|
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Now, while the addiction itself is not as big a problem as the withdrawal symptoms are, it still is a problem nevertheless. People that are high usually aren't very capable and rational. |
Oh come on. It depends on the drug, the amount taken and various other factors. Capable of what, working? Im not suggesting that people should be going to work having ingested so much of a drug (or even any at all) that they arent even fit to work. Thats just stupid. Irrational? What drugs direct effects makes people irrational? Heres a clue, it rhymes with alcohol.
And usually? If ur saying being high (in general) has over a 50% chance of making u irrational and incapable of doing anything, i absolutely disagree.
| quote: | | Heh, I wasn't talking solely about opiates, but nevertheless, even usage every 2 or 3 days is enough to seriously hamper one's efficiency. |
How so? If theyre not under the drugs direct effects (enough for it to have a noticable negative impact anyway), and theyre not experiencing withdrawal symptoms, how exactly is their efficiency "seriously hampered"?
| quote: | | Not to mention that the frequency of use increases during time. |
It might, it might stay the same, or it might become less frequent. Thats an individual thing that depends on the person. To say that the frequency ALWAYS constantly increases is just wrong.
| quote: | | And the only reason why so few people use heroin that often is that those who do are on the brink of overdosing. |
That doesnt even make sense, it is a ridiculous statement.
| quote: | | Yes, in short term. In long term, however, the negative effects tend to outperform the positive ones. |
And the negative effects are withdrawals, which wouldnt show their ugly heads anywhere near as often with prohibition abolished.
| quote: | | I must agree on this one. The laws are not always perfect. |
Theyre the opposite of perfect in this case, theyre extremely destructive, not just to drug users but to people in general.
| quote: | | That is true if you look at it ratio-wise, (the number of drug users)/(the number of users who are criminal offenders), but if drugs were legalized, although the ratio would most likely decrease it is questionable whether the total number would. |
The percentage of users commiting crimes would certainly decrease, most likely to the percentage of non users that commit crimes. Why? Because they wouldnt need to any more.
Even if u were right, and the number of users increased, consider this:
Situation 1, we have, for example 10 users who:
steal or do whatever else they can for money
put themselves at risk by dealing with dodgy gangs/dealers (who probably are involved in other types of crime)
use dirty unsafe drugs, which may physically harm or kill them
are not even close to being properly educated about drug use and the real effects of drugs, and therefore may damage themselves and/or others through the improper use of drugs
will be fired for simply using drugs, no matter what effect, if any, this has on their work
will also be thrown in jail/otherwise punished or persecuted, unjustly
live in a dangerous world saturated by crime that would mostly not be there if it wasnt for prohibition
dont even have the right to make a personal choice about what goes into their body
Situation 2, we have more than 10 users, who:
steal only as much as the average person
buy/get their drugs at a licensed retailer/chemist who wont shoot or mug them/each other
use clean, pharmaceautical grade drugs that bring harmfulness to the absolute minimum
are educated on how to use drugs safely, how drugs work, and the real effects that drugs have and therefore should not (and for the most part will not) cause damage to themselves/ others through improper/unsafe drug use
will not lose their job if their work performance doesnt decrease
will not go to jail simply for using a drug
live in a much, much safer world (around 83% of murders in america are drug related [iirc], ~60% of prisoners in america are in jail for drug related crimes, including drug use [iirc])
do have the right to choose what they can put into their own body
have (more, anyway) respect for the law
Now, just why is situation 1 preferable to u?
| quote: | | Again, you are falsley presuming that the total number of the drug users would be the same. |
I think the total number (relative to a countries population anyway) would decrease. But anyway, for future treatment costs to equal current prohibition costs, they would have to increase by... 4 MILLION percent. So, unless that happens, it wouldnt be very costly at all, would it?
| quote: | | It wasn't supposed to be a perfect analogy but it was supposed to show that the government sadly sometimes needs to think instead of people and to force its decisions upon them. Besides, unlike drugs, driving cars actually has some benefits. |
A governments role is not to control people, it is to represent and obey them (i think someone famous once said that). But anyway, why do u think people use drugs? Of course it has benefits. It makes u feel good and have fun, basically, which is the fundamental point of ANY recreational activity.
How come so many things that are as or more dangerous than using drugs arent illegal? Why arent u campaigning for those things to be prohibited? Could it be that u just, irrationally, because of the negative stigma attached to illegal drugs, dont like the idea of people getting high on currently illegal substances?
| quote: | | Well, I don't see minors having a problem getting their hands on alcohol. They just have to ask someone older to get some for them. It's harder for them to do so with illegal drugs, because prohibition makes them both expensive and harder to get. |
In certain situations it will be harder, yes. In others it will be easier. From my personal experience its easier to get illegal drugs, but its not terribly difficult to get legal ones either when ur underage. On the whole i dont imagine theres much of a difference, and we can only speculate on what that difference really is.
Ur right about it being more expensive, obviously. But, the amount of the drug that they would need is most likely not too expensive for them.
| quote: | | a)It would only drastically reduce the amount of drug-related crime, not crime in general |
Most crime is drug related. Plus, gangs that are involved in other types of crimes are chiefly funded by drugs.
| quote: | | b)The fact that something is or is not labeled a criminal activity doesn't always mean that something is safe or unsafe. Making murders legal would reduce the amount of crime, but it wouldn't make the streets safer. |
I agree with the first sentence, dunno about the 2nd.
| quote: | | So how would you prevent a kid asking a 25 year old neighbour for drugs? You couldn't. That's why kids in the US drink alcohol although it is prohibited to them, that's why they see porn and R rated movies as well, although the law prohibits them from doing so. |
I totally agree. There is just absolutely nothing that can be done in that case. Its a sad fact but a fact nonetheless.
However, with legalisation, the choice of whether or not to supply the child with the drug is left up to the 25 year old neighbour, not some dealer who will sell to anyone.
| quote: | | Yes. But the sheer amount of drugs on the streets would nullify that effect. |
Assuming there even was an increase, how? What has that got to do with it?
Are u saying that these people (kids, or anyone else for that matter) would start to take clean drugs in such large amounts that they would have the same negative impact on health that adulterants in drugs do now (ie, they would start deliberately overdosing)? If so, what has led u to this conclusion? If not, wtf are u saying?
| quote: | | Not really, because their parents would still not allow them to use most of those substances. |
Well thats why i said somewhat. I realise this issue would still exist, but if there was much less of a big deal made out of drugs and they were (officially) socially accepted, there would be less of that element.
| quote: | | That is not completely true. Even the most liberal countries have some drugs banned. |
Thats not necessarily out of choice tho, is it? Wouldnt any european country that legalised certain (effectivly any) illegal drugs be booted out of the eu (and un maybe)?
| quote: | | The amount of illegal drug use is lower because their police forces can focus more on hard drugs instead of arresting every kid who smokes a joint or takes a pill. |
Nope. First of all that would only be true for countries that are less harsh than average with 'softer' drugs, but far harsher than average with 'harder' drugs. What countries take that approach? None, to the best of my knowledge. Second, since softer drugs are mostly used far more than harder drugs, and legalisation, according to u, would increase use of whatever drugs are tolerated significantly, how come the 'extra' usage of them doesnt make up for that? How come use of them is actually lower?
| quote: | | Overall, you are quite wrong when you say that. Take Singapore or muslim countries for example. They are among the strictes countries in the world when it comes to the drug use, yet their drug use is miniscule: |
But isnt that because of their (even more so) appallingly excessive, ultra-draconian laws as well as cultural differances?
Prohibition does not, will not and can not work in a democracy with otherwise (mostly) sensible laws.
Its a developed country isnt it?
| quote: | | Well, they're told about the harmful effects of the drugs, that's the part of education I was alluding to. Secondly, I agree that the proper education is necessary but it doesn't require that large amount of money. |
But theyre not exactly told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth are they? Why, if there are no hidden agendas and the like on governments/medias part, are things told about the harmful effects so often exaggerated or even completely fictional?
| quote: | | Oh, yes, here we go again. Believe it or not, heroin is bad for health, even in its most purest form. |
So how come it, along with morphine and codeine and co, are commonly used medically? Why are the very people (frail and/or dieing people, for example) that would be negatively affected by this extremely harmful substance the most, given diamorphine in hospital?
Back up ur claim. In what way is pure heroin physically damaging?
| quote: | | Yes you could. And look at how many of them smoke cigarettes daily. |
I bet more than 4% of cigarette smokers do it daily
| quote: | | And how do you know that? Did any country ever legalize heroin or opium? Oh, wait, China did! And what did the statistics show? The number of users soared in just several years. |
Theres a bit of a difference. This isnt 1850. The world is a lot more developed nowadays (remember ur developed countries claim?). Under legalisation, education would be imperative. How sophisticated do u think drug education programs and rehabilitation programs were in those days? Also, methadone hadnt even been discovered till about 100 years later.
And again, even if use did increase, refer back to situation 1 and situation 2. Total harm is still massivly, massivly decreased under legalisation. The trade off, with prohibition, simply is not worth it.
| quote: | | Well, if we want the best way to reduce crime, then all that we should do it is to adopt a Singapore judicial system. Kill anyone who has any posession of drugs and the amount of crime will drop dramatically. |
That is a viable solution in a modern democracy? U would prefer that to legalisation?
| quote: | | So what? Is heroin legalized in Holland? No? Well, I thought so. |
No it isnt, but its a lot closer to it.
| quote: | | I'm starting to feel like a broken record here. You should examine the laws regarding specific drugs and the amount of use of those specific drugs and you will see that you are wrong. |
I am talking about specific drugs. ALL illegal drugs.
| quote: | | Well, it's happening now, isn't it? |
uhh, yes, because theyre illegal.
| quote: | | So you're saying it's a good thing that a dealer who is selling drugs on the streets (impure ones, mind you) walks away without punishment? Right. |
No, i didnt say that, i was not talking about that specific thing.
|
) , and I'm sure plenty have done harder drugs than that. I'd bet most of these people are healthier and in far better physical shape than these grossly overweight people, or even your average chain smoker.
).
