• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Shouldn't We Legalize?

I disagree. We've never actually tried prohibition. We don't go anywhere near far enough in punishing drug users and their suppliers. We do not hold dry users (including drunks) responsible for their actions while under the influence. We need to hold people to a higher mor standard if we ever want this nation to become great again.

You forgot about the prohibition already?
 
You forgot about the prohibition already?

Neither Prohibition nor the current War on Drugs have been carried out with any ferocity. How many of these worthless bags of feces have been executed? How many have had their entire estates sized? How many have lost their Rights and their Citizenship?

Talk to me when we start penalizing these worthless wastes of flesh and oxygen.
 
Thank you for this conversation which exemplifies "civil discourse". I wish everyone could learn how to argue their case without anger or insult.

Lets address the single most important thing about this entire discussion. There is absolutely no interest in Washington DC to legalize recreational drugs. Three wealthy and powerful groups have insured their positions by donating millions of dollars to our leaders. Our politicians are bought and paid for and anyone who thinks otherwise is admirable naive.

I understand that reality which is why I like the idea that this sort of thing is being presented in terms of profitability and taking the money that normally goes into criminal profits for the legal businesses. I do see the obstacles of money out there. There is the for profit prison industry. There is a danger to prescription drugs from the use of cheaper alternatives. There are the political whores like DARE that make a lot of money off of anti-drug campaigning. There is also a huge and popular market out there for some of these drugs. I cannot say there is enough of a market for a drug like heroin to push it's fully legal recreational use, but something like Pot has a lot of money to be made off of it. The desire for pot has got to rival both tobacco and alcohol. That is huge.
The alcohol industry - will do whatever it takes to keep their destructive product legal and dampen its competition.

The prison industry - will do whatever it takes to continue expanding their business. Think of the judges who have been caught sentencing innocents just to fill the rooms.

The DEA industry - will do whatever it takes to remain relevant. How do you think these cartels operate with near impunity? Bundles of cash, bundles of cas.

The Medical industry - right now, MDs are the drug dealers. Have you ever gone to a Pain Management clinic? Watched the anxious customers waiting for the fix? This is BIG business.

Then there is the simple fact that anyone who doesn't use/take drugs, tends to view drug use as not just illegal, but immoral. So, politically speaking, it is suicidal to advocate legalization.

Though i agree there are great big huge well funded obstacles, and investments in the present system of prohibition, there is also a lot of money to be made off the legalization of drugs. I would not rate it as unpopular or politically hazardous as you. I would say presently full legalization of all substances is not going to float. The analysis that pot is a gateway drug might actually hold true in this case. When people see the money that can be made off of it and the money they can funnel into legitimate business when not making prisons I am pretty sure that some will start to see the benefits of popular drugs. Right now the unpopular nature of drugs is due in large part to a massive propaganda campaign. There is a huge problem with the new free open information front of the internet in regards to that, and things are not going back to small well controlled media for propaganda. I am not saying they will not adapt the campaign, but things are changing and the state may be getting more tools, but they cannot keep up with the overwhelming production of society. That is why I think that the argument is going to change in the near future. I would have agreed years ago it would be slow, but seeing how far gays have come due to this I cannot say that anymore.
Now, add to that the laws and treaties. Sure, we (the intelligentsia of DP) feel that these laws should be changed and these treaties abrogated. But this is much easier said than done. We are a member of the UN, no matter how little regard we may hold for it. We threatened other countries into these agreements and there is no legal, practical way of exiting these agreements. Again, we think we could just sy "go **** yourself" to any other country but really, it doesn't work that way. When we went into the torture business, we did so illegally and we caused ourselves much embarrassment. And this was small scale - we tortured only a few hundred people and we did it "behind closed doors". Legalizing drugs is far more visible and I doubt we are prepared to defy the world.

I don't doubt you are correct in that it will have it's problems. I am also under no delusion that the illegal profits of drugs do not influence those political structures. I think one of the biggest problems legalized drugs actually has is the current distributors. There is a very real danger to the life of any politician that starts successfully pitching legalized drugs. I completely agree that you will put a lot of big money concerns on the same side as criminal syndicates which is absolutely going to lead to some conflict.

This is why i actually want things to move slowly. If you made drugs legal tomorrow you would have a war. Slower implementation allows legitimate business to buy out their opposition. States and businesses will soon see the profit of legalized recreational weed. Big money like that which deals with alcohol and tobacco will eventually see that pot is not an alternative, but a additive market. When that gets realized the push will come from big money for legitimate distribution. The rich criminals who are smart and powerful will sell out and the tide will turn against the other side. When the money comes the campaign to advertise the benefits of pot will come and that will destroy large parts of the effects of the anti-propaganda. A slow integration would work much better and allow us to confront the problems that would arise without overburdening ourselves. personally i would like them to all be legal tomorrow, but i do respect the nature of the world and that it would be a huge problem just to legalize them without thought.
Now, its time for drug chat:)

Heroin is as good as Oxycontin. It does the same thing and affects the MU receptors in the same way. Both make you "high" in the sense that they make your aches and pains disappear which gives you euphoria.

Have you done both? I am not saying they are not similar, but even small variations can be big effects for a user. For a medical purpose of pain killing doctors would presumably prescribe the least dangerous alternative. From a recreational users perspective the effects of the two do differ and therefor do not actually do the same thing. Think of it like any preference you have. you like a certain flavor of ice cream so that is what you are most likely to eat when you have it. In reality the other flavors may be enjoyable and have the same effect, but for recreational eating you are going to most often chose something you enjoy the most. Other things would be an option in a purely recreational environment, but may not be the drug of choice.
Cocaine is a member of the Caine family and thus is just a variant of cocaine. Personally, I thik cocaine is a silly drug but it certainly has its aficionados.

I would certainly agree on that view of cocaine. It has an effect, but unless i am looking for a long party and to piss away a lot of money it really is not that great. If it were cheaper and legal i would probably use it more, but I would be much more bothered if they took away my coffee.
The arguments against marijuana are much weaker. Even this euphoric (as opposed to narcotic or stimulant) will never be legalized at the Federal level.

i just do not see it that way. I just see the tide turning and legitimate business wanting a piece of the profits, and perhaps the whole damned thing, and that is what is going to eventually legalize it. I could see that point with a less popular harder drug, but pot is pretty low end and harmless in reality. I could see a company not wanting to be associated with making people heroin junkies, but stoners are a bit different. I think when pot becomes legal, which i feel is actually coming, the other drugs will become more attractive to the greedy in legitimate business and that will help to legalize them. I think pot is inevitable at this point. About the least i could see is the fed abandoning it, and leaving it to the states to decide. There is only so hard you can squeeze the people, and the prison industrial complex is reaching it's limit.
So, you see, this is a lost cause. I just cooked some Slo-Mo and I'm about to fix. Ooooh, ah, that feels really, realllly gooooooooooooooood.

I see it in the other way. There are obstacles but the wave is overtaking them. I also think slow movement towards legalization would be the most logical way to proceed.
 
Neither Prohibition nor the current War on Drugs have been carried out with any ferocity. How many of these worthless bags of feces have been executed? How many have had their entire estates sized? How many have lost their Rights and their Citizenship?

Talk to me when we start penalizing these worthless wastes of flesh and oxygen.

Ferocity? You really don't know much about the history of Prohibition do you? It is true that back during Prohibition most efforts were focused on the organizations which produced, shipped, and sold liquor illegally in the USA. Combating organized crime was a pretty ferocious business back then; in fact it led to the usage of income tax evasion as a major crime fighting tool. But the government didn't focus so much on the end user; the common citizen. That was because back then our government had a bit more concern for individual rights than it's does today.

The current war on drugs? The ONLY way to make it more ferocious would be to start declaring REAL war on the various nations where many drugs are produced; like Columbia, Bolivia, Mexico, Myanmar (Burma), Laos, Afghanistan (we already have troops there), and Iran.

It is raging very ferociously within our own country as police forces adopt military tactics to combat gang groups who produce meth, pot, MDMA, and acid; or distribute heroin and other opiates, and cocaine products. Millions of people, including juveniles are jailed, multi-millions already have criminal records. Property is confiscated and retained by the State even if no drugs are discovered. Warfare is in the streets of every city and town where drugs are prevelant. None of this has been prevented by any laws ever passed since drugs first became illegal.

How much more ferocious do you think it can get?
 
Ferocity? You really don't know much about the history of Prohibition do you? It is true that back during Prohibition most efforts were focused on the organizations which produced, shipped, and sold liquor illegally in the USA. Combating organized crime was a pretty ferocious business back then; in fact it led to the usage of income tax evasion as a major crime fighting tool. But the government didn't focus so much on the end user; the common citizen. That was because back then our government had a bit more concern for individual rights than it's does today.

The current war on drugs? The ONLY way to make it more ferocious would be to start declaring REAL war on the various nations where many drugs are produced; like Columbia, Bolivia, Mexico, Myanmar (Burma), Laos, Afghanistan (we already have troops there), and Iran.

It is raging very ferociously within our own country as police forces adopt military tactics to combat gang groups who produce meth, pot, MDMA, and acid; or distribute heroin and other opiates, and cocaine products. Millions of people, including juveniles are jailed, multi-millions already have criminal records. Property is confiscated and retained by the State even if no drugs are discovered. Warfare is in the streets of every city and town where drugs are prevelant. None of this has been prevented by any laws ever passed since drugs first became illegal.

How much more ferocious do you think it can get?

Show me the Body Count. Show me the true military style tactics being used. Show me people who are being treated as POWs and Traitors to this country, not as just criminals. Once you can show me THAT, I'll start believing we give a **** about the war on drugs. Until we start treating it like a war (including making consequences very clear to the government where this **** comes from) it's not being taken seriously enough in my mind.
 
Great post Tererun. I'm on my way out but I'll give you the thoughtful response this deserves later today.

I understand that reality which is why I like the idea that this sort of thing is being presented in terms of profitability and taking the money that normally goes into criminal profits for the legal businesses. I do see the obstacles of money out there. There is the for profit prison industry. There is a danger to prescription drugs from the use of cheaper alternatives. There are the political whores like DARE that make a lot of money off of anti-drug campaigning. There is also a huge and popular market out there for some of these drugs. I cannot say there is enough of a market for a drug like heroin to push it's fully legal recreational use, but something like Pot has a lot of money to be made off of it. The desire for pot has got to rival both tobacco and alcohol. That is huge.


Though i agree there are great big huge well funded obstacles, and investments in the present system of prohibition, there is also a lot of money to be made off the legalization of drugs. I would not rate it as unpopular or politically hazardous as you. I would say presently full legalization of all substances is not going to float. The analysis that pot is a gateway drug might actually hold true in this case. When people see the money that can be made off of it and the money they can funnel into legitimate business when not making prisons I am pretty sure that some will start to see the benefits of popular drugs. Right now the unpopular nature of drugs is due in large part to a massive propaganda campaign. There is a huge problem with the new free open information front of the internet in regards to that, and things are not going back to small well controlled media for propaganda. I am not saying they will not adapt the campaign, but things are changing and the state may be getting more tools, but they cannot keep up with the overwhelming production of society. That is why I think that the argument is going to change in the near future. I would have agreed years ago it would be slow, but seeing how far gays have come due to this I cannot say that anymore.


I don't doubt you are correct in that it will have it's problems. I am also under no delusion that the illegal profits of drugs do not influence those political structures. I think one of the biggest problems legalized drugs actually has is the current distributors. There is a very real danger to the life of any politician that starts successfully pitching legalized drugs. I completely agree that you will put a lot of big money concerns on the same side as criminal syndicates which is absolutely going to lead to some conflict.

This is why i actually want things to move slowly. If you made drugs legal tomorrow you would have a war. Slower implementation allows legitimate business to buy out their opposition. States and businesses will soon see the profit of legalized recreational weed. Big money like that which deals with alcohol and tobacco will eventually see that pot is not an alternative, but a additive market. When that gets realized the push will come from big money for legitimate distribution. The rich criminals who are smart and powerful will sell out and the tide will turn against the other side. When the money comes the campaign to advertise the benefits of pot will come and that will destroy large parts of the effects of the anti-propaganda. A slow integration would work much better and allow us to confront the problems that would arise without overburdening ourselves. personally i would like them to all be legal tomorrow, but i do respect the nature of the world and that it would be a huge problem just to legalize them without thought.


Have you done both? I am not saying they are not similar, but even small variations can be big effects for a user. For a medical purpose of pain killing doctors would presumably prescribe the least dangerous alternative. From a recreational users perspective the effects of the two do differ and therefor do not actually do the same thing. Think of it like any preference you have. you like a certain flavor of ice cream so that is what you are most likely to eat when you have it. In reality the other flavors may be enjoyable and have the same effect, but for recreational eating you are going to most often chose something you enjoy the most. Other things would be an option in a purely recreational environment, but may not be the drug of choice.


I would certainly agree on that view of cocaine. It has an effect, but unless i am looking for a long party and to piss away a lot of money it really is not that great. If it were cheaper and legal i would probably use it more, but I would be much more bothered if they took away my coffee.


i just do not see it that way. I just see the tide turning and legitimate business wanting a piece of the profits, and perhaps the whole damned thing, and that is what is going to eventually legalize it. I could see that point with a less popular harder drug, but pot is pretty low end and harmless in reality. I could see a company not wanting to be associated with making people heroin junkies, but stoners are a bit different. I think when pot becomes legal, which i feel is actually coming, the other drugs will become more attractive to the greedy in legitimate business and that will help to legalize them. I think pot is inevitable at this point. About the least i could see is the fed abandoning it, and leaving it to the states to decide. There is only so hard you can squeeze the people, and the prison industrial complex is reaching it's limit.


I see it in the other way. There are obstacles but the wave is overtaking them. I also think slow movement towards legalization would be the most logical way to proceed.
 
Show me the Body Count. Show me the true military style tactics being used. Show me people who are being treated as POWs and Traitors to this country, not as just criminals. Once you can show me THAT, I'll start believing we give a **** about the war on drugs. Until we start treating it like a war (including making consequences very clear to the government where this **** comes from) it's not being taken seriously enough in my mind.

:rofl Show you the body count? :rofl

I don't have to show you, just GOOGLE IT! Seriously, do you NOT watch the news? Have you done any research? :shock:

My God, I'm stunned that you really have that attitude. Here's a couple of websites that provide some info:

5,700 people killed between 2006 and 2010 due to war on drugs: Drug War-Related Homicides In The US Average At Least 1,100 a Year | the narcosphere

In 2012 63 people were killed of whom 8 were police killed in the line of duty and 43 civilians killed by police during the U.S. domestic drug law enforcement. 2011 Drug War Killings | StoptheDrugWar.org

We also know from Justice Dept. Statistics that between 2003-2005 police officers killed 1,095 citizens pursuant to an arrest though it is hard to determine how many of those 1,095 killed that 3 year period were drug/gang related?

Strangely, despite all the daily news reports we see over the years about shootouts during drug raids and arrests, the government does not keep ANY statistics on how many citizens are killed each year due to the war on drugs. Funny huh?
 
Last edited:
:rofl Show you the body count? :rofl

I don't have to show you, just GOOGLE IT! Seriously, do you NOT watch the news? Have you done any research? :shock:

My God, I'm stunned that you really have that attitude. Here's a couple of websites that provide some info:

5,700 people killed each year between 2006 and 2010 due to war on drugs: Drug War-Related Homicides In The US Average At Least 1,100 a Year | the narcosphere

In 2012 63 people were killed of whom 8 were police killed in the line of duty and 43 civilians killed by police during the U.S. domestic drug law enforcement. 2011 Drug War Killings | StoptheDrugWar.org

Strangely, despite all the daily news reports we see over the years about shootouts during drug raids and arrests, the government does not keep ANY statistics on how many citizens are killed each year due to the war on drugs. Funny huh?

That's not the sort of body count I'm talking about.I'm talking about the number of these worthless wastes of flexh and oxygen who are put on their knees and executed (or should be) for simple possession. I'm literally talking about the number of drug-involved individuals who are simply EXECUTED, sans trial, for their crimes against natuer. THAT is how you fight a war on drugs. You don't kick doors of drug houses in. YOU BLOW THEM UP. You don't prosecute the scum who use, deal, and distrubute the ****. YOU EXECUTE THEM ON THE SPOT.
 
That's not the sort of body count I'm talking about.I'm talking about the number of these worthless wastes of flexh and oxygen who are put on their knees and executed (or should be) for simple possession. I'm literally talking about the number of drug-involved individuals who are simply EXECUTED, sans trial, for their crimes against natuer. THAT is how you fight a war on drugs. You don't kick doors of drug houses in. YOU BLOW THEM UP. You don't prosecute the scum who use, deal, and distrubute the ****. YOU EXECUTE THEM ON THE SPOT.

Dude are you for real? I can't respond to you anymore because...oh my god...I'm literally speechless. :shock: :screwy :beam:
 
Dude are you for real? I can't respond to you anymore because...oh my god...I'm literally speechless. :shock: :screwy :beam:

I'm as serious as a heart attack in the middle of the Sahara Desert. Moral crimes do not deserve trials or imprisonment - they deserve immediate execution for the betterment of society at large. Until we actually learn what PUNISHMENT is again, and make people truly SCARED to commit crimes, nothing in this country will ever get better.
 
Are you a card carrying member of the Taliban?
 
]I understand that reality which is why I like the idea that this sort of thing is being presented in terms of profitability and taking the money that normally goes into criminal profits for the legal businesses. I do see the obstacles of money out there. There is the for profit prison industry. There is a danger to prescription drugs from the use of cheaper alternatives. There are the political whores like DARE that make a lot of money off of anti-drug campaigning. There is also a huge and popular market out there for some of these drugs. I cannot say there is enough of a market for a drug like heroin to push it's fully legal recreational use, but something like Pot has a lot of money to be made off of it. The desire for pot has got to rival both tobacco and alcohol. That is huge.

•••You're basing your assumptions on logic. Right concept, wrong planet. Here are the schwedules right of the DEA website. See if you see any logic problems between schedules 1 and 2.

Schedule I
Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:
heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote
Schedule II
Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, less abuse potential than Schedule I drugs, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are:
cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin

Yes, that's right. Marijuana is much worse than speed and coke. See what I mean?
-----
Though i agree there are great big huge well funded obstacles, and investments in the present system of prohibition, there is also a lot of money to be made off the legalization of drugs. I would not rate it as unpopular or politically hazardous as you. I would say presently full legalization of all substances is not going to float. The analysis that pot is a gateway drug might actually hold true in this case. When people see the money that can be made off of it and the money they can funnel into legitimate business when not making prisons I am pretty sure that some will start to see the benefits of popular drugs. Right now the unpopular nature of drugs is due in large part to a massive propaganda campaign. There is a huge problem with the new free open information front of the internet in regards to that, and things are not going back to small well controlled media for propaganda. I am not saying they will not adapt the campaign, but things are changing and the state may be getting more tools, but they cannot keep up with the overwhelming production of society. That is why I think that the argument is going to change in the near future. I would have agreed years ago it would be slow, but seeing how far gays have come due to this I cannot say that anymore.
•••While I personally couldn't agree with you more, we're dealing with America and Politics. The only thing more valuuable than money is stupidity.
------

I don't doubt you are correct in that it will have it's problems. I am also under no delusion that the illegal profits of drugs do not influence those political structures. I think one of the biggest problems legalized drugs actually has is the current distributors. There is a very real danger to the life of any politician that starts successfully pitching legalized drugs. I completely agree that you will put a lot of big money concerns on the same side as criminal syndicates which is absolutely going to lead to some conflict.
•••On one side, we have the alcohol people, the cartels and the bureaucrats. On the other side we have....who? Ron Paul?

This is why i actually want things to move slowly. If you made drugs legal tomorrow you would have a war. Slower implementation allows legitimate business to buy out their opposition. States and businesses will soon see the profit of legalized recreational weed. Big money like that which deals with alcohol and tobacco will eventually see that pot is not an alternative, but a additive market. When that gets realized the push will come from big money for legitimate distribution. The rich criminals who are smart and powerful will sell out and the tide will turn against the other side. When the money comes the campaign to advertise the benefits of pot will come and that will destroy large parts of the effects of the anti-propaganda. A slow integration would work much better and allow us to confront the problems that would arise without overburdening ourselves. personally i would like them to all be legal tomorrow, but i do respect the nature of the world and that it would be a huge problem just to legalize them without thought.
•••I'm sure your patience will be rewarded someday. But I doubt it will be anytime in this century. As you pointed out earlier, we are just figuring out that gays are humans. Even that battle isn't over yet and this should be obvious. After all, who stands against it? The god dealers?

Have you done both? I am not saying they are not similar, but even small variations can be big effects for a user. For a medical purpose of pain killing doctors would presumably prescribe the least dangerous alternative. From a recreational users perspective the effects of the two do differ and therefor do not actually do the same thing. Think of it like any preference you have. you like a certain flavor of ice cream so that is what you are most likely to eat when you have it. In reality the other flavors may be enjoyable and have the same effect, but for recreational eating you are going to most often chose something you enjoy the most. Other things would be an option in a purely recreational environment, but may not be the drug of choice.
•••Who, me? Sure, I've done them all. Oxy, properly crushed and insufflated is just a slightly nastier tasting version of Oxy. Cheaper too. We all respond differently but given a choice between Oxy and Tar, I'll take the Oxy because it's cleaner, not because it does anything differently.
------

I would certainly agree on that view of cocaine. It has an effect, but unless i am looking for a long party and to piss away a lot of money it really is not that great. If it were cheaper and legal i would probably use it more, but I would be much more bothered if they took away my coffee.
•••Yeah, it's the mystery drug. You get ONE good high the first time you do it. After that, sped is a better investment. Of course, that's just me and others may experience something greater than the 20 minute "high" of Coke. At least with speed, I can get some work done.
------

i just do not see it that way. I just see the tide turning and legitimate business wanting a piece of the profits, and perhaps the whole damned thing, and that is what is going to eventually legalize it. I could see that point with a less popular harder drug, but pot is pretty low end and harmless in reality. I could see a company not wanting to be associated with making people heroin junkies, but stoners are a bit different. I think when pot becomes legal, which i feel is actually coming, the other drugs will become more attractive to the greedy in legitimate business and that will help to legalize them. I think pot is inevitable at this point. About the least i could see is the fed abandoning it, and leaving it to the states to decide. There is only so hard you can squeeze the people, and the prison industrial complex is reaching it's limit.
•••I truly hope you are right and I am wrong.
-----
I see it in the other way. There are obstacles but the wave is overtaking them. I also think slow movement towards legalization would be the most logical way to proceed
•••DEA Raids Legal Medical Marijuana Dispensaries In Washington, 'Humiliating' Shop Owners - I rest my case.





I understand that reality which is why I like the idea that this sort of thing is being presented in terms of profitability and taking the money that normally goes into criminal profits for the legal businesses. I do see the obstacles of money out there. There is the for profit prison industry. There is a danger to prescription drugs from the use of cheaper alternatives. There are the political whores like DARE that make a lot of money off of anti-drug campaigning. There is also a huge and popular market out there for some of these drugs. I cannot say there is enough of a market for a drug like heroin to push it's fully legal recreational use, but something like Pot has a lot of money to be made off of it. The desire for pot has got to rival both tobacco and alcohol. That is huge.


Though i agree there are great big huge well funded obstacles, and investments in the present system of prohibition, there is also a lot of money to be made off the legalization of drugs. I would not rate it as unpopular or politically hazardous as you. I would say presently full legalization of all substances is not going to float. The analysis that pot is a gateway drug might actually hold true in this case. When people see the money that can be made off of it and the money they can funnel into legitimate business when not making prisons I am pretty sure that some will start to see the benefits of popular drugs. Right now the unpopular nature of drugs is due in large part to a massive propaganda campaign. There is a huge problem with the new free open information front of the internet in regards to that, and things are not going back to small well controlled media for propaganda. I am not saying they will not adapt the campaign, but things are changing and the state may be getting more tools, but they cannot keep up with the overwhelming production of society. That is why I think that the argument is going to change in the near future. I would have agreed years ago it would be slow, but seeing how far gays have come due to this I cannot say that anymore.


I don't doubt you are correct in that it will have it's problems. I am also under no delusion that the illegal profits of drugs do not influence those political structures. I think one of the biggest problems legalized drugs actually has is the current distributors. There is a very real danger to the life of any politician that starts successfully pitching legalized drugs. I completely agree that you will put a lot of big money concerns on the same side as criminal syndicates which is absolutely going to lead to some conflict.

This is why i actually want things to move slowly. If you made drugs legal tomorrow you would have a war. Slower implementation allows legitimate business to buy out their opposition. States and businesses will soon see the profit of legalized recreational weed. Big money like that which deals with alcohol and tobacco will eventually see that pot is not an alternative, but a additive market. When that gets realized the push will come from big money for legitimate distribution. The rich criminals who are smart and powerful will sell out and the tide will turn against the other side. When the money comes the campaign to advertise the benefits of pot will come and that will destroy large parts of the effects of the anti-propaganda. A slow integration would work much better and allow us to confront the problems that would arise without overburdening ourselves. personally i would like them to all be legal tomorrow, but i do respect the nature of the world and that it would be a huge problem just to legalize them without thought.


Have you done both? I am not saying they are not similar, but even small variations can be big effects for a user. For a medical purpose of pain killing doctors would presumably prescribe the least dangerous alternative. From a recreational users perspective the effects of the two do differ and therefor do not actually do the same thing. Think of it like any preference you have. you like a certain flavor of ice cream so that is what you are most likely to eat when you have it. In reality the other flavors may be enjoyable and have the same effect, but for recreational eating you are going to most often chose something you enjoy the most. Other things would be an option in a purely recreational environment, but may not be the drug of choice.


I would certainly agree on that view of cocaine. It has an effect, but unless i am looking for a long party and to piss away a lot of money it really is not that great. If it were cheaper and legal i would probably use it more, but I would be much more bothered if they took away my coffee.


i just do not see it that way. I just see the tide turning and legitimate business wanting a piece of the profits, and perhaps the whole damned thing, and that is what is going to eventually legalize it. I could see that point with a less popular harder drug, but pot is pretty low end and harmless in reality. I could see a company not wanting to be associated with making people heroin junkies, but stoners are a bit different. I think when pot becomes legal, which i feel is actually coming, the other drugs will become more attractive to the greedy in legitimate business and that will help to legalize them. I think pot is inevitable at this point. About the least i could see is the fed abandoning it, and leaving it to the states to decide. There is only so hard you can squeeze the people, and the prison industrial complex is reaching it's limit.


I see it in the other way. There are obstacles but the wave is overtaking them. I also think slow movement towards legalization would be the most logical way to proceed.
 
I also understand these things that are possibilities to support prohibition:
1) Drugs are, for the most part, not healthy.
2) Many drugs have addictive properties

I just want some input from the opposition

3) Drugs often affect the mind, which can cause serious accidents both on the job and on the roads
4) Drugs turn normal people into blithering idiots (liberals, typically)
5) Drugs weaken resolve and make people susceptible to just about any idea or philosophy that won't interfere with the next fix.

Just say "Yes" to drugs, right?
 
3) Drugs often affect the mind, which can cause serious accidents both on the job and on the roads
4) Drugs turn normal people into blithering idiots (liberals, typically)
5) Drugs weaken resolve and make people susceptible to just about any idea or philosophy that won't interfere with the next fix.

Just say "Yes" to drugs, right?

These are ridiculous statements given that alcohol does the exact same thing and is perfectly legal.
 
These are ridiculous statements given that alcohol does the exact same thing and is perfectly legal.

To be specific:

• 1 Lowered Inhibitions - once a person's BAC reaches 0.05, their behavior begins to change noticeably. When we drink, our behavior is affected. Physical effects of alcohol include a tendency to engage in behaviors not typical of the drinker including sexual promiscuity, driving under the influence, illegal drug use, even violence and further intoxication.

• 2 Poor Coordination - once BAC levels reach 0.10, one of the most obvious physical effects of alcohol is slurred speech. Other short term effects of alcohol intoxication are the inability to think clearly and lack of coordination. These consequences can easily cause falls and other accidents.

• 3 Blackouts and Loss of Memory - alcohol consumption affects brain function. As more is absorbed into the bloodstream and carried to the brain, people can experience significant gaps in their memory. They do not know where they have been, what they have said or done.

• 4 Nausea Sickness - alcohol is a poison. When you drink too much of it, the body may attempt to get rid of it by causing the drinker to vomit. At other times, a person who has been drinking can feel nauseous because the alcohol has interfered with the body's sense of balance.

• 5 Hangovers and Headaches - it is surprising that hangovers are considered short term effects of alcohol since they are usually assumed to occur the next day. However, hangovers can be felt only a few hours after consuming alcohol, especially if the person has become dehydrated as a result of drinking. Headaches are also a common consequence of drinking too much.

• 6 Stupor - once blood alcohol reaches 0.40, a person is in serious trouble. They are likely to be extremely disoriented, confused and uncoordinated. Their brain and muscular functions will be seriously impaired.

• 7 Coma - once alcohol in the blood has reached a concentration of 0.50, there is a serious risk that a person will enter a coma. This is extremely dangerous as many coma patients do not recover. There is a high risk of respiratory failure and death.

Thats's in addition to it's long-term debilitating effects which include damage to the Liver, Brain, Gastro-intestinal system, and heart.

We haven't even touched on cigarettes, which have no positive effect at all except to provide an outlet for an oral fixation (i.e. calming effect caused by the process of smoking.)

On the other hand, several drugs which are currently illegal have fewer negative side-effects than either alcohol or cigarettes.

I don't advocate being my brother's keeper when it comes to self-destructive things that they enjoy doing. As long as they don't directly harm others and their property they can take a one way ticket to hell with my blessings. Prohibition does not help, and only makes things worse. Devote legal avenues to arresting and punishing actual harms rather than for merely possible ones.
 
Last edited:
I don't advocate being my brother's keeper when it comes to self-destructive things that they enjoy doing. As long as they don't directly harm others and their property they can take a one way ticket to hell with my blessings. Prohibition does not help, and only makes things worse. Devote legal avenues to arresting and punishing actual harms rather than for merely possible ones.

I don't advocate the "my brother's keeper" mentality either but when their actions become detrimental to society as a whole, and cannot be supported morally, it's time for some "tough love" and some very severe consequences.
 
I don't advocate the "my brother's keeper" mentality either but when their actions become detrimental to society as a whole, and cannot be supported morally, it's time for some "tough love" and some very severe consequences.

Then I might suggest you relocate to a country that has fewer concerns about individual liberty than ours does, and that considers the death penalty by fiat a valuable tool in eliminating what many consider cannot be supported morally. Perhaps Saudi Arabia or North Korea might provide the social atmosphere you are seeking? :shrug:
 
Last edited:
To be specific:

• 4 Nausea Sickness - alcohol is a poison. When you drink too much of it, the body may attempt to get rid of it by causing the drinker to vomit. At other times, a person who has been drinking can feel nauseous because the alcohol has interfered with the body's sense of balance.

I agree with you completely. However this one point always annoys me ANYTHING taken in the wrong amount will sicken/harm/kill you. Like say water poisoning (which is not drowning but close).
 
I don't advocate the "my brother's keeper" mentality either but when their actions become detrimental to society as a whole, and cannot be supported morally, it's time for some "tough love" and some very severe consequences.

But who chooses what "Society" wants? and what is "Detrimental" to it? If Society thinks that not praying to Gaia is Detrimental to the safety of the Society because she may get mad and destory us. Should that be enforced with death?

How about if we desided that all meat is bad because it harms animals and animals are part of the Society of Life on this Planet?

Drugs are outlawed for the main reason of they hurt people, and some 'cause' people to hurt other people, and it looks good in the media for political people to be against them.

The same however could be said about cars, any type of weapon, and any Argument between two, or more, groups of people.
 
Then I might suggest you relocate to a country that has fewer concerns about individual liberty than ours does, and that considers the death penalty by fiat a valuable tool in eliminating what many consider cannot be supported morally. Perhaps Saudi Arabia or North Korea might provide the social atmosphere you are seeking? :shrug:

Seriously. He should be in a mental institution.
 
I'm curious as to why prohibitionists want drugs to be kept illegal.

For me, legalization is a no-brainer for the following reasons:
1) Prohibition clearly is a failed policy, was a failed policy, and always will be a failed policy. We are an individualistic country and prohibition laws of any kind will always fail to work.
2) It is not the government's place to tell me how my life ought to be lived. It's bad enough that state governments can tell us who we can't marry; it's even worse that they can control what I put into my body.
3) There are much bigger problems on the government's budget than trying to stop people from ingesting things
4) Most of the drugs have unique medicinal properties that could be used if legalized (Which we already do with opium)

1) I agree Prohibition is a unworkable policy. In a utopian world where we all wouldn't want any form of mental escape or mind influanceing substances it would be fine. But we don't and alot of people want an escape that just tempory. The reason I say its unworkable is that if people want to brake a law they will brake it, and if someone wants something someone else will find a way to make money off of it.

2) I'm only mostly in agreement of this. I don't think goverment should say how to live my life but it generaly is its job to do just that. Traffic rules, building codes, health inspectors, etc are both nice and annoying things that have the potental to go to far quickly but as a whole make life easier.

3) Come on man this isn't an arguement. The Camels Nose is way under this tent and has been for a longtime. It's not right but the govement's job is what the goverment says it is. Any goverment is the monoploy on the use of force (not always a bad thing) if the "people" say we want to stop the use of something its the goverments job to do that. (I also wish/beleive that its the goverments job to leave us alone if we say to do that)

4) This is already done. Even substances that are illegal can be and have been used in medical treatments and/or research you just have to get the goverments premission like with most other dangerious/hazardious meterals.
 
Then I might suggest you relocate to a country that has fewer concerns about individual liberty than ours does, and that considers the death penalty by fiat a valuable tool in eliminating what many consider cannot be supported morally. Perhaps Saudi Arabia or North Korea might provide the social atmosphere you are seeking? :shrug:

Unfortunately at this time those nations are not intersted in accepting American citizens into their midst. Even when that individual is willing to renounce their US citizenship to do so. It's been looked into already.

But who chooses what "Society" wants? and what is "Detrimental" to it? If Society thinks that not praying to Gaia is Detrimental to the safety of the Society because she may get mad and destory us. Should that be enforced with death?

Nobody chooses what society wants. Society was defined thousands of years ago. You also confuse religion with more morality. Two totally different things, with Morality being the more important.
 
Back
Top Bottom