[QUOTE="BranKetra"] 1.If you don't want a discussion, don't respond to my posts. 2. Yes I do, thanks for asking. 3.Show proof. Word of mouth is not good enough to affect legislation. 4.Show proof that being physically addicted to a drug will not affect a person mentally. Good luck with that. 5.Would it be a stretch to say the same for guns? I mean, a 9mm is legal in many places, but there is still smuggling and illegal trade. 6.If that's what you think, you've got a lot to learn about the people you are talking to. 7. How would the society of the U.S. be better if all or a particular drug were legalized? achilles614
1. I wanted a discussion, yes, to what my entire point was not just nitpicking one aspect, I like how you responded to everything I said this time (seriously not trying to have a problem, we're all good people). I thought I was responding to your point. That people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own bodies. In that case, what is your point?
2. If you really understand that then you would realize blaming the drugs is silly. Sure.
3. Yippie give me a task that I in no way want to complete. You're talking about legislation, yet you don't want to bring up anything that would support you in a legal setting. Noted.
4. Addiction comes out in many places not just drugs. That's a matter of one's personality and some people can function some can't not for us to decide. Physical dependence affects mental processes. At this point, it really isn't a matter of opinion.
5. there's many reasons to want to acquire a gun illegally despite there being legal sources,Such as?
drugs on the other hand not much of an argument to go illegal if it's legally available. Better quality control is a big incentive to go legal on drugs. So, you're saying when a drug is legalized, its quality increases. What about cigarettes? They have a lot more than tobacco in them and I wouldn't call it an increase of quality.
6. Clearly I don't, refer to your third point where you think current drug laws actually protect people.There are laws that enable people and other laws that restrict people. At this point, I have yet to see any evidence that would suggest a drug-laden society would be better off than the way it is now. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the idea itself. When factoring in the current culture, however, I am. Make whatever assumptions about me you want. I don't really care.
7. Well for one the drug dealers would lose the upper hand in distribution most likely moving onto something which would hopefully end the association of violence and drugs. Addicts would stop getting reamed by dealers although they'd have a new seller to deal with. We would get better drugs (that's a positive to someone I'm sure). Legal distributors can't accept stolen goods in exchange for drugs, a big problem with addicts is they steal and we all know drug dealers have no problem accepting stolen goods. So many problems are a product of the drugs being illegal not the drugs themselves, view it away from it's legal status and most arguments against it fall through. To think you can understand a sub-culture and try to control it while having an outside perspective is wrong. I'm not a druggie and by all means I should be against drugs being decriminalized because of my personal bias, I've lived with a crack-addict I've had my stuff stolen and pawned I've seen some nasty things but that's all irrelevant.
While I see that drugs can mess someone up and those around them it's something we have to handle on a case by case basis not just a blanket law.I take it you missed the part where I said this a few times earlier in this thread.
The effect of decriminalization or legalization would help those who are addicted by taking the power away from those doing them harm (the dealers).So, are you saying that regardless of the drug. the direct use of drug is not detrimental to the user's health (It's only the dealer's fault)? This is important question.
We want to talk about helping the people in our society well we can start with the addicts. Clearly demonizing them isn't the way to go about it neither is controlling what substances they can Again, this is what I mentioned earlier. Decriminalization of certain drugs, the legalization of others, and the continued outlawing of the rest.
or can't put in their body especially when those substances can be easily acquired regardless. As I said before, what people do with their bodies is their business. It's when it begins to affects others that it becomes a problem. It isn't as simple as getting drunk and beating someone up, though for that particular example there are laws to protect individuals from violent acts by other people. But that's aside from the point.
Which is why imo people who support these laws against drugs, either A. have a biased perspective like said earlier or lack first hand knowledge. B. Have possessive and controlling personality traits (which honestly is a bigger danger to society than drugs.) Then again all of this is irrelevant when realizing you can't tell people what to put in their body. I've said all I really can and we can argue all day long but assuming the negatives of drugs are properties of the drugs themselves without even looking into what problems are caused by prohibition is really short-sighted and facepalmish to me. Are you a psychologist?
Log in to comment