NationStates Jolt Archive

ok so we have nations with legalized marihuana and some dont.

but what happened to all the other drugs????

i think we should have the following:

Marihuana
magic shrooms
alchohol
pcp/peyote
speed
xtc
cocaine/heroine + any other heavy crap

that way we can determine as a government, what is a hard drug???
(coffee has been considered a hard drug by some and alchohol to be worse that coke)

gah, addictiveness = bad drugs. keep em illegal but don't make possesion a criminal charge - rehabilitation is the way forward :)

softer drugs (like weed) or non addictive drugs (like LSD) should be legalised but regulated by the govt.

i had a pretty big thread on my thoughts about drugs laws a while back...

What about the inhaleants? Butane, Roach Spray, Paint thinner, all great drugs.

What about the inhaleants? Butane, Roach Spray, Paint thinner, all great drugs.
aahhh aha hahahahahahahahahha! heh. oh man that's dumb.

gah, addictiveness = bad drugs. keep em illegal but don't make possesion a criminal charge - rehabilitation is the way forward :)

softer drugs (like weed) or non addictive drugs (like LSD) should be legalised but regulated by the govt.

i had a pretty big thread on my thoughts about drugs laws a while back...

Weed and LSD fuck over your brain chemistry. It's bad shit. Especially acid.

Weed and LSD fuck over your brain chemistry. It's bad shit. Especially acid.
You know, Acid can fuck your head up pretty bad, but it's temporary. Trust me, I've done alot of acid and I've had weeks where my contact with reality was slipping, but upon quitting it I've had no ill effects.

Legalise all of them.

You know, Acid can fuck your head up pretty bad, but it's temporary. Trust me, I've done alot of acid and I've had weeks where my contact with reality was slipping, but upon quitting it I've had no ill effects.

There's a lot of people who've done acid in the sixties that now have schizophrenia that might not have got it naturally.

Weed and LSD fuck over your brain chemistry. It's bad shit. Especially acid.
yeah thats true, but i'm with the righties on this one: it should be your own choice whether to fuck up yourself, not the government's. now, addictive drugs cross the boundary and are too destructive, and should be controlled (banned) by the govt.

I hope I'm the only person who would do LSD just to see what it's like...
I'm probably not though.

There's a lot of people who've done acid in the sixties that now have schizophrenia that might not have got it naturally.
Do you know if there's a statistically significant difference in the rate of schitzophrenia among former acid users and non acid users?

Do you know if there's a statistically significant difference in the rate of schitzophrenia among former acid users and non acid users?

I shall look for the paper now.

I hope I'm the only person who would do LSD just to see what it's like...
I'm probably not though.
i want to try it to see what its like, but also cos of it's apparent (and indescribable) 'mind expandingness'


listen: http://www.hlj.me.uk/lsd.mp3

Depends if there's universal health care in your country or not. Sure, give people the right to screw themselves over with whatever drugs they want, but then don't expect the taxpayers to pay to fix their addiction.

i want to try it to see what its like, but also cos of it's apparent (and indescribable) 'mind expandingness'


listen: http://www.hlj.me.uk/lsd.mp3
I don't know about "mind expandingness", but it certainly makes you think about weird things and make weird mental connections. Makes listening to music a strange experience. I once listened to Dr. Tim Leary's "You Can Be Anyone This Time Around" while tripping on two tabs of blotter. That was one of the most unusual music experiences of my life.

Weed (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6745)
Same study I think (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18424760.800)
LSD (http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/8/877)
More LSD (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_aset=V-WA-A-W-BU-MsSAYZW-UUA-U-AAABUDVBAU-AAAUZCCAAU-EDCUUWWBY-BU-U&_rdoc=6&_fmt=summary&_udi=B6T0F-475YS12-13&_coverDate=12%2F09%2F2002&_cdi=4861&_orig=search&_st=13&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=180f7111fa76d4d8c4c300351e9327ab)

prisons over populated....people dying of overdoses or drugs cut with poision....LEGALISE THEM ALL

which would mean - less taxes ~(the government could tax em) less crime (if the gvnmnt regulated them they would be much cheaper and more readily available) fewer deaths (drugs would be better quality and better regulated)
and to the people that say oh more people would try em...well if ya gonna be the sort of person who tries em you're gonna do it anyway and who cares if you mess you're own life up anyway

as the mighty bill hick said " i don't just think marijuana should be legal is should be MANDATORY"

I don't like to see people harming themselves through self delusion.

Hence I would like to see smoking and all drugs banned.

i want to try it to see what its like, but also cos of it's apparent (and indescribable) 'mind expandingness'


listen: http://www.hlj.me.uk/lsd.mp3
I do lots of stuff to find out what it's like. For instance: setting myself on fire.
Now THAT was fun! :D

I do lots of stuff to find out what it's like. For instance: setting myself on fire.
Now THAT was fun! :D
:eek: my mate's brother tried that once... it was bad... :headbang:

Don't legalize any of them. You can shoot me now.

Oh and Purple Journos ARE YOU CRAZY?! That is probably one of the STUPIDEST ideas I have EVER heard. You can't make drugs a better quality any which way. It is kind of like saying "Look America is overpopulated. Lets machine gun down a couple million people. No one will notice"

:eek: my mate's brother tried that once... it was bad... :headbang:
What, setting himself alight?

Personally I like to live a clean lifestyle. Hard drugs can get people into alot of trouble, and almost 100% of the time, it does. Cloves are enough for me, a small high and its relaxing.

gah, addictiveness = bad drugs. keep em illegal but don't make possesion a criminal charge - rehabilitation is the way forward :)

softer drugs (like weed) or non addictive drugs (like LSD) should be legalised but regulated by the govt.

i had a pretty big thread on my thoughts about drugs laws a while back...
I agree; decriminalise Mary J and ecstasy. Alchohol and tobacco are legal, and they have been proven time and again to be just as bad if not worse than Mary J... and heck, Mary J and ecstasy aren't as addictive.

Legalize all of them. Your body, your choice to be brain fucked.

First of all, why are you lumping PCP and Peyote into the same group here? Sure, they're both considered psychadelics, but their both pretty different. Peyote (and more specifically, mescaline) is a true haluciongen, similar to psilocybin mushrooms, whereas PCP is a particualrly nasty brain-destroying disacoiative, similar to ketamine. It's rather like saying cocaine and heroin are simialr, because they're both white in powederd form. But then agian, you lumed them together too, so whatever.

Anyway, as for all you crazy health nuts who would like to believe their going to live forever, I'll simply quote Mark Twain in saying:

"There are people who strictly deprive themselves of each and ever eatable, drinkable and smokable which has in any way acquired a shady reputation. They pay this price for health. And health is all they get for it. How strange it is. It is like paying out your whole fortune for a cow that has gone dry."- Mark Twain

Legalize all of them. Your body, your choice to be brain fucked.

People don't make an informed choice. They grossly underestimate personal risk.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/11/1019

Don't legalize any of them. You can shoot me now.

Oh and Purple Journos ARE YOU CRAZY?! That is probably one of the STUPIDEST ideas I have EVER heard. You can't make drugs a better quality any which way.

no very sane actually - and drugs can be made better...unscupulous dealers cutting drugs with poisonous substances such as rat poison or washing powder....not good

another bill hicks quote for ya...
" to make marijuana against the law is like saying god made a mistake. It's like God on the seventh day looked down on his creation. Said:
" There it is; my creation. Perfect and holy in all ways. Now I can rest...Oh my Me...I left pot everywhere. I should never have smoked that joint on the third day. Shit! If I leave pot everywhere, its gonna give people the impression they're supposed to use it. Shit! Now I have to create Republicans."

Legalise all of them.

Agreed.

However, legal does not mean uncontrolled, the same way that cars and guns and alcohol are not uncontrolled.

For example, I can go out and buy grain alcohol. But I can't buy it on a Sunday in Connecticut, nor can I buy moonshine. Likewise, I need a license to drive a car or carry a gun.

People don't make an informed choice. They grossly underestimate personal risk.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/11/1019


Then there should be government programs to educate people about the risk.

I think it's pretty clear that at least cannabis should be legal.
It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that the 'erb is pretty soft stuff, and to cut a very long story short, has more advantages than disadvantages.

The UK goverment stands to make £6.2 billion per annum if it were taxed like tobacco, that would sort the NHS out..

It's still unclear whether it alters brain chemistry. The thing is, since the 1930's the US federal government has systematically and consistently smeared it to the point where noone can be sure what is scientific fact and what is propaganda. (Remember when it was thought to 'invigorate' negroes to rape [white] women?) It has been proven - at last - that it does not kill neurons like alcohol does, that's a step in the right direction..

But, there are still governers out there who believe that it makes people violent. If you've ever smoked ever, you'll know that the complete opposite is the case. It is a frankly ridiculous claim - almost like saying alcohol makes you a better driver! Anyone who printed that would be simply laughed at for their ignorance, but the weed issue still continues.

Check www.erowid.org for objective info on pretty much any substance.

Then there should be government programs to educate people about the risk.

Doesn't work. It just polarises the views of risk more. I was just reading the details of a bowel cancer risk information PhD. People still underestimated, there were jsut less in the middle ground.

" to make marijuana against the law is like saying god made a mistake. It's like God on the seventh day looked down on his creation. Said:
" There it is; my creation. Perfect and holy in all ways. Now I can rest...Oh my Me...I left pot everywhere. I should never have smoked that joint on the third day. Shit! If I leave pot everywhere, its gonna give people the impression they're supposed to use it. Shit! Now I have to create Republicans."

AHAHAH!!

not. Making fun of god with drugs is not funny at all.

I know a lot of people who did drugs and regret it because they can't get a job in the government unlike me. Oh and about you people who are like "You only live once!" YOU'RE RIGHT! Thats why you should live long and prosper. Frankly, I would like to live a nice long life with my kids and wife.

AHAHAH!!

not. Making fun of god with drugs is not funny at all.

I know a lot of people who did drugs and regret it because they can't get a job in the government unlike me. Oh and about you people who are like "You only live once!" YOU'RE RIGHT! Thats why you should live long and prosper. Frankly, I would like to live a nice long life with my kids and wife.

1 - making fun of god with drugs is very funny.
2 - meeting people with mental illness or cancer is not

2 - meeting people with mental illness or cancer is not
Mmm, Where did you see that?

Doesn't work. It just polarises the views of risk more. I was just reading the details of a bowel cancer risk information PhD. People still underestimated, there were jsut less in the middle ground.


And your point being?

People not having enough information shouldn't warrant the criminalization of drugs. If that were so, voting control wouldn't be far behind.

And your point being?

People not having enough information shouldn't warrant the criminalization of drugs. If that were so, voting control wouldn't be far behind.

The point being that even if you inform people, they STILL delude themselves into thinking they are a special case. Sometimes I'd rather people were protected from themselves.

Drugs are dangerous. Everyone should know that.


If you're taking drugs, you know drugs are bad. If you don't, you should stop taking drugs. Legalizing drugs would take a great amount of responsibility, which I don't think people have.

Decriminalizing marijuana, maybe. Second-hand smoke is bad enough for non-smokers. Second-hand pot smoke is worse. Decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana would take, not only the previously mentioned responsibility (or perhaps lack-there-of), but a great amount of courtesy.

The point being that even if you inform people, they STILL delude themselves into thinking they are a special case. Sometimes I'd rather people were protected from themselves.


Alright, then we should outlaw sports, TV, most foods, and sex.

Alright, then we should outlaw sports, TV, most foods, and sex.

There has to be a limit somewhere, and actively encouraging selling people things that can kill them or send them schizophrenic is wrong.

Why would the legalization of said drugs be an encouraging message to drug dealers? It would pretty much phase them out, since we'd have corporations manufacturing them instead.

And limiting civil rights isn't progress.

Why would the legalization of said drugs be an encouraging message to drug dealers? It would pretty much phase them out, since we'd have corporations manufacturing them instead.

And limiting civil rights isn't progress.

Total individual freedom is anarchy which puts the power in the hands of the strong, so civil rights are never limitless.

It is disgusting enough that the murderers who work for the tobacco companies are allowed to do so, I would be appalled if any more dangerous drugs were legalised.

Drugs are dangerous. Everyone should know that.

If you're taking drugs, you know drugs are bad. If you don't, you should stop taking drugs. Legalizing drugs would take a great amount of responsibility, which I don't think people have.

Decriminalizing marijuana, maybe. Second-hand smoke is bad enough for non-smokers. Second-hand pot smoke is worse. Decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana would take, not only the previously mentioned responsibility (or perhaps lack-there-of), but a great amount of courtesy.

Cars are dangerous. Guns are dangerous. Big Macs are dangerous.

Cars are dangerous. Guns are dangerous. Big Macs are dangerous.

One big mac won't kill you (unless you choke on it) but one E can.

Travel is dangerous, but we have to do it. We don't have to do drugs.

Guns are just silly. Glad their almost impossible to get.

One big mac won't kill you (unless you choke on it) but one E can.

Travel is dangerous, but we have to do it. We don't have to do drugs.

Guns are just silly. Glad their almost impossible to get.

It doesn't matter. If you're for any Amendment that stands today, you must (de facto) allow any consumer good, so long as there is sufficent safeguards that it does not become a hazard to the public at large.

For example, you have a license to drive a car. You can get one for a motorcycle, a tractor trailer, etc. Same with firearms, boats, planes, etc.
By the same token, you can get a license to resell alcohol, or sell it at your establishment.

The same should be true of drugs of any kind: they should be legal, but regulated.

BTW, I can walk into any gun shop in Connecticut right now and buy a firearm. And most Americans can do likewise in any WalMart (shotguns).

The war on drugs does seem pointless. Drugs and guns are the same. You can ban them but people will always still be able to get them, so why not make them legal?

I not so sure about legalizing the "hard" drugs but a would definately say that marijuana should be legal. I would also say that any federal drug laws along with gun laws are unconstitutional, as the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to regulate either.

Drugs should be regulated at the state level only.

It doesn't matter. If you're for any Amendment that stands today, you must (de facto) allow any consumer good, so long as there is sufficent safeguards that it does not become a hazard to the public at large.

For example, you have a license to drive a car. You can get one for a motorcycle, a tractor trailer, etc. Same with firearms, boats, planes, etc.
By the same token, you can get a license to resell alcohol, or sell it at your establishment.

The same should be true of drugs of any kind: they should be legal, but regulated.

BTW, I can walk into any gun shop in Connecticut right now and buy a firearm. And most Americans can do likewise in any WalMart (shotguns).

Try and get a gun in this country.

Try and get a gun in this country.

If you mean yours, that's fine, but that's a pretty big hit to Civil Rights...

Weed and LSD fuck over your brain chemistry.

Yes, that's the point. Alcohol does that too, anyway.

For the record, I think weed and LSD at least, should be legal, but not cocaine or any opiates. Dunno about speed or ecstasy, I'd say not, but I don't know much about them.

If you mean yours, that's fine, but that's a pretty big hit to Civil Rights...

Nope, very few people here want guns. We're much happier without them.

What the hell would I need a gun for anyway?

Yes, that's the point. Alcohol does that too, anyway.

For the record, I think weed and LSD at least, should be legal, but not cocaine or any opiates. Dunno about speed or ecstasy, I'd say not, but I don't know much about them.

either they should all be legal or none. If people can make informed decisions, let them make it regardless of the drug. If people need protecting from themselves, then tobacco, weed and LSD are well on the list.

Woohoo! i see a gun control debate starting! I remember the last one that started in a completely unrelated thread. lots of fun, for sure.

I don't like to see people harming themselves through self delusion.

Hence I would like to see smoking and all drugs banned.
Oh boy, do you really believe that banning all drugs will stop people from taking them?

Oh boy, do you really believe that banning all drugs will stop people from taking them?

No, but then society won't bare the responsibility for their illnesses and deaths. I would rather that the scumbags who sell tobacco and deal the shit in the streets would stop, but they won't as long as they can make some cash.

People don't make an informed choice. They grossly underestimate personal risk.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/11/1019
I think with legalisation people are more likely to have information to make an informed choice.

Under current prohibition, drug dealers who are outside the law can lie and poison their clients. With legalisation and government regulation, drug companies that lie to their customers can be punished.

I think with legalisation people are more likely to have information to make an informed choice.

Under current prohibition, drug dealers who are outside the law can lie and poison their clients. With legalisation and government regulation, drug companies that lie to their customers can be punished.

Again, people DON'T make an informed choice, even with all the data. They STILL delude themselves.

No, but then society won't bare the responsibility for their illnesses and deaths. I would rather that the scumbags who sell tobacco and deal the shit in the streets would stop, but they won't as long as they can make some cash.
Society currently does bear the burden of drug deaths. I know a way to phase out scumbag drug dealers. It's called "legalisation". With companies manufacturing drugs, street dealers and gangsters would become obsolete.

Again, people DON'T make an informed choice, even with all the data. They STILL delude themselves.
You say it as if most drug users have all the data. They don't. Yes I'm sure that some people would still make stupid choices if drugs were legal, but I am also sure that it would be a lot less than now.

i think people who have not done drugs, think of them as much worse than they actually are. I have tried an assortment of drugs and would have to say the worst would be, robotussin (sp?) But before i tried anything i figured it was the stupidest thing to ever do and that it would really mess people up. Now, i see it more as just something to do for fun. kinda like instead of going to the movies with friends we just get high instead.

You say it as if most drug users have all the data. They don't. Yes I'm sure that some people would still make stupid choices if drugs were legal, but I am also sure that it would be a lot less than now.

I'm not convinced. The recent research into smoking and bowel cancer risk assessment suggest people make just as stupid decisions with all the information.

I would rather immoral individuals selling drugs than evil corporations marketing them en mass.

Legalize 'em all!

legalize them all. who are we to decide what people can't do?

I think Marijuana should be legalized and taxed. Also, it'll open up entire industries of hemp products, such as canvas (originally derived from cannabis) and paper (save on trees), plus the billions in taxes you'd make from the customers buying it to get high. On the other end, you'd be saving money, so you wouldn't have to put so many billions into the drug war on marijuana. It's somewhere up there around 75% of drug arrests are marijuana related, that's just pathetic considering how harmless it is compared to current legal drugs. Tens of thousands of people die every year from alcohol poisoning, but how many do you hear that die from marijuana overdose? None. I've never heard of it, except from myths floating around about people who ate 5 pounds of it or whatever crazy shit that no rational person would ever do.

So it's a win-win situation. The only losers are the criminals who no longer have a soft drug to lure kids into harder drugs. People say it's a gateway drug, but these same people are against legalizing it. Well guess what, if it was legalized, it would no longer be a gateway drug because it wouldn't be sold to them from criminals who would rather see you addicted to crack/cocaine or heroin.

As for other drugs, well I don't care so much about legalizing them right now. It's hard enough getting marijuana legalized, I say we start with that and then use the funds for research into the effects of legalizing and regulating the use of other drugs. I'm more worried about the more addictive drugs that have people hooked so bad, they're selling their bodies on street corners for it, than I am about ones like Shrooms and Acid that have not very many addicts.

Plus weed smells like mouldy socks

I would rather immoral individuals selling drugs than evil corporations marketing them en mass.
OK, here's where we diverge. I would prefer if these so-called "evil" corporations were allowed to sell the drugs. You know why? It's because the government can keep watch over what the corporations can do, whereas they cannot watch over drug dealing scumbags.

OK, here's where we diverge. I would prefer if these so-called "evil" corporations were allowed to sell the drugs. You know why? It's because the government can keep watch over what the corporations can do, whereas they cannot watch over drug dealing scumbags.

so-called "evil" - you think British-American tobacco, who lied for years about the effects of smoking AREN'T evil?

Everything illegalized. :rolleyes: :sniper: Execute the junkies!

Decriminalizing marijuana, maybe. Second-hand smoke is bad enough for non-smokers. Second-hand pot smoke is worse. Decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana would take, not only the previously mentioned responsibility (or perhaps lack-there-of), but a great amount of courtesy.

It's not worse than cigarette smoke and to me smells a lot better. I'd say marijuana smoking should have designated areas, just as cigarettes do. Maybe even marijuana cafe's, that have a license to allow people to smoke pot on the premise. As for walking down the street smoking pot, you should be fined for, just as if you were walking down the street drinking a beer or a bottle of Vodka. It's called drinking in public and that law just discourages it and keeps drunks in bars or at home.

As for children and second-hand smoke of marijuana, that could be a problem. Maybe have warnings on the packages about keeping it away from children. Now of course not everyone will follow them, but then again these same people may put plastic in a babies crib even though there's warnings against that as well. You can't protect children from legal substances anymore than illegal substances, so that's not really a good reason to keep it illegal. Although there could be harsh laws in place for parents of children with marijuana in their blood. So if child services detects there's a problem at a house with stoner parents, they can investigate and test the child's blood for traces of THC. If it turns up positive, then they should get arrested for it. This might also help as a deterrent having parents more paranoid about smoking it around their children.

Summary: Most people are idiots and the government needs to stop them from hurting themselves.

Condescending bull. The government is not a substitute father. It exist to protect the individuals' rights, not to infringe on them.

Condescending bull. The government is not a substitute father. It exist to protect the individuals' rights, not to infringe on them.

So should we hand out shotguns and tablets to suicidal people?

Then there should be government programs to educate people about the risk.
Heck,there are in schools, except they lie so much saying everything is a lot moe dangerous than it really is that nobody believes them.

So should we hand out shotguns and tablets to suicidal people?
Hee, you're pretty funny!
Try rereading the statement you responded to, and you'll realize you're throwing out a red herring that has nothing to do with it.

Ah, the red herring, everybody's favorite logical fallacy...
:)

So should we hand out shotguns and tablets to suicidal people?

No, but they can get their own.

No, but they can get their own.

Shouldn't we stop them?

We can't stop them. There are too many ways to kill yourself, and who are we to force them to continue thier lives.

[QUOTE=Ubiqtorate]Depends if there's universal health care in your country or not. Sure, give people the right to screw themselves over with whatever drugs they want, but then don't expect the taxpayers to pay to fix their addiction.[/QUOTE/]

In America that wont be a problem since we dont have social medicare like France. If a person decides to fuck themselves over, then they have to pay to fix themsleves.

Heck,there are in schools, except they lie so much saying everything is a lot moe dangerous than it really is that nobody believes them.


Haha, tell me about it. I go to a (gulp) Christian Correspondence School, and the loads of bullshit they put into each workbook is staggering. Lucky for me that I'm far too intelligent to take their bullshit as fact.

And I'm even luckier that I have google, or else I'd have the knowledge of... A christian.

Depends if there's universal health care in your country or not. Sure, give people the right to screw themselves over with whatever drugs they want, but then don't expect the taxpayers to pay to fix their addiction.
One of the best arguments I've heard against universal healthcare.

We can't stop them. There are too many ways to kill yourself, and who are we to force them to continue thier lives.

Because at the heart of it, no-one wants to die. If they were happy, they would not want to die. Everyone is capable of being happy, so the solution is to help them become happy, not to help them die.

And this has a direct bearing on the drugs issue. People don't want the drugs to kill them or give them a mental illness, they justify it by saying (consciously or otherwise) that it isn't going to happen to them. They are not making a decision, they are living in a delusion.

Because at the heart of it, no-one wants to die. If they were happy, they would not want to die. Everyone is capable of being happy, so the solution is to help them become happy, not to help them die.

And this has a direct bearing on the drugs issue. People don't want the drugs to kill them or give them a mental illness, they justify it by saying (consciously or otherwise) that it isn't going to happen to them. They are not making a decision, they are living in a delusion.

While, I agree that under most circumstances wanting to end your own life is not sane. Certain circumstances could make it very much so.

We all live in our own delusion. Its the nature of our minds. You see something happen, your brain seeks the best explanation it can come up with. You now accept this as reality, whether it reflects it or not.

No one badmouths my acid and gets away from it maaaaaaaaaaaan!

While, I agree that under most circumstances wanting to end your own life is not sane. Certain circumstances could make it very much so.

We all live in our own delusion. Its the nature of our minds. You see something happen, your brain seeks the best explanation it can come up with. You now accept this as reality, whether it reflects it or not.

Why help deluded people harm themselves?

Because you can make some cash?

Okay, Enlightened Humanity, if you support keeping drugs illegal because people don't know the risks, then do you support banning alcohol and cigarettes?
They cause plenty of deaths due to people not knowing the risks, or thinking it won't happen to them.

Why help deluded people harm themselves?

Because you can make some cash?

Not acting to stop them is not the same as helping them, and besides that isn't my point. My point is that government regulation is not the remedy.

Okay, Enlightened Humanity, if you support keeping drugs illegal because people don't know the risks, then do you support banning alcohol and cigarettes?
They cause plenty of deaths due to people not knowing the risks, or thinking it won't happen to them.

Yup, pretty much

Not acting to stop them is not the same as helping them, and besides that isn't my point. My point is that government regulation is not the remedy.

Legalisation IS helping them

1 - it makes it easier to get them
2 - it removes a reason NOT to get them
3 - it makes it socially more acceptable
4 - it allows companys to market them at vulnerable people

Legalisation IS helping them

1 - it makes it easier to get them
2 - it removes a reason NOT to get them
3 - it makes it socially more acceptable
4 - it allows companys to market them at vulnerable people

But they are legal by default. The government should never have made them illegal.

But they are legal by default. The government should never have made them illegal.

Making them illegal makes it harder to get them.

It provides some social stigma.

It provides a reason NOT to get them.

It prevents agressive marketing of them.

Making them illegal makes it harder to get them.

It provides some social stigma.

It provides a reason NOT to get them.

It prevents agressive marketing of them.

Making them illegal creates more criminals which everday citizens need to be protected from.

edit: I can't spell

Making them illegal creates more criminals which everday citizens need to be protected from.

edit: I can't spell

Making them legal stops citizens being protected from corporations trying to peddle them

People don't make an informed choice. They grossly underestimate personal risk.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/11/1019

I think you grossly overestimate personal risk. I make informed decisions every day about which drugs I will/will not use. Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Mushrooms, Mescaline, Acid. I know the possible side effects and I know how to take care of myself in the situations I'm most likely to get into. I can think for myself, yes, that's right, I'm a big boy and go pee-pee all by myself without you standing over my shoulder.

Making them legal stops citizens being protected from corporations trying to peddle them

But the corporations can't force you to buy them, and I am not against the government stopping blatant fraud on the part of corporations.

I think you grossly overestimate personal risk. I make informed decisions every day about which drugs I will/will not use. Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Mushrooms, Mescaline, Acid. I know the possible side effects and I know how to take care of myself in the situations I'm most likely to get into. I can think for myself, yes, that's right, I'm a big boy and go pee-pee all by myself without you standing over my shoulder.

What's your risk of lung cancer then?

What's your chances of survival over 5 years if you get lung cancer?

Doesn't work. It just polarises the views of risk more. I was just reading the details of a bowel cancer risk information PhD. People still underestimated, there were jsut less in the middle ground.

Do you even know what you're saying? You just made absolutely no sense. What the hell is a "bowel cancer risk information PhD"? Do you know the repurcussions of what you're saying?

What's your risk of lung cancer then?

What's your chances of survival over 5 years if you get lung cancer?

Did he ever say he uses those drugs? He said he makes informed decisions on whether or not to use them.

A heavy smoker is 15-30 times as likely to get lung cancer.

Survival rates are under 8% over 5 years.

Think about it.

What's your risk of lung cancer then?

What's your chances of survival over 5 years if you get lung cancer?

My risk of lung cancer is pretty high, seeing as how I work in hazardous conditions every day. My physician told me that if I quit working at my job and started smoking, I'd have less of a chance to get it. You also assume that I have to be smoking something, or be around somebody who does in order to get "the cancer". Which simply isn't true. There are enough carcinogens in the air I breath to give me mouth cancer, throat cancer, esophagus cancer, and lung cancer, all the while the sun is beating down and giving me skin cancer. I'm not afraid.

Do you even know what you're saying? You just made absolutely no sense. What the hell is a "bowel cancer risk information PhD"? Do you know the repurcussions of what you're saying?

The PhD I was referring to has just been finished.

People underestimate the risk that they have of getting bowel cancer.

Furthermore, it showed that when people were provided with information as to the risk factors of bowel cancer, that they STILL underestimated the personal risk, just as much, but with more polar tendencies (ie less people thought they were "average" risk, but more said "below average")

A heavy smoker is 15-30 times as likely to get lung cancer.

Survival rates are under 8% over 5 years.

Think about it.

You cannot legislate away society's problems, and making an act which has no effect on anyone but the performer of that act criminal is immoral.

You cannot legislate away society's problems, and making an act which has no effect on anyone but the performer of that act criminal is immoral.

Ah, but it DOES have effect on other people. On the way society perceives the issue and on those providing the products.

Do you even know what you're saying? You just made absolutely no sense. What the hell is a "bowel cancer risk information PhD"? Do you know the repurcussions of what you're saying?

He has a PhD in Bowel Cancer risk information, duh.

He has a PhD in Bowel Cancer risk information, duh.

no I don't. I don't have a PhD

A heavy smoker is 15-30 times as likely to get lung cancer.

Survival rates are under 8% over 5 years.

Think about it.

What qualifies as a heavy smoker? Who did these medical studies, and were they done on human beings? I recall a study on the effects of marijuana on rats, where the rats were given approximately 300 times the normal dosage (according to size/mass) and then showed small signs of brain damage. These studies could've possibly been warped to suit the needs of those pushing the anti-tobacco lobby around.

I'd say a light smoker is someone who smokes less then a half a pack a day. And did you know, that an individual who is a light smoker and quits before 30 has little to no risk of any long term medical illnesses? While a person who quits before 40 has only a 10-20% chance of dying of lung cancer?

What qualifies as a heavy smoker? Who did these medical studies, and were they done on human beings? I recall a study on the effects of marijuana on rats, where the rats were given approximately 300 times the normal dosage (according to size/mass) and then showed small signs of brain damage. These studies could've possibly been warped to suit the needs of those pushing the anti-tobacco lobby around.

I'd say a light smoker is someone who smokes less then a half a pack a day. And did you know, that an individual who is a light smoker and quits before 30 has little to no risk of any long term medical illnesses? While a person who quits before 40 has only a 10-20% chance of dying of lung cancer?

ONLY a 10-20% chance?

Nice odds. Met anyone with lung cancer?

Heavy smoker in this case is 20 fags a day for 20 years.
It's nasty.

Ah, but it DOES have effect on other people. On the way society perceives the issue and on those providing the products.

Wow, I had no idea that I had so much influence on society. So, just by drinking a beer with my dinner I'm changing society's perception of alcohol use.

Wow, I had no idea that I had so much influence on society. So, just by drinking a beer with my dinner I'm changing society's perception of alcohol use.

yes, you are. You and all the others doing the same thing.

Weed and LSD fuck over your brain chemistry. It's bad shit. Especially acid.


That's a bold-faced lie motha fucka! No, but seriously, THC only temporarily paralyzes your memory cells, and LSD is even safer. Well, unless you're prone to Skitzophrenia that is, then it has the tendency to bring it out. LSD has the most hype surrounding it of any drug besides weed. Weed isn't really a gateway drug, because most drugs don't work like weed does. It's a euphoric, and it's natural. People rarely jump from weed to anything but hallucinogens, which are mostly mild anyway, just fun, or in the case of Salvia Divinorum, an intense spiritual experience (Salvia is not to be used for fun, it actually does play with your brain chemistry for a few minutes). LSD is completely non-addictive, it has only one chemical component that has been proven not habit-forming. It's extremely inexpensive (where you can get it) and I recommend it to all people who aren't prone to excessive drunkenness and who can logically decide to only take a few hits. No physical side effects (which are associated with most other drugs, even Marijuana, which actually causes breast tissue to develop in males). Just keep the attitude of "hey! Let's go see some cool shit for half a day!" and Acid will never be a problem.

Believe me, I try everything. Here are my conclusions on various kinds of drugs

Alcohol-Dumb, pointless, shitty feeling drug for those who are too young inside.
Inhalants-Only if you're suicidal or can't find even the shittiest weed
Tobacco-Why?
PCP-fun, but can be scary, also dangerous
Ecstasy-Best high ever, until the day after, that will be the worst day of your life (at least it was for me) Also depletes your Seratonin, making your personality permanently changed after just one use
Magic mushrooms-fun, nice body high, as long as you stay in control you have no problems
Salvia-intense spiritual experience, not recreational, body high similar to DMT. Use for emotional healing and enlightenment. DO NOT MIX WITH ALCOHOL USE, BECAUSE SALVIA MESSES WITH YOUR BRAIN CHEMISTRY, IT HAS A PROFOUNDLY STRONG EFFECT WHEN ALCOHOL IS IN YOUR SYSTEM. YOU MAY END UP KILLING SOMEONE, OR YOURSELF.
Heroin-Wow, what a rush! But if someone cuts it wrong, you're dead
DMT-This stuff is crazy, it's a hormone released in your brain seconds before you die, life changing experience, impossible to get, but the best of all body highs
Cocaine-Have sex on it, it will be the best sex ever, otherwise it's a lame drug from a lame decade
Crack-hell no, there's a reason Elliot Smith had a $2,000 a day crack addiction, it's expensive, short lived, feels cheap but nice, and is very addictive.
Meth-Most addictive, hardest to break, makes you really really ugly, not worth the 24 hour high
Mescaline-Amazing experience, but not very safe
Iowasca-Prepare to puke, Very intense, Very spiritual, upset stomach
Peyote-haven't tried yet
LSD-A personal fav, hell of a ride (assuming you can control your trip) not for the emotional, and not for those who has skitzos in the family. Absolutely no bodily effects and no chance of overdose. But still, don't be excessive and take 20 hits, that's just stupid.
Marijuana-My personal favorite. Never, ever lets me down, feels great, extremely social, plus the munchies are so much fun. The safest drug to take, if you make sure to only use it socially you will never form a habit
barbituates-oh dear god no. Never EVER do with alchol, unless you are suicidal and just want to MAYBE wake up in the morning.

Don't listen to the DEA or any group that is biased if you want to find out about a drug.
Read Buzzed it will offer you only the most accurate information about the physical and mental effects of various forms of drug use. It isn't biased, all that Gateway drug BS is left alone. No weird drug horror stories, only the truth.

no I don't. I don't have a PhD

So do you mind clarifying on what you meant?

And a side note on "the cancer". Chemotherapy kills almost as many people as "the cancer" does.

yes, you are. You and all the others doing the same thing.

So you are saying that the government should come into my home and tell me what to eat. Eating fatty foods is bad for me too, and by eating said foods I am making it more socially acceptable. Sorry, but that is not acceptable, and if a law enforcement officer attempted this he wouldn't last long, and neither would the government perpetrating such crimes.

That's a bold-faced lie motha fucka! No, but seriously, THC only temporarily paralyzes your memory cells, and LSD is even safer. Well, unless you're prone to Skitzophrenia that is, then it has the tendency to bring it out. LSD has the most hype surrounding it of any drug besides weed. Weed isn't really a gateway drug, because most drugs don't work like weed does. It's a euphoric, and it's natural. People rarely jump from weed to anything but hallucinogens, which are mostly mild anyway, just fun, or in the case of Salvia Divinorum, an intense spiritual experience (Salvia is not to be used for fun, it actually does play with your brain chemistry for a few minutes). LSD is completely non-addictive, it has only one chemical component that has been proven not habit-forming. It's extremely inexpensive (where you can get it) and I recommend it to all people who aren't prone to excessive drunkenness and who can logically decide to only take a few hits. No physical side effects (which are associated with most other drugs, even Marijuana, which actually causes breast tissue to develop in males). Just keep the attitude of "hey! Let's go see some cool shit for half a day!" and Acid will never be a problem.

Believe me, I try everything. Here are my conclusions on various kinds of drugs

Alcohol-Dumb, pointless, shitty feeling drug for those who are too young inside.
Inhalants-Only if you're suicidal or can't find even the shittiest weed
Tobacco-Why?
PCP-fun, but can be scary, also dangerous
Ecstasy-Best high ever, until the day after, that will be the worst day of your life (at least it was for me) Also depletes your Seratonin, making your personality permanently changed after just one use
Magic mushrooms-fun, nice body high, as long as you stay in control you have no problems
Salvia-intense spiritual experience, not recreational, body high similar to DMT. Use for emotional healing and enlightenment. DO NOT MIX WITH ALCOHOL USE, BECAUSE SALVIA MESSES WITH YOUR BRAIN CHEMISTRY, IT HAS A PROFOUNDLY STRONG EFFECT WHEN ALCOHOL IS IN YOUR SYSTEM. YOU MAY END UP KILLING SOMEONE, OR YOURSELF.
Heroin-Wow, what a rush! But if someone cuts it wrong, you're dead
DMT-This stuff is crazy, it's a hormone released in your brain seconds before you die, life changing experience, impossible to get, but the best of all body highs
Cocaine-Have sex on it, it will be the best sex ever, otherwise it's a lame drug from a lame decade
Crack-hell no, there's a reason Elliot Smith had a $2,000 a day crack addiction, it's expensive, short lived, feels cheap but nice, and is very addictive.
Meth-Most addictive, hardest to break, makes you really really ugly, not worth the 24 hour high
Mescaline-Amazing experience, but not very safe
Iowasca-Prepare to puke, Very intense, Very spiritual, upset stomach
Peyote-haven't tried yet
LSD-A personal fav, hell of a ride (assuming you can control your trip) not for the emotional, and not for those who has skitzos in the family. Absolutely no bodily effects and no chance of overdose. But still, don't be excessive and take 20 hits, that's just stupid.
Marijuana-My personal favorite. Never, ever lets me down, feels great, extremely social, plus the munchies are so much fun. The safest drug to take, if you make sure to only use it socially you will never form a habit
barbituates-oh dear god no. Never EVER do with alchol, unless you are suicidal and just want to MAYBE wake up in the morning.

Don't listen to the DEA or any group that is biased if you want to find out about a drug.
Read Buzzed it will offer you only the most accurate information about the physical and mental effects of various forms of drug use. It isn't biased, all that Gateway drug BS is left alone. No weird drug horror stories, only the truth.


Some healthy advice, but still beware of weed and LSD if you're predisposed to mental illness. Of course, you might not know.

As for best info sources, try some actual scientific journals. They look at actual effects, often to try and get useful medication.

I'm off to bed, ciao dudes

Some healthy advice, but still beware of weed and LSD if you're predisposed to mental illness. Of course, you might not know.

As for best info sources, try some actual scientific journals. They look at actual effects, often to try and get useful medication.

I'm off to bed, ciao dudes

This part cracks me up

As for best info sources, try some actual scientific journals. They look at actual effects, often to try and get useful medication.

My information is from TRUTH about tobacco, the anti-tobacco lobby itself, and thus precludes his false statements! Marijuana probably could've been legalized back in the day (late 1600's anyone?) if tobacco hadn't already gotten in everybody's snuff box back in good ol' England. But, since marijuana isn't as "addictive" it wasn't as used, and hence, wasn't as sold. Besides, marijuana is much easier to grow!

P.S. And I still want to know what "bowel cancer risk information PhD" means.
P.P.S. Those studies on schizophrenia and other mental illnesses also reported that those who were genetically disposed of those same illnesses, most likely would have developed the problems without the help of marijuana or LSD.
P.P.P.S. Back in the late 1950's The government did studies in mind control with many, many, many narcotics, and LSD was one of the drugs used. MK-Ultra was the projects name, and a portion of it included mass distribution of the drug in 3rd world countries. So if LSD was okay in the 60's, why isn't it okay today?

I'm pro Marijuana normalization. Studies have shown that, despite all that propaganda you hear about, its a drug with no chemical addictiveness and few major medical side-effects that can be found in our legalized drugs - nicotine and alcohol. Plus, it works quite well in places like Holland. Much of Europe is changing their draconian drug laws - we need to, too.
!FREE THE LEAF!

so-called "evil" - you think British-American tobacco, who lied for years about the effects of smoking AREN'T evil?
I don't see how this is relevant. The government should punish businesses that lie and mislead the public.

Legalisation IS helping them

1 - it makes it easier to get them
2 - it removes a reason NOT to get them
3 - it makes it socially more acceptable
4 - it allows companys to market them at vulnerable people
1. Probably true. But remember that ease of access can be set by government regulation. Also remember that people who want drugs can, and do, easily enough get them illegally.

2. The reason to not get them is because they are bad for you.

3. Rather, it de-glamourises drugs, especially in the eyes of teenagers.

4. And you think that drug dealers don't sell to vulnerable people?

Some healthy advice, but still beware of weed and LSD if you're predisposed to mental illness. Of course, you might not know.
You know, in the study where they "discovered" that weed causes psychosis, the people were smoking 10-22 marijuana cigarettes a day. It also stopped when they stopped using marijuana.

Other studies have only shown that it can increase the effects of a pre-existing psychosis, or trigger it in people with a pre-existing disposition to it.

You know, in the study where they "discovered" that weed causes psychosis, the people were smoking 10-22 marijuana cigarettes a day. It also stopped when they stopped using marijuana.

Other studies have only shown that it can increase the effects of a pre-existing psychosis, or trigger it in people with a pre-existing disposition to it.
Not quite. Marijuana can cause permanent psychosis and disruption of brain chemistry, but only if used chronically at very young age. This is because the brain is still developing. However around the age of 13-16 this risk basically disappears.
Recongizing this, Holland and the various other countries with it normalized keep them a certain distance away from schools, like bars with schools in N. America.
Oddly, marijuana use for teenagers and adults is LOWER in Amsterdam, Holland, etc. than both the United States and Canada.

Not quite. Marijuana can cause permanent psychosis and disruption of brain chemistry, but only if used chronically at very young age. This is because the brain is still developing. However around the age of 13-16 this risk basically disappears.
Oh, I hadn't seen studies on that before.

Actually, thinking about it, that makes sense, that before the brain is done developing and stabilising, that marijuana and other drugs can mess it up a bit.

Thanks for the info!

Nope, very few people here want guns. We're much happier without them.

What the hell would I need a gun for anyway?

I'm not going to start the proposed pro/anti gun debate, but I'll throw the question back this way:

Why would you not NEED a gun? Have you outlawed knives, too? How about large pieces of wood?
Cue up the Simpson's Halloween special where they get rid of all the weapons and are taken over by two aliens with a slingshot and a board with a nail..)

I'll go one further: how did you get your populace to not want guns? Individuals, by definition, differ. People can't all agree on what kind of car to drive, much less something like guns.

So, are you drugging your populace? Your statement that "they don't want them" would tell me as much: your government is mind controlling your people, thus you are totalitarian.

Best,
Markreich

let me just start by saying that i don't honestly give a fig about gun control, but i feel the need to play devil's advocate here...

I'm not going to start the proposed pro/anti gun debate, but I'll throw the question back this way:

Why would you not NEED a gun? Have you outlawed knives, too? How about large pieces of wood?

i can use a knife to cook, and large pieces of wood can be used to build any number of things. so far, my attempts to combine handguns with the culinary arts have failed, and my blueprints for the Hunting Rifle Condominium and Apartment Complex have been rejected by the city three times.


Cue up the Simpson's Halloween special where they get rid of all the weapons and are taken over by two aliens with a slingshot and a board with a nail..)

of course, because private citizens are the people most likely to be able to defend against an alien invasion, and their handguns will be essential in Earth Defense. naturally, the state's military will play only a secondary defensive role.


I'll go one further: how did you get your populace to not want guns? Individuals, by definition, differ. People can't all agree on what kind of car to drive, much less something like guns.

some members of the populace want to drive drunk. just because some people want something doesn't mean we should necessarily permit them to have their way.


So, are you drugging your populace? Your statement that "they don't want them" would tell me as much: your government is mind controlling your people, thus you are totalitarian.

actually, the statistics tend to support the statement that the majority of Americans are not interested in gun ownership. yes, there is a minority who are interested in gun ownership, but it's not a matter of "government mind control" for somebody to assert that MOST Americans don't want guns in their homes...that's fact, not "mind control."

let me just start by saying that i don't honestly give a fig about gun control, but i feel the need to play devil's advocate here...


i can use a knife to cook, and large pieces of wood can be used to build any number of things. so far, my attempts to combine handguns with the culinary arts have failed, and my blueprints for the Hunting Rifle Condominium and Apartment Complex have been rejected by the city three times.


of course, because private citizens are the people most likely to be able to defend against an alien invasion, and their handguns will be essential in Earth Defense. naturally, the state's military will play only a secondary defensive role.


some members of the populace want to drive drunk. just because some people want something doesn't mean we should necessarily permit them to have their way.


actually, the statistics tend to support the statement that the majority of Americans are not interested in gun ownership. yes, there is a minority who are interested in gun ownership, but it's not a matter of "government mind control" for somebody to assert that MOST Americans don't want guns in their homes...that's fact, not "mind control."

As with our previous debate... you don't seem to get my point of view:

Guns, drugs, cars, whatever: they are all *things*. Things need to be regulated to make them safe for the populace at large, but should NOT be banned.

The thing needs to meet a level of safety: the car must be road worthy. The gun can't go off if you drop it, etc.

You *can* drive drunk, or not. You *can* shoot up the Taco Bell, or not. You *can* go buy a Big Mac, or not.

How you use things is up to you. NOT for a government to impose upon your liberties.

EDIT: BTW, we were speaking of Enlightened Humanity's nation, not specifically the US. :)

As with our previous debate... you don't seem to get my point of view:

Guns, drugs, cars, whatever: they are all *things*. Things need to be regulated to make them safe for the populace at large, but should NOT be banned.

The thing needs to meet a level of safety: the car must be road worthy. The gun can't go off if you drop it, etc.

the "certain level of safety" is what is at issue here. even the safest of nuclear weapons is not available for sale to a private citizen, no matter what regulations you offer up...this is because pretty much everybody agrees that the safest nuclear weapon is still too great a danger to the public to allow any private citizen to own one. when it comes to guns, there is more disagreement; some people believe that all guns are inherently too unsafe to allow private citizens to own them, while other people believe guns pose an acceptably low level of risk.

also, the weight of benefits to costs is not viewed equally. some people believe the risks of owning a gun are far outweighed by the potential benefits, while others believe the opposite.

how safe we must make a car, a drug, or a gun, is purely subjective, and right now the gun-rights debate centers on this subjectivity.


You *can* drive drunk, or not. You *can* shoot up the Taco Bell, or not. You *can* go buy a Big Mac, or not.

i'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. drunk driving and shooting up a Taco Bell are both illegal, so although you are able to take those actions you will also have to face the legal consequences if you make that choice. on the other hand, purchasing a Big Mac will not, in itself, lead to such legal consequences for you.

yes, people are "free" to break the law, in that we all can choose to engage in illegal actions. so?


How you use things is up to you. NOT for a government to impose upon your liberties.

incorrect. as i said above, i am "free" to make unsafe or illegal choices, but the government absolutely has the right to infringe on my liberties if i make those choices. the government also has the right to attempt to prevent the completion of illegal acts; for instance, if i am stopped while driving drunk, the government has the right to forbid me to re-enter my car and continue on my way.


EDIT: BTW, we were speaking of Enlightened Humanity's nation, not specifically the US. :)
i know you two were, but i am most familiar with statistics on Americans and guns, so those were the statistics i felt most comfortable citing off hand. sorry for any confusion.


EDIT: in the interests of avoiding a thread hijack, we could move this onto the guns thread. i realized that you mentioned not wanting to hijack several posts ago, but i just kept going here...sorry about that! i won't pursue more discussion on this thread, but feel free to copy posts onto the gun thread or something if you want to keep going. :)

the "certain level of safety" is what is at issue here. even the safest of nuclear weapons is not available for sale to a private citizen, no matter what regulations you offer up...this is because pretty much everybody agrees that the safest nuclear weapon is still too great a danger to the public to allow any private citizen to own one. when it comes to guns, there is more disagreement; some people believe that all guns are inherently too unsafe to allow private citizens to own them, while other people believe guns pose an acceptably low level of risk.

Actually, no. I certainly don't agree that nuclear weapons shouldn't be licensed. It's an illegal control, just like the one the governement has on "illegal" drugs. (See? It's on topic! :) )
(Point: I do concede that the licensing for nukes would be a pain in the kiester, to say the least. Especially in Massachusettes...)

Counterpoint: I believe that the possession of the "Cop Killer" CD by Ice-T is too dangerous to the public.
See? It doesn't matter what good it is: drug, paper, nuke. It's a thing. Things should not be outlawed. But they should be controlled/licensed if they can endanger the public.


also, the weight of benefits to costs is not viewed equally. some people believe the risks of owning a gun are far outweighed by the potential benefits, while others believe the opposite.

The Amish believe the same about cars. :)
Seriously: there will never be a plurality (67%) of people behind very much. (Except, apparently, having the 10 Commandments outside of courthouses, but I digress.)
But yes: Guns or drugs can be used in your statement, and that's valid. But so can just about anything else.

It is not for us to weigh the potential benefits or detriments of anything. All the governement should do is prescribe reasonable measures to ensure public safety.


how safe we must make a car, a drug, or a gun, is purely subjective, and right now the gun-rights debate centers on this subjectivity.

It's not really subjective: the law allows for a minimum/reasonable amount of safety in any product.
Fake Christmas trees need to be flame retardent, to a degree. Cars must run on unleaded gas (barring waiver for age), and have seat belts. Here in New York (where I work), cigarettes have to be "burn proof"! And drugs are doled out to people with prescriptions, just like guns are to people in states with gun licensing.

My point is that if you want a prescription/license for LSD, you should be able to get one.


i'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. drunk driving and shooting up a Taco Bell are both illegal, so although you are able to take those actions you will also have to face the legal consequences if you make that choice. on the other hand, purchasing a Big Mac will not, in itself, lead to such legal consequences for you.

The point is that you are still making a choice to do any of those things.
The government doesn't stop you from blowing away the Taco Bell, it arrests you later. Yet mere possession of drugs can get you arrested. Just like alcohol during prohibiton.


yes, people are "free" to break the law, in that we all can choose to engage in illegal actions. so?

Exactly. My point is that the illegalization on drugs is as poor as concept as Prohibition was. It curtains individual liberty, and only breeds more crime.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Markreich
How you use things is up to you. NOT for a government to impose upon your liberties.

incorrect. as i said above, i am "free" to make unsafe or illegal choices, but the government absolutely has the right to infringe on my liberties if i make those choices. the government also has the right to attempt to prevent the completion of illegal acts; for instance, if i am stopped while driving drunk, the government has the right to forbid me to re-enter my car and continue on my way.

Ah. I must have been unclear: I'm all for law enforcement. However, at this time, not all of the law is sensible/rational: consider this logic.

* Drunk driving (also: driving under the influence of drugs) is the illegal act.
a) Drinking itself is not illegal (anymore!),
b) nor is driving.
c) But toking a joint can get you arrested.

Funny how owning/smoking the joint is illegal, but the Jack Daniels isn't... and that's wrong.
Here, I agree that driving and tokin' should be illegal. But if you're in a bar (that allows smoking)? No.


i know you two were, but i am most familiar with statistics on Americans and guns, so those were the statistics i felt most comfortable citing off hand. sorry for any confusion.

Not at all, I just wanted to make sure that we both understood the context. :)


EDIT: in the interests of avoiding a thread hijack, we could move this onto the guns thread. i realized that you mentioned not wanting to hijack several posts ago, but i just kept going here...sorry about that! i won't pursue more discussion on this thread, but feel free to copy posts onto the gun thread or something if you want to keep going. :)

True. But I consider these issues linked... if you want to create a new thread, I'm not against that, but I think that so far this is on topic. (Mod? If I'm off base here, please let me know.)