when it comes to "thinking". Haven't we all muttered: What the hell was I THINKING? Usually, such things are the result of distraction.....something not so hard to believe in our current society. I'm betting most of us have left our drink, purse, etc. on top of the car and driven off (I see it about once a monty).

But here, let me give a few "examples"http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-753856.html,,, here's "one of mere stooopidity":http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2011/feb/11/woman-leaves-baby-in-car-while-she-tans-in-salon-p-ar-9062/ of a more serious nature.... "more":http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/82438777.html?storySection=story

It's kinda hard to chalk the following incidents up to "distraction". Dracon, "this one":http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=14021044 is for YOU. Notice the drug possession. And, these are prescription drugs. Another "winner" of a "gal":http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2011/feb/11/woman-leaves-baby-in-car-while-she-tans-in-salon-p-ar-9062/ As I said, some ppl probably shouldn't reproduce...the gene pool has been pissed in far too often as it is.

(3) Sorry, I pretty much covered "stupid" above. BUT, your wording of ""...exercising her right.."" has me wondering just how many ppl will fail their child for the sake of "protesting" being told to do something by the govt....even though it be extremely smart to do it.

Also, I'm sorry about how the links turned out above. This seems to happen on longer posts and ones w/ more than a couple of links. On the next page, I'll try something different.