User Tag List

First 19272829303139 Last

Results 281 to 290 of 472

  1. #281
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    FWIW, it's actually been working quite well in most states since the 1930s and all states since the 1960s . Repeal of Prohibition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<--This is fairly solid evidence that these slippery slope arguments are unsound. They have no logical or empirical basis. We don't create addicts by making safer products AND informing them, and the rest of the public, of the risks. The 'reefer madness' mentality is more likely to do that by enticing the young to get involved with things that are deemed "bad".

    The real issue, again, is safety. A monitored, controlled drug market is safer than the black market we currently have. The mere existence of such a thing will not create addicts. It will just keep them, marginally, safer. Even more importantly, it will keep those of us in the cross-fire much safer.

  2. #282
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    How about those of you in support of ALL drugs being legal show me how you envision the system? What drugs are legal in your eyes, how are they distrubuted, what sort of taxes are on them, and how do people get them? Are there monthly quotas you can buy? Restrictions of age, disabilities, limitations?

    Show me the system you think will work. Right now I'm envisioning chaos. I admit I don't like drugs, but I am always willing to listen to the other side. So give me what you're looking at so I can see it from your shoes.
    -All drugs would be legalized and regulated.

    -Safety standards would be put in place, under the authority of the FDA.

    -As far as production and sales goes, for stronger drugs, you would have to get some sort of licensing from the government in order to do so legally. The cost barrier shouldn't be too steep, otherwise you'll end up with a black market again. The idea is that you want drugs to be cheap enough that illegal dealers can't sell any cheaper, but you want them to be expensive enough that the government can exert control over the quality and distribution.

    -All drugs would be taxed, much like alcohol and cigarettes are now. This money would be used for treatment and the small amount of enforcement that would still be required. The more dangerous the drug, the higher the tax so people are encouraged to use lighter, safer drugs. But this must be done within reason. Again, you don't want any drugs to be so expensive that you encourage a black market.

    -I wouldn't necessarily be against the government keeping statistics on the buyers of harder drugs. We could require identification to purchase any (previously illegal) drug. Companies selling those drugs would have to comply, or face fines and the loss of their license. That information would be useful in implementing an effective treatment plan. We could also keep track of individuals who were purchasing suspiciously large amounts of drugs (perhaps selling to minors, etc). No one would go to prison for drug possession. Addicts would be able to seek treatment with no fear of being prosecuted.

    -The amount of drugs any individual can purchase at any one time would be limited. I don't know what the exact amount should be, but something like...no one should be able to buy more than a week's supply in a day. And if an individual purchases a week's supply and are back the next day for more, that should set off a red flag requiring further investigation (to see if they are reselling to minors, etc).

    -Illegal dealers would still be sent to prison, but now they would have an avenue to produce legally. They would face competition from large corporations, though. They probably wouldn't be able to manufacture drugs as cheaply. This would eventually force the cartels out of business or into legitimacy.

    -Also, pot would not be considered a hard drug. Anyone would be able to grow pot, no licenses required. This would make it virtually impossible to tax. But I'm sure some companies would make money selling "premium pot", or something like that. That's just a reality people need to accept, pot is difficult/impossible to control.

    This was written pretty quickly, so I probably didn't cover all my bases.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #283
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    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.
    I'm sure we'll eventually find a way to manufacture drugs that are less addictive/harmful, especially if corporations can make a profit off of a less addictive/harmful version. Are we even trying now?
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  4. #284
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I'm sure we'll eventually find a way to manufacture drugs that are less addictive, especially if corporations can make a profit off of a less addictive version. Are we even trying now?
    It's rather like saying we will make food that has less calories taste better. Pleasure = addiction, just as the fats/sugars/carbs to calories taste better. It's probably not something we will ever achieve. Restraint is a key component here - willingly turning down 'feeling good'. That's the issue with drugs... the will isn't there as a part of the nature of the drug. Drugs feel... too good.

    (Obviously a generalization given the current climate and as I have stated before, the current schedule of drugs is moronic.)

  5. #285
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    and as I have stated before, the current schedule of drugs is moronic

  6. #286
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    It's rather like saying we will make food that has less calories taste better. Pleasure = addiction, just as the fats/sugars/carbs to calories taste better. It's probably not something we will ever achieve. Restraint is a key component here - willingly turning down 'feeling good'. That's the issue with drugs... the will isn't there as a part of the nature of the drug. Drugs feel... too good.

    (Obviously a generalization given the current climate and as I have stated before, the current schedule of drugs is moronic.)
    We have done that with food. We have all kinds of low fat food. It's not necessarily more healthy, but we have altered the chemistry.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  7. #287
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Do you use heroine?
    I have in the past. I've smoked opium and done oxycodone and most of the other opioid prescription pills, as well.


    Are there people you know that use heroine?
    Yes, a few.


    Do they use it responsibly?
    For being immature drug users, yes, most of them do, actually.


    Because I know people who drink alcohol and not even they drink it the way it's recommended, and I would consider some of my friends alcoholics to boot.
    Agreed.


    I could understand this argument on pot.. but the rest of it? There are pills that can kill you after taking them once. Once! Making those legal? You've got to be kidding me, people would be suing the manufacturers so fast they'll shut down before the sign ever got put up. Does Australia sue nearly as much as we do in the US?
    Alcohol can kill you the first time. Cigarettes, when used properly, often kill you eventually. This is a silly argument.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #288
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    I wholeheartedly approve of the Evelyn Waugh signature.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  9. #289
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    We have done that with food. We have all kinds of low fat food. It's not necessarily more healthy, but we have altered the chemistry.
    It's the calories, not the source (not talking health, just the programming.)

    You can try an experiment. Eat cinnamon buns - overdose on cinnamon. Then add cinnamon to other dishes. For a while, you'll really like cinnamon. Then try adding it to calorie-empty dishes while eating another spice with calories. Soon you won't like cinnamon.

    It's a crappy analogy anyway The point is that drugs are drugs because they cause excessive 'goodness', which the body craves. They are inherently addictive... that's what makes them good. Even if they cause no physical dependency, the psychological dependency is wired (like the food example).

    edit: An interesting aside from this, I trained myself to eat cilantro by having it with a pork chop, simply by ordering a dish at my favorite restaurant that fried it with the pork chop. Like it in the sense that I now eat it like salad o_O

  10. #290
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    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.
    Well, we've already got a system in place that we can look to for a model, the alcohol market. Also, Lateralus has done a lovely job of fleshing that out if you want the details of how it would apply here.

    Please keep in mind that making things safer for the public is not an endorsement. To draw an analogy, I have three sons. Two of them are physically mature enough to engage in sexual activity. I would much rather that they waited until they were in stable, long-term relationships than go out and risk their health with strangers. Nevertheless, I know that this is an unreasonable expectation so I give them what they need to be safe in terms of information and products designed to maintain their well-being. Do I endorse their behavior? Certainly not. Do I have a responsibility to try to keep them as safe as possible even though I disagree with the choices they may make? Definitely.

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