NationStates Jolt Archive

...is how many people that support drugs being illegal using the argument "Well, they do harm others, because they impair your judgment and you could hurt someone" don't support illegalization of cigarettes and alcohol. I've never been able to understand that.

Is there somthing I missed?

...is how many people that support drugs being illegal using the argument "Well, they do harm others, because they impair your judgment and you could hurt someone" don't support illegalization of cigarettes and alcohol. I've never been able to understand that.

Is there somthing I missed?


Who says that? Flop out a few drink driving stats and you've already got them..

Who says that? Flop out a few drink driving stats and you've already got them..
Not with their wonderful selective listening...

Not with their wonderful selective listening...

And driving aside, imagine how peaceful cities would be if people went to coffee houses (amsterdam style), opium dens, or techno parties (and took MDMA).

No binge drinkers beating the shit out of people in the kebab shop for looking at them the wrong way!!!

What I think is funny are people (Rob Reiner, George Soros, etc.) who support bans on cigarettes, in public and in restaurants, and huge taxes on them, while simultaneously supporting legalization of marijuana, cocaine, etc. Why? Because cigarette companies, like any company that would ever sell coke, pot, alcohol, or any other drug, sell an addictive product? No, because they're private corporations, not government co-ops, and for that reason donate heavily to pro-capitalist politicians, or at least those who would allow them to exist. :rolleyes:

What I think is funny are people (Rob Reiner, George Soros, etc.) who support bans on cigarettes, in public and in restaurants, and huge taxes on them, while simultaneously supporting legalization of marijuana, cocaine, etc. Why? Because cigarette companies, like any company that would ever sell coke, pot, alcohol, or any other drug, sell an addictive product? No, because they're private corporations, not government co-ops, and for that reason donate heavily to pro-capitalist politicians, or at least those who would allow them to exist.
I'm sure if any other drugs were legalised, corporations would leap into selling them wholeheartedly.

Although that'd be hard with marijuana, since it grows really easily... Haha in Durban, South Africa it grows EVERYWHERE. One of my aunts had a plant. :p

I'm sure if any other drugs were legalised, corporations would leap into selling them wholeheartedly.

They've already ruled that out. They want marijuana, for example, controlled by the government, so that all profits go directly into bureaucrats' hands. If corporations owned the rights, they would have to tax the product heavily, and doing this would at some point make it cheaper to grow it yourself or buy it from S. America.

Bureaucrats donate to Democrats; Businessmen donate to Republicans. That's the issue in a nutshell.

I can understand where you come from.

The difference between the legalization of drugs and the legalization of cigarettes is that one of them is psychotropic, and can cause damage to other persons.

But that raises the other question, what about second-hand smoke. Doesn't that casue harm to other persons?

That is the ultimate quandry of this debate. Perhaps the ultimate end of the legalization of these products would be only private use.

I can understand where you come from.

The difference between the legalization of drugs and the legalization of cigarettes is that one of them is psychotropic, and can cause damage to other persons.
nicotine is psychoactive (more so than many illegal drugs, in fact) and cigarettes can cause harm to other person far more directly than marijuana, cocaine, or heroine; smoking a tobacco cigarette in a room full of other people will do them more physical harm than if you smoked and equal amount of pot, crack, or heroine.

What I think is funny are people (Rob Reiner, George Soros, etc.) who support bans on cigarettes, in public and in restaurants, and huge taxes on them, while simultaneously supporting legalization of marijuana, cocaine, etc. Why? Because cigarette companies, like any company that would ever sell coke, pot, alcohol, or any other drug, sell an addictive product? No, because they're private corporations, not government co-ops, and for that reason donate heavily to pro-capitalist politicians, or at least those who would allow them to exist. :rolleyes:
Why do you think that everyone who supports legalising drugs is a socialist?

They would probably support banning the smoking of marijuana in restaurants too.

PS. you must be really brainwashed if you think Democrats are anti-capitalist.

They've already ruled that out. They want marijuana, for example, controlled by the government, so that all profits go directly into bureaucrats' hands. If corporations owned the rights, they would have to tax the product heavily, and doing this would at some point make it cheaper to grow it yourself or buy it from S. America.
Who are "they"? I want drugs to be legalised, but I want them to be sold by private companies just like alcohol is.

nicotine is psychoactive (more so than many illegal drugs, in fact) and cigarettes can cause harm to other person far more directly than marijuana, cocaine, or heroine; smoking a tobacco cigarette in a room full of other people will do them more physical harm than if you smoked and equal amount of pot, crack, or heroine.

Yeah second hand smoke is so much worse then second hand crack smoke. :rolleyes:

Yeah second hand smoke is so much worse then second hand crack smoke. :rolleyes:
biologically speaking, it is. you are more likely to suffer long-term lasting effects from cigarette smoke than you are from equal amounts of second-hand crack cocaine smoke. feel free to do a little research on the subject...the information is easily accessed through Medline and JSTOR.

Although I support legalization of all drugs, I also support full disclosure of product information. Thus, I want marijuana legalized, but I am against tobacco companies. I am not against their right to free trade. I am against the use of deceit to sell products. Thus, in my ideal economy tobacco and other drug companies must fully inform consumers of any dangers that the companies know their products cause.

I personally would like to get rid of tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. Course, when you grow up in a home of chain smoking alcoholics and drug addicts you tend to have that view.

Now I assume that we're going to spend the next few pages yelling about how it wasn't the drugs fault it was my dad's.

...is how many people that support drugs being illegal using the argument "Well, they do harm others, because they impair your judgment and you could hurt someone" don't support illegalization of cigarettes and alcohol. I've never been able to understand that.

Is there somthing I missed?yep... history. remember Prohibition? they tried to outlaw Alcohol. the problem was that Alcohol was legal before the ban. so when the ban was put in place... the Majority of the citizens (as well as the Law Enforcement personnell) were hooked on the stuff. that provided a Nation sized army of people willing to smuggle the brewskis. when they made it Legal, the government use regulations to minimize the damage.

Cigarretes was this nation's first export. Huge companies/plantations that supported the government are tobacco companies. A ban would pull too much out of the government then, now, we tax them and make it harder for them to light up.

Here's my question. How different would the world be if Alcohol and Tobacco were never legalized?

I don't think the world would be much different. In America, people were smoking before any government had the authority to stop them. Also, people have been drinking alcohol long before any government had enough authority to prohibit it.

What about 19th century coke parties?

What about 19th century coke parties?
"Cocaine was soon sold over-the-counter. Until 1916, one could buy it at Harrods: a kit labelled "A Welcome Present for Friends at the Front" contained cocaine, morphine, syringes and spare needles. Cocaine was widely used in tonics, toothache cures and patent medicines; in coca cigarettes "guaranteed to lift depression"; and in chocolate cocaine tablets. One fast-selling product, Ryno's Hay Fever and Catarrh Remedy ("for when the nose is stuffed up, red and sore") consisted of 99.9 per cent pure cocaine. Prospective buyers were advised - in the words of pharmaceutical firm Parke-Davis - that cocaine "could make the coward brave, the silent eloquent, and render the sufferer insensitive to pain"."

http://www.cocaine.org/

Personally, i've never had any alcohol, smoked, or taken any drugs whatsoever and this is something of a moral standpoint for me, because i think it would be irresponsible of me to do so because it would put me, as you said, in a position to harm others unintentionally.

However, i don't think making them illegal will help. Prohibition proved that, all a ban does is funnel more money into the criminal underworld. No, i like the system we have here where the government has a monopoly on alcohol. I was arguing about this on another thread the other day entitled "Oppressive Icelandic Prohibition" or something similar.

I think most drugs should be legal, but at the same time i think that the profits from drug sales (including alcohol and tobacco) should go back to the government through a government monopoly, because then it can benefit the people who chose to not use them. I'm not completely clear on which drugs that should be legal and which should not, so don't ask me about that because im undecided. Point being, i think they should be legal but the sale of them should benefit the rest of society. If the government offers them at an affordable price there's no reason for criminals to get involved. Just make private import of addictive drugs illegal, and set the price at a reasonable level and the illegal drugs can't compete, providing you have a relatively effective police force. I think free trade is good, but some goods are so dangerous that they have to be regulated.

Also, being "under the influence" should not count as a mitigating circumstance in a court of law. It's your choice to take the drug and you are responsible for the effects of your taking it.

Make drugs legal, but make sure people know there can be serious consequences for using them. Alcohol and tobacco are two of the worst drugs out there, and they should be treated as such. Too bad i'm in the european vodka belt, countries that have a tradition of drinking themselves piss drunk. Blah.

I'm not going to stop anyone from taking drugs if they want to, as long as they don't force it on anyone else and as long as they don't cause anyone else harm it's all good.

Sweden is implementing a ban on smoking in public places soon, which i think is a good idea. If you chose to take drugs, fine, but don't give me lung cancer.

Theres a quote i got from someone on here that i think applies here, i dont remember who its from but here it goes:

"I think that what people do with their own bodies and their own minds is their business providing they do not impose any harm on other invididuals or society."

biologically speaking, it is. you are more likely to suffer long-term lasting effects from cigarette smoke than you are from equal amounts of second-hand crack cocaine smoke. feel free to do a little research on the subject...the information is easily accessed through Medline and JSTOR.

I love that site.

Saved my skin on a number of occasions :).

biologically speaking, it is. you are more likely to suffer long-term lasting effects from cigarette smoke than you are from equal amounts of second-hand crack cocaine smoke. feel free to do a little research on the subject...the information is easily accessed through Medline and JSTOR.

Crack cocaine smoke is so much worse then tobacco smoke in the second hand sense. Please provide the appropriate links in those sites to prove your case. I searched and didn't find anything. I guess you haven't been around too many crack addicts, have you? I have played poker with people who started to smoke crack in the middle of the game, I was freaking lit up after ten minutes. You know, stuttering, not being able to focus, wanting to do some rails myself. I've also played with tobacco smokers, I didn't crave tobacco from their second hand smoke.

I’m against the legalization of drugs, but don’t mind alcohol and tobacco use. After all, a violent drunk is easier to take down that a violent crack addict, current on his high.

However, if drugs could only be used in heavily controlled settings, I would see no problem with it.