Posted: 5/14/2009 4:04:37 PM EDT
|
Just for a second... put away all preconcieved propaganda everyone has heard about drugs and just hear me out.
I smoked weed in highschool, but I didn't really like the way it made me feel so I stopped and havn't smoked since. And I have not done any other illicit drug. I stated this just so you know where I am coming from. Now on topic. If alcohol is legal, how can we with a straight face condemn any other substance? Alcohol ruins lives, kills people by both over doses and complications from continued use, is addictive, causes some individuals to become violent, and it makes us a danger to others while behind the wheel. So, since no one here is arguing for the government to make alcohol illegal, why is ANY drug illegal at all? Imagine if people were responsible for themselves, and if you were to fuck up while on a drug (driving, violent act, etc etc) then there should be a large punishment for it (even worse than a DUI). Imagine all the money we are wasting on the war on drugs, instead being used to promote education (the more education one has the less likely they are to do drugs and/or be addicted to alcohol). As long as you are not a danger to other people, whey the fuck should the government dictate what you do with your own body? I agree that someone driving down the road on crack is probably creating a very dangerous situation, but is it more dangerous than someone who is 15-20 shots deep? I don't think so. And we have proven over and over and over that making something illegal does not curtail the activity. If people want to get high, they are going to get high no matter how illegal it is. What would legalizing all drugs do to benefit the country? Here's what I think it would do to benefit us: BILLIONS of extra dollars to be used on education and other positive programs, more room in prison to keep truly violent felons, also this would effectively eliminate all gangs from the country; what product would they run that can produce the same profits that drugs offer? All of the drug dealer violence would disappear. Large companies can manufacture drugs at a ridiculously cheap cost, and then the government can tax it so that the drug stays at the current street value to the consumer and then everyone profits. Those of you are are opposed to legalizing all forms of drugs are just in favor of big government. You are afraid of people having individual rights and freedoms because they may use them irresponsibly and hurt other people. Kind of reminds me how the anti-gun people feel about us doesn't it? |
|
Quoted:
YES Personal freedom. Someone high fucks you up or perpetrates a crime with a victim then he will be dealt with. Agreed. "the state of xxx" and "U.S." do NOT count as "victims". A real crime must have real , identifyable human victims , and there are none when a law prohibiting the posession of , well , anything , is broken. |
|
These are my thoughts as well... Granted it may not be right for everyone, but when everyone on here gets pissed because someone who is antigun is trying to pass "common sense" legislation (which we all know is bullshit) and says that they shouldn't make law abiding citizens into criminals; yet they are doing the same thing to people who want to get high in their own home. Oh well.... hypocrisy knows no limits I guess.
|
|
Yesses are leading, good to see. There was a thread a while back about how Portugal(sp?) legalized everything, coke, heroin, everything, and *GASP!* the world did not come to an end.
All drugs were legal once; you could readily buy them. And yet, somehow, life went on. It would again, too. |
|
Meh.
People are going to do drugs no matter what you do. People still do drugs in countries where trafficking earns you a death sentence from the courts. I don't agree with the culture, but I don't see throngs of folks that don't currently do drugs going out and buying boatloads if they became legal tomorrow. Some folks that don't might, and you will likely see issues with abuse destroying lives. But who is to say the numbers will be greater than the lives destroyed by the violence surrounding the ILLICIT drug trade today? If it's legal, the price will likely drop, yes? If the profit is not there to be made, they what will the drug cartels do for the bulk of their income? How much of the money spent fighting this "war" on drugs could be better spent elsewhere? How many otherwise productive members of society arrested for simple possession would be out producing for this country instead of sucking it dry from inside jail or prison? How much tax money would make it into the system here instead of being exported? |
|
Quoted:
Every time somebody equates the right and responsibility of gun ownership with wallowing in the cesspool of drug use, I want to scream.  I may be the only one who thinks that way, or I may not. Just something to think about.Yeah, fuck personal freedoms. |
|
Quoted:
I'm going to say "yes" assuming other things happen as well. A huge media campaign that frowns upon substance abuse. Harsher sentences for crimes committed while under the influence of such substances, and harsher sentences still for repeat offenders. Exactly.... with freedom comes responsibility. You should be allowed to fuck up your own life as much as you want. But the moment that your freedom fucks with someone elses right to happiness and wellbeing, the hand of god should come down to punish you. |
|
No.
The reason guns should be allowed is for the safety of the individual. It is a tool for defense. So when gun crime does happen, it happens while we uphold the right to defend ourselves. We should never prohibit the ability for someone to protect their life. When drug crime happens, it is because we allowed something solely used for hedonistic pleasure (of no benefit to society) ruin someone else's life. Some guy got high and killed another guy, or was driving high and crashed to kill some kids. That's bullshit. Why? Because drugs are not on the same line as the right to own a weapon. Therefore, I don't see it as being hypocritical. I'm all for personal freedoms, I really am. I'm a conservative/libertarian like the rest of you guys. And I support personal responsibility to the max. But that doesn't mean the guys who aren't responsible like you or me will be just as kind. Fuck yourself up all you want. But I believe the government, on this issue, would be right to limit the amount of how much you can screw yourself over because its benefit to society overall is nonexistent. And my source is from my knowledge through one of my buds in Holland. Ironically, it was he who told me that it's a good idea that the US doesn't let up on drugs and I listened. He still does the shit he's allowed to over there, and shit he's not allowed to, but it makes sense. It won't help our culture, in my opinion. |
|
Quoted:
No. The reason guns should be allowed is for the safety of the individual. It is a tool for defense. So when gun crime does happen, it happens while we uphold the right to defend ourselves. We should never prohibit the ability for someone to protect their life. When drug crime happens, it is because we allowed something solely used for hedonistic pleasure (of no benefit to society) ruin someone else's life. Some guy got high and killed another guy, or was driving high and crashed to kill some kids. That's bullshit. Why? Because drugs are not on the same line as the right to own a weapon. Therefore, I don't see it as being hypocritical. I'm all for personal freedoms, I really am. I'm a conservative/libertarian like the rest of you guys. And I support personal responsibility to the max. But that doesn't mean the guys who aren't responsible like you or me will be just as kind. Fuck yourself up all you want. But I believe the government, on this issue, would be right to limit the amount of how much you can screw yourself over because its benefit to society overall is nonexistent. And my source is from my knowledge through one of my buds in Holland. Ironically, it was he who told me that it's a good idea that the US doesn't let up on drugs and I listened. He still does the shit he's allowed to over there, and shit he's not allowed to, but it makes sense. It won't help our culture, in my opinion. I agree with you that ideally all drugs shouldn't exist. I truly wish they didn't. But the fact is... what we are doing is not working and we need to just cut our losses. Drug use isn't going away... so instead of wasting our tax dollars in a losing battle that has no positive effect on society (in fact by drugs being illegal, WE create the habitat for gangs and violent criminals to flourish), we should cut our losses and put the money towards education. |
|
Quoted:
YES Personal freedom. Someone high fucks you up or perpetrates a crime with a victim then he will be dealt with. how nuts is this?!!?! because the tens of thousands of deaths each year on the US roadway aren't enough... time to legalize cocaine, heroine, LSD, etc.... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Every time somebody equates the right and responsibility of gun ownership with wallowing in the cesspool of drug use, I want to scream. I may be the only one who thinks that way, or I may not. Just something to think about.Yeah, fuck personal freedoms being a weak-minded fool. There, fixed it for you. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
YES Personal freedom. Someone high fucks you up or perpetrates a crime with a victim then he will be dealt with. how nuts is this?!!?! because the tens of thousands of deaths each year on the US roadway aren't enough... time to legalize cocaine, heroine, LSD, etc.... Anyone messed up enough to do drugs and drive will do it whether the drugs are legal or not. |
|
Quoted:
I agree with you that ideally all drugs shouldn't exist. I truly wish they didn't. But the fact is... what we are doing is not working and we need to just cut our losses. Drug use isn't going away... so instead of wasting our tax dollars in a losing battle that has no positive effect on society (in fact by drugs being illegal, WE create the habitat for gangs and violent criminals to flourish), we should cut our losses and put the money towards education. Every time I hear that argument though, it sounds an awful lot like the argument that GWOT is a waste of money and effort since terrorism will continue to exist and a majority of it won't be on our homeland. We can't defeat terrorism completely, but that doesn't mean we don't fight it. ETA: What I'm saying is that there are some things that are worth taking the hard route on. Completely letting drugs go rampant through our nation will cause some serious shit, and everyone here knows it. We either let that shit happen on our soil, or we try to prevent it as much as possible. I support prevention. 2nd ETA: I'm not saying we dump money into things and pray for the best. It's good to fight the good fight, but it may require new techniques and new measures to get the mission done. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: YES Personal freedom. Someone high fucks you up or perpetrates a crime with a victim then he will be dealt with. how nuts is this?!!?! because the tens of thousands of deaths each year on the US roadway aren't enough... time to legalize cocaine, heroine, LSD, etc....  "we should ban guns!! how nuts is this?!!?! because the tens of thousands of gun deaths each year in the US aren't enough... time to legalize bombs, machine guns, bazooka's, etc...." You're blaming the object/substance, not the behavior. Just like a gun banner.  |
|
I don't think federal government should have laws against them.
That being said, I don't see where it is a guaranteed right, so I don't know that I would oppose different states banning certain drugs as they see fit. As opposed to the second, which I think should be protected even from state interference. I might be weak on my understanding there, admittedly... but I'm generally for making them all legal. Seems like our gov has more impact when regulating legal activity than it does when attempting to stop illegal activity. |
|
Quoted: Every time somebody equates the right and responsibility of gun ownership with wallowing in the cesspool of drug use, I want to scream. I may be the only one who thinks that way, or I may not. Just something to think about.Quite a few of our Founding Fathers used narcotics other than alcohol. How do you think this issue would have fallen if they were here to answer? Would they be in favor of the war on drugs, from a freedom of choice standpoint? I'll trust their ideas of individual liberty over yours, no disrespect intended....even tho some of those men were wallowing in the cesspool of drug use. EDIT, apparently they were weak minded fools too. (your words, not mine) |
|
Yes you should be allowed to consume what you choose to even if it endangers you. As long as your behavior (Impairment) does directly threaten others.
Steroids, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, caffeine, etc. all of it. Asking/demanding big brother be your keeper is a very bad idea. Not to mention all the defective people the initial spike in usage might cleanse from existence. |
|
BTW, should we make gasoline and paint illegal? How about correction fluid and nitrous oxide? These substances are used every single day and are awful intoxicants. Argue please for keeping them legal, while something that has benefits far beyond smoking it like pot plants remains illegal to grow...even if you're not consuming them. Go ahead, I'll grab some popcorn. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I agree with you that ideally all drugs shouldn't exist. I truly wish they didn't. But the fact is... what we are doing is not working and we need to just cut our losses. Drug use isn't going away... so instead of wasting our tax dollars in a losing battle that has no positive effect on society (in fact by drugs being illegal, WE create the habitat for gangs and violent criminals to flourish), we should cut our losses and put the money towards education. Every time I hear that argument though, it sounds an awful lot like the argument that GWOT is a waste of money and effort since terrorism will continue to exist and a majority of it won't be on our homeland. We can't defeat terrorism completely, but that doesn't mean we don't fight it. ETA: What I'm saying is that there are some things that are worth taking the hard route on. Completely letting drugs go rampant through our nation will cause some serious shit, and everyone here knows it. We either let that shit happen on our soil, or we try to prevent it as much as possible. I support prevention. 2nd ETA: I'm not saying we dump money into things and pray for the best. It's good to fight the good fight, but it may require new techniques and new measures to get the mission done. Let's say that for the sake of argument I agree with you. Why don't we make alcohol illegal? Give me one good reason that alcohol shouldn't be illegal based on all of the negative things it brings our country. I say go one way or the other..... how can we condemn certain substances like the plague, yet allow alcohol to be welcomed with open arms? |
|
Quoted:
BTW, should we make gasoline and paint illegal? How about correction fluid and nitrous oxide? These substances are used every single day and are awful intoxicants. Argue please for keeping them legal, while something that has benefits far beyond smoking it like pot plants remains illegal to grow...even if you're not consuming them. Go ahead, I'll grab some popcorn. Take the desiccant out of ethanol fuel while we're at it too, it would sell then. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Every time somebody equates the right and responsibility of gun ownership with wallowing in the cesspool of drug use, I want to scream. I may be the only one who thinks that way, or I may not. Just something to think about.Quite a few of our Founding Fathers used narcotics other than alcohol. How do you think this issue would have fallen if they were here to answer? Would they be in favor of the war on drugs, from a freedom of choice standpoint? I'll trust their ideas of individual liberty over yours, no disrespect intended....even tho some of those men were wallowing in the cesspool of drug use. EDIT, apparently they were weak minded fools too. (your words, not mine) They obviously thought it important enough to include it in the bill of rights. Oh wait, silly me they didn't. Those few who did use narcotics probably never argued that doing so was a virtue. Weakness is still weakness no matter who it is that displays it. But thanks for playing.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Every time somebody equates the right and responsibility of gun ownership with wallowing in the cesspool of drug use, I want to scream. I may be the only one who thinks that way, or I may not. Just something to think about.Quite a few of our Founding Fathers used narcotics other than alcohol. How do you think this issue would have fallen if they were here to answer? Would they be in favor of the war on drugs, from a freedom of choice standpoint? I'll trust their ideas of individual liberty over yours, no disrespect intended....even tho some of those men were wallowing in the cesspool of drug use. EDIT, apparently they were weak minded fools too. (your words, not mine) They obviously thought it important enough to include it in the bill of rights. Oh wait, silly me they didn't. Those few who did use narcotics probably never argued that doing so was a virtue. Weakness is still weakness no matter who it is that displays it. But thanks for playing. * Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. * Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Those pesky amendments. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Every time somebody equates the right and responsibility of gun ownership with wallowing in the cesspool of drug use, I want to scream. I may be the only one who thinks that way, or I may not. Just something to think about.Quite a few of our Founding Fathers used narcotics other than alcohol. How do you think this issue would have fallen if they were here to answer? Would they be in favor of the war on drugs, from a freedom of choice standpoint? I'll trust their ideas of individual liberty over yours, no disrespect intended....even tho some of those men were wallowing in the cesspool of drug use. EDIT, apparently they were weak minded fools too. (your words, not mine) They obviously thought it important enough to include it in the bill of rights. Oh wait, silly me they didn't. Those few who did use narcotics probably never argued that doing so was a virtue. Weakness is still weakness no matter who it is that displays it. But thanks for playing. * Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. * Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Those pesky amendments. Obviously they wern't important if they didn't include them!! 
|
|
Quoted:
Yesses are leading, good to see. There was a thread a while back about how Portugal(sp?) legalized everything, coke, heroin, everything, and *GASP!* the world did not come to an end. All drugs were legal once; you could readily buy them. And yet, somehow, life went on. It would again, too. You can readily buy them all now. I live in a dry county. 20 minute drive to a liquor store. If I were to go for anything else, I could get ANYTHING faster than alcohol. |
|
Now on topic. If alcohol is legal, how can we with a straight face condemn any other substance? Alcohol ruins lives, kills people by both over doses and complications from continued use, is addictive, causes some individuals to become violent, and it makes us a danger to others while behind the wheel.
Easy, drug users were never a large group to begin with. I truly do think that it has been drug prohibition that has caused so many people to think "Its cool and rebellious" to smoke pot, so they do it and now they are hooked. it also becomes part of the "counter culture" to do drugs, tell Bush to fuck off, etc. etc. the plain fact is drugs became illegal in the first place because IT WAS A DRIVE TO MAKE ALL SUBSTANCES ILLEGAL. Eventually alcohol was illegal too but once it was repealed no one bothered to repeal the drug laws because not a lot of people did them back then so no one cared. Then drug use became more popular in the 50's and 60's and now we are stuck in this situation. |
|
Quoted: Yesses are leading, good to see. There was a thread a while back about how Portugal(sp?) legalized everything, coke, heroin, everything, and *GASP!* the world did not come to an end. All drugs were legal once; you could readily buy them. And yet, somehow, life went on. It would again, too. Then there is China where forced drug importation caused a war after the country was nearly shattered from opium use. There is a reason most Asian countries have draconian drug laws. Because most have had BAD problems with it in the past. Drug use is one reason for the caste system in India. |
|
Quoted: I think that the 'natural' drugs should be legal (pot, shrooms, peyote, ect), but I think the 'manufactured' drugs should remain illegal (cocaine/crack, meth, HGB, ect). Cocaine is only ISOLATED from the leaves. Wouldn't call it manufactured any more than ethanol is distilled, it doesn't change chemical form. Crack? Well, that is smokable form. Like smoking your "natural" pot instead of making brownies with it. |