|
Whenever you get high, one of us may die (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
Some very thoughtful posts here :)
Personally I would say that legalising everything would, by far, be the best option out there from the philosophical point of view (and all what Arbiter said). However, it would have some troubles in reality:
1) There are already rival gangs. If drugs were legalised, what would they do about each other's existence? How would criminal organizations, involved in kidnapping, robbery and other crimes be legalised as well? Chaos would break out, because as Omegasox said, there's too much greed in this world.
2) If these substances were legalised, they would have to pay taxes, raising the price. I don't think sellers (and consumers) would be very fond of it.
3) All countries would need to have the same point of view towards the legalisation, because it's a very delicated issue - and the chances of having an international policy that would be constructive is, as for now, utopic.
4) Brazil (and most parts of South America), unlike some people may think, has a very traditional society, who would be against such change. Whoever stands for the legalisation is bound to be criticised by society, losing political power and influence (thus losing the opportunity to do such change).
5) We already have problem with people drinking drunk. Imagine the trouble we would have having stoned people driving/walking in the streets as well. This is the reason why I mentioned the medical system.
And so on :( |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
actually if it was legalised I think the price would go down since corporations could get in on it legally.
there would be a huge increase in use for the pure fact that it was legalised. which initially would be very bad.
plus the gangs are not going to go away. I highly doubt at the next gang meeting after it all becomes legal they will all vow to go to college and work jobs. naw, they will find other illegal means to obtain mass quantities of money.
if you want to get rid of the gangs, you need to capture and/or kill them. and good luck with that.
it sounds great to think of the cool things that would happen if drugs were legal, but the way our society is setup, it would be one big downward spiral.
I did like some legislation that was trying to go through a few states where it would make pot legal but under strict rules...like you can only grow so much yourself, you can only possess so much, and you cannot drive while high. that sounded like a great first step.
but what we need to do first is educate truthfully first. That way a smarter generation will grow up and change the laws around....or vote us in office so we can change em. :) |
|
|
| Seric |
The sex trade was mentioned.. I recently heard a short interview on NPR about how unimaginably prolific the sex industry is in the united states, and further yet in the southern asian countries. By sex "trade" specifically, I'm referring to the actual trade of children and teens from some of these 3rd world and developing countries. I don't wan't to quote a hard figure because I don't remember specific numbers, but suspectedly the annual import of underage enslaved sex workers was in the mid 100 thousands range. Being that the product is statistically reusable only for a short time due to death, disease, and abandoning the "industry" makes it vastly comparable to The effect upon the economy from drug exportation.
I think that US and international drug laws are appropriate measures in creating a higher distinction between comfort and discomfort among drug use and profit. Legality is always relative, especially in its affect on teenagers and other "at-risk" groups. I believe that drug use should be a free choice, but I don't believe that it should be easily avalable to kisd who are easilty pressured or mislead. I beleive that drugs are easily available today anyway, but instead of asking an older friend to go buy the drug legally from a supplier, one has to go through much shadier characters to get the harder drugs. I believe that my lack of cocaine usage was a direct affect of my inability to obtain it through clean respectable characters. I.E. Why I like percocet. lol.. because the pharmacy gives it out, despite it being a somewhat potentially dangerous opiate.
Then there's marijuana, which I believe will never be legalized for a few reasons. I don't believe that americans will rule by majority in legalization, which leaves the possibility of it first being legal medicinally, which may lead to legal manufacture in the united states, which would only be gobbled up by Eli Lilly, who would put the best attourneys in the united states up to bat for marijuana being strinctly medical. Tired of writing. later.
P.s. I'm saddened to hear about these atrocities affecting your lives. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I think it would be more appropriate to say,
"Whenever a thick-headed legislator passes a new anti-drug law, one of us may die."
I'm very well aware of the problems faced in South America due to the economic impact of drug trafficking, so I'm not going to dwell on the facts but rather go on to discuss causality, and how it pertains to these unacceptable events.
The direct cause of any event like this is quite obvious: some individual or group of individuals involved in the drug trade volitionally decided to carry out these violent acts.
Things like the demand for drugs, anti-drug legislation in most countries around the world, the failure of South American governments to adequately control the problem (admittedly easier said than done), et cetera are all indirect causes. If these things were not the case, it is true that the undesirable event probably wouldn't have happened. But it's very dangerous to try to blame indirect causes for the undesirable event or phenomenon. Consider the folowing analogy:
Suppose I were to go up to a random person on the street and stab them to death with a knife. Obviously, this is an undesirable event. The direct cause of it was my volitional choice to do so. However, the event couldn't have happened if the following things (and many others) were not true:
1. Someone had to sell me the knife, or put it somewhere where I could obtain it.
2. The victim had to be out on the street, where I happened to be.
Obviously, this wouldn't be an sound argument to not manufacture or sell knives. And likewise, it wouldn't be proof we should never leave our homes. These things are really incidental to the undesirable event.
But that doesn't mean we should completely disregard indirect causes, either. For example, if I'm playing my music too loud, the direct cause of the disturbance is the sonic vibrations produced by my speakers and sub. However, if someone wanted to solve this problem, they might be better off asking me to turn it down than trying to prevent the vibrations manually.
So the question is, what indirect causes are there of these events which are themselves unnecessary, and which can be removed without causing new and more serious problems to arise?
Philosophically, I don't think that telling people not to use drugs is such a cause because it violates the principle of self-ownership. That is to say, you are taking away the right of a person to control their body to the fullest extent possible. Some people, myself included, believe that self-ownership is a Natural Right, and therefore it is a moral imperative for all humans not to infringe upon it.
Which leads me to anti-drug legislation. The justifications given for it are simply not logically valid. It is ideologically flawed, and unnecessary, and it could be removed without causing new and more serious problems to arise - at least, that is my claim (I don't want to turn this into a legalization debate unless necessary).
To just reference what you said about health-care systems, I've heard that argument a million times and am thoroughly unconvinced. Health care costs are invoked by drugs only when drugs are used improperly (if using a drug properly would send you to the hospital, it couldn't gain popularity). And why are drugs used improperly? Here are the main reasons:
1. People don't know exactly what they're taking due to impurities.
2. People don't know how much is too much, and overdose.
3. People mix drugs which interact harmfully.
These three factors would all be significantly reduced if drugs were legal. If they were legal, and produced by companies like pharmaceutical companies, then they could be subject to regulation for the complete elimination of impurities. Dosages could be precisely measured, and acceptable dosages could be listed on the product label (just like they are for medicinal drugs). More research could be done on drug interactions, and it would be easier to keep people informed about what might be harmful.
Due to these factors, I would go so far as to guarantee that health care costs associated with drug use would plummet within 2-3 years of legalization. Ergo, although I do not personally use drugs other than alcohol, I believe that legalization is the answer to the problems in South America - and the philosophically sound course of action to boot!
Best Wishes,
Arbiter |
Your argument, as well as that of nrjizer, ignores the fact that some drugs create strong addictions. So although people who take drugs for the first time are consentual adults, once they develop the addiction they stop being that. And while from the individualist point of view you could say it's their own problem, their addiction creates a problem for the society. Their work efficiency is lowered which may result in them being fired or turning to crime. And what should a society do to a poor drug addict? Give him the treatment freely or let him rot on the street? The first option is fair but costly, while the second one is in correspondance to your philosophy, yet it is stripped of any compassion.
In a perfect world, where people are intelligent and forseeing, legalizing all substances would not be a problem. In the real world we unfortunately live in, people often don't think until it's too late. If people were thinking, everybody would be wearing seatbelts. Yet because of the short term benefit that avoidance of putting a seatbelt has (use of a miniscule amount of energy vs. potential life saving), the government has to force people to do so. It is also an assault on one's individual freedom, but would you think it's correct decision for a hospital to deny a car accident victim life saving treatment because that person was not wearing a seatbelt?
You also ignore the problem of selling drugs to minors. Minors should usually not be considered consentual adults because they are easily influenced into doing things they either don't want to or of which they are not capable of grasping consequences. So even if the drug trade is allowed, the criminal activity would turn to the most vulnerable groups of the society which would be protected by the government, like children and teenagers. Prohibiting the drug trade makes it difficult for people to engage in that activity and it acts as a strong deterrent for those who would consider such an action. Legalizing the trade would make it much easier for kids to get hold of those substances and the consequences would be much worse than a kid watching an R-rated movie or smoking a pack of cigarettes.
Redirecting all the money from drug prohibition to education would not solve the problem either. The people who use hard and addictive drugs in the west don't use them because they aren't educated about them. Do heroin addicts know that heroin is bad for health? Of course they do. But they tend to ignore the fact. Whether it's because of their stupidity, their addictive personality, or because they put more faith in street dealers than in government researches is not important. The important thing is that they have all the information available and presented to them and yet they still choose to engage in such an activity.
| quote: |
All drugs should be legal.
From a teleological standpoint, you have to ask the question, "What beneficial effects are being produced by legislation banning hard drugs?" |
Heh, you're somwhat skewing the picture here.
Here are some of the effects of such legislation:
1. Hundreds of thousands of individuals not guilty of harming another human being are in prison, where they are an economic burden on society while being denied basic freedoms.[/quote]
I agree that putting drug users in prison if their sole offence was using drugs is not the best move a government could make. I'd stick to the high monetary sentences. That way they'd be beneficial to the society while the general population would still be deterred from using drugs.
| quote: | | 2. More people die as a result of drug use due to impurities or ignorance, while yet more require medical treatment that they cannot pay for, placing an additional economic burden on soceity. |
Well they do not die as a result of a lack of knowledge. After all they're consentual adults, and they could have forseen something like this was comming. Even if the drugs would be cleaned of impurities, the drug users would still sometimes require medical treatment while their number would most likely be increased.
| quote: | | 3. The black-market-only availability of drugs drives up drug prices resulting in additional crime as addicts seek money to pay for their habit. |
Well, even if the drugs were readily available, heavy users would turn to crime because heavy use of drugs often results in a decrease of their working capability and amount of concentration, which in turn may result in a job loss.
| quote: | | Of course, none of these could really be called "beneficial." In fact, detrimental might be a more appropriate choice of diction. I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel that it was a violation of my Natural Right to property that my personal income is pillaged in order to pay to imprison people who've never done anything to harm anyone except perhaps themselves. |
Well, those laws don't provide so much of an immediate and personal benefit as they do provide a detterance from a widespread use. But the benefit lies in that deterrence.
| quote: | | Making hard drugs illegal doesn't stop people from using them, but rather exacerbates the problems associated with drug use. |
It does not make some people use them, but it does help to control the amount of use and to reduce it to the minimal level.
| quote: | | I'm glad I had the privilege to serve on a jury last summer in a trial against a cocaine dealer. The poor man would have been imprisoned for most of the rest of his life, probably. Thankfully, I was there to exercise my right to jury nullification, and rather than being a burden to society, he's still out there contributing to it |
Contributing to the society? How? By selling cocaine? By creating more drug addicts which will likely loose their jobs and turn to criminal activity to finance their addiction? By giving addictive substances to kids who can't yet think for themselves? He's definitely contributing, but in an absolute negative way! I'm sure you wouldn't be saying the same story if you had a kid that died from an overdose. Come on, I understand you have a total incline towards pure individualism, but this is plainly stupid. |
|
|
| trancepixie17 |
** Many of my friends smoke pot and have jobs. The thing is I don't think drug tests are an aspect anymore for applying to a job. Seeing that my friends still have their jobs, it must not be. Also missing several weeks at school did not have them fired either. I can only assume that they were getting high, but i'm not sure they tell me not to worry about it.
**also don't do drugs** oh and the person who started this....there are still many kittens** |
|
|
| Eu4ea |
Ben Elton - High Society
Excellent 2002 British Novel covering the subject in Britain. Very intense with several subplots. Focuses on the sexual exploitation industry that the drug industry funds and perpetuates.
I was born in Russia and am very aware of the increasing problems with the drug industry back home. Troubled and weak Eastern European girls are lured over to the west promised a better life than the deadbeat one a post-communism corrupt society offers. Drugs provide the funds for the illegal passport, for the players in the human trade business, for the travel expenses and the drugs to sedate the girls.
grim part of society that needs to be addressed by governments all over the world immedately. There is no easy answer for the problem - drug abuse is part of human nature, escaping a reality we don't want to face, or looking for a way to enhance life's pleasures. But the fact that there are victims of the drug scene that would change their ways were it not for the fear of a law that binds them to lifestyle with no hope and no one to turn to. |
|
|
| DJ-Fuq |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Your argument, as well as that of nrjizer, ignores the fact that some drugs create strong addictions. So although people who take drugs for the first time are consentual adults, once they develop the addiction they stop being that. And while from the individualist point of view you could say it's their own problem, their addiction creates a problem for the society. |
But addiction in itself is not a problem. The problem comes when the addiction is not being satisfied and withdrawals start. The more a drug costs, the more likely that is to happen obviously. If a drug habit cost 5% of what it does now, users wouldnt experience withdrawals at all very often because they would rarely run out.
| quote: | | Their work efficiency is lowered which may result in them being fired or turning to crime. |
Thats not necessarily the case. With opiates, the general frequency of use is quite low; only 1.3% of female and 8.4% of male heroin users use heroin daily according to an australian government study. The percentage gets exponentially lower relative to the frequency, so u can imagine what a small percentage of users use heroin more than a few times a day (or enough to have a significant negative impact on work).
With ampthetamines, the frequency of use is higher but as amphetamines are stimulants, u could say that taking them would actually be benefical when it comes to work, in most cases.
The ironic thing about ur argument here is, under current laws they:
a) will be sacked from their job just for USING the drug, no matter what impact it has on their ability to work, and even if there is no impact at all, and
b) with the massive prices created by prohibition, far, far more users are forced into crime now than the tiny amount that would have to do it because they got sacked.
| quote: | | And what should a society do to a poor drug addict? Give him the treatment freely or let him rot on the street? The first option is fair but costly, while the second one is in correspondance to your philosophy, yet it is stripped of any compassion. |
Look at the figures (this is for the uk).
socio-economic costs of prohibtion = >£15 billion
expenditure on war on drugs by Gov = £2 billion
expenditure on current treatment = £450 million (total!)
Not very costly after all then, considering the government would actually be saving money.
| quote: | | In a perfect world, where people are intelligent and forseeing, legalizing all substances would not be a problem. In the real world we unfortunately live in, people often don't think until it's too late. If people were thinking, everybody would be wearing seatbelts. Yet because of the short term benefit that avoidance of putting a seatbelt has (use of a miniscule amount of energy vs. potential life saving), the government has to force people to do so. It is also an assault on one's individual freedom, but would you think it's correct decision for a hospital to deny a car accident victim life saving treatment because that person was not wearing a seatbelt? |
Uh uh. Thats totally incorrect logic. When it comes to drugs, governments arent saying "its ok to drive a car (take drugs) as long as u use a seatbelt (use drugs safely)", theyre banning cars altogether (supposedly) in case people drive without wearing their seatbelt!
If the logic the governments are applying to drug use is right, why arent cars illegal?
If the logic the governments are applying to car use is right, why are drugs illegal?
| quote: | | You also ignore the problem of selling drugs to minors. Minors should usually not be considered consentual adults because they are easily influenced into doing things they either don't want to or of which they are not capable of grasping consequences. So even if the drug trade is allowed, the criminal activity would turn to the most vulnerable groups of the society which would be protected by the government, like children and teenagers. |
In other words, lets keep drugs illegal in case something that already happens with them being illegal continues to happen when theyre legal, but on a comparitively miniscule scale (lol)! And u say this despite the fact that:
a) the world would be a much safer place in general for these people because of the drastic reduction in crime (isnt most crime because of prohibition?)
b) drugs would be supplied in child proof medicine bottles and the like in order to (more or less) eliminate cases of young children finding loose pills and such and ingesting them
c) nearly all drugs that young people (and everyone else) DID manage to take would be far safer than the dirty, contaminated crap thats available because of prohibition
d) The 'forbidden fruit' element which is the cause of probably most young people starting using drugs in the first place (they think its cool/hard/rebellious etc) would be done away with somewhat.
| quote: | | Prohibiting the drug trade makes it difficult for people to engage in that activity |
Complete bs. More liberal countries have a far smaller percentage of users than stricter countries. Also, dealers dont have age limits, generally.
| quote: | | and it acts as a strong deterrent for those who would consider such an action. |
The stats suggest the exact opposite. And dont use liberal countries being more developed as an excuse again, just look at the state of america.
| quote: | | Legalizing the trade would make it much easier for kids to get hold of those substances and the consequences would be much worse than a kid watching an R-rated movie or smoking a pack of cigarettes. |
sigh..
| quote: | | Redirecting all the money from drug prohibition to education would not solve the problem either. The people who use hard and addictive drugs in the west don't use them because they aren't educated about them. |
Firstly, they ARENT educated about them. Secondly, proper education is necessary if there is to be harm reduction.
| quote: | | Do heroin addicts know that heroin is bad for health? |
Clean heroin isnt tho. And u could say the same thing about nicotine addicts, dont try to make out that this is a heroin/illegal drug specific thing.
| quote: | | Of course they do. But they tend to ignore the fact. Whether it's because of their stupidity, their addictive personality, or because they put more faith in street dealers than in government researches is not important. The important thing is that they have all the information available and presented to them and yet they still choose to engage in such an activity. |
They have bull presented to them.
| quote: | | I agree that putting drug users in prison if their sole offence was using drugs is not the best move a government could make. I'd stick to the high monetary sentences. That way they'd be beneficial to the society while the general population would still be deterred from using drugs. |
a) prohibition doesnt work as a deterrence, and this is clearly showed by usage statistics
b) fining them large amounts of money would only make their financial situation even worse, which would lead to even more crime because they need even more money, obviously.
| quote: | | Well they do not die as a result of a lack of knowledge. After all they're consentual adults, and they could have forseen something like this was comming. Even if the drugs would be cleaned of impurities, the drug users would still sometimes require medical treatment while their number would most likely be increased. |
The amount of medical treatment needed would dramatically fall, because, for about the billionth time, almost all of the physical harm 'caused' by drugs is actually caused by adulterants in the drugs.
Again, the average age of a heroin addict in holland is 42, but 22 in the uk.
| quote: | | Well, those laws don't provide so much of an immediate and personal benefit as they do provide a detterance from a widespread use. But the benefit lies in that deterrence. |
Yet in prohibitionist countries there IS widespread use, and far higher usage than in countries with more relaxed laws! The damage comes from that so called deterrence. Prohibition is achieving the exact opposite of what its supposed to be doing. Face it, it does not work.
| quote: | | It does not make some people use them, but it does help to control the amount of use and to reduce it to the minimal level. |
How can u say the level is minimal when its much higher in prohibitionist countries??
| quote: | | Contributing to the society? How? By selling cocaine? By creating more drug addicts which will likely loose their jobs and turn to criminal activity to finance their addiction? |
Which wouldnt happen if the drugs werent illegal.
| quote: | | By giving addictive substances to kids who can't yet think for themselves? |
A legal drug shop wouldnt do that.
| quote: | | He's definitely contributing, but in an absolute negative way! I'm sure you wouldn't be saying the same story if you had a kid that died from an overdose. |
And would overdosing be more or less common in a legal environment? Everyone would know the exact potency of what theyre getting, and therefore accidental overdosing would not be a particularly common thing.
| quote: | | Come on, I understand you have a total incline towards pure individualism, but this is plainly stupid. |
Your argument is stupid. So to sum this up...
Sensible arguments against legalisation:
nothing
Sensible arguments for legalisation:
everything else! |
|
|
| Shook1 |
| Shouldnt the people be directing these sort of comments to your local government. Its like blaming people that buy the drugs for your countries internal problems. Why is your government allowing such military groups to function the way they have been & exporting drugs in such a easy fashion? I mean come on, if people are more in tuned to whats being "let-go" by the government that needs to be addressed! Dont blame the people who are buying the drugs in a separate country! |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Your argument, as well as that of nrjizer, ignores the fact that some drugs create strong addictions. So although people who take drugs for the first time are consentual adults, once they develop the addiction they stop being that. |
If addicted drug users aren't using drugs consensually, then they can hardly be held responsible for their drug use under the law. They either have control of their behavior and can stop taking drugs if they wanted to, or they cannot. If they can, then addiction is not a factor which warrants consideration in a legalization debate. If they cannot, then how can you justify punishing them for engaging in a pattern of behavior they have no control over? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
| quote: | | And while from the individualist point of view you could say it's their own problem, their addiction creates a problem for the society. Their work efficiency is lowered which may result in them being fired or turning to crime. |
That's really just conjecture. It may result in less efficient work, or it may not. But there are plenty of other things which may lower work efficiency which are perfectly legal: you might cut yourself with a knife, and that would reduce your work efficiency, but should we outlaw knives for this reason? Clearly not.
| quote: | | And what should a society do to a poor drug addict? Give him the treatment freely or let him rot on the street? The first option is fair but costly, while the second one is in correspondance to your philosophy, yet it is stripped of any compassion. |
I have no compassion for people who are unwilling to accept the responsibility for the consequences produced by their own decisions. If I were to treat them compassionately, I would implicitly be encouraging their thoughtless or inept behavior. But thoughtless and/or inept behavior should be discouraged, not encouraged. Freedom comes with responsibility, that much is inescapable. If people try to take advantage of that freedom while shunning the responsibility associated with it, then they aren't deserving of compassion.
| quote: | | In a perfect world, where people are intelligent and forseeing, legalizing all substances would not be a problem. In the real world we unfortunately live in, people often don't think until it's too late. If people were thinking, everybody would be wearing seatbelts. Yet because of the short term benefit that avoidance of putting a seatbelt has (use of a miniscule amount of energy vs. potential life saving), the government has to force people to do so. It is also an assault on one's individual freedom, but would you think it's correct decision for a hospital to deny a car accident victim life saving treatment because that person was not wearing a seatbelt? |
The analogy doesn't really work. If someone misuses a drug, then their poor decision-making was the direct cause of their physical condition. In an automobile accident, not wearing a seatbelt is merely a contributory factor, and it can only be speculated as to how much of a contribution that decision made.
But another thing I feel the need to point out here is that you wrote "In the real world we unfortunately live in, people often don't think until it's too late." That is very true, but I do not feel it is the role of society to play nanny for the poor decision makers among us. We can't just abandon the hope that people can be intelligent and foreseeing because it appears not the be the case. Rather, we need to motivate themselves to develop those traits by creating an environment in which they are rewarded for thoughtfulness and punished for thoughtlessness. Creating a society where law is a crutch for bad decision-makers is self-defeating. It may appear to prevent unfortunate circumstances in the short-term, but it fails to encourage people to maximize their potential and results in stagnancy. We don't develop as humans if the motivation for us to do so is removed - at least not most of us.
| quote: | | You also ignore the problem of selling drugs to minors. Minors should usually not be considered consentual adults because they are easily influenced into doing things they either don't want to or of which they are not capable of grasping consequences. So even if the drug trade is allowed, the criminal activity would turn to the most vulnerable groups of the society which would be protected by the government, like children and teenagers. Prohibiting the drug trade makes it difficult for people to engage in that activity and it acts as a strong deterrent for those who would consider such an action. Legalizing the trade would make it much easier for kids to get hold of those substances and the consequences would be much worse than a kid watching an R-rated movie or smoking a pack of cigarettes. |
It is already very easy for kids to get their hands on these substances, at least in the urban United States. In fact, it's fairly easy everywhere I've ever lived, including the town with the single lowest crime rate in the country. I don't see any compelling evidence to suggest that if hard drugs were legalized, children would use them more.
| quote: | | Redirecting all the money from drug prohibition to education would not solve the problem either. The people who use hard and addictive drugs in the west don't use them because they aren't educated about them. Do heroin addicts know that heroin is bad for health? Of course they do. But they tend to ignore the fact. Whether it's because of their stupidity, their addictive personality, or because they put more faith in street dealers than in government researches is not important. The important thing is that they have all the information available and presented to them and yet they still choose to engage in such an activity. |
It's generally the impurities and a lack of a precise dosage which cause serious health problems as a result of drug use. People who buy drugs under our present laws do so from shady criminal organizations which adhere to few, if any, standards. If people knew exactly what they were taking, they would be a lot less likely to use it unwisely. That's why overdoses associated with over-the-counter medications are so rare - because the amount you should take is right on the box, and there are never any impurities.
| quote: |
I agree that putting drug users in prison if their sole offence was using drugs is not the best move a government could make. I'd stick to the high monetary sentences. That way they'd be beneficial to the society while the general population would still be deterred from using drugs. |
This would be much better, but I still think that legalization is a superior alternative.
| quote: | | Well they do not die as a result of a lack of knowledge. After all they're consentual adults, and they could have forseen something like this was comming. Even if the drugs would be cleaned of impurities, the drug users would still sometimes require medical treatment while their number would most likely be increased. |
They would still sometimes require treatment, yes, but it cannot be demonstrated that the actual cost of treatment for drug users would increase. In fact, I believe the opposite is far more realistic, considering that the vast majority of drug overdoses and other serious health problems associated with drugs are caused by impurities, drug interactions about which the user is ignorant, and irregular dosages associated with a lack of regulation on the drug industry, whereas the number of would-be drug users who avoid the habit merely because it is illegal is probably very small (I've never met one, at least.)
Furthermore, medical costs incurred by violent crime associated with the drug trade would probably decrease if drugs were legalized, although it is difficult to know how much.
| quote: | | Well, even if the drugs were readily available, heavy users would turn to crime because heavy use of drugs often results in a decrease of their working capability and amount of concentration, which in turn may result in a job loss. |
That is true, but the crime would likely be significantly less than it is presently, which is, after all, an improvement.
| quote: |
Well, those laws don't provide so much of an immediate and personal benefit as they do provide a detterance from a widespread use. But the benefit lies in that deterrence. |
I am not convinced that anti-drug legislation is having a significant effect to deter drug use. People don't believe they will get caught because 99% of them never will. I've never heard of anyone avoiding drugs because they were illegal.
| quote: | | It does not make some people use them, but it does help to control the amount of use and to reduce it to the minimal level. |
According to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, more than 50% of high school students in the United States have used illegal drugs. I don't really see that it would increase much if those drugs were legal, and that's certainly not a minimal level by any standard.
| quote: | | Contributing to the society? How? By selling cocaine? By creating more drug addicts which will likely loose their jobs and turn to criminal activity to finance their addiction? By giving addictive substances to kids who can't yet think for themselves? |
He's fulfilling a demand which, were it not met by him, would be satisfied elsewhere.
| quote: | | He's definitely contributing, but in an absolute negative way! |
I don't see any negative effect produced by his presence in society rather than in prison. He is currently self-sufficient rather than dependent on society for food and shelter.
| quote: | | I'm sure you wouldn't be saying the same story if you had a kid that died from an overdose. |
While I admit that were that scenario the case, I might lose my ability to think about the issue objectively and therefore hold the irrational belief that this man should be in prison, I don't see what relevance this scenario has to the argument.
| quote: | | Come on, I understand you have a total incline towards pure individualism, but this is plainly stupid. |
How so? Instead of rotting in prison while making room for a new drug dealer to seize his territory, or for a new drug dealer take up the trade, he's back where he used to supporting himself. I see no benefit in pushing the boulder all the way up the hill at the cost of this man's freedom, only to have my money and his sacrifice squandered in a Sisyphean struggle to prohibit people from dealing illegal drugs.
Best Wishes,
Arbiter |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ-Fuq
But addiction in itself is not a problem. The problem comes when the addiction is not being satisfied and withdrawals start. The more a drug costs, the more likely that is to happen obviously. If a drug habit cost 5% of what it does now, users wouldnt experience withdrawals at all very often because they would rarely run out. |
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.
| quote: | | Thats not necessarily the case. With opiates, the general frequency of use is quite low; only 1.3% of female and 8.4% of male heroin users use heroin daily according to an australian government study. The percentage gets exponentially lower relative to the frequency, so u can imagine what a small percentage of users use heroin more than a few times a day (or enough to have a significant negative impact on work). |
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. Not to mention that the frequency of use increases during time. And the only reason why so few people use heroin that often is that those who do are on the brink of overdosing.
| quote: | | With ampthetamines, the frequency of use is higher but as amphetamines are stimulants, u could say that taking them would actually be benefical when it comes to work, in most cases. |
Yes, in short term. In long term, however, the negative effects tend to outperform the positive ones.
| quote: | The ironic thing about ur argument here is, under current laws they:
a) will be sacked from their job just for USING the drug, no matter what impact it has on their ability to work, and even if there is no impact at all, and |
I must agree on this one. The laws are not always perfect.
| quote: | | b) with the massive prices created by prohibition, far, far more users are forced into crime now than the tiny amount that would have to do it because they got sacked. |
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.
| quote: | Look at the figures (this is for the uk).
socio-economic costs of prohibtion = >£15 billion
expenditure on war on drugs by Gov = £2 billion
expenditure on current treatment = £450 million (total!)
Not very costly after all then, considering the government would actually be saving money. |
Again, you are falsley presuming that the total number of the drug users would be the same.
| quote: | Uh uh. Thats totally incorrect logic. When it comes to drugs, governments arent saying "its ok to drive a car (take drugs) as long as u use a seatbelt (use drugs safely)", theyre banning cars altogether (supposedly) in case people drive without wearing their seatbelt!
If the logic the governments are applying to drug use is right, why arent cars illegal?
If the logic the governments are applying to car use is right, why are drugs illegal? |
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.
| quote: | | In other words, lets keep drugs illegal in case something that already happens with them being illegal continues to happen when theyre legal, but on a comparitively miniscule scale (lol)! |
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.
| quote: | And u say this despite the fact that:
a) the world would be a much safer place in general for these people because of the drastic reduction in crime (isnt most crime because of prohibition?) |
a)It would only drastically reduce the amount of drug-related crime, not crime in general
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.
| quote: | | b) drugs would be supplied in child proof medicine bottles and the like in order to (more or less) eliminate cases of young children finding loose pills and such and ingesting them |
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.
| quote: | | c) nearly all drugs that young people (and everyone else) DID manage to take would be far safer than the dirty, contaminated crap thats available because of prohibition |
Yes. But the sheer amount of drugs on the streets would nullify that effect.
| quote: | | d) The 'forbidden fruit' element which is the cause of probably most young people starting using drugs in the first place (they think its cool/hard/rebellious etc) would be done away with somewhat. |
Not really, because their parents would still not allow them to use most of those substances.
| quote: | | Complete bs. More liberal countries have a far smaller percentage of users than stricter countries. Also, dealers dont have age limits, generally. |
That is not completely true. Even the most liberal countries have some drugs banned. 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. 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:
| quote: | Singapore has 12 times the population of Vancouver but just half the crime rate.
|
| quote: | | The stats suggest the exact opposite. And dont use liberal countries being more developed as an excuse again, just look at the state of america. |
What about the US?
| quote: | | Firstly, they ARENT educated about them. Secondly, proper education is necessary if there is to be harm reduction. |
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.
| quote: | | Clean heroin isnt tho. |
Oh, yes, here we go again. Believe it or not, heroin is bad for health, even in its most purest form.
| quote: | | And u could say the same thing about nicotine addicts, dont try to make out that this is a heroin/illegal drug specific thing. |
Yes you could. And look at how many of them smoke cigarettes daily.
| quote: | | They have bull presented to them. |
I guess it's difficult to argue with you on this one if you firmly believe that pure heroin is not bad for health. Really, you're either awfully stubborn or you don't know what you're talking about.
| quote: | | a) prohibition doesnt work as a deterrence, and this is clearly showed by usage statistics |
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.
| quote: | | b) fining them large amounts of money would only make their financial situation even worse, which would lead to even more crime because they need even more money, obviously. |
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.
| quote: | | The amount of medical treatment needed would dramatically fall, because, for about the billionth time, almost all of the physical harm 'caused' by drugs is actually caused by adulterants in the drugs. |
Yes, lot of harm is caused by the impurities. But some of it is caused by the drug itself. So if the number of addicts would rise, then your opinion is standing on a pretty shaky ground.
| quote: | | Again, the average age of a heroin addict in holland is 42, but 22 in the uk. |
So what? Is heroin legalized in Holland? No? Well, I thought so.
| quote: | | Yet in prohibitionist countries there IS widespread use, and far higher usage than in countries with more relaxed laws! The damage comes from that so called deterrence. Prohibition is achieving the exact opposite of what its supposed to be doing. Face it, it does not work. |
No it isn't. Again, take Singapore for example. You are basing your theories on faulty assumptions.
| quote: | | How can u say the level is minimal when its much higher in prohibitionist countries?? |
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.
| quote: | | Which wouldnt happen if the drugs werent illegal. |
Well, it's happening now, isn't it?
| quote: | | A legal drug shop wouldnt do that. |
No but the kids could easily ask someone to get the drugs for them.
| quote: | | And would overdosing be more or less common in a legal environment? Everyone would know the exact potency of what theyre getting, and therefore accidental overdosing would not be a particularly common thing. |
Overdosing per shot would be less common. But the overall usage would be more common.
| quote: | | Your argument is stupid. |
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.
| quote: | So to sum this up...
Sensible arguments against legalisation:
nothing
Sensible arguments for legalisation:
everything else! |
You really need to grow up. |
|
|
| svens_bath |
| i havent read through all the essays that people have posted in this thread, so id ont know if this has been said already. Although i sympathise with the situation in Brazil, you cant really try and blame the problems on those in other countries who take drugs. The problems your country is facing is due to poverty, not people taking drugs on a saturday night. If your country's economy was in a better state, then you would not have as much poverty and so there would be less of a hard-drug addiction problem in the country. Ultimately it is the goverments of the world who should be meeting together to tackle global poverty, not meeting to stop each other invading other countries, and clogging up the wheel of evolution for us all. p.s im sure that most of the drugs poeople use on these boards arent the ones that cause people to get kidnappped and mugged to feed habits, hence another reason why the orignal thread title is not a fair statement to make. |
|
|
| MysticStardust |
| Thats depressive. Well I'm doing my part, I'm not doing any drugs except caffeine. I hope things will somehow get better in your country, if not come to Canada. We're pretty cool and I'll bet you'll like it here. |
|
|
|
|
