User Tag List

First 18262728293038 Last

Results 271 to 280 of 472

  1. #271
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Well, again there seems to be some conflation of involvement with distribution. Taxation is not distribution. Putting horrendous excise taxes on harmful substances is actually a much better deterrent to use than any "just say no" campaign.

    As far as making heroin safer, that's easily doable. Concentrations of the drug in its suspension could be lowered and the government would monitor the production the same way it does with alcohol. Historically, opiates have been available to the masses since they were discovered (see Laudanum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for starters). Certainly people became addicted, and many died, but the lethality of the drugs that are on the street today is largely the result of the fact that there is no system in place to monitor them. It's the difference between getting some foul toxin from a still and going to your liquor store to pick up a fifth. The government would not be endorsing drug use, any more than it does alcohol or tobacco use, it would be protecting citizens.

  2. #272
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    I'm not pro-drugs or anything, but thinking that prohibition will stop anything is sheer foolishness. If someone is an addict (and not just a recreational drug user) they will find a way to get drugs whether they're legal or not. Besides, putting people in jail doesn't stop the problem because people do drugs in jail. Rehab would be a better solution for the government to enact because at least it might be somewhat productive. I find it very interesting that the people who want the government to step in and keep drugs illegal are usually Republicans who claim they want "smaller government" o_O. Not only that but I think alcohol - which is legal - is a much worse substance than marijuana.

    There have already been many valid points made here, I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

  3. #273
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,877

    Default

    ^ To the above, Prohibition stopped me from trying drugs. THey were illegal, and I didn't want to break the law like that. So, I think it does help stop people.

    Juggernaut: If I were a druggie, I'd want my drugs to come from the government. I agree with this argument. It's the whole "We offically agree it's okay to purchase heroine" that I'm not in favor of. I'm a stickler for safety, and I like having safety standards on anything that needs them.. It's the major argument that makes me ask "What system do we in the US use to legalize all of this stuff?" to ya'll. I want to know a system that would make me think "Maybe this would work.. just enough for everyone to shut up a bit more than they already are."

    My stance on abortion is that even though I don't agree with it, I want it legal for the safety of the mother. Safety is my motivation.

    Since drugs have no safety to them at all, they're all bad for you, I need something that shows me we NEED this system. We NEED drugs legal because there's no way they can remain illegal. Not just because druggies wanna legally shoot up. I want to know where the absolute need is. Because my bias tells me that the kid on intervention yesterday needs heroine out of America entirely, not legal.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  4. #274
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    That's great that prohibition stopped you from trying drugs, but it never stopped me and thousands (probably more like millions) of other people. It's easier for a high school student to buy acid or ecstasy than alcohol...which is why I totally agree with you that drugs should be legal for safety purposes. At least then there could be age restrictions and clean needles, not to mention I believe there would be less violence surrounding the drug trade if they were legal.

    As for the person who said that if they were a druggie they would want their drugs to come from the government BWAH HA HA HA HAH. Have you ever actually known a drug addict? Someone who is truly addicted isn't going to be stopped by laws, or even human dignity.

  5. #275
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Kyuuei, why do you think alcohol is legal? Because the government officially agrees that that it's okay to purchase a chemical that destroys the body and causes thousands of deaths each year? The government got in on alcohol distribution for the same reason it should with drugs, to protect the public from the inevitable chaos that prohibition caused. It's not about endorsing drug use, it's about preventing the violence and other peril that the drug trade causes. There is nothing we can do to stop addicts from using, but we can try to make sure the stuff they put into their bodies is a little safer. We can also put drug lords out of business by destroying the market. This isn't a pro-drug position, it's a matter of governmental responsibility. Lifting the legal sanctions against drug use/distribution is a practical solution to a huge problem that we have, thus far, failed miserably at dealing with.

  6. #276
    Senior Member swordpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    ISTx
    Posts
    10,552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    Well, again there seems to be some conflation of involvement with distribution. Taxation is not distribution. Putting horrendous excise taxes on harmful substances is actually a much better deterrent to use than any "just say no" campaign.
    The only problem with putting a "horrendous excise tax" on harmful substances is that it's a stamp of approval by the government for sales and use. That is what I personally am against.

    As far as making heroin safer, that's easily doable. Concentrations of the drug in its suspension could be lowered and the government would monitor the production the same way it does with alcohol. Historically, opiates have been available to the masses since they were discovered (see Laudanum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for starters). Certainly people became addicted, and many died, but the lethality of the drugs that are on the street today is largely the result of the fact that there is no system in place to monitor them. It's the difference between getting some foul toxin from a still and going to your liquor store to pick up a fifth. The government would not be endorsing drug use, any more than it does alcohol or tobacco use, it would be protecting citizens.
    I stick to my guns when I say that heavy drugs are good for nothing but addiction. The problem there is that, yeah, the government could water the stuff down and do whatever to support "responsible" use, yet a dependency on drugs typically has that physiological effect where people build a tolerance and need more to achieve their high. People would buy more "legal" drugs or go elsewhere to get stuff that is more potent. Basically, that method is bunk.

  7. #277
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloud View Post
    There is a difference between nacrotics and drugs
    Narcotic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    nacrotics fuck up the human biochemistry, while drugs do not.

    As for freewill, you already lost it when you are enslaved by the drug.
    Macdonald's is not drugs, you don't get addicted to MacDonalds.
    Ah, have you ever heard of food addiction? Apparently not. Also, McDonalds influences people through heavy, heavy advertising - how else did they get to be one of the top three mega corps in the world?

    Alcohol fucks up your brain chemistry too. I've seen a great deal of mild brain damage in older alcoholics. People on alcohol beat their wives and hurt their children and kill innocent people in cars and die of alcohol poisoning. Alcohol can actually cause a form of dementia that is similar to alzheimer's. So - if you're going to argue that drugs should be illegal, at least be consistent and include alcohol too.

    I'm not "for" hard drugs at all, but I think that rehab is a more productive way of dealing with the problem than prison. As for marijuana, if alcohol and cigarrettes are legal, it should be too.

  8. #278
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    Kyuuei, why do you think alcohol is legal? Because the government officially agrees that that it's okay to purchase a chemical that destroys the body and causes thousands of deaths each year? The government got in on alcohol distribution for the same reason it should with drugs, to protect the public from the inevitable chaos that prohibition caused. It's not about endorsing drug use, it's about preventing the violence and other peril that the drug trade causes. There is nothing we can do to stop addicts from using, but we can try to make sure the stuff they put into their bodies is a little safer. We can also put drug lords out of business by destroying the market. This isn't a pro-drug position, it's a matter of governmental responsibility. Lifting the legal sanctions against drug use/distribution is a practical solution to a huge problem that we have, thus far, failed miserably at dealing with.
    But you realize that the government DOES endorse alcohol by having it legal? Just like they endorse abortion by having it legal. In the end, there is an official stamp of approval.

    So supply me with my request. I don't want a "You're brainwashed, drugs need to be legal.. but someone else can figure out how" argument. Tell me how they should be legal. What system would be beneficial? Would the amount of users be enough legally to produce self-sustaining organzations that control and inspect distributors? I want the system. I want the answer for your argument.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  9. #279
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beat View Post
    The only problem with putting a "horrendous excise tax" on harmful substances is that it's a stamp of approval by the government for sales and use. That is what I personally am against.
    Is the excise tax on cigarettes or alcohol a stamp of approval? That strikes me as a rather suspect claim.


    I stick to my guns when I say that heavy drugs are good for nothing but addiction. The problem there is that, yeah, the government could water the stuff down and do whatever to support "responsible" use, yet a dependency on drugs typically has that physiological effect where people build a tolerance and need more to achieve their high. People would buy more "legal" drugs are go elsewhere to get stuff that is more potent. Basically, that method is bunk.
    I take it you are not a consumer of alcohol. If I'm wrong, and you do in fact indulge on occassion, could you tell me the last time you obtained moonshine from a still? Most of the casual drinkers, and all of the alcoholics, I've known stick with the watered-down garbage "endorsed" by the government. Humans are basically lazy, and prefer to travel the path of least resistance. If I were an addict and I knew I could get so-so stuff down at my liquor store, rather than risk my life with something I'd get from a dealer, you bet I'd take the ersatz version. I respect your position, but your logic is somewhat flawed here.

  10. #280
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Watering down drugs wouldn't work, FWIW. The nature of them, and of addiction tolerance, ensures that more and more of it is required. Besides drugs essentially being 'poison' (inherently harmful in most cases at the dosages we need to injest for a notable effect), the main issue with them is that you lose rational control due to the need to get more and more of it. The only thing watering it down would do it get more people hooked - a major deterrent to hard drugs now is that they aren't safe.

    Yes, this is true for legal drugs too, although they aren't as harmful or addictive as most (properly classified) schedule 1/2 drugs.

Similar Threads

  1. If you'd liked to be typed . . .
    By amerellis in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 336
    Last Post: 09-07-2011, 12:32 AM
  2. Post a book you think everyone should read and say why
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 07-05-2011, 10:21 AM
  3. Funny the way it is, if you think about it ~
    By BoChelly in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-14-2010, 07:33 AM
  4. Which kind of function use do you think this might be?
    By Halfjillhalfjack in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-19-2009, 09:28 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO