quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J But the point is... you legalise cocaine and heroin and just watch how many people it will kill.

Likely much less than it does now, left unregulated and a lot of times laced with stuff that will kill you.

quote:

The only reason alcohol and cigarettes kill so many people is because they're legal.

Non-sequitur fallacy. Intoxication kills, and lung cancer kills, and alcohol and cigarrettes are legal, but there is no proof that one is in any way causal or related to the other. In fact there is proof that legalizing them might decrease problems, for during the alcohol prohibition period in America, crime as well as alcohol abuse both increased.

"Prohibition ended in 1933 because the nation's most influential people, as well as the general public, acknowledged that it had failed. It had increased lawlessness and drinking and aggravated alcohol abuse."
- Thomas M. Coffey, author of THE LONG THIRST-PROHIBITION IN AMERICA: 1920-1933

quote:

You either make all drugs illegal to minimise deaths, or you make them all legal... for what?

One, if all drugs were regulated by the government, users wouldn't have to worry about drugs laced with cyanide and shit. Well over half of drug related deaths in America are due to highly toxic things being put into the drugs. Legalizing drugs would save more lives than it could possibly take. Two, the billions of dollars currently going into the pockets of drug lords could be going to the government, and subsequently, the improvement of everyone's lives through the increased revenues. Three, the millions(billions) of dollars currently going into trying to prevent drug use could be used for other, more productive things, like drug treatment and rehabilitation.

quote:

If you legalise something, people lose restraint because they can get away with it.

Yet in Amsterdam, where Marijuana is legal, it is used less frequently than in the United States on average.


The bottom line is, trying to actively prevent drug use has never worked and will never work. America can't even keep its own prison inmates from using illegal drugs, much less the general public.




"The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be... Try to make people moral, and you lay the groundwork for vice."
- Lao-tsu


"Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in search after his own happiness. In vices, the very essence of crime--that is, the design to injure the person or property of another--is wanting."
- Lysander Spooner

Last edited by Radagast on Jan-08-2006 at 00:52

quote:

Originally posted by sleepydragon Plus if drugs were legal they would be much safer to take anyway cose what goes into them would be controlled by the government so there would be hardly any crap in ur pills and they would be weaker which would be bad news for drug takers most takers would prefer them to stay illegal for that reason.

i didnt get 1 thing m8
u mean ,if they were legal , pills would be weaker?...why?

___________________
» www.lebaneseRavers.com »

You can't really compare 1930s America with today- the amount of binge drinkers and alcohol related violence has increased over time. Today, people going out and drinking excessively on a regular basis is more frequent than ever, which is why the government are putting huge energy into cutting down on it. People would not abuse alcohol in such large numbers on such a large scale- simply because they wouldn't be able to do it in public like they do now. It'd have to be under wraps. Similarly with cigarettes. It's incredibly easy to get hold of cigarettes anywhere- and it's extensive heavy smoking that kills people. Class As rarely kill people over an extended period of abuse- like you say, it's commonly bad shit or an OD that does it- it's the unpredictability that makes them dangerous. People will wait between fixes, but they can smoke on a regular basis. If smoking was banned then the opportunity to abuse it would fall.

Then, if you make something legal, the government will put a huge tax increase on it- the price will rise. The drug-motivated crime would increase because it'd be harder to afford a habit. And because it's easier to get hold of, addicts will try and get sorted more often.

The Amsterdam thing could well say more about the difference in culture between the Dutch and Americans than anything else.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

i think the percentage over here is much lower than what you guys are saying. 70% is ridiculous.. maybe 15%.. dunno really.. the fact that i don't touch illegal drugs neither a significant group of my friends might be distorcing my perception

but that is percentage without alcohol! with alcohol it's probably like 85-90%! most people drink like mad here but thankfully there isn't much violence (people associate that to alcohol from what i've gathered from some posts here at TA).. i only remember one fight ever at one party and it was a bit of a smaller one

___________________
sempre contra a corrente do jogo

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J You can't really compare 1930s America with today- the amount of binge drinkers and alcohol related violence has increased over time.

I can, and the amount of drinkers and alcohol related violence could very well be attributed to something like population increase, none of which changes anything I said.

quote:

Today, people going out and drinking excessively on a regular basis is more frequent than ever, which is why the government are putting huge energy into cutting down on it.

And they will only succeed in wasting valuable tax dollars.

quote:

People would not abuse alcohol in such large numbers on such a large scale- simply because they wouldn't be able to do it in public like they do now. It'd have to be under wraps. Similarly with cigarettes. It's incredibly easy to get hold of cigarettes anywhere- and it's extensive heavy smoking that kills people. Class As rarely kill people over an extended period of abuse- like you say, it's commonly bad shit or an OD that does it- it's the unpredictability that makes them dangerous. People will wait between fixes, but they can smoke on a regular basis. If smoking was banned then the opportunity to abuse it would fall.

Any examples, or are you just spewing unsupported rhetoric at me.

quote:

Then, if you make something legal, the government will put a huge tax increase on it- the price will rise. The drug-motivated crime would increase because it'd be harder to afford a habit. And because it's easier to get hold of, addicts will try and get sorted more often.

If drugs were legalized, the criminal cartels would still exist. The best way for the government to put them out of business would then be to lower the cost of drugs so people buy from them instead of the criminals.

quote:

The Amsterdam thing could well say more about the difference in culture between the Dutch and Americans than anything else.

But your statement was simply that legal drugs will make people lose restraint. Last time I checked, the Dutch are people, yet they haven't lost restraint. The culture is different, it's a legalized drug culture.

quote:

Originally posted by Radagast Likely much less than it does now, left unregulated and a lot of times laced with stuff that will kill you. Non-sequitur fallacy. Intoxication kills, and lung cancer kills, and alcohol and cigarrettes are legal, but there is no proof that one is in any way causal or related to the other. In fact there is proof that legalizing them might decrease problems, for during the alcohol prohibition period in America, crime as well as alcohol abuse both increased. "Prohibition ended in 1933 because the nation's most influential people, as well as the general public, acknowledged that it had failed. It had increased lawlessness and drinking and aggravated alcohol abuse." - Thomas M. Coffey, author of THE LONG THIRST-PROHIBITION IN AMERICA: 1920-1933 One, if all drugs were regulated by the government, users wouldn't have to worry about drugs laced with cyanide and shit. Well over half of drug related deaths in America are due to highly toxic things being put into the drugs. Legalizing drugs would save more lives than it could possibly take. Two, the billions of dollars currently going into the pockets of drug lords could be going to the government, and subsequently, the improvement of everyone's lives through the increased revenues. Three, the millions(billions) of dollars currently going into trying to prevent drug use could be used for other, more productive things, like drug treatment and rehabilitation. Yet in Amsterdam, where Marijuana is legal, it is used less frequently than in the United States on average. The bottom line is, trying to actively prevent drug use has never worked and will never work. America can't even keep its own prison inmates from using illegal drugs, much less the general public. "The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be... Try to make people moral, and you lay the groundwork for vice." - Lao-tsu "Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in search after his own happiness. In vices, the very essence of crime--that is, the design to injure the person or property of another--is wanting." - Lysander Spooner

Top class fucking post man!

___________________
My Mixes

quote:

Originally posted by Radagast I can, and the amount of drinkers and alcohol related violence could very well be attributed to something like population increase, none of which changes anything I said.

It isn't the amount of drinkers but the percentage of people who do drink who are taking it to extremes. It's a huge problem in this country, well publicised as getting worse.

quote:

And they will only succeed in wasting valuable tax dollars.

You're looking at this with too much of a statistical head. I've gone out in town and seen the changes- seen barstaff having to refuse people they wouldn't normally, seen police crawling through the streets and following under-age drinkers or people who have had too much. It does work, and make references to 70 year old examples all you like, but I can go out on a Friday night and watch the restriction of alcohol cut down on binge drinking.

quote:

Any examples, or are you just spewing unsupported rhetoric at me.

Any examples of what? Let a person smoke all they like. Let another person only smoke in their own home, when they aren't at work or socailising. Watch which one lives longer. I don't have any statistics, but it's logical. It's how people quit, or limit themselves. The less opportunity you have to abuse something, the less you can do it. And people who smoke do not go easy because they have the opportunity- many people take it too far, because they become reliant on the nicotine.

quote:

If drugs were legalized, the criminal cartels would still exist. The best way for the government to put them out of business would then be to lower the cost of drugs so people buy from them instead of the criminals.

Then what reason do they have to legalise it? Lowering the price means they don't make as much profit. They'd still have to deal with increased crime.

quote:

But your statement was simply that legal drugs will make people lose restraint. Last time I checked, the Dutch are people, yet they haven't lost restraint. The culture is different, it's a legalized drug culture.

Yes, but it's not a fair test or a balanced proof of anything. If you were comparing the numbers to the amount of weed smoked in Amsterdam if it was illegal, then you're statistics would mean something. However, you're comparing the habits of one nation with that of a totally different one. So it isn't a reliable proof of anything.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

quote:

Originally posted by allen i am not ashamed to tell you that i am a drug user and its not that i am not complete or i need something extra... youre missing out on the big picture here... I SAID NO TO DRUGS...... BUT THEY JUST WOULDNT LISTEN

That would imply you are psychologically addicted I would put it as adding an extra dimension to a party from time to time without feeling a NEED to

But for the narrow-minded peeps who drink and smoke to enjoy the party and then make a post about "drug" users NEEDING to feel complete? Stop being so hypocritical.

Its not because somebody drinks alcohol they are an alcoholic no? Exactly. Moderation is the key. So I think its quite hypocritical to categorise people as drug abusers when they take a pill once in a while. And calling it addicted is quite hypocritical too. Are you addicted to alcohol because you like to drink it when you go out? Are you addicted to sex because you would never want to give it up? Exactly.

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex Personally, I'd rather enjoy mild euphoria for the rest of my life than experience extreme ecstacy for punctuated periods over a few years before it's impossible for me to even be happy because my serotonin receptors are gone. There are some things that aren't worth it, in my opinion. Some have. They started making IDM. What does that tell you?

Again here, education and research is the key Read up on 5HTP, R+ALA, etc And of course moderation, if you start pillaging 10 pills a Friday and another 10 on Saturday and on and on its not a good thing. As I said before, there is use and abuse.



Its also quite hard to generalise drug usage, in places in UK, Ibiza, some parties in Holland and Belgium usage may easily be 80+ %


And to the peeps who know nothing (or not much) about the substances they refer to as drugs, inform and educate yourself first instead of posting comments here like drugs are bad, why do people take them. Its like virgins talking about sex.

___________________

15/10 - Tiesto @ La Rocca, Lier
11/11 - Armin Only @ Ahoy, Rotterdam

quote:

Originally posted by orl i didnt get 1 thing m8 u mean ,if they were legal , pills would be weaker?...why?

if the government controlled what went into drugs i dont think they would make uber strength pills like u can get of some dealer instead they will make them really weak.

___________________
http://www.prizelive.com/r/sleepydragon

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Then, if you make something legal, the government will put a huge tax increase on it- the price will rise. The drug-motivated crime would increase because it'd be harder to afford a habit. And because it's easier to get hold of, addicts will try and get sorted more often.

i actually think that prices of drugs would go down the government could get rid of all drug crime just by lowering the prices. It wouldnt make sense to put prices up cose people would try and find the drugs cheaper from dealers which would defeat the whole purpose of legalising the drugs in the first place.

___________________
http://www.prizelive.com/r/sleepydragon

quote:

Originally posted by sleepydragon if the government controlled what went into drugs i dont think they would make uber strength pills like u can get of some dealer instead they will make them really weak.

If xtc was legalized and the government allowed pharmaceutical companies to commercialise it then I'm sure they would have to specify how many milligrams of mdma was in your pill. Of course it is highly unlikely that they will make pills with 120mg+ mdma in them but if they are 60mg then depending on what you need you can easily dose.

And before any type of legalization can happen there has to be a change in mentality regarding drug usage, starting with the government and the media.

___________________

15/10 - Tiesto @ La Rocca, Lier
11/11 - Armin Only @ Ahoy, Rotterdam

quote:

Originally posted by sleepydragon if the government controlled what went into drugs i dont think they would make uber strength pills like u can get of some dealer instead they will make them really weak.

i see what u mean..
but i prefer to say,pills will have a better dosage.a dosage that would respect the treshold.

___________________
» www.lebaneseRavers.com »