Do you have a point? Or is this just a blatant appeal to authority?I say No, using my reasoning we would compare ecstasy to heroin, or other similar illegal recreational street drug that alters normal brain function. BTW, "recreational drug" is a legal term and I provided the definition for you in a previous post. The U.S. separately defines narcotic drugs and controlled substances, which may include non-drugs, and explicitly excludes tobacco, caffeine and alcoholic beverages. And implicitly excludes french fries. Yes, I just weeded out the 'real' arbitrary data.
You're assuming a lot with these statements. What's out of control is drug trafficking violence. What's out of control is the fact that young, inner city kids see the easy money they can get selling drugs (which is only possible because of prohibition) and decide school isn't that important, so they end up either dead or in prison and the cycle continues. What's out of control is the fact that the US imprisons a higher percentage of its people than any other nation on the planet, including bastions of freedom like North Korea and Iran.Why arbitrary? Besides the obvious, we don't add fuel to a fire that's already out of control. We don't half-ass remove laws and hope for the best.
No one plans on "half-ass" removing any laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
You can't write a single post on this subject without accusing your "opponent" of being a drug user. Pathetic.You want your sammich? You want your drugs? ...Cry me a river.
We already have laws against that. It's called DUI. While we're on this subject, I would have no problem if the penalty for your first DUI offense was life in prison. Driving under the influence is an incredibly reckless act that we take far too lightly. But what is reckless is the driving while intoxicated, not the drinking. We should punish what is actually a crime, and nothing more. The same should apply to drug use. Use all you want, but once you cross that line and harm someone else, it's over for you.I don't care about freedoms for someone that wants to take street ecstasy for recreational purposes (i.e., as one member indicated, "getting in touch with other planes of existence") and possibly irresponsibly taking out a family in an SUV while driving under the influence.
Do you feel more freedom knowing that many police officers get corrupted by the War on Drugs? Do you feel more freedom knowing that in certain neighborhoods innocent people get caught in the crossfire of drug turf wars? Probably. As long as it's not your neighborhood, why would you care?I feel more freedom knowing I live in a society where street ecstasy is illegal and law enforcement gets the users off the streets that my tax dollars pay for. Yes, I'm happy to pay for their prison stay to get them out of my hair. Have a nice life. I don't use illegal drugs, thus I don't feel my freedoms are taken away. I'm sorry for those that do, but seriously seek professional help, a travel agent, a fun hobby, anything. There are safer, more productive, more fulfilling, more rewarding recreational activities out there with longer-term benefits than taking street drugs. Take care of you.
And if it was legalized, it wouldn't contain these other substances. The FDA would regulate it. What a stupid argument.A street ecstasy pill may contain a cocktail of psychedelics and stimulants: ephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), dextromethorphan, amphetamine, methamphetamine, ketamine, LSD, and heroin.
Again, if it was legalized, we could make it so that it is no longer "dirty". What a stupid argument, yet you used it twice in the same post.Perhaps you are talking about Ecstasy being legalized for medicinal purposes? which I believe MDMA may already be in the process of being legalized, but it appears most other members here are talking about legalization of street drugs for recreational usage, which is a controversial issue that I most often hear debated. And again, street ecstasy is dirty (see the possible ingredients I listed above).
A "free-for-all lawless society"? Really? Can you show me where anyone has said there shouldn't be any laws? A lot of pro-legalization people want most drugs to be handled similarly to how alcohol is handled. Would you characterize the way alcohol is currently handled as a "free-for-all" or lawless? I sure wouldn't. This is another straw man argument by you.I'm guessing street ecstasy would be quite different from MDMA that one would get lagally from a pharmacy. I have no problem with doctors prescribing drugs for legitimate ailments and educating people on drug interaction and dosage. I do have a problem with a free-for-all lawless society where people do whatever the heck they want without regard for their own safety or the safety of others.
Mexico did NOT legalize drugs. Get your facts straight. Mexico decriminalized possession of small amounts of some drugs. This does absolutely nothing to address the violence by the cartels because the cartels move drugs in much larger amounts and that is STILL ILLEGAL.Let's look at Mexico for a moment. What has happened south of the border since a 'model' law has been enacted legalizing drugs?
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Mexico was run by drug lords LONG before this law was passed. And to try to argue that this law somehow made Mexican drug lords so powerful is beyond stupid. They get their money from selling drugs in the US, and this law had absolutely no affect on the part of the drug trade. Zilch. Zero.There has developed an out and out war among drug dealers that have killed thousands over a four year period during which drugs have been for all intents and purposes legalized. Mexico is practically run by drug lords now.
If this is what you learned, then your teacher sucked. Have you ever heard of the allure of the forbidden?Based on what I learned in Psychology 101, I'll theorize that people are more likely to avoid taking illegal drugs, if there are negative consequences for their behavior: jail time, fines, a felony...
There's no need to flip a coin. If it's legal for ecstasy to be advertised, it will be. If it's not, it won't be. We probably both agree that advertising ecstasy on billboards is not a good idea, so I don't think it's something for you to worry about. There's no need for you to grasp for this straw anymore.lolz, Alcohol is on a billboard. Cigs are not. So what. Let's flip a coin for ecstasy then.