The Haze in Here: A Drug War Overview

you dont know what a standed drink is do you?
a standed drink has a set amount of achole, the amount of liquid is compleatly irrelivent. It could be in 10L or 10mls (ok not 10mls because thats less than the achole but *shrug*). Oh and those recomendations came out last month, you honestly think drinks got that strong since last month?

Oh and on the hang over, its not v12 defecancy its DEHYDRATION because achole is a diuretic and you need to replace that water. Of course it also burns glucose when its converted so you need to replace those sugars. The last thing is that its a nerodepressant which means that its probably a good idea to do or eat something which pleases you (like eating some choc)
 
Baron Max said:
A society has the right to government the actions of it's members.
Click to expand...

To an extent. No doubt an implicit assumption upon entering a society is that one will be expected to follow the laws of that society, but the extent of control is the issue.

Baron Max said:
If not, then what you have is basic anarchy ...which is certainly not something that you would want.
Click to expand...

It appears your saying if the government does not direct and control people then all of society will break down? In which case, I agree with you but only because currently the government has created a situation in which we are dependent on them, rather then the govt. dependent on the citizens. There would definitely be a period of anarchy, but organization would quickly arise and hopefully in a way which learned from past mistakes.

Surely you must also see the flipside of this, that a government which has absolute control is no better off (for the average person) than a society with no governmental control.

Baron Max said:
So while YOU might want to control some things, others might want to control other things ...and YOU might not get what you wish, regardless of how you might feel about it.
Click to expand...

This is why humans have invented a little something called compromise. Its never perfect but assures both sides are treated fairly; as opposed to the government "laying down immutable laws".

Baron Max said:
Being a member of a society entails certain responsibilities to that society. If not, ....aren't we back to anarchy?
Click to expand...

The only way I see this statement working is by applying Mill's Harm Principle to the idea that individuality is an illusion. For those who may not know, Mill's Harm Principle states "that government should not forcibly prevent people from engaging in victimless crimes such as personal drug usage."

Now the only way one may consider drug usage to be anything other than a victimless crime is to consider that individual as part of the whole, and that injuring the individual is actually injuring the whole. Humans can be viewed as individual cells comprising the collective human experience. I suppose this is why we generally revere people who make great contributions to the "human organism" through discoveries, and overlook those who make no contribution or negative contributions.

Only when we apply individuality do the notions of "victimless crimes" arise. And since the belief we all exist separate from one another is pre-dominant in most cultures, I do not see why people should not be allowed to participate in victimless crimes such as drug use.
 
EndLightEnd said:
Or how about we keep the harmful drugs illegal...and reverse this ridiculous war on marijuana. Hell liquor used to be illegal too.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the MJ prohibition is seemingly lasting a bit longer than it should.


Also do you really think marijuana is ANY more of a gateway drug then booze?
Click to expand...
No. Only ignorant, uneducated, uninformed retards think that MJ is a gateway drug.

This is why humans have invented a little something called compromise.
Click to expand...
Compromise is overrated. All or nothing.
 
mikenostic said:
No. Only ignorant, uneducated, uninformed retards think that MJ is a gateway drug.
Click to expand...

I think it can be, but other things like living in a poor neighborhood seem to be much more of a gateway to hard drugs(except pills, people have those everywhere I've lived).
 
EndLightEnd said:
Only when we apply individuality do the notions of "victimless crimes" arise. And since the belief we all exist separate from one another is pre-dominant in most cultures, I do not see why people should not be allowed to participate in victimless crimes such as drug use.
Click to expand...

Victimless crimes? Oh, how I love that term!

Look at how many people in the world are victimized by the drug trade. The Afghan farmers with the poppy fields? The opium trade in Southeast Asia? The drug trade in South and Central America?

And you call all those people ...what? ...non-victims??

And please don't say something like, "If we legalized....., then...." because that won't change the conditions in those other nations. In fact, it would actually make it all worse because more trade would be required to fill the needs of the druggies in this nation alone. Tens of thousands would die to try to fill the needs of America's druggies!

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Tens of thousands would die to try to fill the needs of America's druggies!

Baron Max
Click to expand...
People are already dieing and loosing limbs and whatever else to fill all of our other needs. I like drugs a lot more than diamonds and all the crap they in unsafe chinese factories. The only way to stop people from dieing for our luxuries, I think, would be to change up to an economy that doesn't take imports. Of course that's just my opinion and is probably wrong.
 
Oniw17 said:
People are already dieing and loosing limbs and whatever else to fill all of our other needs. I like drugs a lot more than diamonds and all the crap they in unsafe chinese factories. ....
Click to expand...

So a few thousand more deaths ain't no big deal, huh? ..just call 'em non-victims of the drug trade, and then we can all drug-out to our hearts' content, is that it?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
So a few thousand more deaths ain't no big deal, huh? ..just call 'em non-victims of the drug trade, and then we can all drug-out to our hearts' content, is that it?

Baron Max
Click to expand...
Since when do you care about people dieing in far off countries. You obviously don't, so why pretend? Aren't you the one who complains about how people pretend to care about things like that just because they see those things on the news? How is what you're doing any different. People are already dieing over the trivial things that we think we need, and the only solution that I can see for it is a localised economy. There's really no reason to care if everyone else in the world dies unless you want to do something about the people who are already dieing. Seriously, why is it worse if people are dieing over drugs than over other things. If we grow our own drugs, there's no problem. If drugs were legal, I'd have my basement full of lights and plants and chopped up soil, just like I'm sure a lot of other people would(and like a lot of people already do). Also, don't get me wrong, I definitely don't think crack or heroine should ever be legalised(they clearly destroy communities and turn users into burglars and robbers), and I'm sure that there are lot of other drugs that I haven't been exposed to that shouldn't be legalised either.
 
Baron Max said:
And please don't say something like, "If we legalized....., then...." because that won't change the conditions in those other nations.
Click to expand...

Sure it would. All of the downsides of the drug trade are due to it being an illicit activity. There would be no need for armed gangs to protect cultivation and production and oversee smuggling if it were a legal business, enjoying the same state protections as all others.
 
I would argue for the legalization of ALL drugs. The war on drugs has been completely ineffective, not just in the case of marijuana. Drug use has not significantly declined and crime has gone up. The war on drugs is exactly the same thing as alcohol prohibition and has the same consequences. Thousands are arrested and put in jail for victimless drug related charges.

Marijuana may actually be a gateway drug in the sense that it sensitives dopamine receptors in the brain, causing future drug use to be more pleasurable. Guess what also does this? Tobacco and alcohol. Many other things can do this as well and this is not a sufficient argument for the prohibition of psychotropics.

The war on drugs is also illegal. The constitution had to be amended in order to ban alcohol, but the same has not been done for other drugs.

This is all irrelevant though because the truth is that the government should not be able to tell someone that cannot do something with their own body as long as they are not harming anyone else.
 
Last edited:
john99 said:
the problem with weed:

the problem is that usage is very difficult to regulate like there is with a breathalyzer.

in the case of operating machinery- you cannot tell if a person is under the influence. granted smoking weed may be safer than being drunk because alcohol induces near total loss of control.

on the other hand, it depends on how powerful the weed is. another thing is being zoned out. finally, there is the possibility of prolonged used inducing blackouts.

that is it basically.
Click to expand...

Since you've described an aspect that persists whether or not we make war on a substance, it isn't a very compelling argument for perpetual pot prohibition.
 
Baron Max said:
Yeah, but an even bigger problem is that the people who vote don't want legalization of drugs .....as evidenced in the drug-user-capital of the world - California!

"We, the people, ...." should still have a say in it ...and it still seems to be that "We, the people, ..." don't want drugs legalized, pot included.
Click to expand...


Not true. California opinion and law clearly differentiates between marijuana and addictive/more dangerous drugs. California (with a growing popular majority in favor of legalization) has been at the vanguard of the anti-prohibition trend, that is also on the rise in the country as a whole. If the trend indicated by polls and referenda over the years continues apace, there could emerge within a decade a clear national majority in favor of ending marijuana prohibition.

To get current on this issue, check out Stop the Drug War and NORML.
 
The Breaker said:
This is all irrelevant though because the truth is that the government should not be able to tell someone that cannot do something with their own body as long as they are not harming anyone else.
Click to expand...

mj is not really part of the 'war on drugs' though. besides the real war on drugs is when you become addicted.
 
hypewaders said:
... California (with a growing popular majority in favor of legalization) has been at the vanguard of the anti-prohibition trend, that is also on the rise in the country as a whole. If the trend indicated by polls and referenda over the years continues apace, there could emerge within a decade a clear national majority in favor of ending marijuana prohibition.
Click to expand...

Predictions of the future seem to be a trend with you, Hype!

But it doesn't matter. "We, the people..." have voted to keep drugs illegal in most all of the nation, in most all states. "We, the people...." have spoken.

You cheer the last election with the ideals of "We, the people..." have spoken, yet on this issue of legalized drugs, you seem to be less than cheerful about what "We, the people..." want. Why is that, Hype? Don't you believe in "We, the people..."?

Baron Max
 
I believe that We the People are not static in our outlooks, opinions, and laws. We got beyond alcohol prohibition because we came to understand how legalization reduced both crime and deficits. A very similar understanding is gaining support regarding marijuana.

While we have our ups and downs as we learn and form new consensi, we are gradually evolving (along with the rest of the world, and in the long run) a higher level of collective awareness. In an approaching era, we're going to find ourselves compelled to abandon our counterproductive Wars on ______ (fill in the blank).

I'm optimistic about the motivation and broader enlightenment that I expect the trials and turbulence ahead will bring. Fat, dumb, and crappy (to all we looked down our noses at) wasn't just unsustainable for us- Worse, it was arresting our development. Change won't be easy, but it's going to do us good.
 
I think all drugs (ALL drugs) ought to be legal

What's more, not only legalize it but leave it to the free market for the certification, regulation, etc

i.e, don't legalize it and then throw a wall of bureaucracy and taxes at it.
 
It's worth noting here the important difference between "legalizing" all things and granting uncontrolled access regardless of the dangers: There are many substances so toxic or dangerous that limiting and conditionalizing availability will always be in the public interest. But since marijuana does not present greater dangers than alcohol, or even a can of deodorant, the controls should be proportional.

"don't legalize it and then throw a wall of bureaucracy and taxes at it."

I don't see why marijuana should not be taxed like any other commodity, or even as much as luxuries like energy-dense fuel, alcohol, and tobacco.
 
If they are dangerous then you can avoid them; what you cannot do is prevent others that want them from getting them if it is their choice.

Plain and simple. Nobody is forcing you to use them.

Legalize all drugs and DO NOT regulate or tax them. People aren't stupid. At least, most of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top