A new Prohibition Era?

[Dark Hellion]

Interestingly, some kids down the hall from me got caught with pot one day. The hall mom gave out less disipline for them than for a public intoxication violation.
I think this basically is my position as well. Really, what does Marijuana do to people that smoking does not? It makes em laid back, somewhat sleepy, and want Funions really bad.
Is this hurting anyone? I think not.
Legalizing Marijuana could provide a rather large economic boost to tobacco companies (i know, boo hiss) as well. Marbarol (sp?) greens are pretty much ready to be put out in a month when/if the stuff gets legalized.

[SPOOFE]

Really, what does Marijuana do to people that smoking does not?

Well, it makes 'em safer drivers, apparently...

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Well, it makes 'em safer drivers, apparently...

LMAO!! There's still no way on God's Green Earth I'm gonna toke and drive!!

[SPOOFE]

There's still no way on God's Green Earth I'm gonna toke and drive!!

You kiddin'? It's one of the best things on Earth!

Even better is droppin' psilo and tootlin' around at 3:00 AM...

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

You kiddin'? It's one of the best things on Earth!

Even better is droppin' psilo and tootlin' around at 3:00 AM...

Do you know what I like to do after smoking weed? I sit around the house and talk with my family and friends. I play board/card/dice games with them. I clean up the house. I design spaceships with MSPaint. I play Quake or Playstation games. I have sex. I listen to music. I invite company over and we hang out.

Basically, I promote family values. The REAL ones. None of that involves driving while intoxicated...

P.S. Thanks for the http://www.taima.org/en/mjmyths.htm page. It's highly useful for completely shattering all the fallacious 'justifications' for making weed illegal. I'm particularly interested in the Third Marijuana Myth that it's a 'gateway' drug. If anything's a GWD, it's alcohol. Lotta luck trying to get rid of that..

[Axis Kast]

And why shouldn't they? Their bodies are their own the same as their minds. If they cause harm to others, punish them for that.

It’s really quite simple: those people who become involved in the so-called “hard drugs” whose legalization you just threw your support behind become a burden on society, for whom I am expected to pay.

You don’t relish the idea of financing somebody’s prison term? I don’t relish the idea of financing somebody’s rehabilitation – and that’s not nearly the worst of it. Argue all you like about marijuana’s relative harmlessness; hard drugs are far from it. Why should I be responsible to pay for their next-of-kin? Why should I be responsible for the widening consumption of the drug to bring criminals and violence to my neighborhoods? Why should I be responsible for condoning a habit that can cause reckless endangerment?

Those drugs are mind-altering and dangerous; you can argue that smoking is a slow killer, alcohol acceptable if taken in moderation, and marijuana “not so bad.” Explain to me how anybody is reasonably expected to become a “responsible” cocaine or PCP addict.

Decades of study of marijuana's effects have shown virtually no long term harmful effects save from a possible increased risk of lung cancer, which can be avoided by injesting the drug orally. And a single study of cocaine and ecstacy proves precisely zero about marijuana. Yes, we might someday discover it has some horrible effect that somehow nobody noticed over the last 10,000 years, but the same could be said for virtually anything. The burden is on the prohibitionist to prove that the drug is dangerous enough to be banned. Appeals to ignorance don't cut it.

Decades of study are inconclusive. The FDA doesn’t let you put it into your body if nobody’s familiar with what it can do. Marijuana is one of those substances whose side-effects are still relatively unknown. Of course ignorance matters; we can’t be certain we aren’t propagating something negative.

You’re also switching this conversation over entirely to marijuana. Not so fast. You said all drugs.

I fail to see how imprisoning them makes them less of a burden on society. Even if I agreed that people shouldn't be allowed to take drugs, I wouldn't agree that we should use the most expensive, least effective method of controlling drug use.

That’s another argument altogether.

Mind if I inquire what your exact position is on the subject matter?

Certainly. I believe that all drugs should remain illegal, although it may soon be determined that the war on marijuana is lost and strict regulation along with heavy taxation make the most sense from a practical point of view. I have no position on enforcement other than to suggest that while some penalties might be reduced, some jail time and mandated rehabilitation are in order.

P.S. Thanks for the http://www.taima.org/en/mjmyths.htm page. It's highly useful for completely shattering all the fallacious 'justifications' for making weed illegal. I'm particularly interested in the Third Marijuana Myth that it's a 'gateway' drug. If anything's a GWD, it's alcohol. Lotta luck trying to get rid of that..

Of course marijuana is a gateway drug.

The people who sell it to you come along with a whole network of contacts and criminal ties. When you use such drugs, you’re likely to become involved with people who sell stronger variants of them on a larger scale – which means they break the law as a sort of profession.

Your only defense in this case would be that such ties should be reduced if marijuana is legalized, for then obtaining it would cut out the so-called middle men.

[LordShaithis]

It’s really quite simple: those people who become involved in the so-called “hard drugs” whose legalization you just threw your support behind become a burden on society, for whom I am expected to pay.

You're already paying.

You don’t relish the idea of financing somebody’s prison term? I don’t relish the idea of financing somebody’s rehabilitation – and that’s not nearly the worst of it.

Who wants to bet that rehabilitation is a damn sight cheaper than imprisonment?

Argue all you like about marijuana’s relative harmlessness; hard drugs are far from it. Why should I be responsible to pay for their next-of-kin?

Huh?

Why should I be responsible for the widening consumption of the drug to bring criminals and violence to my neighborhoods?

Criminalization = organized crime.

Why should I be responsible for condoning a habit that can cause reckless endangerment?

Nobody is asking you to condone anything.

Those drugs are mind-altering and dangerous; you can argue that smoking is a slow killer, alcohol acceptable if taken in moderation, and marijuana “not so bad.” Explain to me how anybody is reasonably expected to become a “responsible” cocaine or PCP addict.

You'd be surprised how many functional cocaine users there are. In any event, if the user isn't hurting anyone else then leave him alone. If he does hurt someone else, well, that's already illegal.

Decades of study are inconclusive. The FDA doesn’t let you put it into your body if nobody’s familiar with what it can do. Marijuana is one of those substances whose side-effects are still relatively unknown. Of course ignorance matters; we can’t be certain we aren’t propagating something negative.

Any effects still undetected after decades of widespread public consumption and scientific research are bound to be inconsequential. Or in other words: If you've taken 40 years and still can't prove it's poisonous, STFU and sit down already.

Certainly. I believe that all drugs should remain illegal,

Crap, there goes alcohol again. See you at the speakeasy. I'll bring some cigars if my tobacco dealer isn't in jail.

Oh wait, you only mean drugs that happen to be illegal at this particular point in time, regardless of how harmful or relatively benign they are.

although it may soon be determined that the war on marijuana is lost and strict regulation along with heavy taxation make the most sense from a practical point of view. I have no position on enforcement other than to suggest that while some penalties might be reduced, some jail time and mandated rehabilitation are in order.

Because we don't have enough people in jail yet.

Of course marijuana is a gateway drug.

The people who sell it to you come along with a whole network of contacts and criminal ties. When you use such drugs, you’re likely to become involved with people who sell stronger variants of them on a larger scale – which means they break the law as a sort of profession.

As I said earlier in this post:

Criminalization = organized crime.

Your only defense in this case would be that such ties should be reduced if marijuana is legalized, for then obtaining it would cut out the so-called middle men.

Yes, the ties between illegal marijuana dealers and other criminal elements "should be reduced" when the illegal marijuana dealer is annhilated by legal commerce. In other news, there aren't many rum-runners crossing the Detroit river lately.

[salm]

The people who sell it to you come along with a whole network of contacts and criminal ties. When you use such drugs, you’re likely to become involved with people who sell stronger variants of them on a larger scale – which means they break the law as a sort of profession.

wow, that´s an argument against yourself. as soon as i can buy my marihuana in my local pot shop there´s no more need to get in contact with my evil, criminal, homicidal gangsta dealer who will probably force me to do heroine and eat little children sooner or later.

[Axis Kast]

You're already paying.

Yes, I am. However, I’d be paying even more if certain forms of dissuasion were suddenly removed. That is, by making it illegal, you make excessive use even more likely by those already most dependant (and thus most likely to make of themselves a burden).

Who wants to bet that rehabilitation is a damn sight cheaper than imprisonment?

Not all abusers end up in prison. And what if we changed the laws to make general sentencing less stiff in the first place? I’d still be paying.

Huh?

Those who overdose often leave behind families necessitating state intervention.

Criminalization = organized crime.[/quote[

What are you attempting to say?

Nobody is asking you to condone anything.

Of course they are. I’d be condoning drug use if I were to disregard the moral terms of its use and accept that everybody should be allowed to do whatever they like to themselves.

You'd be surprised how many functional cocaine users there are. In any event, if the user isn't hurting anyone else then leave him alone. If he does hurt someone else, well, that's already illegal.

Why wait for it to go past self-inflicted pain at all?

Any effects still undetected after decades of widespread public consumption and scientific research are bound to be inconsequential. Or in other words: If you've taken 40 years and still can't prove it's poisonous, STFU and sit down already.

The differences between the marijuana of forty years ago and today are immense.

Crap, there goes alcohol again. See you at the speakeasy. I'll bring some cigars if my tobacco dealer isn't in jail.

Oh wait, you only mean drugs that happen to be illegal at this particular point in time, regardless of how harmful or relatively benign they are.

Drugs and alcohol are different. We’ve already certainly lost the war on those – but on hard drugs, I’m not so sure. Again, explain to me how one “safely” and “responsibly” uses cocaine.

Because we don't have enough people in jail yet.

Who says they must remain as strict?

Yes, the ties between illegal marijuana dealers and other criminal elements "should be reduced" when the illegal marijuana dealer is annhilated by legal commerce. In other news, there aren't many rum-runners crossing the Detroit river lately.

But as marijuana exists now, it is. You also need to ask if levels of potence will still prompt people to seek illegal varieties after legalization.

[kojikun]

It?s really quite simple: those people who become involved in the so-called ?hard drugs? whose legalization you just threw your support behind become a burden on society, for whom I am expected to pay.

So the solution to the injustice of taxation is to create the injustice of removing a persons freedom to do with his body as he sees fit? You are no worse than the people you dislike, you are a burden on them just as they are on you. There is a different however. Their burden is distributed over 280,000,000 people, and is considerably outweighed by the burden education, national defense, and public works put on you. Your burden on them, however, is theirs alone, and the time they spend in jail is not partial nor insignificant. Quite the contrary, they serve all of their punishment in jail, and it is all consuming. The solution is not to remove their freedoms to increase yours, rather it is to remove the burden on both of you, that being involuntary taxation.

You don?t relish the idea of financing somebody?s prison term? I don?t relish the idea of financing somebody?s rehabilitation ? and that?s not nearly the worst of it.

And the problem is that the government is forcing you to do so, not that people are taking advantage of that fact.

Argue all you like about marijuana?s relative harmlessness; hard drugs are far from it.

Automobile accidents kills more people per year than the hard drugs proper (not including the illegal activities caused by the prohibition of those drugs.). More people are going to die this flu season, expected to be 70,000 in the US, than from all the hard drugs combined. Aids kills millions world wide. I think drugs are the least of our concerns, if you want to go on harmfulness. We would save more lives if the money we pay to fund the drug war were to be used to develope a cure for cancer or an aids vaccine.

Why should I be responsible to pay for their next-of-kin? Why should I be responsible for the widening consumption of the drug to bring criminals and violence to my neighborhoods? Why should I be responsible for condoning a habit that can cause reckless endangerment?

You shouldn't, but they should not be punished for their actions unless they impinge on the rights of others. Taxation, as it stands, is a right of Congress, so you cannot say that they are impinging on your rights by creating a need for the taxes, it is Congress that decides to tax you for their rehabilitation. If you want this to change, lobby Congress and get people to support a movement to remove taxes. Or move to Andorra, where they have no income tax.

Those drugs are mind-altering and dangerous;

So is alcohol. Abuse of alcohol kills more people than any hard drug does, almost always someone other than the person drinking.

you can argue that smoking is a slow killer, alcohol acceptable if taken in moderation, and marijuana ?not so bad.? Explain to me how anybody is reasonably expected to become a ?responsible? cocaine or PCP addict.

The same way people become responsible smokers, drinkers, and tokers. Smoking is know to be highly addictive and mind altering, cravings drive people to continually harm their bodies and to become a burden on others in their old age because they require extra medical attention which is funded by taxes. Alcohol is only different from hard drugs in the volumes required to get drunk, which go down when you buy liquors. This problem is only aided by the fact that alcohol is entirely legal and relatively cheap, booze can be bought for a few bucks. Alcoholism can also develope easilly among those who have psychological need for release. Hard drugs can be used responsibly. You need only look at ADD patients, narcoleptics, or airforce pilots, who have to take Meth Amphetamine. They do become addicted, but they are not irresponsible and, quite the contrary, they are often quite responsible.

Decades of study are inconclusive. The FDA doesn?t let you put it into your body if nobody?s familiar with what it can do. Marijuana is one of those substances whose side-effects are still relatively unknown. Of course ignorance matters; we can?t be certain we aren?t propagating something negative.

Yes they do, all the time, in medical institutions, food and drug tests, and in the military. It is not the governments place to determine what we do with our freedom, it is governments place to protect our right to determine what we do with our freedom. Taking a harmful substance is not banned by the FDA, this should be obvious if you look at how many people smoke or drink alcohol, or at the level of unhealthy things in our food. These things are not banned, nor are all the toxic chemicals we have in our homes. It is not illegal to consum windex, though you are likely to get ill from it. If you didn't, however, you would not be put in jail, people would just think you're a defective idiot. Drugs are prohibited because of a policy of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The propogation of the false belief that drugs are bad, always, in any quantity, is the reason it is illegal to consume even harmless drugs.

That?s another argument altogether.

That is the only argument. You do not want the burden, than you must remove it entirely.

Certainly. I believe that all drugs should remain illegal,

Does that include in medical settings, when prescribed by a doctor? Does that mean Nyquil, Tylenol, Aspirin, etc. must be banned as well? Caffeine? Alcohol? Nictotine?

although it may soon be determined that the war on marijuana is lost and strict regulation along with heavy taxation make the most sense from a practical point of view. I have no position on enforcement other than to suggest that while some penalties might be reduced, some jail time and mandated rehabilitation are in order.

Then you are in favor of the burden you claim to dislike. You're contradicting yourself, first it is this burden that you do not like and wish to get rid of with punishment, but now you promote it. If you want the burden to be removed, we must return to a policy like that before 1910, when government let people do with their bodies what they chose, like that before the New Deal, when welfare systems did not benefit people for fucking up at the suffering of people who succeeded. It is not drug use that is the problem, it is the punishment of success by the government in order to do "social good" and rehabilitate fuck ups.

Of course marijuana is a gateway drug.

The people who sell it to you come along with a whole network of contacts and criminal ties. When you use such drugs, you?re likely to become involved with people who sell stronger variants of them on a larger scale ? which means they break the law as a sort of profession.

Your only defense in this case would be that such ties should be reduced if marijuana is legalized, for then obtaining it would cut out the so-called middle men.

And caffeine is a gateway drug because when you consume it you come in contact with corporations that are also involved with major drug corporations. Stating that being surrounded by a drug makes you use it is fallacious. It is a choice made by the drug user that makes him take a drug, and the solution to preventing people from jumping from drug to drug is a proper drug education program that provides accurate information about what the drugs do, not this D.A.R.E. program that exists at the current and provides no information. Legalization would, indeed, cut out the middlemen, if you purchae directly from the government and ban resale of drugs. This is unnecessary. What is necessary is proper regulation and quality control applied to currently illicit drugs the same way it is applied to commercially available drugs.

[kojikun]

Yes, I am. However, I?d be paying even more if certain forms of dissuasion were suddenly removed. That is, by making it illegal, you make excessive use even more likely by those already most dependant (and thus most likely to make of themselves a burden).

Drug users on government benefits are not the source of the burden, they are the result of it. It is the government benefits that are the burden.

Those who overdose often leave behind families necessitating state intervention.

And it is the families responsibility to have a plan of action incase of the sudden death of a supporting family member. This is called life insurance. I don't even work and there is a plan on me incase I die. It is the families fault for not having such a plan and the consequences of their neglegence are theirs to suffer alone, unless others choose to help them.

What are you attempting to say?

That when you make something illegal, you are creating a focal point for illegal actions that go beyond just what you made illega.

Of course they are. I?d be condoning drug use if I were to disregard the moral terms of its use and accept that everybody should be allowed to do whatever they like to themselves.

They should. It is immoral to say otherwise. You are violating their freedom to dictate to someone what they can do to themselves.

Why wait for it to go past self-inflicted pain at all?

Because until that point, noone's rights are being violated.

The differences between the marijuana of forty years ago and today are immense.

As are the differences between the air qualities. The United States rejects the Kyoto Accord, why are you not upset about that? There are far more important deteriorations in this world than the strength and quality of Marijuana.

Drugs and alcohol are different. We?ve already certainly lost the war on those ? but on hard drugs, I?m not so sure. Again, explain to me how one ?safely? and ?responsibly? uses cocaine.

Explain how someone can safely and responsibly use alcohol, when there are large numbers of alcoholics, large numbers of people who drive drunk, etc. My father and maternal grandfather both died because they irresponsibly used alcohol. Irresponsibility exists everywhere, but we only punish it when it occurs, not when it doesn't.

But as marijuana exists now, it is. You also need to ask if levels of potence will still prompt people to seek illegal varieties after legalization.

And drug companies push the use of antipsychotics as antidepressives. Do you not see this as a problem much larger than the trade of illegal drugs? Drug companies are given subsidies by the government, and are permitted to persuade doctors to prescribe medicines for purposes they will have no effect on, all because they seek larger profits. Your tax dollars go to drug pushers named Pfizer and Glaxo-Smith-Kline, where are your protests against this?

[Graeme Dice]

Drug users on government benefits are not the source of the burden, they are the result of it. It is the government benefits that are the burden.

And it is the families responsibility to have a plan of action incase of the sudden death of a supporting family member. This is called life insurance. I don't even work and there is a plan on me incase I die. It is the families fault for not having such a plan and the consequences of their neglegence are theirs to suffer alone, unless others choose to help them.

So your solution to the problem is to let people starve to death if they can't support themselves? Glad to see that you've got the moral high ground.

[darthdavid]

Drug users on government benefits are not the source of the burden, they are the result of it. It is the government benefits that are the burden.

And it is the families responsibility to have a plan of action incase of the sudden death of a supporting family member. This is called life insurance. I don't even work and there is a plan on me incase I die. It is the families fault for not having such a plan and the consequences of their neglegence are theirs to suffer alone, unless others choose to help them.

So your solution to the problem is to let people starve to death if they can't support themselves? Glad to see that you've got the moral high ground.

Whith the money saved from not being used in the war on drugs we could afford to finance the costs of a proper social saftey net.

[Graeme Dice]

Whith the money saved from not being used in the war on drugs we could afford to finance the costs of a proper social saftey net.

Sure you could, but then you have to deal with the fact that those addicts would be more productive, and likely happier, if they weren't addicts in the first place.

[Xenophobe3691]

Sure you could, but then you have to deal with the fact that those addicts would be more productive, and likely happier, if they weren't addicts in the first place.

The problem is that they would do it whether you banned it or not, and there really isn't much that anyone can do about it. So instead of trying to start from the impossible and highly naive position of not having drugs in the first place, start from a more practical position.

[Howedar]

I'd be willing to legalize marijuana. The rest, though? Crack and heroin and shit? Hell no.

[Axis Kast]

I don’t invest in these, “Your own body, your own business” arguments. Sure, a responsible adult obtains life insurance. No, all adults don’t necessarily live up to that standard. Yes, their sudden death due to overdose can lead to problems for the state, which is legally bound to care for their next-of-kin, if underage.

I don’t care whether automobiles kill millions worldwide when hard drugs don’t accumulate nearly that number. Automobiles are a necessity; hard drugs are not. And don’t try to raise the, “But we could all walk” arguments. You know perfectly well that the global economy would plummet.

Alcohol and cigarettes are beyond control; marijuana may be. I’m not convinced about hard drugs yet. You also know that when I say “drugs” in general, I mean marijuana, crack cocaine, etc. If I could do so with good results, I’d end cigarette and alcohol production and consumption. But I can’t. We haven’t necessarily reached that point with certain other products.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t deal with many products that alter my mind to the degree of marijuana, crack, or “hard” drugs unless they’ve been proscribed to me by a doctor, are necessary because I am ill, or suppress severe pain. In that case, they are dolled out according to medical safeguards produced by men and women with Ph Ds.

[kojikun]

So your solution to the problem is to let people starve to death if they can't support themselves? Glad to see that you've got the moral high ground.

Quite the contrary. Family and friends who value this person as a friend would be willing to help. If he is not valued by anyone enough to be able to be supported VOLUNTARILLY, then he's screwed. But thems the breaks, cause if noones willing to foot the bill for him, noones gonna be willing to have welfare to support him in the first place.

I don?t invest in these, ?Your own body, your own business? arguments. Sure, a responsible adult obtains life insurance. No, all adults don?t necessarily live up to that standard. Yes, their sudden death due to overdose can lead to problems for the state, which is legally bound to care for their next-of-kin, if underage.

You may not invest in these "arguements" but they are facts of life. You cannot reason anything to make it wrong, without including other forced things. It is not the result of people exercising their freedoms that is bad, it is the exact opposite. It always has been. And it is not the states responsibility to keep anyone happy and shit. There is no right to TV or anything like that, we are guaranteed few rights, none are the right to happiness or comfort, only the unimpeeded ability to seek it.

I don?t care whether automobiles kill millions worldwide when hard drugs don?t accumulate nearly that number. Automobiles are a necessity; hard drugs are not. And don?t try to raise the, ?But we could all walk? arguments. You know perfectly well that the global economy would plummet.

Automobiles are not a necessity, they are a convenience. You can work locally and walk, or ride a bike, or the government can fund massive train networks. But we like having cars instead. That does not make them necessary. They are like drugs, they give us something in live we wouldn't have otherwise. The global economy, ofcourse, is not relevant, since we're talking necessity, and we don't need global economies to live. But we like having the global economy, etc, because it makes us happier to have these things, just as drugs. Ofcourse, none of this is important, because a persons right to do with his body as he sees fit must not be infringed upon. It is immoral to do.

Alcohol and cigarettes are beyond control; marijuana may be. I?m not convinced about hard drugs yet. You also know that when I say ?drugs? in general, I mean marijuana, crack cocaine, etc. If I could do so with good results, I?d end cigarette and alcohol production and consumption. But I can?t. We haven?t necessarily reached that point with certain other products.

So you are against personal freedoms, because you don't like it. Perhaps when you come up with a reason, then we can consider prohibition as being valid.

I don?t know about you, but I don?t deal with many products that alter my mind to the degree of marijuana, crack, or ?hard? drugs unless they?ve been proscribed to me by a doctor, are necessary because I am ill, or suppress severe pain. In that case, they are dolled out according to medical safeguards produced by men and women with Ph Ds.

This is true, but completely irrelevant because it does not show why the drugs themselves are inherently harmful. Show how a person getting high causes someone else to be harmed against their will.

[LordShaithis]

Yes, I am. However, I’d be paying even more if certain forms of dissuasion were suddenly removed. That is, by making it illegal, you make excessive use even more likely by those already most dependant (and thus most likely to make of themselves a burden).

Prove that lack of prohibition results in higher consumption. As far as I know, the opposite is true.

Not all abusers end up in prison. And what if we changed the laws to make general sentencing less stiff in the first place? I’d still be paying.

*sigh*

Let's take a sample population of 100 drug abusers. Under prohibition, let's assume that 50 go to rehab and 50 go to prison. Without prohibition, all 100 go to rehab. Assuming rehab is less expensive than prison, what the hell is your point here?

Those who overdose often leave behind families necessitating state intervention.

Proof that prohibition decreases the rate of drug-related deaths? Again, logic dictates the opposite. (Lack of quality control, etc.)

Of course they are. I’d be condoning drug use if I were to disregard the moral terms of its use and accept that everybody should be allowed to do whatever they like to themselves.

Fuck you, fascist.

Why wait for it to go past self-inflicted pain at all?

See above.

The differences between the marijuana of forty years ago and today are immense.

Proof?

Drugs and alcohol are different. We’ve already certainly lost the war on those – but on hard drugs, I’m not so sure.

We're locking up more people than Stalin, without putting a dent in actual drug use. What DOES constitute defeat in your book?

Again, explain to me how one “safely” and “responsibly” uses cocaine.

They use it at a party, sleep it off, and go back to their lives. Or do you think every single drug user dies in a gutter somewhere?

But as marijuana exists now, it is. You also need to ask if levels of potence will still prompt people to seek illegal varieties after legalization.

Why on earth would they go through the trouble?

All you have here is baseless bullshit, the fallacy that prohibition decreases consumption, and a form of fascism where your tax bill outweighs life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[LordShaithis]

FORGOT TO ADD QUOTE TAGS, MOD PLEASE DELETE PREVIOUS.

Yes, I am. However, I’d be paying even more if certain forms of dissuasion were suddenly removed. That is, by making it illegal, you make excessive use even more likely by those already most dependant (and thus most likely to make of themselves a burden).

Prove that lack of prohibition results in higher consumption. As far as I know, the opposite is true.

Not all abusers end up in prison. And what if we changed the laws to make general sentencing less stiff in the first place? I’d still be paying.

*sigh*

Let's take a sample population of 100 drug abusers. Under prohibition, let's assume that 50 go to rehab and 50 go to prison. Without prohibition, all 100 go to rehab. Assuming rehab is less expensive than prison, what the hell is your point here?

Those who overdose often leave behind families necessitating state intervention.

Proof that prohibition decreases the rate of drug-related deaths? Again, logic dictates the opposite. (Lack of quality control, etc.)

Of course they are. I’d be condoning drug use if I were to disregard the moral terms of its use and accept that everybody should be allowed to do whatever they like to themselves.

Fuck you, fascist.

Why wait for it to go past self-inflicted pain at all?

See above.

The differences between the marijuana of forty years ago and today are immense.

Proof?

Drugs and alcohol are different. We’ve already certainly lost the war on those – but on hard drugs, I’m not so sure.

We're locking up more people than Stalin, without putting a dent in actual drug use. What DOES constitute defeat in your book?

Again, explain to me how one “safely” and “responsibly” uses cocaine.

They use it at a party, sleep it off, and go back to their lives. Or do you think every single drug user dies in a gutter somewhere?

But as marijuana exists now, it is. You also need to ask if levels of potence will still prompt people to seek illegal varieties after legalization.

Why on earth would they go through the trouble?

All you have here is baseless bullshit, the fallacy that prohibition decreases consumption, and a form of fascism where your tax bill outweighs life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[kojikun]

Oh, one quick thing to Axis Kast: In the US, our ancestors fought and died for their freedoms. I shall quote Patrick Henry while addressing the Virginia legislature, "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

[Graeme Dice]

Quite the contrary. Family and friends who value this person as a friend would be willing to help. If he is not valued by anyone enough to be able to be supported VOLUNTARILLY, then he's screwed. But thems the breaks, cause if noones willing to foot the bill for him, noones gonna be willing to have welfare to support him in the first place.

Like I said before, you would still let them starve instead of feeding them if they had no other resources. This is hardly a morally correct stance.

[kojikun]

Like I said before, you would still let them starve instead of feeding them if they had no other resources. This is hardly a morally correct stance.

It is entirely moral. People are responsible for themselves and only themselves, noone is responsible for the mistakes of others. They get themselves into that mess, it's their responsibility to get themselves out.

[Graeme Dice]

It is entirely moral. People are responsible for themselves and only themselves, noone is responsible for the mistakes of others. They get themselves into that mess, it's their responsibility to get themselves out.

I'm sorry, but it's certainly not moral behaviour to deny the basic necessities of life to others. The fact that you believe it is shows that you have all the morals of a jackal.

[kojikun]

I'm sorry, but it's certainly not moral behaviour to deny the basic necessities of life to others. The fact that you believe it is shows that you have all the morals of a jackal.

You deny them nothing, for they are entitled to nothing. It is not an inherent right that others should sacrifice for the suffering. You have to force others to do so. If a person chooses to undertake action that may end his life, it is his choice. He has to force me to pay for his actions. THAT is immoral, the initiation of force to take from others what they earned and give to those who have inflicting injury on themselves.