quote:

Originally posted by SuperFarStucker You do realize that the load on our economy right now is probably, no, definetely more than it would be if drugs were legalized and healthcare for drug users was still included. Not to mention we don't even have socialized health care in the states. Insurance isn't socialized, besides, insurance still covers alcoholics and smokers, does it not? Adjust accordingly... If we did have socialized health care, a tax could be added to drugs to account for said problem. *If* that created a new 'black market' (undercutting prices...) then perhaps giving drug users socialized healthcare could be reviewed. Of course, this is terribly off topic and this is my last post in this thread...

First of all, hospitals cannot refuse emergency treatment on an individual regardless of health care coverage. Secondly, medicare covers individuals who lack the ability to care for themselves. That being said, I'm aware that the cost of the drug war, etc., most likely outweighs the cost of medicinal care for drug users, however, what I am attempting to link is personal responsibility with drug usage. You can take as many pills as you want or blow 50 lines of coke, however, don't expect reduced health care coverage as a result of your intransigence. If you are willing to pay for your actions than by all means, knock yourself out.

quote:

There would be far less cases of people fucking themselves up, because the drugs would be free of harmful additives, the users would always have clean needles or whatever is needed, overdoses would be unlikely as the exact potency is known and the drugs would come with instructions etc And if experience is anything to go by, there would be less drug users too.

Perhaps with respects to E that would be the case. However E is but one drug out of a hundred. Come now ... the legalization of crack/cocaine would result in reduced health care costs?

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Perhaps with respects to E that would be the case. However E is but one drug out of a hundred. Come now ... the legalization of crack/cocaine would result in reduced health care costs?

Yes. Its not just e. And not just because the drugs would be pure, take other things into consideration. Like the price. People addicted to drugs that are currently very expensive have to steal to afford the drugs, or turn to prostitution or other crime to make money. Theres a fair chance that that occupies most of their time, so they mighnt have a job and in general their quality of life would be poor. This crime in itself causes a lot of hospital visits for both the addicts and victims (not to mention the crimes a lot of the dealers are involved in). With the hugely reduced prices, the user can basically lead a normal life (like a nicotine addict), with a job, not having to associate with dodgy dealers and other users who might mug them for their money.

quote:

Originally posted by SuperFarStucker I assume you are referring to my lengthy statistic filled post. Most of it (all.. actually) stems from gubbiment collected information so it's accuracy is ... well, how accurate is the government ? Your statistic is completely wrong too, the total of statistics that are true and false has to equal 100% and the third is an independant variable (a made up statistic can be true, though it's extremely unlikely). Also, I believe the nature of such a statistic makes it really nearly impossible to accurately project. I realize (or hope) it was a joke.

of course it was a joke. 20% of statistics are made up.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq Yes. Its not just e. And not just because the drugs would be pure, take other things into consideration. Like the price. People addicted to drugs that are currently very expensive have to steal to afford the drugs, or turn to prostitution or other crime to make money. Theres a fair chance that that occupies most of their time, so they mighnt have a job and in general their quality of life would be poor. This crime in itself causes a lot of hospital visits for both the addicts and victims (not to mention the crimes a lot of the dealers are involved in). With the hugely reduced prices, the user can basically lead a normal life (like a nicotine addict), with a job, not having to associate with dodgy dealers and other users who might mug them for their money.

Ok, let's take into account everything you said. Drug users are "forced" to break the laws and turn to a life of crime because price dictates their actions. However, under such an assumption there is no gaurntee that lower priced drugs would in any way break this chain of events. Essentially, if drug users are willing to risk jailtime for personal self-gratification before legalization, what changes their strides towards personal gratification following legalization? One is an addict when drugs are illegal yet surprsingly enough they become individuals in control of their actions once drugs are legalized??? So how is their burden to society in any way ameliorated? There is simply no way a socialized health care system can prosper by legalizing a debiliating, addictive drug unless exceptions are provided for that specific drug use.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok, let's take into account everything you said. Drug users are "forced" to break the laws and turn to a life of crime because price dictates their actions. However, under such an assumption there is no gaurntee that lower priced drugs would in any way break this chain of events. Essentially, if drug users are willing to risk jailtime for personal self-gratification before legalization, what changes their strides towards personal gratification following legalization? One is an addict when drugs are illegal yet surprsingly enough they become individuals in control of their actions once drugs are legalized??? So how is their burden to society in any way ameliorated?

U make it sound like they want to live like that. Most of them are only willing because if they dont do it they will suffer greatly physically, emotionally and mentally. Im sure a minority are happy that way, but everyone certainly isnt. Just because theyre in that situation, it doesnt mean they want to be. What do u think would happen if nicotine was made illegal? The prices would shoot up and the smokers would be in the same situation. U can bet that a hell of a lot of them, probably almost all of them would be prepared to steal to fund their habit once they run out of money. Withdrawl symptoms from addictive drugs just arent pleasant at all. Have u ever been addicted to a drug? Most people would do more or less anything to stop their suffering, they feel so desperate that theyll do whatever it takes, more or less. So when someone gets addicted to heroin or crack its the same. Doesnt mean that theiving is in their nature or anything, and most if not all of them would go on to be 'normal' sooner or later i think. They would welcome an escape route.
It wouldnt be an overnight change of course. It would take years to get things all sorted out. But on the whole it would be hugely benificial to everyone.
And if thats not good enough for u, look at it this way. Legalisation is hardly gonna make the health care costs go up, is it?

quote:

There is simply no way a socialized health care system can prosper by legalizing a debiliating, addictive drug unless exceptions are provided for that specific drug use.

I dont really know how the american health system works, its completely different than over here afaik, so im a bit confused now.
Why couldnt illegal drug users just be the same as everyone else if this happens?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq U make it sound like they want to live like that. Most of them are only willing because if they dont do it they will suffer greatly physically, emotionally and mentally. Im sure a minority are happy that way, but everyone certainly isnt. Just because theyre in that situation, it doesnt mean they want to be. What do u think would happen if nicotine was made illegal? The prices would shoot up and the smokers would be in the same situation. U can bet that a hell of a lot of them, probably almost all of them would be prepared to steal to fund their habit once they run out of money. Withdrawl symptoms from addictive drugs just arent pleasant at all. Have u ever been addicted to a drug? Most people would do more or less anything to stop their suffering, they feel so desperate that theyll do whatever it takes, more or less. So when someone gets addicted to heroin or crack its the same. Doesnt mean that theiving is in their nature or anything, and most if not all of them would go on to be 'normal' sooner or later i think. They would welcome an escape route. It wouldnt be an overnight change of course. It would take years to get things all sorted out. But on the whole it would be hugely benificial to everyone. And if thats not good enough for u, look at it this way. Legalisation is hardly gonna make the health care costs go up, is it?

Here, I'll try to simplify my argument somewhat. I would support a society's illegalization of drugs if that society is attempting to curb the cost of those drugs to society. Granted we can get in discussions about how the war on drugs in its present form is ineffective, expensive, etc., etc., etc., however, we can stipulate two things: A) The drugs are harder to get. B) The drugs are more expensive. So does this limit the number of people who do/can afford drugs? Likely.

Now I WOULD be for the legalization of drugs, if users are held personally accountable to their actions. Meaning, get in a k-hole 10 times a day if you want to ... but don't expect society to bail you out when it comes to paying for medical costs for your body that you chose to fuck up. If you get addicted, tough shit, you shouldn't have tried the drug to begin with. I would apply similar logic to tobacco/alchohol/whatever. Essentially what I am saying is that you should not have the best of both worlds. If you want the right and determination to use drugs or any other substance you choose, than you should be saddled with the consequences of your own free actions.

___________________
Retro ...

if we legalize drug use, isn't there going to be more of everything that UWM listed as harms from alcohol? from DUIs to fatal accidents?

___________________
Thank You and Goodnight

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq Tell u what. Answer my post again bearing in mind that what i posted was talking about BEFORE the law was made.

So, are you implying now that most scientific researches about marijuana claim it's the scourge that kills millions? Pretty much all researches I've seen on this matter confirm marijuana as a relatively harmless drug. It does have side effects, though, like increased risk of lung/mouth cancer, but that's not very surprising considering same can be said about cigarettes. High amounts of marijuana do make people dull and forgetful, however.

quote:

Ok listen. From what ur saying, its clear that u dont really have much/any knowledge of the situation. Thats fine. This isnt a flame btw (id rather not start that, well get nowhere). I wasnt born knowing what i do now (and im NOT saying i know everything, far from it). That came from about 5 years of research, discussion and experience. Theres not much point in u arguing with me about this, because u wont win. U cant win. Thats because im right and ur wrong, simple as that. Ive been through this enough times with people and anything u can say, ive heard it before. I know all the angles, all the trickery etc that u prohibitionists usually come up with. U might as well go and do a bit of reading up on these researchers, and learn about who they are, who appointed them, where they came from etc. I suggest u start with the legendary gabriel nahas.

I know what I'm talking about because my dad is one of the medical researchers paid by the government. I've sometimes helped him out on his projects and I know how they work. He says what he wants to research and asks for money. They give him the money, he does the research and presents the results. Never has he been in a situation where the government told him what his results should be.

quote:

Examples?

Big oil companies often semi-secretly fund scientist who claim there is no global warming.

quote:

Research involving (most) governments is definitely NOT reliable in the case of illegal drugs, especially america. If u werent talking about drug research then what ur saying is completely irrelevant.

Funny then how most of the researchers from all the countries in the world arrive at the same conclusions.

quote:

Sources/evidence please.

You know, drug dealers usually don't want to make public appearances or talk about their business.

quote:

So? News reporters dont do the research. The source matters, not the messenger.

Oh, yeah, the source is a government medical agency, therefore a false one.

quote:

Well im not an expert on genetic mutations. I dont know if its true or not. But i doubt it is, and not just because of this specific claim, its because theres so much utter shite out there.

Well, thousands and thousands of things cause genetic mutations. Every cancer, infact every tumor is a mutation. The article was written somewhat pompously, so that most people immediately think of severe mutations like those in Hiroshima or Chernobyl. The truth is obviously different. But that doesn't mean ecstasy doesn't cause genetic mutations. It's just the extent of the mutations that is probably miniscule.

quote:

Yes. Its not just e. And not just because the drugs would be pure, take other things into consideration. Like the price. People addicted to drugs that are currently very expensive have to steal to afford the drugs, or turn to prostitution or other crime to make money. Theres a fair chance that that occupies most of their time, so they mighnt have a job and in general their quality of life would be poor. This crime in itself causes a lot of hospital visits for both the addicts and victims (not to mention the crimes a lot of the dealers are involved in). With the hugely reduced prices, the user can basically lead a normal life (like a nicotine addict), with a job, not having to associate with dodgy dealers and other users who might mug them for their money.

You're forgetting that drugs cause addiction and deteriorate the individual's power of reasoning. Many stupid teenagers would try the drugs, especially if they're drunk so that they can't think straight. Once they get hooked, it's often too late. The cost of treatment for those people would greatly outweight the cost of the drug war.

---

Now, SuperFarStrucker, about your statistic. You're saying that ecstasy doesn't cause as many deaths as alcohol related accidents, or some diseases. Well, as far as alcohol goes, drunk driving is illegal, and noone here complains about it. Diseases are usually a force majeure which we cannot prevent. Ecstasy use we can prevent, and we can do it in a rather simple way.

___________________
1+1=10

of course there are many more alcohol related accidents out there. it's completely legal to even go to a cop and drink a beer in front of his face. Then they get under the influence and crash their car.
the same thing will happen with the legalization of drugs. People will be like "it's legal, why stop?", get in a car and crash into a tree just like any other person DUI, drugged or drunk

___________________
Thank You and Goodnight

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Here, I'll try to simplify my argument somewhat. I would support a society's illegalization of drugs if that society is attempting to curb the cost of those drugs to society. Granted we can get in discussions about how the war on drugs in its present form is ineffective, expensive, etc., etc., etc., however, we can stipulate two things: A) The drugs are harder to get.

Not much harder tho. Especially for children, dealers dont have age restrictions.

quote:

B) The drugs are more expensive. So does this limit the number of people who do/can afford drugs? Likely.

Depends what u mean. If u mean the odd 8th of bud, some smack, coke, acid etc, then ur wrong because practically everyone can afford that. The only thing they cant affod in general is an expensive habit, but when that happens they make sure they can afford it by stealing.

quote:

Now I WOULD be for the legalization of drugs, if users are held personally accountable to their actions. Meaning, get in a k-hole 10 times a day if you want to ... but don't expect society to bail you out when it comes to paying for medical costs for your body that you chose to fuck up.

I agree

quote:

If you get addicted, tough shit, you shouldn't have tried the drug to begin with. I would apply similar logic to tobacco/alchohol/whatever. Essentially what I am saying is that you should not have the best of both worlds. If you want the right and determination to use drugs or any other substance you choose, than you should be saddled with the consequences of your own free actions.

I dont see any problem with that.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 So, are you implying now that most scientific researches about marijuana claim it's the scourge that kills millions?

Not so much nowadays. Although fairly recently some nutcase was talking about cannabis killing 30000 people a year in the uk.

quote:

Pretty much all researches I've seen on this matter confirm marijuana as a relatively harmless drug.

Well in that case u havnt seen many studies. U would be surprised at some of the claims made.

quote:

It does have side effects, though, like increased risk of lung/mouth cancer,

Bollocks. Bronchitis yes, cancer NO. What about the possibility of cannabis curing cancer?

quote:

but that's not very surprising considering same can be said about cigarettes.

Theres a fucking HUGE difference in cannabis and tobacco. There was a study done in the 70s comparing the tar in tobacco and cannabis. Iirc it found that cannabis had 1.5 times as much tar as tobacco. But they tested the leaves of the plant, which people dont smoke, they smoke the buds which have (apparently) a 3rd as much tar as tobacco.
More importantly, cannabis tar is not radioactive.

quote:

High amounts of marijuana do make people dull and forgetful, however.

Oh ffs..
There is some truth in the memory thing. All that is is that if ur really stoned sometimes u will forget what ur talking about when ur in the middle of a sentence. Then after about 5 seconds ull remember. This will only happen once or twice and usually only the first time u smoke after a long break. And its not a bad thing anyway, its actually a good thing, because ull be like "shit, what the fuck was i talking about there?" then ull laugh and remember it again.

quote:

I know what I'm talking about because my dad is one of the medical researchers paid by the government.

Ahhh, that explains it.

quote:

I've sometimes helped him out on his projects and I know how they work. He says what he wants to research and asks for money. They give him the money, he does the research and presents the results. Never has he been in a situation where the government told him what his results should be.

Firstly, hes hardly gonna tell u that. Secondly, the government gets researchers that THEY KNOW know what results to get. And they will get these results, or they wont get any more money.

quote:

Big oil companies often semi-secretly fund scientist who claim there is no global warming.

Oil companies have nothing to do with this.

quote:

Funny then how most of the researchers from all the countries in the world arrive at the same conclusions.

They will if theyre biased.

quote:

You know, drug dealers usually don't want to make public appearances or talk about their business.

In other words, ur making stupid claims that u cant back up.

quote:

Oh, yeah, the source is a government medical agency, therefore a false one.

Glad u admit it.

quote:

Well, thousands and thousands of things cause genetic mutations. Every cancer, infact every tumor is a mutation. The article was written somewhat pompously, so that most people immediately think of severe mutations like those in Hiroshima or Chernobyl. The truth is obviously different. But that doesn't mean ecstasy doesn't cause genetic mutations. It's just the extent of the mutations that is probably miniscule.

I never said it doesnt, i dont know if it does or not.

quote:

You're forgetting that drugs cause addiction and deteriorate the individual's power of reasoning.

Yeah, alcohol does.

quote:

Many stupid teenagers would try the drugs, especially if they're drunk so that they can't think straight. Once they get hooked, it's often too late. The cost of treatment for those people would greatly outweight the cost of the drug war.

Ur fucking crazy. How the hell would maintenance doses of diamorphine or whatever cost more than 250 billion a year?

quote:

Now, SuperFarStrucker, about your statistic. You're saying that ecstasy doesn't cause as many deaths as alcohol related accidents, or some diseases. Well, as far as alcohol goes, drunk driving is illegal, and noone here complains about it. Diseases are usually a force majeure which we cannot prevent. Ecstasy use we can prevent, and we can do it in a rather simple way.

How can u prevent it?