LEGALIZING DRUGS

Hi Occom Bill

Quote:

This is simply not true of all drugs. Not by a long shot. Further, the most dangerous of all is legal (alcohol).

As I said previously, the people arguing for legalisation of dangerous drugs are hopping between arguing for all, and arguing in relation to a single drug (almost always marijuana).

In relation to alcohol, while you are trying to make a valid point on the dangers of alcohol, your comparison is wrong, as heroin and amphetamines are much more dangerous in quantity than alcohol - which is your point about abuse, is it not?

Quote:

I would love to see you fortify this statement with some facts. I think you'll find proving it impossible.

Absolutely, I agree it's impossible to prove. As I've said previously, and don't feel like saying over and over - this is my opinion. I've also previously listed the reasons why I think this.

Quote:

This is simply not true. A drug user is not necessarily an addict

Never said they were. People are also switching between user and addict in here so frequently in arguments that this particular from one point to the next can confuse people.

Quote:

Nonsense. Disrespect for the rule of law stems mostly from unnecessary laws that normally law abiding citizens consider over invasive.

People can disrespect (ie ignore etc) a particular law without disrespecting the law (in general). People can think a law wrong without being disrespectful towards it. Ignoring a particular law does not necessarily = disrespect for the law in general.

Quote:

This is simply untrue and you've utterly failed to demonstrate otherwise.

Sorry, but you are quite wrong in this. I have no need to demonstrate to you that I understand your point of view (mostly, it would double the post length, and also, this is a debate, not a huggy feely forum). I have heard the legalisation argument, I understand where it comes from, and I think it has some valid points, but is mostly deceptive and wrongminded.

Quote:

The only thing dangerous about marijuana is the criminals that pedal it. This danger was created by prohibition.

While I don't entirely disagree with this, except in relation to mental health issues...as I've said previously, if you want to argue the merits of a single drug, it belongs in its own thread.

Quote:

Wrong. Harsher penalties don't work, so less harsh penalties can't be expected to work either. As long as drugs remain illegal, the inevitable drug trade remains unregulated. This is the folly created by prohibition.

That paragraph was to explain a point I'd written about 5 times now. It is an explanation that the issue of penalties is a separate (if linked) issue to that of legality.

Btw, prohibition, as you put it, doesn't need to work 100%...all it needs to do is be more economically viable than the alternative and be for the good for the community as a whole.

Hi Advocate

Quote:

v, you contend that drugs are dangerous and, thus, should remain illegal. I think you would agree that Australian-rules football and auto racing are dangerous, but should not be made illegal. If people are foolish enough to engage in these sports, they should not be imprisoned for their participation. There are many other things in our lives that are dangerous, but criminalizing these things would only add to the dire consequences of participation

A great example, but not the same in terms the reasons people enter into either taking drugs vs playing sports that have associated risks/dangers; not the same in terms of forehand knowledge of the risks/dangers; and not the same in terms of costs to the economy.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

As I've said previously, and don't feel like saying over and over - this is my opinion. I've also previously listed the reasons why I think this.

And thus you appear powerless to apply pragmatism, reason and logic but instead rely on knee-jerk, uneducated, narrow-minded emotionalism. Let me guess: you also believe there is harm in same sex relations.

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
vikorr wrote:
As I've said previously, and don't feel like saying over and over - this is my opinion. I've also previously listed the reasons why I think this.

Chumly wrote
And thus you appear powerless to apply pragmatism, reason and logic but instead rely on knee-jerk, uneducated, narrow-minded emotionalism. Let me guess: you also believe there is harm in same sex relations.

Amazing, you are able to infer all that from so little...you must be a genius at reading emotions in words :

Let's have a look at each of your claims :

Quote:

And thus you appear powerless to apply pragmatism

Funny...you apply this to me saying "This is my opinion". Which doesn't work at all. That said, my approach to me, is really quite pragmatic....I believe legalising dangerous drugs would cost me extra money, and it does society harm...therefore I don't want them legalised...sounds pragmatic to me.

Quote:

...reason

I've applied as much reason, and more accurate reason (in my view), than the other side, which has heavily relied on deceptive claims (like this one that I'm replying to)

Quote:

...and logic

Ah, so you take one aspect out of my argument(out of many aspects), which I admit is opinion...and from that come to the conclusion that I lack logic...which only succeeds in showing that your conclusion lacks logic.

Quote:

but instead rely on knee-jerk, uneducated, narrow-minded emotionalism

Let's work backwards on this one, as 'emotionalism' is the noun here, and the others adjectives....It's amazing...as I said, you must be a genius at reading emotions from so little information...and a statement of opinion of all things. It's even more amazing when you consider, from your statement, that you must know more about my emotions that me..for you seemingly know when I'm emotional, and even the type of emotion I must be experiencing...you must have simply a mind blowing ability...

The basis of this part of the quote has no substance, but it amuses me to answer the adjectives attached to the 'emotionalism' label...

Quote:

...Knee-jerk

odd...this knee-jerk reaction has been in place for decades

Quote:

uneducated

please start reading the latest studies on the effects of drugs, including marijuana, before you start making unsubstantiated claims about my education or lack thereof. Perhaps also, some real life experience with the drug induced psychosis', the mental health issues, the family trauma etc etc would help...and this doesn't only apply to addicts. (Yes, on the other side, many people get away with little to no adverse effects)

Quote:

narrow-minded

This is one accusation I've noticed flung around between people that has always made me laugh, for I've noticed that the main ones to make use of it are those people who are so certain that their view of things is right, that any other view must be wrong, and therefore narrowminded...for what openminded person would not agree...and because they are so certain of their righteousness...they refuse to see reason or merit in any other perspective...therefore actually being the narrowminded person they claim the other to be.

I see some merit in the legalisation argument (don't read that as enough merit to be legal)...the problem being I happen to think that most of the arguments for legalisation (in general) are rather deceptive/misleading...and, of course, for me, the arguments against legalisation are much stronger from my perspective.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

People who engage in sodomy while driving are a danger to society.

Words to live by.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Joe, the vast majority of people, I think, feel that gay sexual relations are undesirable. However, the Supreme Ct. held a few years ago that this is a private matter protected by the constitution. This deemed a Texas sodomy statute as unconstitutional.

And your point is...?

My statement relates to your statement that there is no reason not to ban something that society deems undesirable. Get it?

0 Replies

Hi v,

You said: "A great example, but not the same in terms the reasons people enter into either taking drugs vs playing sports that have associated risks/dangers; not the same in terms of forehand knowledge of the risks/dangers; and not the same in terms of costs to the economy."

I am not sure, but you seem to be saying that the motive for engaging in an activity is paramount in deciding whether the activity should be illegal. Very weak!

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

My statement relates to your statement that there is no reason not to ban something that society deems undesirable. Get it?

No, I don't "get it," and here's why:

1. I never said that there was "no reason not to ban something that society deems undesirable." I merely asked why society shouldn't ban a substance that it deemed undesirable. Certainly, there can be quite compelling reasons not to ban something, even if its use has undesirable consequences, but to adopt a blanket rule against banning substances in favor of banning the activities associated with those substances strikes me as rather absurd.

2. Texas didn't ban homosexuality, it banned activities associated with homosexuality. Your example, therefore, is not apt. It is more akin to O'BILL's example of banning the activities associated wth drug use rather than banning drugs.

3. Although the people of Texas, through their legislature, expressed their opinion that homosexual sex was undesirable, the people of the United States also expressed their belief, through the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, that states treating similar people differently would be far more undesirable. So even if sodomy, in your example, can be equated with a substance with undesirable effects, society has adopted a supervening rule that prevents the state from banning it. That's not the case with drugs, so your example is likewise inapt.

0 Replies

Hi Joe,

I think that the sodomy statute fell because of the privacy protections accorded by the fourth amendment. Similarly, it seems to me that someone who, say, smokes some pot should be accorded the same protections.

0 Replies

If this site -- http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws6.htm -- is accurate, it went down like this:

Quote:

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that: "The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Their right to liberty under (the Constitution) gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government....[They] are entitled to respect for their private lives...The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime....In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in our home...Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct." 3 Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy in full. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed with the majority decision, but disagreed with portions of Justice Kennedy's rationale. In a separate opinion, she indicated that the law should have been overturned because it violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees equal protection for all persons. The majority ruling had ignored the 14th Amendment implications of the case. 4 She wrote that the Texas law "brands all homosexuals as criminals," and makes it more difficult for them to be treated in the same manner as heterosexuals. (emphases added)

...for what it's worth...

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Amazing, you are able to infer all that from so little...you must be a genius at reading emotions in words :

It's patently absurd to presuppose I read only one line of your text, but it does aptly illuminate your appearance of knee-jerk, uneducated, narrow-minded emotionalism versus the appearance of apply pragmatism, reason and logic. Add to that the plethora of logical fallacies in your latest obtuse ramble and I would be surprised if you could coherently argue your way out of a cardboard box.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Hi Joe,

I think that the sodomy statute fell because of the privacy protections accorded by the fourth amendment. Similarly, it seems to me that someone who, say, smokes some pot should be accorded the same protections.

Why?

0 Replies

Quote:

It's patently absurd to presuppose I read only one line of your text

Pfft...you quoted what you wanted to reply to, and stated a position on the quote that is not possible to reach logically.

Now that it is shown how wrong your assertion was, you try to change tack...sorry doesn't work.

As for your continued tactics, considering their lack of substance, I'm not overly worried one way or another.

Perhaps you would actually care to contribute to the thread, instead of making claims that have nothing to do with the thread, and everything to do with personal attacks?

... and as a favour, don't go trying to assert that you know what other people feel - the simple fact is, you don't know.

0 Replies

Your bizarre, unsound and incongruous clams as per drugs are as equally without merit as is your above post specious.

0 Replies

Why do his clams have to have congruity, and what makes you think his bi-valve mollusks abuse drugs?

0 Replies

Quote:

Your bizarre, unsound and incongruous clams as per drugs are as equally without merit as is your above post specious.

It's rather easy to claim anything and everything if you wish only to attack a person. Do you wish to keep carrying on, or would you care to contribute to the topic?

As a general rule of thumb, as it's pointless debating with someone who doesn't want to debate the topic, but who seems only intent on attacking ther person, this will be my last reply to you (with the exception that if you do decide to contribute something of substance to the topic, then I am happy to debate such).

Good luck to you.

...poor clams

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Innocent members of society are not effected one iota if I'm using drugs in my home.

Is that a rule that applies only to drug use, or is it applicable to all activities that are performed in the privacy of one's own home? For instance, if I counterfeit money in my home, with no intention of passing off those counterfeits to other people, should that still be a crime?

Advocate's homosexual sex metaphor made more sense than this. Many people use recreational drugs for pleasure, which is presumably the reason gays engage in homosexual sex. What realistic excuse could you produce for counterfeiting money in your home that is equally harmless to society at large? Whether I drank some Scotch, smoked a fat one or sniffed a few lines earlier tonight; why should that be anyone's business but my own? There would be Zero measurable effect on society, let alone harm.

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Alcohol is more dangerous than most every other substance that is illegal. But, it doesn't become dangerous until it is abused. There is a multitude of ways to criminalize abuse, without criminalizing the substance itself.

Are you serious? Machine guns aren't dangerous unless they're abused, but the state still effectively prohibits the private ownership of machine guns

Quite serious, Joe. Machine guns were designed and built for the sole purpose of hurting others. Hardly analogous to substances that are usually used for the sole purpose of entertainment. From one beer drinker to another; this shouldn't be difficult to get across to you.

joefromchicago wrote:

If the usage of some substance leads to results that are, on the whole, deemed undesirable by society, then why not ban the substance?

What results that are undesirable by society? Scotch, Buds or Blow can all be used with Zero direct results that even affect society. Meanwhile, the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened... whether you approve of what he does with his freedom or not.

0 Replies

Vikorr, your insistance that legalizing Marijuana specifically needs it's own thread is ridiculous. Even had you authored the thread, a request could be made, but not a demand... and you didn't. That the current laws consider marijuana illegal makes any points specifically about marijuana's relative harmlessness compared to other substances (including some that are legal) quite relevant indeed.

Pointing out that your opponents vary between singling out marijuana and not, use and abuse, etc. is an answer to nothing. There is no ground there to claim their questions and comments irrelevant... and it rather appears to be a transparent evasion of solid points against your position. Non-answers of this kind don't encourage thoughtful responses.

Your unsubstantiated opinion that legalizing drugs would cost more is in my opinion quite ridiculous. Numerous examples of excessive spending have been provided to demonstrate the incredible waste in this feeble, ineffective prohibition. Meanwhile; every single person reading this knows someone they could ask to get them some drugs. Despite spending billions, Marijuana is the biggest cash crop in the United States and generally neither sales tax nor income tax is collected. The prohibition itself is to blame for the street violence that accompanies the black market it created. That segment of your position is completely untenable.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Alcohol is more dangerous than most every other substance that is illegal. But, it doesn't become dangerous until it is abused. There is a multitude of ways to criminalize abuse, without criminalizing the substance itself.

Are you serious? Machine guns aren't dangerous unless they're abused, but the state still effectively prohibits the private ownership of machine guns
Quite serious, Joe. Machine guns were designed and built for the sole purpose of hurting others. Hardly analogous to substances that are usually used for the sole purpose of entertainment. From one beer drinker to another; this shouldn't be difficult to get across to you.

Last Sunday, on another thread

Walter Hinteler wrote:

In the UK, the government is to be urged to consider a controversial plan to reclassify drugs according to the harm they do. The new ranking system would see alcohol placed high on the scale because of its links to violence and car accidents. Tobacco, estimated to cause 40 per cent of all hospital illnesses, would also come before the class-A drug ecstasy.

However, there is no suggestion that alcohol and tobacco should be banned. The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce's commission on illegal drugs, communities and public policy has been examining what it believes is a 'serious misfit between the law relating to drugs and the way in which drugs are actually used by members of society'.

The commission, which includes John Yates, the Metropolitan Police's assistant commissioner, has heard evidence from experts and charities in a bid to find ways of making the UK's drugs laws more effective.
It has highlighted a study carried out by a team led by Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council, that suggests classification should not be linked to penalties for drug possession but rather the relative risks involved in taking them.

The study of 20 drugs - both legal and illegal - weighed up their physical harm, their relative addictiveness and the impact they have on wider society, to produce a new 'rational' league table.

Blakemore suggests current drugs laws are outdated. 'The system has evolved in an unsystematic way from somewhat arbitrary foundations with seemingly little scientific basis. We suggest a new system for evaluating the risks of individual drugs that is based as far as possible on facts and scientific knowledge. It could form the basis of a new classification scheme for the Misuse of Drugs Act.'

Online report (The Observer)

0 Replies

Quote:

Vikorr, your insistance that legalizing Marijuana specifically needs it's own thread is ridiculous.

Not at all. People are attempting to use the arguments to legalise one specific drug as an argument to legalise all illegal drugs. This creates confusion.

It is obvious that among the many illicit drugs, some illicit drugs will have greater arguments for legalisation than others.

As the thread is about all illegal drugs (ie. In general), a debate on a specific drug should have it's own thread - to avoid confusion.

Quote:

Your unsubstantiated opinion that legalizing drugs would cost more is in my opinion quite ridiculous.

I've no problem with that - it is your opinion.

It seems your opinion is related to your below quote.

Quote:

Numerous examples of excessive spending have been provided to demonstrate the incredible waste in this feeble, ineffective prohibition.

And no study (that I've seen) has ever been done to estimate the cost of legalising illegal drugs. If you know of a credible one (ie. One that costs the administrative, health and other government expenses, as well as any associated lost productivity, and other side-effects etc vs tax benefits etc vs current prohibition costs), I'd be happy to read it and change my mind if it shows otherwise (though this would probably have to be done on a drug by drug basis). As I can't find a study, all I have (and all anyone has on this subject) is opinion.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Numerous examples of excessive spending have been provided to demonstrate the incredible waste in this feeble, ineffective prohibition.

And no study (that I've seen) has ever been done to estimate the cost of legalising illegal drugs. If you know of a credible one (ie. One that costs the administrative, health and other government expenses, as well as any associated lost productivity, and other side-effects), I'd be happy to read it and change my mind if it shows otherwise (though this would probably have to be done on a drug by drug basis). As I can't find a study, all I have is my opinion.

Well, 30 years of decriminalised personal possession of drugs and selling cannabis in "coffee shops" (The Netherlands*) should be a living example.

*NB: they don't a free, legal, unregulated market for all drugs (and clearly no single policy will cover all drugs).

0 Replies

LEGALIZING DRUGS

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know