NationStates Jolt Archive

I've heard people on the right talk about Personal Responsibility, especially with regard to small government.

I can think of at least 2 issues where, in general, people on the right tend to lean away from personal responsibility, in favour of draconian governmental controls. The issues are drug use and sex.

With regards to drug use, someone in favour of personal responsibility might say that all drugs should be legal, and people should be able to buy them, in much the same way as tobacco and alcohol, over the counter once the consumer is over a certain age. A less extreme person might argue that needle exchange programmes and rehab treatments (as opposed to prisions) might be a fair expression of personal responsibilty as a way of dealing with drug problems.

With regards to sex, I think that, although many would argue that abstinance would be taking a responsibility, that in order to take a personal responsibility rather than simply being brainwashed by dogma, you have to be presented with the facts and then make a choice. Facts like, condoms are 97-99% effective, which means that you are 97-99% less likely to contract a sexual disease or get pregnant if you use them.
We also will not forget a favourite of the Right wing, homosexuality. What could be more personally responsible than choosing (or accepting, depending on what you believe) which sex you want to have sex with, rather than conforming to societarial or "natural law" expectations?

Actually, I do favor personal responsibility when it comes to drugs and sex - I just don't want the gov't regulating either of those

Actually, I do favor personal responsibility when it comes to drugs and sex - I just don't want the gov't regulating either of those
Eh?

Is that not exactly what I just said?

Eh?

Is that not exactly what I just said?
Yes - I just stated that I agree with you

I've heard people on the right talk about Personal Responsibility, especially with regard to small government.

I can think of at least 2 issues where, in general, people on the right tend to lean away from personal responsibility, in favour of draconian governmental controls. The issues are drug use and sex.

With regards to drug use, someone in favour of personal responsibility might say that all drugs should be legal, and people should be able to buy them, in much the same way as tobacco and alcohol, over the counter once the consumer is over a certain age. A less extreme person might argue that needle exchange programmes and rehab treatments (as opposed to prisions) might be a fair expression of personal responsibilty as a way of dealing with drug problems.

With regards to sex, I think that, although many would argue that abstinance would be taking a responsibility, that in order to take a personal responsibility rather than simply being brainwashed by dogma, you have to be presented with the facts and then make a choice. Facts like, condoms are 97-99% effective, which means that you are 97-99% less likely to contract a sexual disease or get pregnant if you use them.
We also will not forget a favourite of the Right wing, homosexuality. What could be more personally responsible than choosing (or accepting, depending on what you believe) which sex you want to have sex with, rather than conforming to societarial or "natural law" expectations?

I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but I'm all in favor of teaching responsibility when it comes to sex, which is exactly what I did with my children as they were growing up. I also pointed out to them that it wasn't just a matter of "condoms, AIDS, pregnancy and pleasure," it was a matter of understanding their responsibility towards others and that they needed to keep in mind that sex can easily engage the emotions.

When it comes to drugs, I have zero tolerance. Alcohol is bad enough. Drugs just make things worse. George Soros and his ilk who want to legalize drugs are, in my world view, insane.

Yes - I just stated that I agree with you
Oh, ok. Sorry, I misread the tone as confrontational then.

When it comes to drugs, I have zero tolerance. Alcohol is bad enough. Drugs just make things worse. George Soros and his ilk who want to legalize drugs are, in my world view, insane.
A policy which would reduce drug use, reduce the number of drug addicts, generate revenue for treatment programs instead of squandering it on border patrols and break the back of organised crime is insane?

What, dare I ask, would a sensible policy do?

Oh, ok. Sorry, I misread the tone as confrontational then.

An easy thing to do here! :)

A policy which would reduce drug use, reduce the number of drug addicts, generate revenue for treatment programs instead of squandering it on border patrols and break the back of organised crime is insane?

What, dare I ask, would a sensible policy do?

Develop a herbicide DNA-specific to plants from which illegal drugs are made?

Develop a herbicide DNA-specific to plants from which illegal drugs are made?
Genetic engineering to create a weapon to destroy cannabis sativa, cocoa and poppies?

I think that chocolate eaters and people in Flanders might have a problem with this one.

Develop a herbicide DNA-specific to plants from which illegal drugs are made?
utterly impossible, especially since the ORGANIC drugs are the LEAST of our worries, ever heard of ecstacy? or perhaps meth?

for being some 60 year old guy with a bachelors degree in some bs working for whatever, you seem pretty dman dense if not stupid

utterly impossible, especially since the ORGANIC drugs are the LEAST of our worries, ever heard of ecstacy? or perhaps meth?

for being some 60 year old guy with a bachelors degree in some bs working for whatever, you seem pretty dman dense if not stupid

Ever with the personal attacks, eh ChessSquares? You know, if you ever had anything noble and optimistic and uplifting to contribute, I would probably faint dead away. :)

Ever with the personal attacks, eh ChessSquares? You know, if you ever had anything noble and optimistic and uplifting to contribute, I would probably faint dead away. :)
i didnt have anytthing to contribute? maybe you should stop ignoring when i make point and read my first sentence. all drugs are not organic and killing the organic ones wont help anyone, it will actually hurt

Genetic engineering to create a weapon to destroy cannabis sativa, cocoa and poppies?

I think that chocolate eaters and people in Flanders might have a problem with this one.

Not knowing that much about drugs or herbicides, I framed it as a question rather than as a statement.

Even if drugs are the bane of human existance that they may very well be, why is it the government's job to legislate the way I can destroy my own body?

Even if drugs are the bane of human existance that they may very well be, why is it the government's job to legislate the way I can destroy my own body?
because in the republicon world its prefectly fien for the governemnt to regulate your personal lfie but completely ludicrous to regulate corporations and actually be a real govenrment

Even if drugs are the bane of human existance that they may very well be, why is it the government's job to legislate the way I can destroy my own body?
Thats a perfectly fair question

utterly impossible, especially since the ORGANIC drugs are the LEAST of our worries, ever heard of ecstacy? or perhaps meth?

for being some 60 year old guy with a bachelors degree in some bs working for whatever, you seem pretty dman dense if not stupid
Yeah, meth is like, what... cough medicine and tractor starter fluid strained through a coffee filter?

BAN COFFEE FILTERS!!

Even if drugs are the bane of human existance that they may very well be, why is it the government's job to legislate the way I can destroy my own body?

For a varietly of reasons, not the least of which is that the government would then be expected to take care of you when drugs had destroyed your mind. And the fact that most children ( of whatever age ) are incapable of making such a final decision.

Even if drugs are the bane of human existance that they may very well be, why is it the government's job to legislate the way I can destroy my own body?
Because, before your body would "give up the ghost" as it were, your mind would be long gone. Once your mind is gone, as in vegatable state, you would become the responsibility of society's. Health care, long term artifical means of life support.

Drug use is a drain on any society.

Genetic engineering to create a weapon to destroy cannabis sativa, cocoa and poppies?

I think that chocolate eaters and people in Flanders might have a problem with this one.

*sigh* :headbang:

Erythroxylum coca is the Coca Shrub. It's used to produce cocaine.
Theobroma cacao is the Cocoa Tree. It's used to produce chocolate.

because in the republicon world its prefectly fien for the governemnt to regulate your personal lfie but completely ludicrous to regulate corporations and actually be a real govenrment

That had less than nothing to do with what I said. Way to go.

That had less than nothing to do with what I said. Way to go.
i try my best thanks

For a varietly of reasons, not the least of which is that the government would then be expected to take care of you when drugs had destroyed your mind. And the fact that most children ( of whatever age ) are incapable of making such a final decision.

Because, before your body would "give up the ghost" as it were, your mind would be long gone. Once your mind is gone, as in vegatable state, you would become the responsibility of society's. Health care, long term artifical means of life support.

Drug use is a drain on any society.

Since you guys pretty much said the same thing....

Perhaps, but the same is true with any number of legal drugs today. Alcohol and tobacco ruin at least as many lives as all illicit drugs, and certainly society pays more to support people destroyed by those drugs than illegal drugs. So, what I'm saying is, why does the government choose which ways of killing myself are legal and which are illegal?

*sigh* :headbang:

Erythroxylum coca is the Coca Shrub. It's used to produce cocaine.
Theobroma cacao is the Cocoa Tree. It's used to produce chocolate.
The general sense of my point remains.

*sigh* :headbang:

Erythroxylum coca is the Coca Shrub. It's used to produce cocaine.
Theobroma cacao is the Cocoa Tree. It's used to produce chocolate.
Would you like an aspirin? :D

Drug use is a drain on any society.
Absolutely it is, but there are ways to make it much less draining. In terms of lives, money and civil liberties, we can get back more of everything by legalising drugs.

Even if drugs are the bane of human existance that they may very well be, why is it the government's job to legislate the way I can destroy my own body?

Because, under the lefts universal healthcare the government will be picking up the tab for your self-abuse.
Yes, I know it has already been said but the complete ignorance of this concept has never ceased to amaze me.

Since you guys pretty much said the same thing....

Perhaps, but the same is true with any number of legal drugs today. Alcohol and tobacco ruin at least as many lives as all illicit drugs, and certainly society pays more to support people destroyed by those drugs than illegal drugs. So, what I'm saying is, why does the government choose which ways of killing myself are legal and which are illegal?

This is very true, but two ( or more! ) wrongs don't make a right. Drugs only add to the problems we already have with other things like alcohol and tobacco. Legalizing drugs would be like leaning in to the second left hook.

Because, under the lefts universal healthcare the government will be picking up the tab for your self-abuse.
Yes, I know it has already been said but the complete ignorance of this concept has never ceased to amaze me.
let me try to appeal to your very miniscule logical side

HEALTH INSURANCE. HEALTH FUCKING INSURANCE.


that is all

This is very true, but two ( or more! ) wrongs don't make a right. Drugs only add to the problems we already have with other things like alcohol and tobacco. Legalizing drugs would be like leaning in to the second left hook.
Except... under prohibition alcohol use went up, and many people were blinded after drinking moonshine. The government found that the best way to combat the stain upon society that was alcohol was, in fact, to legalise and regulate it.

Because, before your body would "give up the ghost" as it were, your mind would be long gone. Once your mind is gone, as in vegatable state, you would become the responsibility of society's. Health care, long term artifical means of life support.

Drug use is a drain on any society.
which is why i don't support the idea of the state providing the medical care you describe.

assuming, theoretically, that the state no longer had any obligation whatsoever to care for drug abuse patients, would you support legalization?

With regards to sex, I think that, although many would argue that abstinance would be taking a responsibility, that in order to take a personal responsibility rather than simply being brainwashed by dogma, you have to be presented with the facts and then make a choice. Facts like, condoms are 97-99% effective, which means that you are 97-99% less likely to contract a sexual disease or get pregnant if you use them.

Actually, condoms are completely useless against human papilloma (sp?) virus (HPV). Did you know that?

This is very true, but two ( or more! ) wrongs don't make a right. Drugs only add to the problems we already have with other things like alcohol and tobacco. Legalizing drugs would be like leaning in to the second left hook.
please tell me the biggest problem with alcohol during prohibition?

thats rightm we didnt control it. now we control alcohol.
legalise all msot drugs and tax the devil out of them. making them illegal creates more problems than its worth to spend so dman much moeny to keep them illegal

Except... under prohibition alcohol use went up, and many people were blinded after drinking moonshine. The government found that the best way to combat the stain upon society that was alcohol was, in fact, to legalise and regulate it.
indeed; legalizing and regulating the purity and concentration of drugs would eliminate roughly 2/3 of the drug overdoses seen in the US each year. if you want to think in terms of purely medical costs, legalization is the only reasonable course because legalized regulation would remove the leading cause of drug-related death and permanent injury.

Actually, condoms are completely useless against human papilloma (sp?) virus (HPV). Did you know that?
Aye, but that is treatable (at least from what I heard) and condoms are very effective against the like of AIDS and such. Thus it is still better to use a condom.

Because, under the lefts universal healthcare the government will be picking up the tab for your self-abuse.
Yes, I know it has already been said but the complete ignorance of this concept has never ceased to amaze me.

Way to completely miss the point, and at the same time make an inaccurate assumption about me.

The point was, the government is already "picking up the tab" for millions of people who are destroying themselves through legal means. Why has the government decided that those means are acceptable ways of killing yourself, but other means are unacceptable? Why does the government get to decide how a person is allowed to kill themself?

Since you guys pretty much said the same thing....

Perhaps, but the same is true with any number of legal drugs today. Alcohol and tobacco ruin at least as many lives as all illicit drugs, and certainly society pays more to support people destroyed by those drugs than illegal drugs. So, what I'm saying is, why does the government choose which ways of killing myself are legal and which are illegal?
Not only drugs, but any number of other substances.

In addition to bearing the financial burden of caring for the fallout of alcohol and tobacco use, society also shoulders the cost of health care for the obese--yet Twinkies, McDonalds, and potato chips are still legal. Nor are diabetics thrown in jail for violating their diets and not keeping their blood sugar under control resulting in loss of sight, limb and life. The dental police don't arrest people for drinking sweetened colas.

Governmental policy concerning personal drug use is hypocritical and has more to do with moral code enforcement than logic.

Because, under the lefts universal healthcare the government will be picking up the tab for your self-abuse.
Yes, I know it has already been said but the complete ignorance of this concept has never ceased to amaze me.
Ah yes, this is also true for tobacco. And wait, in Britain, the cost to the NHS is less than the revenue generated by tobacco taxing. So that means that although its bad for the health of people overall, the damage to the coffers of the healthcare service is non-existant.

The other thing you've forgotten is we're already paying for the treatment of drug users and abusers. But we're not making any money in revenue, only the big crime bosses are. So that means that we're taking all the pain for none of the benefits. We are intentionally making things hard for ourselves. Oh, and one more thing. When legalisation occurs, oftentimes the use of the substance is question goes down. What does this mean? It means that we'd have less patients, and we'd be getting back (through drug taxes) the money that it costs to treat them. Can you find anything which is bad about that?

let me try to appeal to your very miniscule logical side

HEALTH INSURANCE. HEALTH FUCKING INSURANCE.


that is all

Your usual attempts to insult aside:

What does that have to do with anything under a universal healthcare system. That is, free (read: taxpayer funded) healthcare for all? You expect drug addicts to buy health insurance to cover the costs of reviving them after ODing? To treat infections from track marks due to injection of drugs? For treatment of psychosis from marajuana, amphetamines and ecstacy abuse?
Peopel who do not have health insurance go through public healthcare which costs taxpayers money. Thats why letting people abuse their own bodies ultimately affects everyone.

This is very true, but two ( or more! ) wrongs don't make a right. Drugs only add to the problems we already have with other things like alcohol and tobacco. Legalizing drugs would be like leaning in to the second left hook.

Perhaps, but that then leaves us with two choices, in order to be completely fair. Either we make all drugs legal, and afford treatment for anyone wishing to ruin their body by any means, or we make all drugs illegal (including caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco) and no one gets treatment for any of them, since they are all illegal and therefore they shouldn't be used.

I realize that this is unrealistic, but I'm trying to illustrate why it does not make sense that the government has mandated certain harmful drugs, but has banned other, equally harmful drugs.

i didnt have anytthing to contribute? maybe you should stop ignoring when i make point and read my first sentence. all drugs are not organic and killing the organic ones wont help anyone, it will actually hurt

You could start by contributing some correct grammar. People tend to take you more seriously.

which is why i don't support the idea of the state providing the medical care you describe.

assuming, theoretically, that the state no longer had any obligation whatsoever to care for drug abuse patients, would you support legalization?
The money you need for healthcare is nowhere near as much as the revenue generated. So you can afford to pay for their treatment, rehab, whatever you like. And you know who'd be paying for it? People who buy drugs. Who would pass up such a beautifully symmetric opportunity for lawmaking?

Your usual attempts to insult aside:

What does that have to do with anything under a universal healthcare system. That is, free (read: taxpayer funded) healthcare for all? You expect drug addicts to buy health insurance to cover the costs of reviving them after ODing? To treat infections from track marks due to injection of drugs? For treatment of psychosis from marajuana, amphetamines and ecstacy abuse?
Peopel who do not have health insurance go through public healthcare which costs taxpayers money. Thats why letting people abuse their own bodies ultimately affects everyone.
you people are too dense to realise you are already doing what you hate the left wing government for wanting to do, but you are doing it in such a way that you are making people rich out of their minds.

health care does exactly what your evil leftwing national healthcare would, but it does it less efficiently an in the usual evil republicon oppurtunistic fashion.

and like i said, guess what, obviously haviing the drugs illegal ISNT WORKING. if we make them legal we can REGULATE them and TAX them out of their minds.

you know the problem with prohibition? PROHI-FUCKING-BITION. the outlaw of alcohol led to ilelgal alcohol production which led to the rise of organized crime and the rise in alcohol related deaths becaue of improperly made alcohol.

read up on some hitory before being the usual republicon dumbass most of your are

You could start by contributing some correct grammar. People tend to take you more seriously.
get a life

Actually, condoms are completely useless against human papilloma (sp?) virus (HPV). Did you know that?
Would I be correct in saying that that is a fairly uncommon and treatable, compared to HIV and others which you are protected from?

Ah yes, this is also true for tobacco. And wait, in Britain, the cost to the NHS is less than the revenue generated by tobacco taxing. So that means that although its bad for the health of people overall, the damage to the coffers of the healthcare service is non-existant.

The other thing you've forgotten is we're already paying for the treatment of drug users and abusers. But we're not making any money in revenue, only the big crime bosses are. So that means that we're taking all the pain for none of the benefits. We are intentionally making things hard for ourselves. Oh, and one more thing. When legalisation occurs, oftentimes the use of the substance is question goes down. What does this mean? It means that we'd have less patients, and we'd be getting back (through drug taxes) the money that it costs to treat them. Can you find anything which is bad about that?

Yes, we are already paying for the treatment of drug users. The thing you have not considered is the repercussions of government subsidised open slather drug use. By supplying and taxing hard drugs you are condoning their use. We have already seen cases where smokers have tried to sue tobacco companies due to their addiction and illness. So whats to stop someone suing the government for their permanent psychosis from using government approved ecstasy or marajuana? Tobacco and alcohol is bad enough, I do not want the open irresponsibility of legalised hard drugs implemented. Legalised gambling in my state has led to many families falling apart due to loss of money, the legalising of drugs will be worse, in my opinion. Your purely financial take on the issue ignores the destruction of families due to abuse of these drugs (yes, it happens with alcohol but does creating a greater selection of ways to destroy yourself make it better?) and the inherent financial losses of these families due to the need to buy drugs that are taxed to death by the government. The government should not profit on the misery of its citizens.

Your usual attempts to insult aside:

What does that have to do with anything under a universal healthcare system. That is, free (read: taxpayer funded) healthcare for all? You expect drug addicts to buy health insurance to cover the costs of reviving them after ODing? To treat infections from track marks due to injection of drugs? For treatment of psychosis from marajuana, amphetamines and ecstacy abuse?
Peopel who do not have health insurance go through public healthcare which costs taxpayers money. Thats why letting people abuse their own bodies ultimately affects everyone.
Right, and wouldn't you love to reduce that burden on the public facilities? Of course you would, so why not legalise drugs? Even if you don't pump more money into the healthcare system, you'd still have fewer patients to treat, as there'd be fewer overdoses and fewer instances of people taking adulterated substances.

Yes, we are already paying for the treatment of drug users. The thing you have not considered is the repercussions of government subsidised open slather drug use. By supplying and taxing hard drugs you are condoning their use. We have already seen cases where smokers have tried to sue tobacco companies due to their addiction and illness. So whats to stop someone suing the government for their permanent psychosis from using government approved ecstasy or marajuana? Tobacco and alcohol is bad enough, I do not want the open irresponsibility of legalised hard drugs implemented. Legalised gambling in my state has led to many families falling apart due to loss of money, the legalising of drugs will be worse, in my opinion. Your purely financial take on the issue ignores the destruction of families due to abuse of these drugs (yes, it happens with alcohol but by creating a greater selection of ways to estroy yourself make it better?) and the inherent financial losses of these families due to the need to buy drugs that are taxed to death by the government. The government should not profit on the misery of its citizens.
the government is alot harder to sue than a random company, good luck trying it if you think you can pull it off.

Would I be correct in saying that that is a fairly uncommon and treatable, compared to HIV and others which you are protected from?
No. HPV is the most common of the STDs and there is no treatment for HPV itself. HPV has been shown to cause the vast majority of cases of cervical cancer.

the government is alot harder to sue than a random company, good luck trying it if you think you can pull it off.

So screw the people, we're alright jack! Good policy.

Perhaps, but that then leaves us with two choices, in order to be completely fair. Either we make all drugs legal, and afford treatment for anyone wishing to ruin their body by any means, or we make all drugs illegal (including caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco) and no one gets treatment for any of them, since they are all illegal and therefore they shouldn't be used.

I realize that this is unrealistic, but I'm trying to illustrate why it does not make sense that the government has mandated certain harmful drugs, but has banned other, equally harmful drugs.
There is a problem with which drugs have been legalised, but you could make a case for particular drug legalisations on the grounds that some drugs are worse than others. I'd still think my solution was best though.

No. HPV is the most common of the STDs and there is no treatment for HPV itself. HPV has been shown to cause the vast majority of cases of cervical cancer.
I thought chylamadia was the most common?

So screw the people, we're alright jack! Good policy.
read the reality check i handed to you on page 3

So screw the people, we're alright jack! Good policy.

I would recommend, and this is meant with the greatest respect, that you stop bothering to argue with Chess Squares. You are already wrong before you even begin to type.

Right, and wouldn't you love to reduce that burden on the public facilities? Of course you would, so why not legalise drugs? Even if you don't pump more money into the healthcare system, you'd still have fewer patients to treat, as there'd be fewer overdoses and fewer instances of people taking adulterated substances.

This is of course assuming that the burden is only on the healthcare system. Have you not noticed that areas with the worst drug problems have high levels of unemployment? Drugs destroy not only people, but families.
How do you come to the conclusion that there would be fewer patients and overdoses? Less drug taking? Its not based on the comparison to alcohol prohibition is it?

I thought chylamadia was the most common?
Not according to Planned Parenthood. Chlamydia used to be considered the most common before there was a test for HPV. There are actually 100 types of HPV with 30 of them associated with various genital conditions, including genital warts. (A few high-risk types are the ones that cause cervical cancer.)

There is a problem with which drugs have been legalised, but you could make a case for particular drug legalisations on the grounds that some drugs are worse than others. I'd still think my solution was best though.

You could, if the government legislated the drugs that were the most harmful, or the most addictive. I believe, although I am not sure, that tobacco is responsible for the most deaths out of any drugs, legal or not, in the United States. Yet the government has permitted it's distribution. But less harmful drugs, such as marijuana, are illegal.

This is of course assuming that the burden is only on the healthcare system. Have you not noticed that areas with the worst drug problems have high levels of unemployment? Drugs destroy not only people, but families.
How do you come to the conclusion that there would be fewer patients and overdoses? Less drug taking? Its not based on the comparison to alcohol prohibition is it?
then the government should o it job and make sure all areas are funded equally. oh no, but thtas an evil liberal idea and would go agaisnt the republicon idea of telling people how to live their life and other wise not doing their job. bad education = high unemplyoment, crime, and drug abuse.

hey government, do your job.

I would recommend, and this is meant with the greatest respect, that you stop bothering to argue with Chess Squares. You are already wrong before you even begin to type.

I know. I have been insulted by Chess Squares fairly regularly on these fora. I guess I am just an optimist and hope that one day he might actually post something useful and civil...I am still waiting.

I know. I have been insulted by Chess Squares fairly regularly on these fora. I guess I am just an optimist and hope that one day he might actually post something useful and civil...I am still waiting.
lets see, a hypocrite and selectively illiterate. bravo.

That the use of drugs decreases with their legalization has been proven by certain European nations' legalization of marijuana. Rates decreased after legalization; the reasons for this are psychological. Once something is legalized, it fails to be rebellious anymore, which is one of the reasons people begin using certain drugs. The whole "mistique" falls apart.

then the government should o it job and make sure all areas are funded equally. oh no, but thtas an evil liberal idea and would go agaisnt the republicon idea of telling people how to live their life and other wise not doing their job. bad education = high unemplyoment, crime, and drug abuse.

hey government, do your job.

So funding all these areas to the levels required will mean the government pays more to cope with the extra burden of legalised drugs. Thank you for helping me make my point Chess Squares.

I'm gonna split this one, cos there are a number of good points

Yes, we are already paying for the treatment of drug users. The thing you have not considered is the repercussions of government subsidised open slather drug use. By supplying and taxing hard drugs you are condoning their use. We have already seen cases where smokers have tried to sue tobacco companies due to their addiction and illness. So whats to stop someone suing the government for their permanent psychosis from using government approved ecstasy or marajuana? Serious warnings. Much more than on cigarettes. The suits against the tobacco companies are usually on the grounds of misleading the consumer. You wouldn't make that possible in the case of drug sales. This bit isn't perfect, but its no worse than permanant psychosis caused by drugs sold to you by a dealer on the street. Also, the drugs would be safer, cos you'd have proper laboratory trials. You could create the safest possible forms of these drugs, instead of the Russian Roulette mixes you get off of dealers.

Tobacco and alcohol is bad enough, I do not want the open irresponsibility of legalised hard drugs implemented. Legalised gambling in my state has led to many families falling apart due to loss of money, the legalising of drugs will be worse, in my opinion. Your purely financial take on the issue ignores the destruction of families due to abuse of these drugs (yes, it happens with alcohol but does creating a greater selection of ways to destroy yourself make it better?) and the inherent financial losses of these families due to the need to buy drugs that are taxed to death by the government. The drugs would still be cheaper than the current street prices. And you could pour money into rehabilitation clinics on a scale never seen before, to get people off drugs instead of sending them to jail. Again, its a case of lowering the amount of destruction.

The government should not profit on the misery of its citizens.Is it any better that organised crime profits on the misery?

So funding all these areas to the levels required will mean the government pays more to cope with the extra burden of legalised drugs. Thank you for helping me make my point Chess Squares.
now you are just using circular logic without even taking into account what i said

thats like 3 different logical fallacies in 2 sentences.

So funding all these areas to the levels required will mean the government pays more to cope with the extra burden of legalised drugs. Thank you for helping me make my point Chess Squares.
Let me say this for like the thousanth time: Legalised drugs is a lower financial burden. You get to take the revenue from drugs and don't have to pay for so much border control anymore.

Let me say this for like the thousanth time: Legalised drugs is a lower financial burden. You get to take the revenue from drugs and don't have to pay for so much border control anymore.
there also will be less money spent with treating the drug issues caused by ODs

That the use of drugs decreases with their legalization has been proven by certain European nations' legalization of marijuana. Rates decreased after legalization; the reasons for this are psychological. Once something is legalized, it fails to be rebellious anymore, which is one of the reasons people begin using certain drugs. The whole "mistique" falls apart.
I've never smoked cigarettes, but I've smoked some dope. If it was legal and I'd been aware of the risks that way, I don't think I'd have done it, most likely because I'd have been exposed to it earlier on through other people's usage and developed an aversion to it (much like I did with smoking)

(woo hoo, 12,000 posts!!)

I'm gonna split this one, cos there are a number of good points

Serious warnings. Much more than on cigarettes. The suits against the tobacco companies are usually on the grounds of misleading the consumer. You wouldn't make that possible in the case of drug sales. This bit isn't perfect, but its no worse than permanant psychosis caused by drugs sold to you by a dealer on the street. Also, the drugs would be safer, cos you'd have proper laboratory trials. You could create the safest possible forms of these drugs, instead of the Russian Roulette mixes you get off of dealers.

I know that is no better than the drugs currently sold on the street. Legalisation is a tacit approval of safe use. Simply plastering warnings all over a packet makes no difference as is clearly indicated by the mentality of "I can do whatever I like to my body". Sure you can, but why should the rest of us pick up the tab when you succumb to the abuse you have caused to yourself? The problem is that the pure form of the drugs have effects that are not good and cause complications later on. The use of opiates causes constipation which heightens the chances of bowel cancer. The use of LSD and amphetamines increases aggression which leads to violence and also causes psychosis. This is from the pure drug, not the cutting agents or any other by-products of manufacture.

The drugs would still be cheaper than the current street prices. And you could pour money into rehabilitation clinics on a scale never seen before, to get people off drugs instead of sending them to jail. Again, its a case of lowering the amount of destruction.

Maybe initially. However, the government here increases excise on alcohol, cigarettes and petrol (gas for people in the US) based on indexation. Therefore the cost of thses drugs will increase over tiem meaning people who are addicted to them will soon be unable to afford what they need. Drugs like heroin and cocaine in particular require increasing doses to have the "desired effect". Therefore the costs for addicts will sky-rocket? Does the government then start subsidising these drugs to make them more affordable?

Is it any better that organised crime profits on the misery?

No, not at all. Therefore I would rather money spent on fighting organised crime and drug traffickers than subsidising and condoning drug use and addiction.

This is of course assuming that the burden is only on the healthcare system. Have you not noticed that areas with the worst drug problems have high levels of unemployment? Drugs destroy not only people, but families.Yeah, thats cos poorer people are more likely to turn to crime. But if drugs aren't criminal anymore...

How do you come to the conclusion that there would be fewer patients and overdoses? Less drug taking? Its not based on the comparison to alcohol prohibition is it?
Yes, compared to prohibition, also compared to the stance taken in Holland which prove in a way that leaves no doubt in my mind that drug use is tied to the social and not the legal nature of the country.

Overdoes, again, similar to prohibition. If people are taking amounts of drugs where they know what it is, they'll be less likely to OD.

Let me say this for like the thousanth time: Legalised drugs is a lower financial burden. You get to take the revenue from drugs and don't have to pay for so much border control anymore.

And let me repeat that drug abuse does not only influence healthcare costs to the government. Drug use destroys families, causes people to lose their jobs, increases crime rates.

I know that is no better than the drugs currently sold on the street. Legalisation is a tacit approval of safe use. Simply plastering warnings all over a packet makes no difference as is clearly indicated by the mentality of "I can do whatever I like to my body". Sure you can, but why should the rest of us pick up the tab when you succumb to the abuse you have caused to yourself? The problem is that the pure form of the drugs have effects that are not good and cause complications later on. The use of opiates causes constipation which heightens the chances of bowel cancer. The use of LSD and amphetamines increases aggression which leads to violence and also causes psychosis. This is from the pure drug, not the cutting agents or any other by-products of manufacture.



Maybe initially. However, the government here increases excise on alcohol, cigarettes and petrol (gas for people in the US) based on indexation. Therefore the cost of thses drugs will increase over tiem meaning people who are addicted to them will soon be unable to afford what they need. Drugs like heroin and cocaine in particular require increasing doses to have the "desired effect". Therefore the costs for addicts will sky-rocket? Does the government then start subsidising these drugs to make them more affordable?



No, not at all. Therefore I would rather money spent on fighting organised crime and drug traffickers than subsidising and condoning drug use and addiction.

you again ignroe the point having the drugs illegal isnt magically making them go away. and if you look at prohibition, you fucked up everyone more when alcohol was made illegal

welcome to this side of the looking glass

(woo hoo, 12,000 posts!!)

Congrats!

you again ignroe the point having the drugs illegal isnt magically making them go away. and if you look at prohibition, you fucked up everyone more when alcohol was made illegal

welcome to this side of the looking glass

Where did I say it would go away? Obviously, if that were the case we would not be discussing anything because there would be no drugs. Remember, they are currently illegal?

Legalising drugs is a government approval of their use. Therefore the government (taxpayers) will pick up the tab for the open slather use of "recreational drugs".

I know that is no better than the drugs currently sold on the street. Legalisation is a tacit approval of safe use. Simply plastering warnings all over a packet makes no difference as is clearly indicated by the mentality of "I can do whatever I like to my body". Sure you can, but why should the rest of us pick up the tab when you succumb to the abuse you have caused to yourself?
If the healthcare is funded by drug revenue, and you don't use drugs, then how are you "picking up the tab"?


The problem is that the pure form of the drugs have effects that are not good and cause complications later on. The use of opiates causes constipation which heightens the chances of bowel cancer. The use of LSD and amphetamines increases aggression which leads to violence and also causes psychosis. This is from the pure drug, not the cutting agents or any other by-products of manufacture.
No, but once again, the additatives make it worse. Heroin is bad for you, but heroin cut with chalk and dishwasher powder is damn near lethal. A 5% mix of heroin with glucose or water is going to be far less damaging that 5% heroin with paracetemol and rat poison. It won't be safe, but it'll be safer.

Maybe initially. However, the government here increases excise on alcohol, cigarettes and petrol (gas for people in the US) based on indexation. Therefore the cost of thses drugs will increase over tiem meaning people who are addicted to them will soon be unable to afford what they need. Drugs like heroin and cocaine in particular require increasing doses to have the "desired effect". Therefore the costs for addicts will sky-rocket? Does the government then start subsidising these drugs to make them more affordable?The same happens with cigarettes. People start slowly and gradually come up. Its a financial drain, but they cope, or they take less. And once again, this is in no way a worse case of affairs than the one we have at the moment.


No, not at all. Therefore I would rather money spent on fighting organised crime and drug traffickers than subsidising and condoning drug use and addiction.
This would break the back of organised crime. There'd be no money for criminals in drugs if they were legalised.

Where did I say it would go away? Obviously, if that were the case we would not be discussing anything because there would be no drugs. Remember, they are currently illegal?

Legalising drugs is a government approval of their use. Therefore the government (taxpayers) will pick up the tab for the open slather use of "recreational drugs".
are you pretending they will be free or some bullshit like that?

the people buying illegal drugs will be picking up the tab buy spending millions if not billions in taxes on them.

to prove that i am right using your own logic, we should make them legal so tax payers no longer have to foot the bill. with them being illegal, the government is only spending money on drug users and taking in somewhere around ZERO dollars on it.

like i said, you are on THIS side of the looking glass now

And let me repeat that drug abuse does not only influence healthcare costs to the government. Drug use destroys families, causes people to lose their jobs, increases crime rates.
Yes. But if drug usage goes down, so do all of these. Crime fastest, drug crime will drop off the charts if drugs are legalised. And if you have more money, and better healthcare, you can fund treatment programs, which are the most effective things for getting people off drugs.

This would break the back of organised crime. There'd be no money for criminals in drugs if they were legalised.

I agree with the rest of what you said, but not so much this. You'd be surprised how versatile organized crime can be. The Cosa Nostra was on the verge of complete annihilation before they got into the drug trafficking racket. If they could no longer survive on the drug trade, they would undoubtedly turn to something else before long.

Your usual attempts to insult aside:

What does that have to do with anything under a universal healthcare system. That is, free (read: taxpayer funded) healthcare for all? You expect drug addicts to buy health insurance to cover the costs of reviving them after ODing? To treat infections from track marks due to injection of drugs? For treatment of psychosis from marajuana, amphetamines and ecstacy abuse?
Peopel who do not have health insurance go through public healthcare which costs taxpayers money. Thats why letting people abuse their own bodies ultimately affects everyone.

Tygaland, you're leaving out the fact that the drugs (if decriminalised) can be highly taxed (a 'voluntary stupidity tax', if you like). If the taxes are balanced properly, there would be no loss through tax-funded healthcare, because drug users would essentially be paying through their own care through years of buying drugs.

And if you think that level of tax is impossible, just look at the price of cigarettes currently... most of that is tax. And doesn't Sweden (or a totally different country, possibly) have incredibly high taxes on alcohol? High taxes wouldn't stop people using the drugs, and would quite plausably totally offset the healthcare costs.

I also support legalised drugs for various reasons;
a) it would add to the money generated by taxes (which is especially important in my view, since I also support universal health care and high standards of education).
b) it would allow the stronger drugs (especially those that can lead to violence) be taken in a safe environment (could plausably lower crime, as well as injuries due to violent crimes).
c) there would be standards of production and purity, which would greatly decrease the number of overdoses and people injecting battery acid into their veins unintentionally.
d) it would make it easier for information to be directed at the people who need it most (counselling and Quit-type programs could be centered at the places where drugs are sold, and thus be more accessable).

Sex I think is a matter of more education. You want to stop guys having random sex? Don't lecture them about pregnancy... show them photos of STDs. Nice big glossy ones, with all the pus and gore. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I imagine more guys would be cautious about sex if they realised that lots and lots of promiscuous sex will increase the chances of their precious genitals looking like this: http://www3.swmed.edu/cme/hivstd/STDs/wr_eichh/00328_50.jpg

And you want to stop girls having random sex? Feel free to teach them that vibrators will be a hell of a lot more amusing until they're older, since the guys won't know what the hell they're doing (and will most likely have even less of an idea what makes sex good for anyone but themselves). Oh, and of course, you could still use the 'Ugh, STDs' approach with girls, presumably.

Um, there's probably more I could add, but I need to go take my hourly painkillers, so I'll stop now :p

Since you guys pretty much said the same thing....

Perhaps, but the same is true with any number of legal drugs today. Alcohol and tobacco ruin at least as many lives as all illicit drugs, and certainly society pays more to support people destroyed by those drugs than illegal drugs. So, what I'm saying is, why does the government choose which ways of killing myself are legal and which are illegal?
An examination of history and current legislative approaches offers some insights into the reason the hierarchy exists.

Alcohol has a strong cultural bias in favor of it for most countries I know of. Notable exceptions are the Muslim theocracies. When the US tried to outlaw alcohol it was a dismal failure and in fact led to an increase in crime. An uneasy truce has been made with alcohol with most states rigidly controlling what content may be sold. Most people consume alcohol with no negative health or social consequence.

Tobacco was in it's heyday untouchable. The producing states would have started a second secession if the government tried to interfere. Additionally lawmakers were paid off by the corporations that produced tobacco products. This left them with carte blanche to encourage this highly addictive habit. Currently, states are starting to look at the cost to them in terms of health care and are instituting increasingly coersive laws to inhibit smoking and raising taxes foir tobacco products to punative levels. There is an increasing social pressure on those who use tobacco. In some areas it is quite accute.

Other mood and/or mind altering drugs have been illegal or tightly controlled sine the 1930's since it was then noted that it was having a strongly negative social impact. Since these drugs didn't have the social or corporate support of either alcohol or tobacco the controls were able to be instituted. This prohibition still has a high level of social acceptance and support today. Interestingly, were they to be legalized, the suppliers would be the same corporations that distribute other pharmeceuticals today. Bennie on the corner would be out of business.

There is a principle of phsychology called "permission." Permissions are given by those seen as authority figures to those who see them as authority figures. A good example is a parent who gives his or her child "permission" to think. The child then incorporates this into their psychological makeup and will accept thinking as a natural skill.

When governments legalize something, anything, there are many who will accept that as permission to do what has been legalized, regardless of its impact. If I, as a parent, think that taking drugs will have a negative impact on my child and thus try to instill in them an understanding of the negative impact of taking drugs, the last thing I need is for the government to, in effect, overrule me and give my child "permission" to take them.

And let me repeat that drug abuse does not only influence healthcare costs to the government. Drug use destroys families, causes people to lose their jobs, increases crime rates.Yes. But if drug usage goes down, so do all of these. Crime fastest, drug crime will drop off the charts if drugs are legalised. And if you have more money, and better healthcare, you can fund treatment programs, which are the most effective things for getting people off drugs.
Your theory looks good on paper but wouldn't work in TRW.

Treatment programs only work for those who are highly motivated to get clean and highly committed to stay that way in the long term. Addiction by definition precludes a very high success rate.

So drug abuse would not enjoy the nose dive one might hope for. A person under the ongoing influence of drug use is less sharp and less motivated to be productive and is therefore, less likely to hold onto their employment.

The resulting personal economic impact is that the individual, and those that depend on them, are placed at a higher risk for social displacement and deteriorating intrafamilial relationships.

The financial pressures would include not only an increasing inability to meet essential needs but also the ability to fund their drug use. At what point there would develop a black market or the need to commit criminal acts to fund drug use is the only remaining question.

The costs to the rest of society, who is going to foot the bill for the care of the needs of the spouse and child(ren) of this user is unacceptable.

Every time the government tries to take over a vice in an effort to expel organized crime it winds up with two things, both unintended byproducts.

It perverts good government by making it the bookie or the dealer.

It never ends organized crime - it only causes it to morph into areas unadressed by the governments actions.

An examination of history and current legislative approaches offers some insights into the reason the hierarchy exists.

Alcohol has a strong cultural bias in favor of it for most countries I know of. Notable exceptions are the Muslim theocracies. When the US tried to outlaw alcohol it was a dismal failure and in fact led to an increase in crime. An uneasy truce has been made with alcohol with most states rigidly controlling what content may be sold. Most people consume alcohol with no negative health or social consequence.

Tobacco was in it's heyday untouchable. The producing states would have started a second secession if the government tried to interfere. Additionally lawmakers were paid off by the corporations that produced tobacco products. This left them with carte blanche to encourage this highly addictive habit. Currently, states are starting to look at the cost to them in terms of health care and are instituting increasingly coersive laws to inhibit smoking and raising taxes foir tobacco products to punative levels. There is an increasing social pressure on those who use tobacco. In some areas it is quite accute.

Other mood and/or mind altering drugs have been illegal or tightly controlled sine the 1930's since it was then noted that it was having a strongly negative social impact. Since these drugs didn't have the social or corporate support of either alcohol or tobacco the controls were able to be instituted. This prohibition still has a high level of social acceptance and support today. Interestingly, were they to be legalized, the suppliers would be the same corporations that distribute other pharmeceuticals today. Bennie on the corner would be out of business.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at. The government hasn't chosen to make certain drugs legal and others illegal for the safety of the populace, they've chosen based on other factors, highest among them being profit.

There is a principle of phsychology called "permission." Permissions are given by those seen as authority figures to those who see them as authority figures. A good example is a parent who gives his or her child "permission" to think. The child then incorporates this into their psychological makeup and will accept thinking as a natural skill.

When governments legalize something, anything, there are many who will accept that as permission to do what has been legalized, regardless of its impact. If I, as a parent, think that taking drugs will have a negative impact on my child and thus try to instill in them an understanding of the negative impact of taking drugs, the last thing I need is for the government to, in effect, overrule me and give my child "permission" to take them.

Indeed, legalisation of hard drugs is a green light to those that considered it but abstained due to the legal consequences. If the government OK's the use of drugs these people will then experiment. I think the view that addictions will decrease due to the lack of the "thrill" of doing something illegal is too optimistic.
Smoking and alcohol is too entrenched in society as is evident by the fact that people continue to start smoking despite all the information telling them it is not good for them. I do not want hard drugs to go the way of alcohol and smoking which have become an accepted vice in our society.

Tygaland, you're leaving out the fact that the drugs (if decriminalised) can be highly taxed (a 'voluntary stupidity tax', if you like). If the taxes are balanced properly, there would be no loss through tax-funded healthcare, because drug users would essentially be paying through their own care through years of buying drugs.

So you are happy to OK the use of drugs then profit on that addiction?

And if you think that level of tax is impossible, just look at the price of cigarettes currently... most of that is tax. And doesn't Sweden (or a totally different country, possibly) have incredibly high taxes on alcohol? High taxes wouldn't stop people using the drugs, and would quite plausably totally offset the healthcare costs.

If people are addicted to drugs then they will turn to petty crime and even armed robbery to pay for the drugs. Just like they do now. Except instead of having to pay a dealer, they pay the government.

I also support legalised drugs for various reasons;
a) it would add to the money generated by taxes (which is especially important in my view, since I also support universal health care and high standards of education).

Profiting of government condoned misery is not the way to go to achieve your goals.

b) it would allow the stronger drugs (especially those that can lead to violence) be taken in a safe environment (could plausably lower crime, as well as injuries due to violent crimes).

Crime will still happen due to the need to pay for the highly taxed drugs. Also, drugs such as amphetamines and ecstacy increase aggression and cause psychosis. How can a government with any conscience do this?

c) there would be standards of production and purity, which would greatly decrease the number of overdoses and people injecting battery acid into their veins unintentionally.

Problem is, the pure drugs themselves have serious side-effects. Not just impurities and cutting agents. It may be safer but it is not going to be safe. That coupled with the need for increasing doses as in the case of cocaine and heroin means that monitoring every addicts intake would be either impossible or extremely costly. It would also depend on the addict adhering to the regimented drug taking program.

d) it would make it easier for information to be directed at the people who need it most (counselling and Quit-type programs could be centered at the places where drugs are sold, and thus be more accessable).

So legalise drugs, tax the crap out of the addicts then use the money to fund QUIT programs? Why should they quit if its OK by the government and they are aware of the damage they are doing to themselves?

Sex I think is a matter of more education. You want to stop guys having random sex? Don't lecture them about pregnancy... show them photos of STDs. Nice big glossy ones, with all the pus and gore. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I imagine more guys would be cautious about sex if they realised that lots and lots of promiscuous sex will increase the chances of their precious genitals looking like this: http://www3.swmed.edu/cme/hivstd/STDs/wr_eichh/00328_50.jpg

I think education about sex is the right way to deal with the issue. Promoting abstinence amongst teenagers is a good idea.

And you want to stop girls having random sex? Feel free to teach them that vibrators will be a hell of a lot more amusing until they're older, since the guys won't know what the hell they're doing (and will most likely have even less of an idea what makes sex good for anyone but themselves). Oh, and of course, you could still use the 'Ugh, STDs' approach with girls, presumably.

Good idea! :p

Um, there's probably more I could add, but I need to go take my hourly painkillers, so I'll stop now :p


:D

So you are happy to OK the use of drugs then profit on that addiction?

From that point of view, no. But it wouldn't be 'profit' if all the taxes went to funding healthcare and quit programs.

If people are addicted to drugs then they will turn to petty crime and even armed robbery to pay for the drugs. Just like they do now. Except instead of having to pay a dealer, they pay the government.

Just like people turn to crime because cigarettes are too expensive? Just like people turn to crime because of the taxes on alcohol? I think it's much more likely that, once drug use becomes accepted as something that people *can* do if they feel like it, people will be more likely to start saying "Hang on, I don't want to pay $60 in taxes - maybe I'll just use less drugs". Of course, there are people who are almost completely dependant on the drugs they take - in those cases the tax-funded counselling and quit-programs and etc would presumably help deal with the worst of it.

Profiting off government condoned misery is not the way to go to achieve your goals.

But who is profiting? I wouldn't be, so you can't claim I'm for the decrimilisation for my own gains. I consider it more along the lines of damage control. People are going to take drugs. Better that we have control of the situation; know who needs the help and the information and the support most, and can give it to them.


Crime will still happen due to the need to pay for the highly taxed drugs. Also, drugs such as amphetamines and ecstacy increase aggression and cause psychosis. How can a government with any conscience do this?

The same way the government now allows cigarettes to be sold, knowing that they cause a whole host of health risks. I already mentioned that drugs that cause aggression would not (in my ideal society, anyway) be allowed to be taken just anywhere - they'd be limited to areas where they'd be distributed. That way, people taking them due to an actual addiction would have access (and access to counselling and information at the same place), whereas those who aren't addicted would have less incentive to take them. And I must say I've never heard of an association with the crime rate and cigarettes before... most people either say "Gack, it costs too much! I'll have to cut down" or "Damnit! I want cigarettes! This is highway robbery! *sigh*, fine, here's your damn money". Unless you're claiming that addiction to tabacco (or rather, the additives in tobacco) are less serious than ALL other addictions, I can't really agree with the 'crime will still continue".

Problem is, the pure drugs themselves have serious side-effects. Not just impurities and cutting agents. It may be safer but it is not going to be safe. That coupled with the need for increasing doses as in the case of cocaine and heroin means that monitoring every addicts intake would be either impossible or extremely costly. It would also depend on the addict adhering to the regimented drug taking program.

But surely 'safer' is better than 'not safe at all'? And you wouldn't need to monitor every addicts dosage - simple records could be kept, or else they could be educated (since their dosage would be information they'd be willing to learn about, I'm assuming) and keep track of their own dosages (there'd have to be a check and/or balance about how OD due to goverment drugs aren't murder... but that leads to a whole host of off-topic issues). I agree that it would depend on the addict following the program, but I can't see why they wouldn't... they're getting what they want... which is drugs... maybe I'm just missing something.


So legalise drugs, tax the crap out of the addicts then use the money to fund QUIT programs? Why should they quit if its OK by the government and they are aware of the damage they are doing to themselves?

They would quit because after a period of time they would either see that it's damaging their quality life, or that it's not. If it's not, they would have no reason or motivation to quit. If they do, the resources would be there for them.

I don't think it's a GOOD thing that some people choose to throw away their lives for drugs, but I also don't see it as my place to tell them they can't. I can support punishing the crimes associated with drugs (theft etc), but I don't see that making drugs illegal is helping at all. I'd rather have it so that help and information was readily available to those that need it most. If that means taking control of their source, and keeping track of how much a person is taking, I see it as a small trade-off.

But then, I'm 17, and have never touched drugs in my life. So, it's probable I have a rather myopic view, I guess :p.

I think education about sex is the right way to deal with the issue. Promoting abstinence amongst teenagers is a good idea.

Unless you CALL it absinence - if you do that, they just ignore you... which is why my theory is the best way to achieve abstinence is to appeal to selfishness :D

Good idea! :p

:D

Yay! I had a good idea! *celebrates with chocolate cake* *mmmchocolate cake*

From that point of view, no. But it wouldn't be 'profit' if all the taxes went to funding healthcare and quit programs.

It is still generating funds off people misery to treat the result of said addiction. Charging above cost price is profiting regardless of what you spend the money on.

Just like people turn to crime because cigarettes are too expensive? Just like people turn to crime because of the taxes on alcohol? I think it's much more likely that, once drug use becomes accepted as something that people *can* do if they feel like it, people will be more likely to start saying "Hang on, I don't want to pay $60 in taxes - maybe I'll just use less drugs". Of course, there are people who are almost completely dependant on the drugs they take - in those cases the tax-funded counselling and quit-programs and etc would presumably help deal with the worst of it.

For one, heroin is more addictive than morphine. It was designed while looking for a less addictive alternative to morphine but I guess they screwed up. Bottom line is, the addiction takes away the ability to make such a reasoned decision. They need more and more of the drug just to "feel normal". We already have QUIT programs and counselling but they rely on the person to want to get off the drugs.

But who is profiting? I wouldn't be, so you can't claim I'm for the decrimilisation for my own gains. I consider it more along the lines of damage control. People are going to take drugs. Better that we have control of the situation; know who needs the help and the information and the support most, and can give it to them.

As I said earlier. Charging any price above the cost price of production is making a profit. Doesn't matter where you invest that profit, it is still a profit based on human suffering. Self-inflicted suffering I agree, but if the drugs are legalised then the government has approved their use.

The same way the government now allows cigarettes to be sold, knowing that they cause a whole host of health risks. I already mentioned that drugs that cause aggression would not (in my ideal society, anyway) be allowed to be taken just anywhere - they'd be limited to areas where they'd be distributed. That way, people taking them due to an actual addiction would have access (and access to counselling and information at the same place), whereas those who aren't addicted would have less incentive to take them. And I must say I've never heard of an association with the crime rate and cigarettes before... most people either say "Gack, it costs too much! I'll have to cut down" or "Damnit! I want cigarettes! This is highway robbery! *sigh*, fine, here's your damn money". Unless you're claiming that addiction to tabacco (or rather, the additives in tobacco) are less serious than ALL other addictions, I can't really agree with the 'crime will still continue".

As was mentioned earlier. Cigarettes and alcohol have, rightly or wrongly, become a part of society in so far as their use is widespread and the government has, for a long time, condoned it. That, to me, is not justification for legalising every drug. I would much prefer tobacco was banned because of its drain on the health system.
Throwing drug use open with government approval will not stop those already inclined to use drugs taking drugs. What it will do is make it seem more acceptable to those that may not have used drugs had they been illegal. Therefore, I cannot see how drug use would decrease under legalisation. How can the "don't take drugs" message be seriously taken when the government is providing the drugs and granting access to to them?

But surely 'safer' is better than 'not safe at all'? And you wouldn't need to monitor every addicts dosage - simple records could be kept, or else they could be educated (since their dosage would be information they'd be willing to learn about, I'm assuming) and keep track of their own dosages (there'd have to be a check and/or balance about how OD due to goverment drugs aren't murder... but that leads to a whole host of off-topic issues). I agree that it would depend on the addict following the program, but I can't see why they wouldn't... they're getting what they want... which is drugs... maybe I'm just missing something.

Totally safe is to not use them. I think this should be encourages instead of giving up and saying "go for it, we'll clean up the mess later". They woul follow the program until they get to the point that they needmore of the drug then the doctors are giving them. A drug addict just wants the drugs, not someone telling them how to use it and when to use it.


They would quit because after a period of time they would either see that it's damaging their quality life, or that it's not. If it's not, they would have no reason or motivation to quit. If they do, the resources would be there for them.

They can do that right now.

I don't think it's a GOOD thing that some people choose to throw away their lives for drugs, but I also don't see it as my place to tell them they can't. I can support punishing the crimes associated with drugs (theft etc), but I don't see that making drugs illegal is helping at all. I'd rather have it so that help and information was readily available to those that need it most. If that means taking control of their source, and keeping track of how much a person is taking, I see it as a small trade-off.

Then why concede and throw the agtes open for rampant drug use with government consent? Even if a government program was set up, how can you be sure organised crime won't undersell the government? I mean, the government has to pay people to make the drug, check its quality and concentration, package it, distribute it to doctor's, pay the doctors to monitor its dispensation and maintain counselling and treatment programs. This in addition to the taxes you have mentioned means an organised crime gang could easily undersell the government on the blackmarket as they have less overheads and no need to check for quality or purity. Where do you thin an adict will go for his drugs? Somewhere that charges twice the price and entails a sermon? Or someone selling for half the price with no strings attached?

But then, I'm 17, and have never touched drugs in my life. So, it's probable I have a rather myopic view, I guess :p.

I am 32, never used drugs except for a social drink. I have, however worked in a drug analysis laboratory for my state police force. I have seen what is in street drugs. I have studied their effects. I have seen the way drug addicts and dealers operate. I cannot, with any conscience, advocate government sanctioned distribution of these drugs.

Unless you CALL it absinence - if you do that, they just ignore you... which is why my theory is the best way to achieve abstinence is to appeal to selfishness :D

Yes, don't use the "A" word!!

Yay! I had a good idea! *celebrates with chocolate cake* *mmmchocolate cake*

Congratulations...hasn't anyone told you that unless you have enough for everyone that your should not bring cakes to the forums? ;)

Legalise all drugs and then limit heathcare entitlements to a certain amount of money.

Why should there be lots of statist social policies simply aimed at accommodating the white trash anyway?

Also, there be no free medicine for those with sexually transmitted diseases.

There should be no free abortions provided by the state, and those private sector health services should have 'no abortions' as one of thier conditions for tax allowances.

Also, there be no free medicine for those with sexually transmitted diseases.

There should be no free abortions provided by the state, and those private sector health services should have 'no abortions' as one of thier conditions for tax allowances.

Is there any particular reason why you want to punish women more than men?

If a woman is raped or her life is in danger due to her pregnancy, does she need to suffer further?

What does this particular debate have to do with abortion anyway? Yes, it's about personal responsibility, but one could argue that ensuring that an unwanted child isn't born is taking personal responsibility.

Is there any particular reason why you want to punish women more than men?

If a woman is raped or her life is in danger due to her pregnancy, does she need to suffer further?

What does this particular debate have to do with abortion anyway? Yes, it's about personal responsibility, but one could argue that ensuring that an unwanted child isn't born is taking personal responsibility.

What I mean is that if you make a mistake in life then the government should not bail you out.

i am in favor of legalizing drugs but there are only a few that can be realistically legalized.

for example we (the US and the UK) CANT legalize heroin. we are trying to stop the growing of poppies in afghanistan and its neighbors. if its going to be illegal for THEM it has to be illegal for US too.

same with cocaine because of how it supports the "bad guys" in south america. the big drug cartels would go from outlaws to businessmen with the stroke of a pen but that wouldnt change what they really are.

i would like to have the growing and possession of marijuana (for personal use only) be legal. it would be safer and save the american people a ton of money.

meth would need to have certified manufacturers in the US. its a big explosive hazard for self manufacture so it would have to be illegal to make your own. i guess all the manufactured stuff would have to have certified manufacturers.

the taxes on them would have to be high enough to discourage over-use but low enough that bootlegging isnt attractive.

the costs of drugs being illegal is enormous. its not just the price. its not just the health costs. its also the cost in organized crime. street gangs enforce their markets with drive by shootings that kill innocent bystanders. whole neighborhoods are controlled by criminals involved in the drug biz.

There is a principle of phsychology called "permission." Permissions are given by those seen as authority figures to those who see them as authority figures. A good example is a parent who gives his or her child "permission" to think. The child then incorporates this into their psychological makeup and will accept thinking as a natural skill.

When governments legalize something, anything, there are many who will accept that as permission to do what has been legalized, regardless of its impact. If I, as a parent, think that taking drugs will have a negative impact on my child and thus try to instill in them an understanding of the negative impact of taking drugs, the last thing I need is for the government to, in effect, overrule me and give my child "permission" to take them.
if the only reason you kid avoids drugs is that they are illegal then i would say you have utterly failed as a parent. that's like saying that your kid would go out and kill people, except that it is illegal...what kind of moral compass does that kid have? if your kid is going to go out and do anything and everything the government says is legal then you had better get that kid in therapy ASAP.

also, repeated studies of teens (which i will try to find links to) show that the legal status of drugs virtually never factors in to a teen's decision to use. in other words, if a teen wants to use drugs they are not going to be stopped by the fact that drugs are illegal, and teens that don't use drugs report that the legal status of drugs really isn't a significant part of their decision...they avoid drugs for other reasons.

but going beyond that, do you really think it is the government's job to worry about how easy it is for you to parent your kids? for instance, a religious parent could say that the government is hurting their efforts to raise their child in a religious manner because the government gives all people permission to believe or not believe in God. if the government would make it against the law to believe in any other faith then the parent wouldn't have to work so hard to make sure their kids stuck with the right religion.

or how about the fact that i believe i need to teach children that how dangerous a drug is does NOT correlated to its legal status; i want to teach kids the medical realities of drugs, and current government legislation doesn't support that in the slightest. the government sends the message that tobacco is less dangerous than marijuana, when the medical reality is exactly the opposite. chronic abuse of LSD is less medically dangerous than chronic abuse of alcohol. yet the government is giving "permission" to use the more dangerous drugs while criminalizing less dangerous drugs.

most importantly, i think, you are putting your personal comfort ahead of the safety and health of other human beings. you want your job as a parent to be easier, so you are supporting a system that increases the amount and severity of drug abuse, increases violent crime rates, supports the growth of organized crime, and increases risks of overdose or death through impurity of drug used. Prohibition showed us very clearly that legalization is safer and more healthy for our population, yet you seem to think that your personal parenting efforts should count for more than public health does. is that really the sort of values you want to pass on to your children?

What I mean is that if you make a mistake in life then the government should not bail you out.

so to you, personal responsibility means punishing people for making mistakes?

so much of what we DO is a mistake of some kind or other. you may as well close all the hospitals if only the DESERVING are going to get treatment.

in terms of personal responsibility
well in truth i dont know what it means. what it seems to mean, judging by people who use it in real life, is "conform to an unrealistic standard of behavior that in all likelihood i havent conformed to in my life"

like dr laura recommending to people that they know each other for 2.5 years before their wedding day without having sex in all that time. its certainly not what SHE did. but she feels justified in demanding that her listeners do what was impossible for her to do.

so taking sex as an example, i dont see that its wrong to have sex before getting married. therefore there WILL be pregnancy that occurs outside of marriage, there WILL be a certain amount of STDs.

personal responsibility comes in with what you DO about those things. if you dont use a condom because it lacks spontaneity, you have no sense of personal responsibility. if you prey on insecure girls because they are easy to get into bed then dump afterwards, you lack personal responsibility. if you get girls pregnant then leave it all to them to deal with, you lack personal responsibility. if you have 5 kids by 5 different women and you support none of them, you lack personal responsibility.

we dont need to punish people for their mistakes, life does that. the girl who got pregnant by "someone" at a party where she consumed too much drugs and alcohol to know what she was doing or who she was doing it with is punished plenty by life.

we need to encourage people to see the potential effects of their actions so they will make fewer mistakes. personal responsibility is learning to act in your own best interest and to stop hurting other people by your mistakes.

i am in favor of legalizing drugs but there are only a few that can be realistically legalized.

for example we (the US and the UK) CANT legalize heroin. we are trying to stop the growing of poppies in afghanistan and its neighbors. if its going to be illegal for THEM it has to be illegal for US too.

but that's just it; if the drug is legal, then we don't have to be trying to stop anybody else from making it. if it's legal, then there is nothing wrong with that legal product being bought and sold, so there is no reason to stop anybody from trying to make it and sell it. hell, Americans would be growing opium poppies and would no longer WANT to buy from other countries because we could probably get much better domestic rates.

same with cocaine because of how it supports the "bad guys" in south america. the big drug cartels would go from outlaws to businessmen with the stroke of a pen but that wouldnt change what they really are.

this is an excellent reason to legalize coke; if Americans can get coke legally, through government-approved providers, then the cartels are out of business. if the government will check the purity of your coke, sell it to you at a clear price with no threats or big guys leaning on you for extra cash, and won't break your legs if you are late on a payment, then there's no reason to deal with drug dealers. users won't be buying from the cartels, so the cartels lose their hold. it's exactly the same thing that happened to organized crime when Prohibition was repealed; once hooch was being produced legitimately by legalized business, there was no reason for anybody to deal with the mobsters.


i would like to have the growing and possession of marijuana (for personal use only) be legal. it would be safer and save the american people a ton of money.

same goes for all other drugs.


meth would need to have certified manufacturers in the US. its a big explosive hazard for self manufacture so it would have to be illegal to make your own. i guess all the manufactured stuff would have to have certified manufacturers.

of course; all manufacturing in the US has basic safety standards, so that would be a given.

the taxes on them would have to be high enough to discourage over-use but low enough that bootlegging isnt attractive.

why should we tax something more just to make people stop using it? we don't tax butter extra to discourage people from getting fat. we don't tax TVs extra to discourage people from sitting around on their butts all day. let people make their own choices as the adults they are; tax the drugs enough to cover whatever medical costs might result, and leave it at that. and, while you're at it, lower these unConstitutional added tobacco taxes.


the costs of drugs being illegal is enormous. its not just the price. its not just the health costs. its also the cost in organized crime. street gangs enforce their markets with drive by shootings that kill innocent bystanders. whole neighborhoods are controlled by criminals involved in the drug biz.
bingo. drugs will cost America less (both financially and in terms of loss of life) if they are legalized, and the only people fighting that are the people who aren't prepared to take responsibility for their own actions and for the parenting of their own children.

i suppose i was being stupid pulling out ONE reason why drugs cant be legalized politically when the truth is that they wont be legalized. international politics aside, it would be harder to get passed than gay marriage. the people in power NOW have all smoked marajuana and they know just how "dangerous" it is but they dont have the balls to stand up and say it should be legalized. i dont know what is going to have to change to get a realistic drug policy in this country but i dont see it happening any time soon.

we tax cigarettes with the excuse of it being to discourage use by underaged people and to encourage smokers to quit. we may as well do the same with other drugs. we dont want people high all day every day. artificially keeping the price high (without it being so high that it develops a black market like they have for cigs in NYC and the UK) would do for drugs what it does for cigs now. (which is an odd stance for me to take since i HATE cigarette taxes. my sister buys her cigs for $10/carton from our "indian brothers" up by albuquerque to avoid the high state tax)

its not like there isnt tons of drug use now. i doubt that legalization is going to create much more. it would however have a big effect on crime locally and internationally

Sex I think is a matter of more education. You want to stop guys having random sex? Don't lecture them about pregnancy... show them photos of STDs. Nice big glossy ones, with all the pus and gore. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I imagine more guys would be cautious about sex if they realised that lots and lots of promiscuous sex will increase the chances of their precious genitals looking like this: removed

And you want to stop girls having random sex? Feel free to teach them that vibrators will be a hell of a lot more amusing until they're older, since the guys won't know what the hell they're doing (and will most likely have even less of an idea what makes sex good for anyone but themselves). Oh, and of course, you could still use the 'Ugh, STDs' approach with girls, presumably.

Um, there's probably more I could add, but I need to go take my hourly painkillers, so I'll stop now :p
Yeah, the best way to stop people having sex is to scare the crap out of them. I'm not clicking that picture, but I'm gonna suggest you edit the link before the mods see it, I don't think you're allowed to post pictures of genetalia no matter how educational they are.

if the only reason you kid avoids drugs is that they are illegal then i would say you have utterly failed as a parent. that's like saying that your kid would go out and kill people, except that it is illegal...what kind of moral compass does that kid have? if your kid is going to go out and do anything and everything the government says is legal then you had better get that kid in therapy ASAP.

also, repeated studies of teens (which i will try to find links to) show that the legal status of drugs virtually never factors in to a teen's decision to use. in other words, if a teen wants to use drugs they are not going to be stopped by the fact that drugs are illegal, and teens that don't use drugs report that the legal status of drugs really isn't a significant part of their decision...they avoid drugs for other reasons.

but going beyond that, do you really think it is the government's job to worry about how easy it is for you to parent your kids? for instance, a religious parent could say that the government is hurting their efforts to raise their child in a religious manner because the government gives all people permission to believe or not believe in God. if the government would make it against the law to believe in any other faith then the parent wouldn't have to work so hard to make sure their kids stuck with the right religion.

or how about the fact that i believe i need to teach children that how dangerous a drug is does NOT correlated to its legal status; i want to teach kids the medical realities of drugs, and current government legislation doesn't support that in the slightest. the government sends the message that tobacco is less dangerous than marijuana, when the medical reality is exactly the opposite. chronic abuse of LSD is less medically dangerous than chronic abuse of alcohol. yet the government is giving "permission" to use the more dangerous drugs while criminalizing less dangerous drugs.

most importantly, i think, you are putting your personal comfort ahead of the safety and health of other human beings. you want your job as a parent to be easier, so you are supporting a system that increases the amount and severity of drug abuse, increases violent crime rates, supports the growth of organized crime, and increases risks of overdose or death through impurity of drug used. Prohibition showed us very clearly that legalization is safer and more healthy for our population, yet you seem to think that your personal parenting efforts should count for more than public health does. is that really the sort of values you want to pass on to your children?Theres also a civil rights arguement, drug illegality threatens the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, tenth and fourteenth amendments.



(BTW: The tenth amendment implication is less clear than others, I can elaborate if necessary)

why should we tax something more just to make people stop using it? we don't tax butter extra to discourage people from getting fat. we don't tax TVs extra to discourage people from sitting around on their butts all day. let people make their own choices as the adults they are; tax the drugs enough to cover whatever medical costs might result, and leave it at that. and, while you're at it, lower these unConstitutional added tobacco taxes.
I agree. It shouldn't be for the purposes of turning a massive profit, but drugs should be legalised and taxed at a level that makes sure they pay for very well funded medical and rehab treatment

if the only reason you kid avoids drugs is that they are illegal then i would say you have utterly failed as a parent. that's like saying that your kid would go out and kill people, except that it is illegal...what kind of moral compass does that kid have? if your kid is going to go out and do anything and everything the government says is legal then you had better get that kid in therapy ASAP.

also, repeated studies of teens (which i will try to find links to) show that the legal status of drugs virtually never factors in to a teen's decision to use. in other words, if a teen wants to use drugs they are not going to be stopped by the fact that drugs are illegal, and teens that don't use drugs report that the legal status of drugs really isn't a significant part of their decision...they avoid drugs for other reasons.

but going beyond that, do you really think it is the government's job to worry about how easy it is for you to parent your kids? for instance, a religious parent could say that the government is hurting their efforts to raise their child in a religious manner because the government gives all people permission to believe or not believe in God. if the government would make it against the law to believe in any other faith then the parent wouldn't have to work so hard to make sure their kids stuck with the right religion.

or how about the fact that i believe i need to teach children that how dangerous a drug is does NOT correlated to its legal status; i want to teach kids the medical realities of drugs, and current government legislation doesn't support that in the slightest. the government sends the message that tobacco is less dangerous than marijuana, when the medical reality is exactly the opposite. chronic abuse of LSD is less medically dangerous than chronic abuse of alcohol. yet the government is giving "permission" to use the more dangerous drugs while criminalizing less dangerous drugs.

most importantly, i think, you are putting your personal comfort ahead of the safety and health of other human beings. you want your job as a parent to be easier, so you are supporting a system that increases the amount and severity of drug abuse, increases violent crime rates, supports the growth of organized crime, and increases risks of overdose or death through impurity of drug used. Prohibition showed us very clearly that legalization is safer and more healthy for our population, yet you seem to think that your personal parenting efforts should count for more than public health does. is that really the sort of values you want to pass on to your children?

Congratulations. You completely missed the point. :rolleyes:

There is a principle of phsychology called "permission." Permissions are given by those seen as authority figures to those who see them as authority figures. A good example is a parent who gives his or her child "permission" to think. The child then incorporates this into their psychological makeup and will accept thinking as a natural skill.

When governments legalize something, anything, there are many who will accept that as permission to do what has been legalized, regardless of its impact. If I, as a parent, think that taking drugs will have a negative impact on my child and thus try to instill in them an understanding of the negative impact of taking drugs, the last thing I need is for the government to, in effect, overrule me and give my child "permission" to take them.

1) stupid
2) ignorant


if you did you]r job as a parent, the government legalizing shit wont matter. and it isnt like they have no access to it anyway. if your kid wants to go smoke pot, chances are they will get it EASILY. but if you did your damn job it wont matter will it


lets also take into account the bad for you substances tax which are usually ridiculously high, in addition to you doing your fucking job as a parent, which some how people dont know what that is, that will AID your cause because if the kid wants to go smoke some pot they will have to pay like what 40% sales tax on it?

i doubt this will make any impression on you as you are quite dense and are apparently of the mindset that because a bunch of pissy soccer moms cant do their fucking jobs as parents everything they dont like should be banned

1) stupid
2) ignorant

if you did you]r job as a parent, the government legalizing shit wont matter. and it isnt like they have no access to it anyway. if your kid wants to go smoke pot, chances are they will get it EASILY. but if you did your damn job it wont matter will it

lets also take into account the bad for you substances tax which are usually ridiculously high, in addition to you doing your fucking job as a parent, which some how people dont know what that is, that will AID your cause because if the kid wants to go smoke some pot they will have to pay like what 40% sales tax on it?

i doubt this will make any impression on you as you are quite dense and are apparently of the mindset that because a bunch of pissy soccer moms cant do their fucking jobs as parents everything they dont like should be banned

Ever with the insults, eh ChessSquares? You really should seek out the services of a competent mental health professional, you know. I've heard they can work wonders.

Have you never heard of children who turn out to be ax-murders even though both parents seemed to have done their best to raise the child right? The gene pool tosses out strange combinations sometimes, and parents don't have the total control you seem to think they have. BTW ... got any children of your own???:

I've heard people on the right talk about Personal Responsibility, especially with regard to small government.
Conservatives say that they believe in Personal Responsibility and small government. Libertarians actually do.

Ever with the insults, eh ChessSquares? You really should seek out the services of a competent mental health professional, you know. I've heard they can work wonders.

Have you never heard of children who turn out to be ax-murders even though both parents seemed to have done their best to raise the child right? The gene pool tosses out strange combinations sometimes, and parents don't have the total control you seem to think they have. BTW ... got any children of your own???:

which the question still stands: what gives you the right to stop all people, adults and children, from having access to these things because of the actions of the bad apples? and what makes you think they wouldnt do it anyway? legalisation gives control.

hey i know what you should do eutrusca! go to your local public library and start a pettition to remove all of mark twain's literature from the shelves because some of it contains adult (now) words and mature humor? that would prevent all of our poor kids from having access to potentially harmful books! and everyone else as well..

oh and good comeback, ad hominem counter with ad hominem! way to take the moral highground hypocrite

Congratulations. You completely missed the point. :rolleyes:
congratulations, you missed about 45 of them...if you'd like to actually respond like an adult, feel free, but if you don't have anything constructive to say then you might want to just save yourself some time and not waste emoticons trying to look aloof in an effort to cover the fact that you have no answer to the issues being raised. you're not fooling anybody.

Congratulations. You completely missed the point. :rolleyes:
Congratulations. You are a troll.

Conservatives say that they believe in Personal Responsibility and small government. Libertarians actually do.
As coherant positions go, libertarianism has it down. One of the most consistant in terms of personal freedom and government stance. Of course, other consistant positions are rather less pleasant, National Socialism being among them. So I'm thinking that maybe for politics, and especially for economics, you want to pull a little on all the levers, rather than jam your weight down on one.

Another drug point, not really connected to personal responsibility. Its easier for a thirteen year old kid to buy an eighth of bud than it is for them to get the tobacco to smoke it with. There's an age limit on tobacco, it won't get sold to kids. Drug dealers have fewer qualms in that area.

hey i know what you should do eutrusca! go to your local public library and start a pettition to remove all of mark twain's literature from the shelves because some of it contains adult (now) words and mature humor? that would prevent all of our poor kids from having access to potentially harmful books! and everyone else as well.

oh and good comeback, ad hominem counter with ad hominem! way to take the moral highground hypocrite

The censorship statement is a strawman argument, since I have never even remotely suggested such a thing. If you can recognize an ad hominem argument, then why not a strawman argument, and why not stop with the ad hominem arguments yourself? Hmmm? :D

oh and good comeback, ad hominem counter with ad hominem! way to take the moral highground hypocrite

Oh, and by the way, you never answered my question about whether you've ever had any children of your own. Or perhaps that's why you responded all out of proportion to my post ... trying to avoid the question. :D

The censorship statement is a strawman argument, since I have never even remotely suggested such a thing. If you can recognize an ad hominem argument, then why not a strawman argument, and why not stop with the ad hominem arguments yourself? Hmmm? :D
but you DID suggest that drugs should be kept illegal for the EXACT same reason the whiny soccer moms are advocating the equivolent of book burning

Oh, and by the way, you never answered my question about whether you've ever had any children of your own. Or perhaps that's why you responded all out of proportion to my post ... trying to avoid the question. :D
thats an irrelevant factor in the equation

red herring i believe

congratulations, you missed about 45 of them...if you'd like to actually respond like an adult, feel free, but if you don't have anything constructive to say then you might want to just save yourself some time and not waste emoticons trying to look aloof in an effort to cover the fact that you have no answer to the issues being raised. you're not fooling anybody.

I'm not tring to fool anyone. I simply stated that your attempt to respond to my previous post had simply missed the entire point of what I had posted. How is that trying to fool anyone?

Congratulations. You are a troll.

You must be taking lessons from ChessSquares. Keep it up and you'll probably need to consult the services of a competent mental health professional just like he does. :D

I'm not tring to fool anyone. I simply stated that your attempt to respond to my previous post had simply missed the entire point of what I had posted. How is that trying to fool anyone?
no, he was right on the point, it is you who has hit everywhere but the nail's head



You must be taking lessons from ChessSquares. Keep it up and you'll probably need to consult the services of a competent mental health professional just like he does. :D
ooh look, HYPOCRATE.

and smileys dont make you look any more intelligent, if anything they make you look less so, and less mature to boot

but we already know you are quite immature dont we

You must be taking lessons from ChessSquares. Keep it up and you'll probably need to consult the services of a competent mental health professional just like he does. :D
Ahha, ahha, ahha.

Oh my sides!

You do nothing to disprove my point I notice.

thats an irrelevant factor in the equation

red herring i believe

Not at all. I remember a lecture I attended by a so-called child care professional who had some of the most off-the-wall suggestions about how to care for children that I had ever heard. One of the attendees made reference to this "professional's" own children. The response was that she didn't have any. For almost all of the parents in the lecture, that was the end of her credibility. There really is no substitute for experience.

So let me ask one more time ... do you have any children? :D

no, he was right on the point, it is you who has hit everywhere but the nail's head

ooh look, HYPOCRATE.

and smileys dont make you look any more intelligent, if anything they make you look less so, and less mature to boot

but we already know you are quite immature dont we

I'm not the one making with all the wild accusations and name-calling. If I truly am immature, as you say, what does that make those of you who seem to have no rebuttal other than to call those with whom you disagree "stupid," "idiots," and yes, "immature?" Hmmmmm? :D

Ahha, ahha, ahha.

Oh my sides!

You do nothing to disprove my point I notice.

Well, pehaps if you actually HAD a point ...! Or you might want to restate your point so that it makes a bit of sense? :D

but you DID suggest that drugs should be kept illegal for the EXACT same reason the whiny soccer moms are advocating the equivolent of book burning

Hmmm. So, because my argument sounds like other arguments made on an entirely unrelated subject, this means I must be advocating this other subject as well? What's wrong with this picture??

[Eutrusca #112]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bottle
congratulations, you missed about 45 of them...if you'd like to actually respond like an adult, feel free, but if you don't have anything constructive to say then you might want to just save yourself some time and not waste emoticons trying to look aloof in an effort to cover the fact that you have no answer to the issues being raised. you're not fooling anybody.

I'm not tring to fool anyone. I simply stated that your attempt to respond to my previous post had simply missed the entire point of what I had posted. How is that trying to fool anyone?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoffin
Congratulations. You are a troll.

You must be taking lessons from ChessSquares. Keep it up and you'll probably need to consult the services of a competent mental health professional just like he does.

Bottle is an idiot libertine.

Spoffin is a thoughtful libertine.

Chessy is just a freakin' loon who won't (not can't) use english with anyone.

And Eutrusca is a scholar of sensibility.

Oh yes,.. and everyone except Eutrusca behaves as if they are precocious 11 year olds.

(( ..and you can make up your own minds about me, your faithful servant. ))

Not at all. I remember a lecture I attended by a so-called child care professional who had some of the most off-the-wall suggestions about how to care for children that I had ever heard. One of the attendees made reference to this "professional's" own children. The response was that she didn't have any. For almost all of the parents in the lecture, that was the end of her credibility. There really is no substitute for experience.

So let me ask one more time ... do you have any children? :D
every time you make a smiley, i ignore you. starting....now

Hmmm. So, because my argument sounds like other arguments made on an entirely unrelated subject, this means I must be advocating this other subject as well? What's wrong with this picture??
its not so much that it sounds like it, its that it IS the argument of a entirely unrelated subject

its not so much that it sounds like it, its that it IS the argument of a entirely unrelated subject

Ah! But one which you accused me of advocating censorship as a result of!

Explain that ... if you can.

every time you make a smiley, i ignore you. starting....now

Excellent! At last a technique to keep you from following me from thread to thread making wild accusations and personal attacks! :D

I know. I have been insulted by Chess Squares fairly regularly on these fora. I guess I am just an optimist and hope that one day he might actually post something useful and civil...I am still waiting.

Did you know there's an ignore list?
If you go to your profile it's toward the bottom of the left-side menu. Then a screen pops up where you can enter "Chess Squares".

speaking of the ignore list, the increasingly immature and dumb eutrusca gets to go on mine

and
i dont want smilies, for every smiley i find i shall kill you

but that's just it; if the drug is legal, then we don't have to be trying to stop anybody else from making it. if it's legal, then there is nothing wrong with that legal product being bought and sold, so there is no reason to stop anybody from trying to make it and sell it. hell, Americans would be growing opium poppies and would no longer WANT to buy from other countries because we could probably get much better domestic rates.

Actually opiate patents would occur like other agricultural seeds, they may well license the growers. You want legalised? you get corporations, heh.

The scenario of prohibition is a bad example, because you're talking about an immediate ban on people that were otherwise legally consume it and come with cultures that alcohol are heavily embedded within. One could validly argue that abortion laws bare more similarities than alcohol laws, banning alcohol would be like banning firearms.

Even the government recognised in the assault weapon ban that banning weapons prior to the law would be impossible, much like banning alcohol for those who already had an addiction was never going to be plausible. Prohibition might have had a positive effect if it lasted 50 years, but the negative impact was far too great a burden to bare. Also one must not also lose track of the fact that alcohol in moderate is in fact a net positive gain for your body.

But let's imagine for a minute that your positive optimism on the outcome was in fact wrong? Keep in mind you're basing it on very sketchy assumption that may or may not apply.

What if the problem became worse? what then? corporations are imbedded, they will make the bureacracy keep it in place, it's not going away, but society will go downhill as a result.

Well sure there is a chance for a net positive gain, but a government can't play russian roulette with its society in good faith, hoping that some sketchy assumptions come true, because in this sort of scenario that possible net loss is absolutely catastrophic.

Whilst a previous poster mentioned certain softer drugs, most governments very loosely/decriminalise them anyway, the real threat and real problem is the harder drugs.

And Shaed (as i believe you're a young aussie, i don't really care about the americans ;) ), you probably don't understand us conservatives at all I'm sure, and wonder how we think the way we do ;) You may have heard the statement once about "If you're young and not liberal, you have no heart, as you grow older, if you do not become conservative, you have no brains". The core of this statement isn't so much like the fear monger that conservatives fear change, some change is good, but as you get older you get to see the negative side of change as well as the positive.

Just look at Mark Latham's tasmanian forestry changes, is putting people out of work for the sake of saving 100 rather than 80% of old growth forestry a positive change? No not really, and that's why we tend to go conservative as we get older, as the conservatives tend to be more "conservative" and think long and hard about their changes. Also as you get older, the years tend to meld into eachother (haha I'm only 27 and sound like I'm 40 sometimes :/), and the push for immediate change becomes less of an urge as we get older and (some of us at least) become more patient.

While we probably do become overly jaded over time, the problem of becoming "overly liberal" is that often the changes are hit and miss, some work, some don't, and the risk of a large scale one going wrong, leaves the conservatives to try and clean up a near impossible mess. (Large scale changes also have the possibility of system shock, which cause problems not even related to whether the change in itself was theoretically positive).

Oh and just for Chessquares

:) :) :) :)

[to bottle]
I'm not tring to fool anyone. I simply stated that your attempt to respond to my previous post had simply missed the entire point of what I had posted. How is that trying to fool anyone?

Well, if bottle completely missed your point, I can't possibly imagine what your point could've been. Why don't you try again?

Anyone who thinks the cost of legalizing drugs would be too costly needs to take a serious look at the cost of keeping drugs illegal. Billions are spent on each year in law enforcement in order to halt the use of drugs. Billions of dollars are obviously wasted, as drug use has not declined. Billions of dollars are spent on incarceration of thousands of "criminals" who have not behaved violently. The majority of the "criminals" are not even addicts and have not suffered any long term health effects. Most of these will never need treatment that will drain taxpayer money. The cost of incarceration far exceeds the cost of treatment. So even if the taxpayer cost of drug treatment did rise some, that cost would be more than offset by the amount saved in halting the useless war on drugs. This is even before tax revenue on that would be placed on legalized drugs is taken into consideration.

More room in prison and more law enforcement resources would then be freed to concentrate on violent criminals such a thieves, rapists, murders. These violent criminals would then spend more time in prison instead of being released early due to overcrowding. So, society would benefit.

Thousands of people whose drug-related criminal record bars them from holding decent jobs or recieving educational grants and loans (which no other type of felon is barred from receiving) would be given the chance to become more productive citizens. Thousands of families who are torn apart by the incarceration and criminal record of a family member -just as many if not more than are torn apart by the actual use of the drugs- would have a greater chance of staying intact. Again, society would benefit.

The majority of people who use drugs- even the harder ones- do so without ever succumbing to addiction. For those who use not just for recreation, but to solve personal problems - the type of drug user much more likely to become addicted - the additional stresses caused by obtaining drugs on the black market only add to those problems the user is trying to escape, thus increasing the chance use will slide into addiction. But for those who would become addicted in a society where drug use is legalized and less stigmatized, treatment would be more effective even before taking into consideration any additional money generated by drug tax could provide.
Non-judgemental emotional support is invaluable in helping someone overcome any type of addiction. Drug addicts often lack this. Family members and even clinicians are more likely to treat addicts of illegal substances as criminals first and people who need help second. This attitude may in turn leave the addict feeling unworthy which would make recovery that much more difficult. Addicts also have to face the fact that entering a treatment program leaves a paper trail, one that could affect their future chances at jobs unless they are willing to lie for the rest of thier lives. The poor treatment that addicts receive even at clinics aimed at helping them and the fact that not even recovery will put them on a near equal footing with a person who has never been addicted to an illegal substance serves to make treatment less effective and less attractive of an option.

The War on Drugs is one of the least compassionate and most expensive- in both monetary costs and the cost of human lives- wars that has ever been waged.

I've heard people on the right talk about Personal Responsibility, especially with regard to small government.

I can think of at least 2 issues where, in general, people on the right tend to lean away from personal responsibility, in favour of draconian governmental controls. The issues are drug use and sex.

With regards to drug use, someone in favour of personal responsibility might say that all drugs should be legal, and people should be able to buy them, in much the same way as tobacco and alcohol, over the counter once the consumer is over a certain age. A less extreme person might argue that needle exchange programmes and rehab treatments (as opposed to prisions) might be a fair expression of personal responsibilty as a way of dealing with drug problems.

With regards to sex, I think that, although many would argue that abstinance would be taking a responsibility, that in order to take a personal responsibility rather than simply being brainwashed by dogma, you have to be presented with the facts and then make a choice. Facts like, condoms are 97-99% effective, which means that you are 97-99% less likely to contract a sexual disease or get pregnant if you use them.
We also will not forget a favourite of the Right wing, homosexuality. What could be more personally responsible than choosing (or accepting, depending on what you believe) which sex you want to have sex with, rather than conforming to societarial or "natural law" expectations?

I think you might be confusing differant types of right and left wing.
differant types of liberal and conservative.

Im "right wing" but I am also for govt getting out of many types of things such as srug legalization, marriage, alcohol, affirmative action ect. basically I want the govt out of any sort of social engineering. I guess that makes me libertarian except that I think that the Federal govt should take an active role in foreign policy to promote American interests.

I think a whole slew of things such as (for example)... education being the best investment a country can make for its own welfare yet I also think that the federal and state govt should stay the hell out of it. The list and discussion goes on.

It is still generating funds off people misery to treat the result of said addiction. Charging above cost price is profiting regardless of what you spend the money on.

Which means that would be generating the funds from somewhere to treat help treat addictions. Prohibition doesn't work. Billions are spent and the only people profitting are drug lords, the prison system and politicians. Thousands of people suffer misery caused by incarceration whose use of drugs otherwise wouldn't have negatively impacted their lives in anyway whatsoever. Wouldn't it better to at least have the profits available to help those who need them? And as for those who do have problems, isn't better to have funding available to help them? Either legal or illegal, there are people who are going to profit from drugs. Why let the profits go to increase the misery rather than fight it?



For one, heroin is more addictive than morphine. It was designed while looking for a less addictive alternative to morphine but I guess they screwed up. Bottom line is, the addiction takes away the ability to make such a reasoned decision. They need more and more of the drug just to "feel normal". We already have QUIT programs and counselling but they rely on the person to want to get off the drugs.

Psychologically perhaps. Heroin provides a greater rush than morphine because its chemical structure better allows it to penetrate lipids in the brain, meaning it hits faster. However, it is metabolized into morphine in under three minutes and the physiological result (including the physical aspects that lead to addiction) is the same. Even psychologically I say perhaps because seeking a "rush" is something more common among cocaine/crack addicts than opiate addicts who usually are more interested in the overall result. It takes less heroin to produce equal results because of how quickly morphine is metabolized, but people who use do use less heroin, otherwise one would have an overdose rather than the desired effect. If there are more "heroin" addicts than "morphine" addicts (other than delivery mechanism to the brain they are basically the same drug) then it is because of the greater availability of heroin. Heroin is vastly easier to find than morphine. The greater effect for smaller dosage means that it is easier to smuggle and sell, meaning increased availability on the street. So in this case prohibition means that a drug which is slightly safer in terms of O.D. potential and would possibly result in less psychological addiction is not as available for those who would choose to use the safer drug.

It is ridiculous to say that addiction takes away the ability to make a reasoned decision. Addicts of all kinds (alcohol, tobacco, gambling, harder drugs) seek help everyday. If the programs for narcotic and cocaine addiction are not as effective as they should be, we really need to start looking for reasons why. It is certainly not entirely attributable to the chemicals themselves. Caffeine, tobacco are both more physically and psychologically addictive. Benzodiazapines (xanax, valium, etc) are far more physically addictive than opiates and far more widely traded and used on the streets - from what I've seen only marijuana is more widespread. And withdrawals from benzo addiction can be deadly, unlike cocaine or opiate withdrawal. Yes, all addiction programs require the person to want to give up their addicton. But programs which are available for legal or even less socially stigmatized addictions - even addictions which are as physically and a psychologically as strong - fare far better. The more stigmatized a substance is the more damage to the self-esteem of a person who already felt the need to turn to some chemical source is done, and at the same time the "help" available is often undermined by the attitudes of those providing the help because of the very same stigma.



but if the drugs are legalised then the government has approved their use.

Funny, last time I checked "approving of" and "not punishing for" were far from synonomous.




Throwing drug use open with government approval will not stop those already inclined to use drugs taking drugs. What it will do is make it seem more acceptable to those that may not have used drugs had they been illegal. Therefore, I cannot see how drug use would decrease under legalisation. How can the "don't take drugs" message be seriously taken when the government is providing the drugs and granting access to to them?

It would be corporations providing and marketing drugs. Just like corporations provide and manufacture caffeine and alcohol. And the "don't take drugs" message isn't being taken seriously now. How can it be when the anti-drug propaganda contains so many blatant lies. Marijuana is practically harmless. Even more so (both mentally and physically) when compared to alcohol or even overuse of caffeine or other legal stimulants yet it is Schedule I. Benzos are more addictive and deadly than many other controlled substances yet they are Schedule IV. Anyone with the ability to read, a basic understanding of biochemistry and a modicum of common sense is able to figure out that the classification and illegalization of certain drugs is in no way related to the amount of actual danger a chemical presents.




Totally safe is to not use them. I think this should be encourages instead of giving up and saying "go for it, we'll clean up the mess later". They woul follow the program until they get to the point that they needmore of the drug then the doctors are giving them. A drug addict just wants the drugs, not someone telling them how to use it and when to use it.

With some drugs amounts needed never escalate or barely escalate. Besides, what you are describing is a maintance program, not legalization. And maintanence programs already legally exist. Depending on the country and the program the addicts either get the actual drug in question or some halfway close approximation that the government has deemed okay. There is a point with this class of drugs, even with the actual drug itself, that usage levels out and more isn't needed for the same effect. Yes by the time a person reaches that point he is definitely addicted and that point varies between people but it is reached. If they need more than what the doctor is willing to give them then it is a detox program. Addicts who are ready at the time will stick with the program. If drugs were legal, then addicts who weren't ready will have a much safer place to turn for drugs than the local street dealer where it may be cut with who-knows-what and purity fluctuates making accidental OD and death so much more possible.






Then why concede and throw the agtes open for rampant drug use with government consent? Even if a government program was set up, how can you be sure organised crime won't undersell the government? I mean, the government has to pay people to make the drug, check its quality and concentration, package it, distribute it to doctor's, pay the doctors to monitor its dispensation and maintain counselling and treatment programs. This in addition to the taxes you have mentioned means an organised crime gang could easily undersell the government on the blackmarket as they have less overheads and no need to check for quality or purity. Where do you thin an adict will go for his drugs? Somewhere that charges twice the price and entails a sermon? Or someone selling for half the price with no strings attached?

What exactly is your definition of "rampant?" Do you consider use of the drugs which are now legal to be rampant? What makes you think other drugs will be any different? You seem to think that any use of the drugs now labelled illegal will lead to automatic addiction. Guess what - people use these drugs all the time - even heroin - and the vast majority of users never become addicts, just as the vast majority of people who use alcohol never become alcoholics. In fact the one drug where addiction occurs more often than not -tobacco- is perfectly legal.

The black market has its overhead too. Blackmarket costs have to take into account production (made more expensive because of the secret involved), the fact that a large percentage of the product eventually ends up seized and destroyed, importation costs (more expensive than legal importation cost) and numerous mid-level distributors who all add on a mark up. Face it, even with quality control, legal production and distribution will cost less.

As for the sermon part, that is one place that I will agree with you. Many people who enter rehab programs leave because of the sermons. Perhaps it is time to cut out the preaching. Programs which treat legal addictions have long recognized that nagging and "sermons" drive the addicts away and undermine the healing process. Successful treatment programs require understanding support, that while not promoting the behavior, doesn't denigrate the person for falling prey to the addiction in the first place. Why the hell programs designed to treat illegal addictions rely on sermons, I have no clue. All I can figure out is that the people who are supposed to be helping either can't get over the "illegal" aspect and that colors their perceptions or they are purposely undermining the healing process.



I am 32, never used drugs except for a social drink. I have, however worked in a drug analysis laboratory for my state police force. I have seen what is in street drugs. I have studied their effects. I have seen the way drug addicts and dealers operate. I cannot, with any conscience, advocate government sanctioned distribution of these drugs.

So you are profitting from the fact that drugs are illegal. How much does that color your perceptions?

Anyone can study the effect of drugs. Except for the newer "designer" drugs that information is readily available. If you've worked in an analysis lab before then you have seen some of the mixes that are available on the street, most of which make the drugs much more deadly. If you've worked with law enforcement, and that is your only contact with drugs and users, then you have seen people's whose lives were far more impacted by the drugs than the standard user, as those are the ones more likely to be caught.
Yes drugs can have a huge negative impact on some people. If prohibition actually worked, then maybe I would think that saving those people the pain would be worth denying those who just use recreationally. I don't know. But the truth is that prohibition doesn't work. What I do know is that the blackmarket dynamic effects everyone who uses drugs in a way that is just as damaging and as potentially deadly as the effect that the chemicals themselves have on some users. I don't see how anyone who has the least bit of real knowledge about that could not want it to end. And legalization could end it. Legalization could do in months what 50+ years of prohibition has failed to do.

I've heard people on the right talk about Personal Responsibility, especially with regard to small government.

I can think of at least 2 issues where, in general, people on the right tend to lean away from personal responsibility, in favour of draconian governmental controls. The issues are drug use and sex.

With regards to drug use, someone in favour of personal responsibility might say that all drugs should be legal, and people should be able to buy them, in much the same way as tobacco and alcohol, over the counter once the consumer is over a certain age. A less extreme person might argue that needle exchange programmes and rehab treatments (as opposed to prisions) might be a fair expression of personal responsibilty as a way of dealing with drug problems.

With regards to sex, I think that, although many would argue that abstinance would be taking a responsibility, that in order to take a personal responsibility rather than simply being brainwashed by dogma, you have to be presented with the facts and then make a choice. Facts like, condoms are 97-99% effective, which means that you are 97-99% less likely to contract a sexual disease or get pregnant if you use them.
We also will not forget a favourite of the Right wing, homosexuality. What could be more personally responsible than choosing (or accepting, depending on what you believe) which sex you want to have sex with, rather than conforming to societarial or "natural law" expectations?

Personal responsibilty? If the average person did something criminal, they'd be liable and pay in full for their actions. If the government or corporation did something criminal, they can hide behind a web of lies and coverups to save themselves. So if your pollies talks about responsibilty in government, it
s all rubbish. And those same Draconian laws never seem to apply to the rich and powerful ...