NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently I overheard a conversation about smoking. One person made the point that the government should make it illegal to smoke cigarettes because they are extremely unhealthy. The other person then made the point that the government must give people the choice to kill themselves. It then progressed to other drugs such as cannabis and cocaine. Why is it that the government can make them illegal then. So the other person said that it's because they are mind altering drugs. People lose control and tend to harm other people. Then the final point made was that alcohol does the same thing, yet the government hasn't banned alcohol.

I've been trying to rationalise this decision. Why would the government ban mind altering drugs for recreational use, and not ban alcohol? Can someone please explain this for me?

The wacky weed was banned by efforts of the newspaper industry led by William Randolph Hearst in the 1930's to curb the production of cheap paper. Hemp paper is much cheaper to make than wood paper, but Hearst had already sunk costs into wood pulp facilities.

Source: http://buildfreedom.com/news/archive.php?id=674

Can't tell you much about the other drugs...

Question not, what perfect? Question is, where we go now! What make thing better? No cigarettes better? You joking! People make own and smuggle big time! You think illegal smack good? Plenty people still take smack and bad men make big money. Question is, what direction good for people now? Good for all people! Not justification of current situation! Current situation is! No can change what is now. Only future change. Again, where we go from here?

I personally think that cigarettes, alcohol and cannabis should all be legalised. For some people, having a roll-up every day is what makes them happy and chilled out, other people like a drink and I know a lot of people who take cannabis due to its relaxing effects (it really is quite good, if illegal).

The other drugs are generally much more dangerous than the first three, but I still think that the sentences for those drugs should be reduced. It's a bit of a waste of time to keep people who sell heroin in jail for over ten years, in my opinion.

:headbang: I generally don't give a shit what people do on their own time. Do what you want.

Break the law? I'll fucking slam you. Make your own choices? Why should the government intervene then? Human choice is human choice, curbing a little and curbing a lot is a "slippery slope".

:headbang: I generally don't give a shit what people do on their own time. Do what you want.

Break the law? I'll fucking slam you. Make your own choices? Why should the government intervene then? Human choice is human choice, curbing a little and curbing a lot is a "slippery slope".

I strongly agree with that;)

"do what thou wilst if it harms none."
the first law in the pagan federation.

if one was to ban alcohol, you'll have alot of angry irish men running around. :mp5:

:headbang: I generally don't give a shit what people do on their own time. Do what you want.

Break the law? I'll fucking slam you. Make your own choices? Why should the government intervene then? Human choice is human choice, curbing a little and curbing a lot is a "slippery slope".

The government should intervene because one of the conditions of being in a society is that we adhere to the governments laws. If you want to do whatever you want, go live in solitude, because the rest of us expect the government to regulate behaviour in order to keep us safe.

Then the final point made was that alcohol does the same thing, yet the government hasn't banned alcohol. They tried banning alcohol in the US once.. Let's say, it didn't exactly work out well.

I've never heard of people breaking into houses to steal money for cigarettes and alcohol. It's probably happened, but I ain't heard of it. The majority of violent (and I mean violent like people getting bashed into comas etc.) crimes occur because of people's addiction to harder drugs. And don't tell me that that will change if we make them legal. It won't make the drugs any less addictive. And yes, I know that nicotine withdrawal can be worse than heroin withdrawal.

They tried banning alcohol in the US once.. Let's say, it didn't exactly work out well.

So they can ban cannabis and cocaine because people will tolerate it being banned. But alcohol is such a major part of lots of peoples lives that people wont allow alcohol to be banned even though it causes lots of unnecessary death. I see. Ok. :fluffle:

The government should intervene because one of the conditions of being in a society is that we adhere to the governments laws. If you want to do whatever you want, go live in solitude, because the rest of us expect the government to regulate behaviour in order to keep us safe.

oh yes the dangers of pot smoking. i'm always afraid of chilled, lazy, tired people coming to get me.

download the streets song "the irony of it all".

I've never heard of people breaking into houses to steal money for cigarettes and alcohol.

Probably because cigarettes and alcohol are cheap compared to harder drugs. If they were made expensive there would be plenty more breakins.

Probably because cigarettes and alcohol are cheap compared to harder drugs. If they were made expensive there would be plenty more breakins.

And there certainly are cases where people break into houses just to raid the liquor cabinet.

oh yes the dangers of pot smoking. i'm always afraid of chilled, lazy, tired people coming to get me.

download the streets song "the irony of it all".

I'm not saying that pot should be illegal. I'm just trying to figure out why pot is illegal and alcohol isn't.

And there certainly are cases where people break into houses just to raid the liquor cabinet.

Damn punk kids and their music. *shakes fist*

Alcohol was banned for a short time in the USA. I think we all know how about the connection between the prohibition era and the rise of the Mafia. Ultimately prohibition caused more problems than it solved.

As for the criminalisation of cocaine and other drugs, this was more popular amongst the public. The public was witnessing the the problems of abuse of cocaine first hand. Terms such as 'dope fiend' were in invented to describe what cocaine did to these people.

A pint every day won't cause too many visible short term problems, but taking cocaine everyday will.

Now cannabis and tobacco are relatively harmless in the short term. However, someone has already mentioned the reason for criminalisation of cannabis. We should attempt to bring back hemp paper, it would do a lot to cut deforestation.

Probably because cigarettes and alcohol are cheap compared to harder drugs. If they were made expensive there would be plenty more breakins.

But if that is so, how will legalising harder drugs lessen crime? Won't they still cost the same, or similar?

And at least in Australia, cigarettes are pretty expensive and only getting worse.

I've never heard of people breaking into houses to steal money for cigarettes and alcohol. It's probably happened, but I ain't heard of it. The majority of violent (and I mean violent like people getting bashed into comas etc.) crimes occur because of people's addiction to harder drugs. And don't tell me that that will change if we make them legal. It won't make the drugs any less addictive. And yes, I know that nicotine withdrawal can be worse than heroin withdrawal.Uh... I've heard of both... and I've seen people stealing for alcohol.

But if that is so, how will legalising harder drugs lessen crime? Won't they still cost the same, or similar?

And at least in Australia, cigarettes are pretty expensive and only getting worse.

No. If it's made legal a new market will open up and price will fall due to the new supply.

No. If it's made legal a new market will open up and price will fall due to the new supply.And then increase due to taxation... :rolleyes:

Uh... I've heard of both... and I've seen people stealing for alcohol.

Okay, so I was wrong. I've just never heard of people bashing up people on the street for money for alcohol or cigarettes. I know people steal it sure, but I've never heard of people bashing people to death for money for it. Bashing people to death while drunk, I know about.

And then increase due to taxation... :rolleyes:

If the government have legalised it to lower crime, they're not going to put a great ammount of tax on it. We'll only have the 10% GST, which will be sweet bugger all because of the massive supply in the new market.:rolleyes:

If the government have legalised it to lower crime, they're not going to put a great ammount of tax on it. We'll only have the 10% GST, which will be sweet bugger all because of the massive supply in the new market.:rolleyes:

It'll still be far cheaper. If we think about one or two companies mass producing drugs first hand for the market it can be much cleaner and cheaper for the buyer. Drugs normally pass through the hands of a few dealers, where less is sold for a higher price continously. Not to mention drug dealers are riking jail so they need to up the price even more to make it worth their while.

impaired judgement is impared judgement. it increases certain risks and its likelyhood of gratifying anything is one i seriously question. that being said, it is also a matter of personal taste and far be it from me to wish to dictate anyone else's.

as for the laws that exist and why the do. why one form is more acceptable on one society then another might be in an other. these are all radom shots of historical circumstance, many little more then die rolls that could as easily have fallen out either way.

as in anthing in societies based upon it, the circular illogic of little green pieces of paper has, and continues to, play a major roll.

and really that's the whole real explanation of what is and is not lawful, where, and why.

please note i'm not claming this bussiness of voluntarily impairing one's one judgement is not harmful, either immediately or long term, but i'm also not saying these effects, both harmful, and occasionaly usefuly, aren't being exaggerated, sometimes wildly, sometimes very little, either.

but again this is something being delt with by laws that maybe laws aren't neccessarily the best approach to doing so, nor are the laws themselves entirely rational or based on the best possible exercise of good sense.

=^^=
.../\...

The government should intervene because one of the conditions of being in a society is that we adhere to the governments laws. If you want to do whatever you want, go live in solitude, because the rest of us expect the government to regulate behaviour in order to keep us safe.

Ah, I see, your the self-appointed speaker of the majority then?

Damn punk kids and their music. *shakes fist*
:p

I've been trying to rationalise this decision. Why would the government ban mind altering drugs for recreational use, and not ban alcohol? Can someone please explain this for me?

Very simple: when it comes to the exercise of authority, one should only make orders that they have the muscle to back up. If one makes a decree that they can't enforce, it undermines their authority and makes it more difficult to get anything done. Authority comes from the people being governed, mostly through illusion, but partly by consent. If it is obvious that people are not going to do what they are told, telling them to do it anyway is just going to expose the illusion for what it is.