|
Ecstasy Less Dangerous Than Alcohol (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shanny |
Do I need to get on the "don't start double posting threads" horse and start riding it around like a three legged mule?
In regards to the thread though, I did look through the document they are referring to and it is evaluating societal harms, not "should I drink or should I take e which one will harm me more"
Most people don't understand what they are referring to when they say harms. |
|
|
| Revival160 |
| quote: | Originally posted by shanny
Do I need to get on the "don't start double posting threads" horse and start riding it around like a three legged mule?
In regards to the thread though, I did look through the document they are referring to and it is evaluating societal harms, not "should I drink or should I take e which one will harm me more"
Most people don't understand what they are referring to when they say harms. |
I'm not trying to rekindle the much flogged debate. I just saw the article and thought that it was worth sharing. It's an interesting read and does highlight the arbitrary ways in which our government regulates things - be it right or wrong. |
|
|
| cenik |
This research does not produce any findings which have not been suggested in the past.
| quote: | Originally posted by Revival160
Of course it is. Legalization of it would mean putting it under some sort of government control and then taxing it. It would be safer, but the price would probably go up.
|
The relatively high price of illegal drugs is, for one, a direct function of their illegal status: because manufacturers/producers and sellers subject themselves to considerable risk in terms of potential legal punishment for being detected, the price of substances is inflated accordingly. If substances like marijuana and MDMA were legalized the price would likely decrease not only because legalization (obviously) equates to a lack of criminalization but also because manufacturing the drugs on a large enough scale to meet the needs of the public means producing in bulk and we all know that bulk production means less money spent (which is somewhat reflected in buying illegal drugs on the street: you certainly pay far less per pill/gram if you buy bulk versus only a handful).
| quote: | Originally posted by Revival160
It's an interesting read and does highlight the arbitrary ways in which our government regulates things - be it right or wrong. |
Arbitrariness typically does not connote something positive; rather, it is usually appealed to in order to express dissatisfaction over a matter of perceived unfairness. |
|
|
| Revival160 |
| quote: | Originally posted by cenik
This research does not produce any findings which have not been suggested in the past. |
I'm not saying that it did. I only said that the research was interesting, and the article shed a bit of light on the current situation.
| quote: |
Arbitrariness typically does not connote something positive; rather, it is usually appealed to in order to express dissatisfaction over a matter of perceived unfairness. |
I do understand the definition of the term arbitrary. I was using it here to convey how the government seems to make laws (like with our drug laws) lacking the proper logic or insight to make rational decisions. |
|
|
| Revival160 |
| quote: | Originally posted by cenik
This research does not produce any findings which have not been suggested in the past.
The relatively high price of illegal drugs is, for one, a direct function of their illegal status: because manufacturers/producers and sellers subject themselves to considerable risk in terms of potential legal punishment for being detected, the price of substances is inflated accordingly. If substances like marijuana and MDMA were legalized the price would likely decrease not only because legalization (obviously) equates to a lack of criminalization but also because manufacturing the drugs on a large enough scale to meet the needs of the public means producing in bulk and we all know that bulk production means less money spent (which is somewhat reflected in buying illegal drugs on the street: you certainly pay far less per pill/gram if you buy bulk versus only a handful).
Arbitrariness typically does not connote something positive; rather, it is usually appealed to in order to express dissatisfaction over a matter of perceived unfairness. |
Nick - is school making you grumpy?
:rolleyes: :D |
|
|
| extacy_bomb |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
We're not arguing hypocrisy. We're arguing whether dangerous illegal substances should be legalized because more dangerous legal substances exist.
The answer is no - we should not be legalizing things that are dangerous regardless of what "more dangerous" legal things already are available. |
Well still alot of people do the drugs regardless of it being legal or not. So legalization wouldn't increase or decrease the amount of it being used by users. It will only control and standardlize the substance. Thus it will be safer for users since they know what they're getting.
Imagine if alcohol was illegal and people would get nonstandard alcohol. wouldn't it be more fatal that what it is now?
EDIT: On the side note legalization can change the face of society by taking a huge money away from drug gangs and providing it to government. It's true that government has already hands in this but by taking the money away from gangs we will have a safer society and far less crimes.
I believe in a civilized world drugs should be legal and controled by the government in order to have a healthier and safer society. |
|
|
| RobotHouse |
| Other drugs on the market means competition for the tobacco and alcohol companies and I don't think they would take kindly to that. |
|
|
| Dr. Z |
this topic is so old,
it hurts my brain
if you actually kept your ears and eyes open about 6 years ago, after iDance, all of these questions, and misinterpretations were answered |
|
|
| jonnystel |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
We're not arguing hypocrisy. We're arguing whether dangerous illegal substances should be legalized because more dangerous legal substances exist.
The answer is no - we should not be legalizing things that are dangerous regardless of what "more dangerous" legal things already are available. |
+1 big time!! |
|
|
| jonnystel |
| quote: | Originally posted by extacy_bomb
Well still alot of people do the drugs regardless of it being legal or not. So legalization wouldn't increase or decrease the amount of it being used by users. It will only control and standardlize the substance. |
of course it would increase the amount of people doing it .. because your average person would find it more socially acceptable to take that substance therefore getting involved in possibly using it regularly.. then telling his friends how awesome it is and so on .. IMO of course . i dont want people bashing my thoughts lol |
|
|
| cenik |
| quote: | Originally posted by jonnystel
of course it would increase the amount of people doing it .. because your average person would find it more socially acceptable to take that substance therefore getting involved in possibly using it regularly.. then telling his friends how awesome it is and so on .. IMO of course . i dont want people bashing my thoughts lol |
Research on the Netherlands has demonstrated that a significant increase in the number of individuals using cannabis did not occur following the country's decision to no longer prosecute for possession of the substance. |
|
|
|
|
