NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, Erowid is definitely the best place to begin research into drugs. But I expect that Utracia will mistakenly believe it to be biased.

Hey, the information looks accurate enough and only proves that the hard drugs should remain outlawed despite what people want about "choice".

Hey, the information looks accurate enough and only proves that the hard drugs should remain outlawed despite what people want about "choice".

Now you're changing the subject; a few posts ago, you said something to the effect of "If I see any evidence that soft drugs cause less damage than hard drugs...."

Thats what I hate about everyone :rolleyes:

However, you can't protect people from themselves. People may do some stupid things that get them hurt, but what you're talking about is like being an over protective parent.

The (21st?) amendmant, which repealed prohibition, basically said that a person can go to hell in however they choose to do so.

Now you're changing the subject; a few posts ago, you said something to the effect of "If I see any evidence that soft drugs cause less damage than hard drugs...."

Thats what I hate about everyone :rolleyes:

Yeah, to legalize soft ones but keep hard ones illegal. I didn't mean anything else.

Medical drugs only. Marijuana should be for medical purposes, otherwise death to all recreational drugs:mp5: http://www.drunkbusters.com/slideshows/DECK1.jpg

Yeah, to legalize soft ones but keep hard ones illegal. I didn't mean anything else.

Oh; you were slightly unclear, but thats unimportant.

Hard drugs is a far more difficult question; they can cause serious damage, even with only recreational use.

However, I think we should just legalize them... we can work out the ways of dealing with crack-heads later.

However, I think we should just legalize them... we can work out the ways of dealing with crack-heads later.

Well, I do agree with Santa Barbara about one thing I don't really like repetition so my response is the same as in my other posts. Unorigional but the arguement is still the same.

I'm curious as what you consider to be "soft" drugs and "hard" drugs. Obviously weed is soft; and heroin and meth are hard; but where do you put everything else in this division?

I wonder if legalizing crack would even increase the number of people who use it. I highly doubt that there is anyone out there who wants to use crack but doesn't because its illegal.

I'm curious as what you consider to be "soft" drugs and "hard" drugs. Obviously weed is soft; and heroin and meth are hard; but where do you put everything else in this division?
I dunno, actually.


I wonder if legalizing crack would even increase the number of people who use it. I highly doubt that there is anyone out there who wants to use crack but doesn't because its illegal.
There are people out there who can get off from period blood, animal sex and pain. Someone, somewhere would.


Well, I do agree with Santa Barbara about one thing I don't really like repetition so my response is the same as in my other posts. Unorigional but the arguement is still the same.

I'm on the fence with hard drugs. Boundaries are an issue... what defines a "hard drug?"

Many people consider LSD to be hard. While its intoxicating powers are immense, its side effects are not; and no deaths have been recorded from an LSD overdose, in the decades its been around. Though its mental imparement is huge, if you take it in a safe environment, it is virtually harmless.

I'm curious as what you consider to be "soft" drugs and "hard" drugs. Obviously weed is soft; and heroin and meth are hard; but where do you put everything else in this division?

I've seen it argue that psychadelics (excuse any spelling error) could be considered "soft" but outside of marijuana I'm not sure I'd care to see anything legal. (even weed I just don't care either way).

Lets just say a hard drug is anything that can kill you, or get you hooked on one shot/hit/use....

Yes, this makes nicotine a hard drug, but theres always exceptions to the rules. This would be one of them.

Lets just say a hard drug is anything that can kill you, or get you hooked on one shot/hit/use....

Yes, this makes nicotine a hard drug, but theres always exceptions to the rules. This would be one of them.

Nicotine will kill you if you get a large enough dose I heard. One of the many chemicals that smokers slowly kill themselves with.

I suppose we could go with drugs that kill... I don't want to take a definite position on this quite yet. Weed doesn't but then that is the only drug with any possibility of legalization because of its minor risks/effects, whatever.

I got to go to work but when I get back I'll see if this thread is still alive and kicking. :)

Lets just say a hard drug is anything that can kill you, or get you hooked on one shot/hit/use....

Yes, this makes nicotine a hard drug, but theres always exceptions to the rules. This would be one of them.

The first criteria works to a point, but virtually anything can kill you if you intentionally overdose. The second criteria is worthless, I have friends who have tried heroin and crack and have never used them gain.

For LSD, you mentioned mental impairment. What are referring to? There is no evidence that it causes mental impairment and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary (among anecdotal evidence, my personal use). Personally, I believe LSD and all psychedelics must be legalized; not just because they will not harm our society but because their widespread use will alter it to something greater than it is now. Though of course this would require informing people of the proper ways to use them.

You guys are missing the point.

To relinquish the right to consume whatever substance you wish you are essentially claiming that someone has a higher claim to your body.

Nobody should be allowed to tell you what you can put in your body.

However, YOU are responsible for whatever actions you may undertake while under that influence.

the real truth is that the majority drug users are normal everyday people so don't be suprised if your mom, dad, or even your boss lights up evey once in a while
but getting high and joining a drum circle isn't a bad idea:p
Hippy!
:mad:

God damnit I hate hippies! :mad:

Drum circles are so stupid! :mad:

"Only three more hours, sea people. Only three more hours and you can take me away from this crappy goddamn planet full of hippies."

You guys are missing the point.

To relinquish the right to consume whatever substance you wish you are essentially claiming that someone has a higher claim to your body.

Nobody should be allowed to tell you what you can put in your body.

However, YOU are responsible for whatever actions you may undertake while under that influence.

I totally agree.

I can't support the idea that we should just throw up our hands and say "we can't win so let's just give up!" The government is to protect citizens from this poison and just because others want to commit illegal activity doesn't mean that legalizing it would be better.

Government exists to go for the people those things they can't do for themselves. People can protect themselves from drugs - they don't have to buy or use them. The dangers are common knowledge, yet still people choose to use them. Is government supposed to protect us from our own stupidity? Just how much government are you willing to have in order to keep some idiot from killing himself?

Government exists to go for the people those things they can't do for themselves. People can protect themselves from drugs - they don't have to buy or use them. The dangers are common knowledge, yet still people choose to use them. Is government supposed to protect us from our own stupidity? Just how much government are you willing to have in order to keep some idiot from killing himself?

The amount of government we have now is fine, thank you. A government's responsibility is to protect its citizens and protecting them from their own stupidity is part of that. Which is why we have DANGER signs everywhere and if people decide to ignore them like they ignore that these drugs are illegal for a reason then they need to be punished to try to tone down the afore mentioned stupidity.

Hope that didn't turn into nonsense at the end there... ;)

The amount of government we have now is fine, thank you. A government's responsibility is to protect its citizens and protecting them from their own stupidity is part of that. Which is why we have DANGER signs everywhere and if people decide to ignore them like they ignore that these drugs are illegal for a reason then they need to be punished to try to tone down the afore mentioned stupidity.

Hope that didn't turn into nonsense at the end there... ;)

I'm afraid that it turn into nonsense at the end there. A person does something that harms themself; and you believe the government should protect them from themself by harming them a second time (the harm inflicted in punishment almost invariably surpasses that which the person inflicted upon themself)?

*for legalization of all drugs and my points have been espoused many times already in this thread I am sure so I wont even debate why*

What I really don't get are all those freakin anti-marijuana commercials right now when that is the least of our nations drug problems. i guess it's just because it is far too accepted in mainstream society in teh eyes of those who wish to keep people from doing whatever they want to their own bodies (you know - the guys who think the govt is too big but want big brother in place at the same time).

The amount of government we have now is fine, thank you. A government's responsibility is to protect its citizens and protecting them from their own stupidity is part of that. Which is why we have DANGER signs everywhere and if people decide to ignore them like they ignore that these drugs are illegal for a reason then they need to be punished to try to tone down the afore mentioned stupidity.

Hope that didn't turn into nonsense at the end there... ;)


I have to disagree with you. I most emphatically DO NOT think that a government's responsibility is to protect us from ourselves. I think we're adults, need to behave as adults and take responsibility for our own actions. Keep drugs, tobacco, alcohol out of the hands of children, by all means. Educate people if you will. But in the final analysis, my decisions must be my own, not the government's, and I will take whatever consequences come. I, personally, do not use drugs (except for the occasional cup of coffee), but I deplore the idea that I, or anyone else, should police someone else's moral/ethical/health choices.

Besides, given that the government seems to be routinely involved in getting us involved in wars, which are dangerous. I would say that giving the government the responsibility for protecting us is something of an oxymoron.

I'm afraid that it turn into nonsense at the end there. A person does something that harms themself; and you believe the government should protect them from themself by harming them a second time (the harm inflicted in punishment almost invariably surpasses that which the person inflicted upon themself)?

I don't know. I think prison would be prefrable then the lifestyles that some addicts have. If they choose they can have an opportunity to go cold turkey (despite how easy drugs are acquired in prison, the opportunity is there). If money can be found it would be good to try to give abusers rehab for the first couple of offenses but where will the funding come from? Prison is simply cheaper. Still if it doesn't work then prison will be the only option.

I don't know. I think prison would be prefrable then the lifestyles that some addicts have. If they choose they can have an opportunity to go cold turkey (despite how easy drugs are acquired in prison, the opportunity is there). If money can be found it would be good to try to give abusers rehab for the first couple of offenses but where will the funding come from? Prison is simply cheaper. Still if it doesn't work then prison will be the only option.

We will just have to agree to disagree. You are, it seems, more comfortable with the idea of Big Brother than I am. And I am, apparently, more comfortable with a higher level of uncertainty.

I think we're adults, need to behave as adults and take responsibility for our own actions.

Keeping drugs illegal would make that simpler. Then the same principle would apply. If a danger becomes to great isn't it the government's responsibility to protect its citizenry from it?

I don't know. I think prison would be prefrable then the lifestyles that some addicts have. If they choose they can have an opportunity to go cold turkey (despite how easy drugs are acquired in prison, the opportunity is there). If money can be found it would be good to try to give abusers rehab for the first couple of offenses but where will the funding come from? Prison is simply cheaper. Still if it doesn't work then prison will be the only option.

I'm not sure why you believe that prison is cheaper, it generally is not. Any addicts who have a lifestyle worse than being in prison are an extreme minority. Also, what frequently happens to arrested drug users is that I'll go into prison being nothing more than common citizen who has an addiction and come out a hardened criminal.

And once again you are thinking purely in terms of extremely addicted users of hard drugs (who you seem to also imagine as being lower class) and ignore the great majority of drug users. I am college student going into academia with a 4.0 gpa, and I smoked weed thirty minutes ago; do you believe that I should be in jail?

Keeping drugs illegal would make that simpler. Then the same principle would apply. If a danger becomes to great isn't it the government's responsibility to protect its citizenry from it?

Keeping drugs illegal is clearly not protecting citizens from it, as can be seen from the tens of millions of users (over 20 million Americans use marijuana); all the prohibition does is make the danger greater by forceing the use underground and adding a second harm to be inflicted on users.

Keeping drugs illegal would make that simpler. Then the same principle would apply. If a danger becomes to great isn't it the government's responsibility to protect its citizenry from it?

Nothing is ever that simple. And, since I perceive that the government is a great danger to us, who will protect us from it?

I'm not sure why you believe that prison is cheaper, it generally is not. Any addicts who have a lifestyle worse than being in prison are an extreme minority. Also, what frequently happens to arrested drug users is that I'll go into prison being nothing more than common citizen who has an addiction and come out a hardened criminal.

I guess the better solution is just to let people mess themselves up (as long as they don't hurt others)? I simply feel we should have a responsibility to let these people know that what they are doing is wrong. Protecting them from hurting themselves, yes.

I smoked weed thirty minutes ago; do you believe that I should be in jail?

Nah, I've already decided that I could care less about weed. It's the other drugs I'm concerned about.

I guess the better solution is just to let people mess themselves up (as long as they don't hurt others)? I simply feel we should have a responsibility to let these people know that what they are doing is wrong. Protecting them from hurting themselves, yes.



Nah, I've already decided that I could care less about weed. It's the other drugs I'm concerned about.

If a user hurts others or commits any crime while on drugs or to obtain money for drugs, he should be punished like any other criminal; he should not be punished for doing something that could potentially lead to him doing something destructive. What they are doing cannot be labled "wrong" that is an entirely subjective evalution; use obviously involves risks, which is why people should be genuinely educated on them (rather than be fed anti-drug propraganda).

As to weed you have said that you don't care whether or not it is legal; so essentially you don't care whether or not users have to suffer and have their lives potentially ruined by being sent to jail. I'm sure you will respond (at least internally) with the idea that we have chosen to take that risk by using; and if you are apathetic of that risk, why do you care so much of the risks the users of other drugs are taking?

I guess the better solution is just to let people mess themselves up (as long as they don't hurt others)? I simply feel we should have a responsibility to let these people know that what they are doing is wrong. Protecting them from hurting themselves, yes.



Nah, I've already decided that I could care less about weed. It's the other drugs I'm concerned about.

It's my feeling that we are not responsible for protecting others from themselves. We are responsible to other people for making sure that our own behavior is not harmful. There is a big difference. My actions, my responsibility. Your actions, your responsibility.

If a user hurts others or commits any crime while on drugs or to obtain money for drugs, he should be punished like any other criminal; he should not be punished for doing something that could potentially lead to him doing something destructive. What they are doing cannot be labled "wrong" that is an entirely subjective evalution; use obviously involves risks, which is why people should be genuinely educated on them (rather than be fed anti-drug propraganda).

I think that this is just going to have to be a difference of opinion on this matter. I simply cannot agree that a persons personal choice outweighs the risks inherent with drug use.

As to weed you have said that you don't care whether or not it is legal; so essentially you don't care whether or not users have to suffer and have their lives potentially ruined by being sent to jail. I'm sure you will respond (at least internally) with the idea that we have chosen to take that risk by using; and if you are apathetic of that risk, why do you care so much of the risks the users of other drugs are taking?

I can live with it being legalized but if it isn't? Don't care. I can recognize there is no real danger (as long as you don't overdo it that is) of marijuana but people will just live with the risk of being arrested as for now at least it is against the law to have it. I'm not positive of the law but simple possession of a small amount just gives you a slap on the wrist anyway doesn't it?

I think that this is just going to have to be a difference of opinion on this matter. I simply cannot agree that a persons personal choice outweighs the risks inherent with drug use.



I can live with it being legalized but if it isn't? Don't care. I can recognize there is no real danger (as long as you don't overdo it that is) of marijuana but people will just live with the risk of being arrested as for now at least it is against the law to have it. I'm not positive of the law but simple possession of a small amount just gives you a slap on the wrist anyway doesn't it?

You don't even seem to properly understand the risks inherent in drug use. If you lived during the alcohol prohibition would you believed that should have remained in place (do you currently believe that)? The issue of choice is irrelevent since no law is able to remove a person's natural freedom to use drugs. All the laws do is make the risks of drug use worse and add additional risks on top of them in the form of prison sentences.

Yes, a small amount is a misdemeanor; but still entails a substantial fine, community service, or short jail sentence.

You don't even seem to properly understand the risks inherent in drug use. If you lived during the alcohol prohibition would you believed that should have remained in place (do you currently believe that)? The issue of choice is irrelevent since no law is able to remove a person's natural freedom to use drugs. All the laws do is make the risks of drug use worse and add additional risks on top of them in the form of prison sentences.


Of course I don't think alcohol should be illegal.

We can only do our best with laws on drugs but other then avoiding jail the risks will be the same with legalization. All the problems coming from them will remain.

The debate going on in this forum is one political theorists deal with ALL the time. If you want a government to govern, you have to give them the power to do so, but how much is too much and how do we draw and then protect that line. Most differences between political parties concern the power of the government to mess around in the lives of its citizenry. When you suggest that anything that is bad for you should be against the law if at all possible, you are essentially suggesting totalitarianism. If you believe the government should mind its own f***ing business and stick to protecting our national borders and managing differences between states while letting the states control the rest, you are liberal (the political theory, not democrat). In order to answer the legalizing drug question you first have to decide how much management you want from your central government. By the way, as we stand now in the US, we are as close to totalitarianism as we have ever been (maybe FDR's time rivals) simply because we have more government intervention and oversight as we have ever had.

Of course I don't think alcohol should be illegal.

We can only do our best with laws on drugs but other then avoiding jail the risks will be the same with legalization. All the problems coming from them will remain.

If you don't believe alcohol should be illegal, you are inconsistent. Alcohol is just as addictive as opium or cocaine (though different in patterns of abuse than cocaine) and among the most physically harmful of drugs. The only thing that sets it apart (other than the inefficiency and crudness of its mechanism of action) is that it is a drug that has been used by European culture for thousands of years.

The risks will not the same if they are legalized. Legalization will take out the entire organized crime element connected to drugs (gangsters obviously aren't involved in alcohol anymore), prevent impurites and contaminants that make it more difficult to measure dosage (and thus increase risk of overdose) and potentially cause health risks of their own. Medical assistance and treatment for addiction could also be obtained without stigma or fear of legal repercussions. Prices would be lower essentially eliminating the extreme minority of addicts who commit crimes to fund their addictions. And the ramifications of imprisoning users is far beyond what you believe; we already have a higher percentage of our population in prison than any other country in the world and an exceedingly large number of them are non-violent drug offenders. To point to another drug; I am currently in the possession of LSD do you believe that I should be in jail for that? Also, are you a conservative Christian?

If you don't believe alcohol should be illegal, you are inconsistent. Alcohol is just as addictive as opium or cocaine (though different in patterns of abuse than cocaine) and among the most physically harmful of drugs. The only thing that sets it apart (other than the inefficiency and crudness of its mechanism of action) is that it is a drug that has been used by European culture for thousands of years.


The difference I see between alcohol and hard drugs is that alcohol can be used without abuse but these drugs are much harder to claim that they will not eventually control your life.

The risks will not the same if they are legalized. Legalization will take out the entire organized crime element connected to drugs (gangsters obviously aren't involved in alcohol anymore), prevent impurites and contaminants that make it more difficult to measure dosage (and thus increase risk of overdose) and potentially cause health risks of their own. Medical assistance and treatment for addiction could also be obtained without stigma or fear of legal repercussions. Prices would be lower essentially eliminating the extreme minority of addicts who commit crimes to fund their addictions. And the ramifications of imprisoning users is far beyond what you believe; we already have a higher percentage of our population in prison than any other country in the world and an exceedingly large number of them are non-violent drug offenders. To point to another drug; I am currently in the possession of LSD do you believe that I should be in jail for that? Also, are you a conservative Christian?

For me what it has to come down to is what you want to live in as a society. One that tolerates this kind of drug use is not what I want. Letting people ruin their bodies through their addiction is something that must be fought not tolerated. All the things above could quite possibly be true but it has to come down to what is right. Of course then comes the inevitable "who are you to tell me what is right?" Fine. Once here it is like talking to a wall for nothing will be accomplished. If a society doesn't have boundaries then what will prevent us from descending into chaos? I certianly don't trust the masses to use their own judgement and not take things to far. It is why government is in place to guide us. I certainly don't think they are right on everything especially now with the idiot we have as president but if you don't believe that government is to help us when you come down to it then perhaps we are already in trouble.

I am in a confused state as to whether I am a religous person or not. The teachings in the Bible certainly give an outline of a good way to live without screwing up your life but it does have contradictions and the fate of those who don't belive is really aggravating to me (the Old Testement with all the massacres is proof enough). I don't want to get off track so I will say that conservative I most certainly am not. I see myself as smack in the middle politically.

The difference I see between alcohol and hard drugs is that alcohol can be used without abuse but these drugs are much harder to claim that they will not eventually control your life.

You're starting to sound like Yoda. Once you start down the path of Hard Drugs, forever will they dominate your destiny.

I know plenty of people who have used drugs, even "hard drugs," and their lives are not "controlled" by them. Are you saying that

1) I'm lying, or deceived
2) There are exceptions and I just happen to only meet exceptional people
3) The drugs will get us all in the end. We've done them, we'll be tainted and eventually controlled by them no matter what

Which one? I'm just wondering.

Because unless one of those is true, your statement is not true. It is very easy for me to make the claim that drugs are not any different from alcohol when it comes to addiction.


I certianly don't trust the masses to use their own judgement and not take things to far.

And this is in the end, what your argument is all about. The nanny state. Protecting people, against themselves.

You DO realize that you're one of "the masses" yourself, right? So are you actually saying, you don't trust YOURSELF not to theoretically be able to handle drugs without dying poor in the gutter?

Or are you better than those idiot "masses?"

The difference I see between alcohol and hard drugs is that alcohol can be used without abuse but these drugs are much harder to claim that they will not eventually control your life.



For me what it has to come down to is what you want to live in as a society. One that tolerates this kind of drug use is not what I want. Letting people ruin their bodies through their addiction is something that must be fought not tolerated. All the things above could quite possibly be true but it has to come down to what is right. Of course then comes the inevitable "who are you to tell me what is right?" Fine. Once here it is like talking to a wall for nothing will be accomplished. If a society doesn't have boundaries then what will prevent us from descending into chaos? I certianly don't trust the masses to use their own judgement and not take things to far. It is why government is in place to guide us. I certainly don't think they are right on everything especially now with the idiot we have as president but if you don't believe that government is to help us when you come down to it then perhaps we are already in trouble.

I am in a confused state as to whether I am a religous person or not. The teachings in the Bible certainly give an outline of a good way to live without screwing up your life but it does have contradictions and the fate of those who don't belive is really aggravating to me (the Old Testement with all the massacres is proof enough). I don't want to get off track so I will say that conservative I most certainly am not. I see myself as smack in the middle politically.

You are wrong in your assumption regarding the potential of alcohol controlling your life relative to other drugs. And if you see the level of danger posed by alcohol as acceptable; how would you feel about legalizing all drugs safer than alcohol?

You cannot solve a problem of people hurting themselves by hurting them for doing so. Perhaps you would be more comfortable in a dictatorship or monarchy of some sort so the flawed judgment of the masses can be entirely subdued under the wise hand of the government rather than tainting the process by electing their own kind to office. The government being in place to guide us, and protect us from ourselves, is an interesting theory of the purpose government; but unfortunately it does not reflect the reality of our current governments present motives. So ultimately you want the government to do something that it is not doing, which doesn't reflect the desires of the majority, and which limits freedom (granted human rights are a dubious notion, but I want them all the same). The government is not here to help us and we are in alot of trouble.

Maybe (since people obviousle can't use them in moderation, which is what the problem is), but that isn't what we are talking about and drugs are different. They aren't just dangerous to the person who uses them, but to the people around them.

Fatty foods lead to fat kids.
Fat kids lead to more bullying.
Bullying hurts everyone.

Stop destroying America with your 'lie-berty' and ban fatty foods now.

For me what it has to come down to is what you want to live in as a society. One that tolerates this kind of drug use is not what I want. Letting people ruin their bodies through their addiction is something that must be fought not tolerated. All the things above could quite possibly be true but it has to come down to what is right. Of course then comes the inevitable "who are you to tell me what is right?" Fine. Once here it is like talking to a wall for nothing will be accomplished. If a society doesn't have boundaries then what will prevent us from descending into chaos? I certianly don't trust the masses to use their own judgement and not take things to far. It is why government is in place to guide us. I certainly don't think they are right on everything especially now with the idiot we have as president but if you don't believe that government is to help us when you come down to it then perhaps we are already in trouble.
You don't seem to be getting the current arguement pertaining to rights. First thing first is that we all agree that the right to swing your fist extends as far as your neighbor's nose which means your free to do what you want as long as it does not harm your neighbor or infringe upon their rights. Now the next thing is that we all have the right to own property. From that we can do whatever we want with that property as long as it doesn't harm or infringe upon the rights of others. One of the things that is considered your property is your body. And since you can do whatever you wish with your property so long as it does not harm or infringe upon the rights of others you can put whatever you want in your body so long as it doesn't hurt/infringe on others/rights. This includes fatty foods or drugs. The government's policy of outlawing drugs is therebye infringing upon my freedom to do what I please with my property.

I get a strange feeling there is a secret message in here, or if you rearrange it enough, it will make sense. Maybe not. Maybe it's Elvis sending a message from the beyond. One thing is for sure though. This guy may or may not be against or for legalizing or prohibiting drugs. Maybe.


Life is a drug -- to a chemist most matter is atomic structure thus chemical. Unhunh. Thankyou thankyou very much elvis has left the building...

I'm very libertarian. I think all actions should be of individual choice. I think when our communical property starts to be involved there is undoubtedly going to be some emotional context created, that is the whole basis of authority and law.

I would hope others have common sense. Food is a drug it is just the effect that it has on our neurochemistry. The way drugs effect neurochemistry is via change in the chemical make up in the electrochemical processes to translate physical state of awareness to our head.

Our thoughts ultimately are communication. A desired state is a desired state. I don't need someone else to tell me what my desired state is. However where law is is a balance between acceptable action how your actions make others feel, it is not necisarily about how we ourselves feel but how parts of society (as ourself) feels. Thus the psychological identities come into play.

Some people are more tied to the earth while others get their emotional percs from a sports game, or seeing paycheck, or the thought that thier loved ones must be safe, or a million other things. In a Stimulus response system ultimately it is all identification with desired effect or closeness to create of the thoughts creating the emotional identity. As we age this may go more and more so from a purely physical level to a mental level (mental development). Drugs are various intheir creation, some enable surplus physical capacities while others impare it, the reasons for this could be various. To say the ideal life is to enforce a totalitian beleif system. I don't support oppression and dictorial cultural dominance except in support for free choice of everyone to make their own choices. In an ideal world we find unity in support of choice. Universally it is the true system thus the precident of thought, the head of faith, peace and in acceptance joy. It doesn't fully explain it though but I won't get into that.

I don't have expectations on others but I would hope we would know and follow our hearts, to what feels right to do. We just keep going and follow what we think is right, true our perception can be distorted but I would clearly say that the military industrial complex doesn't appear to be a 'ideal' solution if there are enemies, same as well the capitalist ownership as being ideal if there are those who are without.However,we have a choice to live in materialism or accept our fate. Life in many ways is an addiction the general beleif is we are born we grow we die. Does the rate truely matter? It is general falacy regardless, truely our purpose in mind is to bring goodness into the world, and be ourselves as divine will.

I'm for progressive enforcement meaning support things don't attack things, positive reinforcement rather than negative reinforcement. Sadly a world of mental and physical seems to give way to understanding of the emotional imparitive if we are living not fully in a mental state nor a physical state bound by logic then we act on our communication, spirit and will.

I give you the choice, I myself prefer a good jog or healthy food that enhances my health to a short term boost in energy or an altered perception from my normal perceptions. Can you ever fully understand what something is? What is the atleration? It is all what is real based upon your overall sensation, it may not be grounded on a purely physical level though, thus spirit seeing etc.. yada yada to clarify.

Do what you'd like, but I myself think that you shouldn't damage a good environment such as the waterways (they are mostly scrwed over due to industry and human wastes polution around here regardless) My core beleif is in whatever you do increase the value of your wealth. Not as purely monetary but as in enhancing the overall quality of life for us.

I don't beleive in enforcement other than death or exile, I'm not for restriction. I think that we need to be moral and care for one another. IT should be clear that spiking someone else because it is something you like doesn't necisarily mean they will like it taking into account universal difference of personality. If others ask of you, delivery, but don't push. It is that simple.

You don't seem to be getting the current arguement pertaining to rights. First thing first is that we all agree that the right to swing your fist extends as far as your neighbor's nose which means your free to do what you want as long as it does not harm your neighbor or infringe upon their rights.

I understrand the arguement. I'm just not going to jump on the bandwagon of this idea. I've already stated that the government has the responsibility to protect us. This means keeping at least the hard drugs illegal. This is my belief but I suppose some may believe that the line dividing rights and laws should be pushed farther back. On some issues perhaps, but on this issue no.

I understrand the arguement. I'm just not going to jump on the bandwagon of this idea. I've already stated that the government has the responsibility to protect us. This means keeping at least the hard drugs illegal. This is my belief but I suppose some may believe that the line dividing rights and laws should be pushed farther back. On some issues perhaps, but on this issue no.

I just want to know where your getting the idea that the government has the responsibility to protect us from ourselves? Where is this power codified in some sort of documentation? Or is this just your idea of what the government should do and not actually what the government espouses right now?

Drugs will be used whether they're legal or not. Legalize drugs? Why not? Everyone does them anyway. Nothing would change. And if you're worried about safety (ie clean needles?), then perhaps your tax dollars should supply them.

I just want to know where your getting the idea that the government has the responsibility to protect us from ourselves? Where is this power codified in some sort of documentation? Or is this just your idea of what the government should do and not actually what the government espouses right now?

Well drugs are currently illegal so in that respect the government must be trying to protect us from ourselves. Suicide is illegal. I'm sure if we thought about it there are other idiotic things we could do that are against the law which government put in place to protect us.

Drugs will be used whether they're legal or not. Legalize drugs? Why not? Everyone does them anyway. Nothing would change. And if you're worried about safety (ie clean needles?), then perhaps your tax dollars should supply them.

We should have to pay so others can get high? If drugs are legal then the druggies can find themselves clean needles themselves

Well drugs are currently illegal so in that respect the government must be trying to protect us from ourselves. Suicide is illegal. I'm sure if we thought about it there are other idiotic things we could do that are against the law which government put in place to protect us.

Actually in the UK and as far as my knowledge the US suicide is not illegal. I haven't been able to find any criminal laws that say it is illegal but you can be placed in a mental health institution if you try and fail.

Actually in the UK and as far as my knowledge the US suicide is not illegal. I haven't been able to find any criminal laws that say it is illegal but you can be placed in a mental health institution if you try and fail.

Yeah I've tried to find it now and can't get any evidence of it. Guess I'll have to be careful in believing what my professors try to tell me now. :(

Still government does have to enact some laws to protect people from their own idiocy.

Yeah I've tried to find it now and can't get any evidence of it. Guess I'll have to be careful in believing what my professors try to tell me now. :(

Well as far as I know it hasn't been illegal for awhile in the US with the at least 2 states as far back as 1990 still having suicide illegal but they eventually did away with that as well. Another interesting thing is that even though its not illegal in the criminal code of law it still has some standing in the common law code so that families can sue if they believe a caregiver(jail, hospital, etc) is neglegent involving the suicide of a person. But in general the practice of suicide is legal its just that if you screw up your going to have to get treatment.

Well as far as I know it hasn't been illegal for awhile in the US with the at least 2 states as far back as 1990 still having suicide illegal but they eventually did away with that as well. Another interesting thing is that even though its not illegal in the criminal code of law it still has some standing in the common law code so that families can sue if they believe a caregiver(jail, hospital, etc) is neglegent involving the suicide of a person. But in general the practice of suicide is legal its just that if you screw up your going to have to get treatment.

Well I hope we can at least agree that suicide should not be tolerated. This is one area where we most definately SHOULD protect people from themselves

Well I hope we can at least agree that suicide should not be tolerated. This is one area where we most definately SHOULD protect people from themselves

But I disagree. I think if someone wants to off themselves, who am I to argue?

If they can go through with it, they probably deserve it.

Well I hope we can at least agree that suicide should not be tolerated. This is one area where we most definately SHOULD protect people from themselves

Nope not at all. If you want to kill yourself as long as you do it in a private place where you don't interfere with others(swinging fist analogy again) then I see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to. Its their life if they want to end it then by all means they can.

But I disagree. I think if someone wants to off themselves, who am I to argue?

If they can go through with it, they probably deserve it.

Nope not at all. If you want to kill yourself as long as you do it in a private place where you don't interfere with others(swinging fist analogy again) then I see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to. Its their life if they want to end it then by all means they can.


Nice to know we can agree on so much. :rolleyes:

Nice to know we can agree on so much.

I thought you were the a-hole who wanted the government to intervene.

I thought you were the a-hole who wanted the government to intervene.

I was trying to put sarcasm in my post but perhaps didn't do so good a job.

Still, its no reason to reduce yourself to insults. Hardly going to convince anyone of your position with that kind of tactic.

Nice to know we can agree on so much. :rolleyes:

If we all agreed on everything the world would be so god damn boring.

Still, its no reason to reduce yourself to insults. Hardly going to convince anyone of your position with that kind of tactic.

True enough. But here's some advice. You can't save people from themselves. They have to want to live in the first place.

If we all agreed on everything the world would be so god damn boring.

I guess I can agree with that. :D

That method for selecting leaders seems to be the best one, and is what I thought of when I dreamt up a utopia a couple of years ago.

An official religion that is encouraged, but not forced upon anyone, and that the leaders of this imagined nation must follow would likely be a good idea to ensure the continuity of the ideology the nation was founded upon; however I completely disagree that Christianity should be this religion, and in fact I might go so far as to say that the abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) should be outlawed for the sake of the citizens's mental hygeine.
You know, I can't support that idea (of outlawing 'abrahamic religions'), they do not effect us in a negative way, rather a positive. The founding fathers of America were Christians, and looked at what America has become (I mean positively). No religions should be illegal.

Well drugs are currently illegal so in that respect the government must be trying to protect us from ourselves.


Do some research into why drugs were outlawed and you will see that you are (for the most part) mistaken. Heroin, PCP, and Meth were outlawed purely for reasons of public health but they are unique in that regard. Initially drug regulation was the responsibility of states and states passed their own laws that were rooted in racisim. In 1912 California outlawed opium as one of many measures to reduce Chinese immigration and give police an excuse to harrass the Chinese. This worked quite well, so in 1914 Texas outlawed marijuana (for the mexicans) and a few southern states (can't remember which) outlawed cocaine (for the blacks). After the alcohol prohibition ended, the government was left a massive law enforcement system that was no longer needed now that alcohol was legal and organized crime had lost much of its power; to ensure that these officers would still have something to do (an oversimplification but works for this post) national drug laws were formed and the drugs outlawed by certain states became nationally outlawed (over a period of several years since some states resisted outlawing marijuana). The connection (catalystic I believe) between psychedelics and the counter culture movements of the 1960s lead to a much broader drug policy at the end of the 60's and the illegalization of all psychedelics despite their demonstrated and thoroughly researched usefulness for therapy and lack of evidence of long term side effects. It has been a policy ever since to outlaw all psychedelics (or drugs associated with psychedelics such as MDMA) as soon as they become relatively well known.

Well I hope we can at least agree that suicide should not be tolerated. This is one area where we most definately SHOULD protect people from themselves

The world is over populated; and if there are people who would willingly remove themselves from it who are we to prevent them from lending a helping hand?

You know, I can't support that idea (of outlawing 'abrahamic religions'), they do not effect us in a negative way, rather a positive. The founding fathers of America were Christians, and looked at what America has become (I mean positively). No religions should be illegal.

The founding fathers who contributed most to the writing of the constitution and general design of the government were primarily universalists (an extremely liberal Christian faith, that is no longer even Christian) with many of the most significant of them (such as Thomas Jefferson) being Deists (a non-christian faith). But it any case as a whole they were not a particulary pious lot; and this has no bearing as to whether or not people should currently follow abrahamic religions. It could be argued that ultimately the positive and negative aspects of these religions cancel each other out enough that religious freedom would allow them to exist in an utopia; but their continuing existence is certainly not positive as can be seen by there rejection of scientific progress, spreading of hate and intolerance, and battling among each other.

I tend towards legalising them, with education. Long term brain damage and illegal acts haven't stopped alcohol being sold. Many of the crimes commited by people on drugs are generally due to the cost of the drug. I would add the proviso that any crime committed under the influence of anything including alcohol should have an increased penalty. General message to the public- fry your brain if you want to - don't bother nice people whilst you are doing it.

I tend towards legalising them, with education. Long term brain damage and illegal acts haven't stopped alcohol being sold. Many of the crimes commited by people on drugs are generally due to the cost of the drug. I would add the proviso that any crime committed under the influence of anything including alcohol should have an increased penalty. General message to the public- fry your brain if you want to - don't bother nice people whilst you are doing it.

I have to disagree that a crime committed under the influence of a drug should have increased penalties; there is no rational reason to do so. If a person who is on drugs is somehow so messed up that he is violent because of the drugs, the added penalty will serve as no deterrence. If, as would usually be the case, the person on drugs is in control and decides to commit crime for the same sort of motives that would cause them to when sober, there is no reason why the crime should be treated any differently.

I have to disagree that a crime committed under the influence of a drug should have increased penalties; there is no rational reason to do so. If a person who is on drugs is somehow so messed up that he is violent because of the drugs, the added penalty will serve as no deterrence. If, as would usually be the case, the person on drugs is in control and decides to commit crime for the same sort of motives that would cause them to when sober, there is no reason why the crime should be treated any differently.

It should simply carry the same penalty as if you had committed the crime with a clear head. What I don't like is people trying to defend themselves saying they were high or drunk. It doesn't matter you knew what could happen when you did that to yourself now you have to pay the penalty for your actions.

Drugs cost a lot to get hold of since they illegal (or at least most do). Once you by them and use them over an extended peirod of time that is when you become addicted to them. Then you have to keep buying them to make yourself 'happy'. Don't you think that your money would be spent better somewhere else? Why would you pay that much to become addicted? Why would you pay at all? I think that legalizing drugs would be stupidity, just like buying them is.

Drugs cost a lot to get hold of since they illegal (or at least most do). Once you by them and use them over an extended peirod of time that is when you become addicted to them. Then you have to keep buying them to make yourself 'happy'. Don't you think that your money would be spent better somewhere else? Why would you pay that much to become addicted? Why would you pay at all? I think that legalizing drugs would be stupidity, just like buying them is.

As already explained, drugs would be cheaper if legal. For it being stupid to buy them, it is a personal choice what to spend money on and nothing is more subjective than the term "better." You obviously wouldn't buy drugs if they were legal, but there are other people who would (the same people who buy them now and likely a few more in regards to marijuana). Whether or not you get addicted depends on what drug you are using and how often you use it. And I have had people ask me before, "wouldn't you be using your money for something better if you didn't do drugs?" The answer is no, I'd spend the money on video games and eating at nice restaurants (some people might think that is better, but I don't or else I'd be doing so).

sweet thread thus far. majorly interesting.

just a thought:

no moral conclusions can be attained through factual data
- more or less Hume.

I'm for legalizing everything (drugs, whores, guns, cheese).
So am I. People should do what they want without people telling what to do. I hate cheese though, ban it:p

As already explained, drugs would be cheaper if legal. For it being stupid to buy them, it is a personal choice what to spend money on and nothing is more subjective than the term "better." You obviously wouldn't buy drugs if they were legal, but there are other people who would (the same people who buy them now and likely a few more in regards to marijuana). Whether or not you get addicted depends on what drug you are using and how often you use it. And I have had people ask me before, "wouldn't you be using your money for something better if you didn't do drugs?" The answer is no, I'd spend the money on video games and eating at nice restaurants (some people might think that is better, but I don't or else I'd be doing so).
If they were cheaper, wouldn't people buy more of them and use them more often? And if you use them more often, you are more likely to become addicted.

If they were cheaper, wouldn't people buy more of them and use them more often? And if you use them more often, you are more likely to become addicted.

If a person is not already addicted they'll buy the drug of their choice in whatever quantity that it is that they choose to use; just because it is cheaper does not mean that they'll buy more. To use an example, unless I am sorely mistaken users of alcohol currently do not use more alcohol than they did during the prohibition (when it was much more expensive); also my use of marijuana reflects that how much I buy does not in any way reflect how much I can afford to buy (I could buy alot more than I do). If a person is addicted they will buy how ever much they need to satiate their addiction regardless of the price; the lower prices would allow addicts to carry on an "ordinary" life with greater ease (it would actually be easier for them than it is alcoholics since the effects of alcohol are more debilitating than drugs such as cocaine, heroin, or meth). Also, this argument is irrelevent for entirely non-addictive drugs such as LSD and mushrooms.

I notice that you, as well as some others (perhaps to a greater degree), seem to have some kind of conception of drug users as being crazed addicts from the lower classes. Though there is a disproportionate number of drug users (and over-drinkers) from the lower classes, drug use pervades all of the social classes; and the popularity of cocaine among stock brokers, business men, and lawyers is well known. For these kind of users price is never an issue and they never need to resort to crime to fund their addictions (if they are addicted).

I notice that you, as well as some others (perhaps to a greater degree), seem to have some kind of conception of drug users as being crazed addicts from the lower classes. Though there is a disproportionate number of drug users (and over-drinkers) from the lower classes, drug use pervades all of the social classes; and the popularity of cocaine among stock brokers, business men, and lawyers is well known. For these kind of users price is never an issue and they never need to resort to crime to fund their addictions (if they are addicted).

I hope you weren't thinking of me when you posted this! :(

Just in case, I don't think this at all. A junkie is a junkie no matter his/her economic status. I can see that those of the lower class would be more susceptible to drugs simply because they may feel hopeless and find an escape with drugs/alcohol and such things.

Cocaine is so expensive anyway you'd have to be rich to use with any frequency. :rolleyes:

I hope you weren't thinking of me when you posted this! :(

Just in case, I don't think this at all. A junkie is a junkie no matter his/her economic status. I can see that those of the lower class would be more susceptible to drugs simply because they may feel hopeless and find an escape with drugs/alcohol and such things.

Cocaine is so expensive anyway you'd have to be rich to use with any frequency. :rolleyes:

Yes, I was thinking of you. That's the only way to make sense of your claims that junkies will commit crimes for drugs; obviously the wealthy won't nor does it generally impede their ability to continue to be wealthy. For the lower classes, what you said is definitely a large part of it but also alot of the people who spend high school in a drugged daze will end up lower class, and if all you do for a living is work at a factory or something similar when you come home there really wouldn't be anything better to do than use drugs/alcohol (it has always been like this). "Frequency" is a relative term; but yes you would need to be rich to afford to have frequent cocaine binges.

Yes, I was thinking of you. That's the only way to make sense of your claims that junkies will commit crimes for drugs; obviously the wealthy won't nor does it generally impede their ability to continue to be wealthy. For the lower classes, what you said is definitely a large part of it but also alot of the people who spend high school in a drugged daze will end up lower class, and if all you do for a living is work at a factory or something similar when you come home there really wouldn't be anything better to do than use drugs/alcohol (it has always been like this).

Well the rich have the money to not commit crimes to feed their addiction and if they do something stupid then they go to rehab or maybe a country club jail. That the lower class junkies will commit crimes is certainly part of the reasoning to keep these substances illegal it is mainly the immediate health risks that should keep these drugs outlawed.

I realise things like cigarettes are also bad for you and I'd like nothing better then for people to stop smoking. Not only good for them but our health care costs would plummet!

Well the rich have the money to not commit crimes to feed their addiction and if they do something stupid then they go to rehab or maybe a country club jail. That the lower class junkies will commit crimes is certainly part of the reasoning to keep these substances illegal it is mainly the immediate health risks that should keep these drugs outlawed.

I realise things like cigarettes are also bad for you and I'd like nothing better then for people to stop smoking. Not only good for them but our health care costs would plummet!

There is next to nothing in "immediate" health risks, apart from the possibility of overdose with some substances (a risk shared with alcohol and that would be greatly reduced to if the drugs were legalized since users could be sure of their doses), and the lowered possibility of overdose would actually decrease the number of people needing emergency care and thus could save money. And don't claim it is easier to overdose on illegal drugs than alcohol; with the exception of heroin and GHB, alcohol has a lower ratio of amount to required to be lethal against amount required for desired effects. For all health concerns, people are using these drugs regardless of whether or not they are legal and we cannot prevent them from doing so. And of course the issue of "junkies" has been covered numerous times.

And for the sake of not having to go around in circles endless more time; let's, for the sake of argument, say that the drugs like cocaine, heroin, and meth are kept illegal; would you at least agree that the other drugs should be legalized?

And for the sake of not having to go around in circles endless more time; let's, for the sake of argument, say that the drugs like cocaine, heroin, and meth are kept illegal; would you at least agree that the other drugs should be legalized?

We do seem to be going in circles. :(

I have posted earlier that I would be willing to have marijuana and if proven absolutely to be safe, other light drugs to be legalized. It would let the legal system concentrate on the more dangerous, "hard" drugs.

It should simply carry the same penalty as if you had committed the crime with a clear head. What I don't like is people trying to defend themselves saying they were high or drunk. It doesn't matter you knew what could happen when you did that to yourself now you have to pay the penalty for your actions.

I've done my share of drugs, and never once while intoxicated or otherwise have I felt I've had the right to harm another person (you know, not including the 'in self-defence clause).