News:

Departing the Vacuousness

Main Menu

War on Drugs

Started by Intercourseman72, September 23, 2010, 03:50:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Intercourseman72

I couldn't find this topic on this forum or under the "Social Issues and Causes" category, so I will make it now.

Almost everyone I know (at least every atheist) has no problem with cannabis being legalized. It is arguably the least negatively consequential thing that could happen to any society. What's the absolute very worst that could ever happen? People get stonded shitless whilst driving and drive 30mph under the speed limit and do no harm at all to anyone else? Kind of a no brainer unless you've suffered enormous amounts of brain trauma as a result of alcohol. As the whole saying around this controversy goes; "pot isn't even as dangerous as alcohol." The understatement of the millenium.

The issue I want to propose is as follows: what is you principle for being for or against bans on drugs (intoxicating substances including alcohol)? I honestly see no benefit whatsoever in prohibiting the use/sale/distribution of any drug regardless of its mythicalized potency or whatever else. People who can keep their drug use to themselves and avoid damaging the safety of people around them don't pose a threat to anyone. People who pose a threat to others should be dealt with whether they have a propensity for drug use/abuse or not. If they abuse/use drugs and cause safety problems, that's another issue and should be dealt with accordingly. But otherwise, there is literally no consequence if they can restrict the harm of their drug use to themselves. Whether it be the "hard" drugs, which I would argue are not nearly as volatile as alcohol, or "mild" drugs, people should by no means be harassed, persecuted, or in any other way violently bullied for doing such a thing by 3rd party arbitrators.

What seems to purvey this for other people is not the principle of whether or not people can go about their lives without being harassed by various (violent) people, but how powerful and/or acceptable the substances they take are. If the substances people take are so powerful such that we perceive them as being scary (meth, cocaine, MDMA, heroin, ect) then they should be subject to a different amount of legal action as opposed to users of acceptable drugs like cigarettes, alcohol, methadone, vicotin, prozac, etc. What this often yields itself to is an argument against the use of drugs as opposed to an argument whether or not certain drugs should be illegal.

I find most people fall under one of these categories or perhaps a mix of them. All varying levels of punitive punishment involved.
1. All drugs outside of prescription drugs, tobacco, and alcohol should be illegal.
2. Drug laws should be less draconian than they are now, but still basically the same.
3. We should legalize "lighter drugs" like cannabis or shrooms (maybe even some other hallucinogenics) full with no taxes or regulations.
4. We should legalize these "lighter drugs" with taxes and regulations.
5. We should legalize all drugs regardless of our perceived dangers of them and tax and regulate the shit out of them.
6. Who cares? We should just allow free enterprise to allocate the use of drugs.

Honestly, I belong to category 6 of the outline. I do not wish to partake in the use or associate with those who use almost any drug but could not care less how other people decide to choose their own life styles independent of my own. Obviously there are plenty of unprincipled busy bodies who want to control and socially engineer people into doing certain things, but I see that as a selfish way of advancing one's own dogmatic ideologies and violently imposing them onto everyone else. It really is a peppeve of mine to see people campaigning and advocating a certain life-style for people other than themselves whether it be recreational, religious, hygienic, personal, economical, etc. I see it as a way for people to live vicariously through society and see it as a reflection of themselves so they can feel either accomplished or disappointed.

So anyway, post your general positions and arguments regarding the prohibition of drugs. It doesn't matter where you live, share your thoughts.

Tom62

What ever someone wants to do with his/her body is not the business of the police, unless that person causes harm to others. For me there is no difference, whether someone is drunk or stoned while driving; or whether he/she steals to buy cocaine or booze. When stopped by the police, it is that driving under influence part that should be punished; not the possession of drugs.

Fact is, that is impossible to stop the flow of drugs coming into the country. Question is how to deal with that fact. Trying to "control" the drugs problem by demonizing the drugs users; penalizing them for their (unhealthy) habits? Or trying to help the drugs users, to get rid of their drugs dependency? I think that the last approach is much better. I also believe that the illegality of drugs makes them exciting for people, who are still in their experimenting drugs phase. Legalizing drugs would solve many problems. It will move the drugs-traffic out of criminal hands and provides better control over the quality, quantity and prices of the drugs.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

Sophus

I guess I'm somewhere between a four and a five. I think cannabis should be legal as well as a lot of other drugs, that way they'll be cleaner. However, substances commonly used as "date rape" drugs should be kept illegal. Probably Meth, too, because it's dangerous to make.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

Dretlin

I can only speak on my experiences and most of my information is only relevant to Scotland.  

Most of the drugs that are attempted to be smuggled into Scotland make it through, this is a face the police in are very open about. I can not quite remember the statistic but Scotland actually has a higher ratio of cocaine users than even America.

The war on drugs is most likely unwinnable, drugs need to be classed as an issue of health and not a criminal issue.

Portugal decriminalized drugs, but whether that would work in different countries is more difficult to see.

Personally, yes I have indulged in the past. Now I abstain.

Asmodean

I think if someone wants to get high, they should be entitled to the opportunity as long as I don't have to be pestered by them begging for money, stealing stuff or just lying around in a heap of needles.

However, as long as the stuff they use comes from the illegal manufacturing industry, I'm very much opposed to any drug use.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

The Magic Pudding

For Free Drugs
Criminals will be deprived of income.
Some countries may find it easier to maintain order.
Crime perpetrated to finance habits would plummet.
Save money locking people away.
Save money employing people to lock people away
If it is recognised that some humans seek a high, some non damaging solutions may be found.
Insurance costs would fall.

Against Free Drugs
Criminals have lost an income stream, they'll find another.
If every body is on drugs, we'll all have to eat cheese snacks.
Politicians will have to find something else to vilify.
It will be more unsafe on the road.

It would be nice to have the issues discussed reasonably.

jduster

Sorry libertarians, but street drugs are far too pervasive to become legal.  Cigarettes, for example, are ubiquitous.  Imagine if the same amount of people were victim to much harsher drugs such as methamphetamine or cocaine.  And if street drugs are ever legalized, they would pervade too much and will never be able to made illegal again for that reason.  Similar to how cigarettes cost the U.S. economy dozens of billions each year, harsher drugs would cost more for the U.S. economy.  I wouldn't even advocate for the legalization of marijuana; that would be a gateway.

Libertarians say "you do what you wish with your body; it's not the government's job to take care of you".  What they fail to understand is that government has already taken the role as a paternal caregiver in our society.  If the government legalizes heroin; it would put a huge strain on the taxpayers for the welfare state to fund methadone clinics and such.

Intercourseman72

Quote from: "jduster"Sorry libertarians, but street drugs are far too pervasive to become legal.  Cigarettes, for example, are ubiquitous.  Imagine if the same amount of people were victim to much harsher drugs such as methamphetamine or cocaine.

You are presuming not only that the use of these drugs will necessarily increase if they are legalized, but you also use language to indicate that the same amount of people could use these drugs as smoke cigarettes if they were legalized. This is an unsubstantiated presupposition that not only is purely speculative and has no evidence for it but actually it has much evidence against it. Take the amount of people who take cannabis and psilocybin mushrooms in Amsterdam before they allowed people to use it legally and after.  Even take that study that was already posted on this thread about the decriminalization of drug use in Portugal. Also consider that when these drugs are illegal they are sold at a much higher price and at much higher profit margins, thus attracting pushers to sell them to anyone and everyone with more urgency than would under a legal market.

QuoteAnd if street drugs are ever legalized, they would pervade too much and will never be able to made illegal again for that reason.  Similar to how cigarettes cost the U.S. economy dozens of billions each year, harsher drugs would cost more for the U.S. economy.  I wouldn't even advocate for the legalization of marijuana; that would be a gateway.

So since heroin was once legal it pervaded society so much that it couldn't be made illegal originally? "Harsher drugs", which I would contend and actually less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol, already cost the US health care system in ER costs and in addiction treatment. Not to mention, the drug war costs tens of billions in law enforcement and incarceration. Seriously, if you want to bring up this cost issue, try considering what drug prohibition already costs. And that gateway drug thing is yet again a purely unsubstantiated speculative claim that doesn't even make sense. The only conceivable reason it could be considered a gateway drug (and even this claim under current conditions is demonstrably false http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 073507.htm) is because it's sold by the same kinds of dealers who sell "harsher" drugs. If it were to be sold at legitimate businesses, do you honestly think that it would still be a gateway drug then? They sell energy drinks at the same stores they sell cigarettes and beer though. Would you consider them to be gateway substances to those things also? I bet you could find plenty of statistics showing that almost every smoker and/or drinker started on those energy drinks.

QuoteLibertarians say "you do what you wish with your body; it's not the government's job to take care of you".  What they fail to understand is that government has already taken the role as a paternal caregiver in our society.

Also keep in mind you don't have a choice in whether or not the government is the primary caregiver. You have to pay them regardless if you want to or not. So regardless whether or not the government actually does supposedly take care of everyone, that doesn't mean it's their job and it doesn't mean it is qualified to be such a thing.
 
QuoteIf the government legalizes heroin; it would put a huge strain on the taxpayers for the welfare state to fund methadone clinics and such.
I already addressed this.

Anyway, I know I responded rather seriously despite knowing that this is obviously a troll post with very generic arguments filled with easily torn down myths and fallacies, but why not get a little back and forth going at the meat of the issue even if it is responding to a troll comment?

And btw, wanting drugs to be legal or decriminalized does not make you a libertarian. It simply means you are against the asinine concept of drug prohibition.
You could be a follower of pretty much any political ideology (except maybe a theocratic police statist?) and still oppose drug prohibition.

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "jduster"I wouldn't even advocate for the legalization of marijuana; that would be a gateway.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy.  Milk, by this standard, is a gateway.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

pinkocommie

Quote from: "jduster"Sorry libertarians, but street drugs are far too pervasive to become legal.  Cigarettes, for example, are ubiquitous.  Imagine if the same amount of people were victim to much harsher drugs such as methamphetamine or cocaine.  And if street drugs are ever legalized, they would pervade too much and will never be able to made illegal again for that reason.  Similar to how cigarettes cost the U.S. economy dozens of billions each year, harsher drugs would cost more for the U.S. economy.  I wouldn't even advocate for the legalization of marijuana; that would be a gateway.

Libertarians say "you do what you wish with your body; it's not the government's job to take care of you".  What they fail to understand is that government has already taken the role as a paternal caregiver in our society.  If the government legalizes heroin; it would put a huge strain on the taxpayers for the welfare state to fund methadone clinics and such.

Can you site some sources for your information here please?

Also, the concept of gateway drugs - as thumpy pointed out - is total bs.  Claiming that marijuana is a gateway to other drug use is like claiming that breathing air is a gateway to drug use.  Technically you may be correct, but that doesn't mean that observation is relevant in the way you seem to think it is.

Your last sentence is kind of misleading - do you honestly believe that a major obstacle currently keeping people from becoming heroine addicts is the illegal status of the substance?  In fact, when has prohibition ever actually worked?  I thought that generally drug addicts are drug addicts regardless of legality - though I could be wrong about that.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/

Thumpalumpacus

#10
Quote from: "jduster"If the government legalizes heroin; it would put a huge strain on the taxpayers for the welfare state to fund methadone clinics and such.

Damn, I about missed this.  Don't you think these can be funded by the taxes on the legal drugs, with perhaps some money left over for the general fund?

I haven't crunched the numbers, but I don't see that as being outside the realm of possibility.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Sophus

Quote from: "jduster"I wouldn't even advocate for the legalization of marijuana; that would be a gateway.

I don't think so. Not if people were to put it into perspective. Marijuana is nowhere near as bad for the health as alcohol or tobacco. Cannabis can actually have health benefits. There's no comparison to other drugs.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

Tank

Quote from: "Sophus"
Quote from: "jduster"I wouldn't even advocate for the legalization of marijuana; that would be a gateway.

I don't think so. Not if people were to put it into perspective. Marijuana is nowhere near as bad for the health as alcohol or tobacco. Cannabis can actually have health benefits. There's no comparison to other drugs.
Why does tobacco smoke cause cancer and Marijuana smoke not cause cancer? This thought has always intrigued me. One can't buy filter tip splifs AFAIK so is Marijuana smoke inherently less dangerous than tobacco? Or is it that smoking 40 splifs a day is pretty much an impossibility? Is there a sort of dope feedback loop that stops the consumer smoking more dope?

The smoke issue is interesting as the WHO put wood smoke as one of the highest health risk factors facing people who cook over an open fire. Smoke is not good for lungs. There are combustion chemicals and particulate matter that would effect the lungs of the user/inhaler. Without evidence I would contend that there would be no reason to consider the smoke of any one leaf to be any less or more harmful than any other leaf in terms of combustion by products. I realise that there is nicotine in tobacco smoke and this is the addictive substance which may well be the cause of chain smoking, but other than that is tobacco smoke any more harmful than any other smoke?
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

The Magic Pudding

Quote from: "Tank"
Quote from: "Sophus"
Quote from: "jduster"I wouldn't even advocate for the legalization of marijuana; that would be a gateway.

I don't think so. Not if people were to put it into perspective. Marijuana is nowhere near as bad for the health as alcohol or tobacco. Cannabis can actually have health benefits. There's no comparison to other drugs.
Why does tobacco smoke cause cancer and Marijuana smoke not cause cancer? This thought has always intrigued me. One can't buy filter tip splifs AFAIK so is Marijuana smoke inherently less dangerous than tobacco? Or is it that smoking 40 splifs a day is pretty much an impossibility? Is there a sort of dope feedback loop that stops the consumer smoking more dope?

The smoke issue is interesting as the WHO put wood smoke as one of the highest health risk factors facing people who cook over an open fire. Smoke is not good for lungs. There are combustion chemicals and particulate matter that would effect the lungs of the user/inhaler. Without evidence I would contend that there would be no reason to consider the smoke of any one leaf to be any less or more harmful than any other leaf in terms of combustion by products. I realise that there is nicotine in tobacco smoke and this is the addictive substance which may well be the cause of chain smoking, but other than that is tobacco smoke any more harmful than any other smoke?
Smoking marijuana involves breathing smoke in deeply and holding it.
So although smoking less than tobacco smokers, the potential for damage is there.
I don't think it would be too hard to produce a product from marijuana that is safer than smoking it.
http://www.poisoncentertampa.org/poisonous-plants.aspx
QuoteOleander, Lily of the Valley, Foxglove      All parts of the plants are poisonous if swallowed or if smoke from a burning plant is inhaled. Symptoms include nausea, vomiting, stomach cramps, dizziness, low blood pressure, slow pulse and seizures.

Tank

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"I don't think it would be too hard to produce a product from marijuana that is safer than smoking it.

There is a company in the UK working on extracting, refining and medicalising the active compounds in Marijuana, and it can always be added to cakes  :D
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.