When people say all drugs should be legal, do they realize how wrong that is?

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

or if you get arrested for possession

lostrib

Were you born an idiot, or did some tragedy befall you?

you're right, technically it would be taking rather than giving.  

People aren't born this stupid, and we should definitely ban whatever the fvck it is that you are on, son.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

Were you born an idiot, or did some tragedy befall you?

dude_brahmski

you're right, technically it would be taking rather than giving.  

People aren't born this stupid, and we should definitely ban whatever the fvck it is that you are on, son.

why are you so upset?

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]I am aware of prescription drug abuse. Legalizing all drugs isnt going to help that situation at all. You're giving the masses fire and they are going to get burned. Drug abuse may be a disease but it is a disease brought upon someone through irresponsibility. Locking them up and helping learn from their mistakes is just the price they pay. Its not daft, its Justice. XaosII

We dont yet know about full legalization, but decriminalization of drugs, with the data that we know so far, has actually helped that situation quite a lot.

Also, do you really believe that incarceration reduces drug use?

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"][QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

1. You are clearly unaware of prescription drug abuse.

2. You want to lock up people with a medical condition (as you mentioned in another post). You don't give a sh!t about people.

God damn, pancake, you are a really daft kunt.

lostrib

the masses? wtf, cut it out with your behavior controllist rhetoric bullshit

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"] Youre ignoring that these PERSCRIPTION drugs are only given to people with conditions causing severe pain and that recently the FDA has limited the amount of acetaminophen put in perscription drugs to help avoid stuff like this. These painkillers serve a greater purpose. Heroin, crack, and meth dont. You cant just compare them. Capitan_Kid

1. You are clearly unaware of prescription drug abuse.

2. You want to lock up people with a medical condition (as you mentioned in another post). You don't give a sh!t about people.

God damn, pancake, you are a really daft kunt.

You said, "PERSCRIPTION drugs are only given to people with conditions causing severe pain."

Aside from your spelling problems, I have a question. Do you think before you type? Secondly, locking them up hasn't really done a whole fvcking lot to deal with the problem. It just takes people with a medical condition that has other possible treatments than hard time and turns them into people that can't find jobs once they leave. Guess what they do for a living after? It just reinforces the cycle of crime. It is no mystery that the U.S. has a high recidivism rate, the highest global incarceration rate, and yet not a lower-than-average drug abuse problem. Pancake, daft is an understatement.

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

you're right, technically it would be taking rather than giving.  

lostrib

People aren't born this stupid, and we should definitely ban whatever the fvck it is that you are on, son.

why are you so upset?

I had the unfortunate experience of reading this thread.

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"][QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

1. You are clearly unaware of prescription drug abuse.

2. You want to lock up people with a medical condition (as you mentioned in another post). You don't give a sh!t about people.

God damn, pancake, you are a really daft kunt.

dude_brahmski

You said, "PERSCRIPTION drugs are only given to people with conditions causing severe pain."

Aside from your spelling problems, I have a question. Do you think before you type? Secondly, locking them up hasn't really done a whole fvcking lot to deal with the problem. It just takes people with a medical condition that has other possible treatments than hard time and turns them into people that can't find jobs once they leave. Guess what they do for a living after? It just reinforces the cycle of crime. It is no mystery that the U.S. has a high recidivism rate, the highest global incarceration rate, and yet not a lower-than-average drug abuse problem. Pancake, daft is an understatement.

I think plenty before I type! Locking them up is a perfectly valid solution. They dont wanna follow the law then they go to prison. Of course thats not to say that prison cant be a place for redemption and resolution. As I said before the prison should show them what went wrong and what they need to do and guide them towards a better life. There doesnt need to be a cycle of drug abuse, prison, get out, abuse more drugs, go back in. Theres a lot of factors that go into incarceration rates btw. Not daft, this is Justice.

God is a massive cockhead for making smoking carcinogenic and hell on the lungs.

dude_brahmski

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"] I am aware of prescription drug abuse. Legalizing all drugs isnt going to help that situation at all. You're giving the masses fire and they are going to get burned. Drug abuse may be a disease but it is a disease brought upon someone through irresponsibility. Locking them up and helping learn from their mistakes is just the price they pay. Its not daft, its Justice. Capitan_Kid

You said, "PERSCRIPTION drugs are only given to people with conditions causing severe pain."

Aside from your spelling problems, I have a question. Do you think before you type? Secondly, locking them up hasn't really done a whole fvcking lot to deal with the problem. It just takes people with a medical condition that has other possible treatments than hard time and turns them into people that can't find jobs once they leave. Guess what they do for a living after? It just reinforces the cycle of crime. It is no mystery that the U.S. has a high recidivism rate, the highest global incarceration rate, and yet not a lower-than-average drug abuse problem. Pancake, daft is an understatement.

I think plenty before I type! Locking them up is a perfectly valid solution. They dont wanna follow the law then they go to prison. Of course thats not to say that prison cant be a place for redemption and resolution. As I said before the prison should show them what went wrong and what they need to do and guide them towards a better life. There doesnt need to be a cycle of drug abuse, prison, get out, abuse more drugs, go back in. Theres a lot of factors that go into incarceration rates btw. Not daft, this is Justice.

You said that prescription drugs are only given to people with legit conditions. It stuck out as a typically intelligent post of yours.

If you think before you type, I suggest avoiding typing and thinking. Sending people to prison simply for "breaking the law" isn't useful and can actually be quite detrimental. Sending people to prison is not an effective method to fight illicit drug use. It simply destroys the same people you pretend to care about (but don't actually give a sh!t, you fvcking sociopath). You are correct; it doesn't need to be this cycle, but the system in place makes it so. The system needs a thorough reevaluation based upon pragmaticallyand humanely dealing with the drug problem. What you propose has a relatively minimal impact WRT reducing use, but is atrociously expensive, increases crime (other than drug use), creates massive criminal organizations, reduces the likelihood for troubled people to seek help, and destroys lives.

Pancake, it is daft, inhumane, unjust, and straight up tyrannical. You are a stupid sh!t.

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"] I am aware of prescription drug abuse. Legalizing all drugs isnt going to help that situation at all. You're giving the masses fire and they are going to get burned. Drug abuse may be a disease but it is a disease brought upon someone through irresponsibility. Locking them up and helping learn from their mistakes is just the price they pay. Its not daft, its Justice. Capitan_Kid

You said, "PERSCRIPTION drugs are only given to people with conditions causing severe pain."

Aside from your spelling problems, I have a question. Do you think before you type? Secondly, locking them up hasn't really done a whole fvcking lot to deal with the problem. It just takes people with a medical condition that has other possible treatments than hard time and turns them into people that can't find jobs once they leave. Guess what they do for a living after? It just reinforces the cycle of crime. It is no mystery that the U.S. has a high recidivism rate, the highest global incarceration rate, and yet not a lower-than-average drug abuse problem. Pancake, daft is an understatement.

I think plenty before I type! Locking them up is a perfectly valid solution. They dont wanna follow the law then they go to prison. Of course thats not to say that prison cant be a place for redemption and resolution. As I said before the prison should show them what went wrong and what they need to do and guide them towards a better life. There doesnt need to be a cycle of drug abuse, prison, get out, abuse more drugs, go back in. Theres a lot of factors that go into incarceration rates btw. Not daft, this is Justice.

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

You said, "PERSCRIPTION drugs are only given to people with conditions causing severe pain."

Aside from your spelling problems, I have a question. Do you think before you type? Secondly, locking them up hasn't really done a whole fvcking lot to deal with the problem. It just takes people with a medical condition that has other possible treatments than hard time and turns them into people that can't find jobs once they leave. Guess what they do for a living after? It just reinforces the cycle of crime. It is no mystery that the U.S. has a high recidivism rate, the highest global incarceration rate, and yet not a lower-than-average drug abuse problem. Pancake, daft is an understatement.

dude_brahmski

I think plenty before I type! Locking them up is a perfectly valid solution. They dont wanna follow the law then they go to prison. Of course thats not to say that prison cant be a place for redemption and resolution. As I said before the prison should show them what went wrong and what they need to do and guide them towards a better life. There doesnt need to be a cycle of drug abuse, prison, get out, abuse more drugs, go back in. Theres a lot of factors that go into incarceration rates btw. Not daft, this is Justice.

You said that prescription drugs are only given to people with legit conditions. It stuck out as a typically intelligent post of yours.

If you think before you type, I suggest avoiding typing and thinking. Sending people to prison simply for "breaking the law" isn't useful and can actually be quite detrimental. Sending people to prison is not an effective method to fight illicit drug use. It simply destroys the same people you pretend to care about (but don't actually give a sh!t, you fvcking sociopath). You are correct; it doesn't need to be this cycle, but the system in place makes it so. The system needs a thorough reevaluation based upon pragmaticallyand humanely dealing with the drug problem. What you propose has a relatively minimal impact WRT reducing use, but is atrociously expensive, increases crime (other than drug use), creates massive criminal organizations, reduces the likelihood for troubled people to seek help, and destroys lives,

Captain, it is daft, inhumane, unjust, and straight up tyrannical. You are a stupid sh!t.

What?!A doctor has to give you a prescription to get a prescription drug. Thats how it works. Are you saying there are other ways?

Also are you seriously telling me that drug possessors and/or dealers shouldn't go to prison for such a heinous crime? Especially scumbag dealers? Those dealers deserve much more than that. Prison is a fvcking courtesy for them. If not prison then what? What else is there to do with them? They broke the law. A price must be paid. I do care about the people, I want them to change their ways and become well adjusted happy members of society. Drugs get in the way of that. This isn't tyranny, it's a solution. No need to get your knickers in a bunch if you don't like it. If you have a better idea then say it.

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"] Ummm. ok? Why are you telling me what I wrote? . What am I unaware of about prescription drug abuse? Doctor gives person pain killers. Person decides to use pain killers for more than just alleviating pain. Person overdoses and a life is lost to another damn drug and you and others want more deadly versions of these drugs available to all? I just can't see America being responsible enough to handle such a thing.

 

 

I think plenty before I type! Locking them up is a perfectly valid solution. They dont wanna follow the law then they go to prison. Of course thats not to say that prison cant be a place for redemption and resolution. As I said before the prison should show them what went wrong and what they need to do and guide them towards a better life. There doesnt need to be a cycle of drug abuse, prison, get out, abuse more drugs, go back in. Theres a lot of factors that go into incarceration rates btw. Not daft, this is Justice.

Capitan_Kid

You said that prescription drugs are only given to people with legit conditions. It stuck out as a typically intelligent post of yours.

If you think before you type, I suggest avoiding typing and thinking. Sending people to prison simply for "breaking the law" isn't useful and can actually be quite detrimental. Sending people to prison is not an effective method to fight illicit drug use. It simply destroys the same people you pretend to care about (but don't actually give a sh!t, you fvcking sociopath). You are correct; it doesn't need to be this cycle, but the system in place makes it so. The system needs a thorough reevaluation based upon pragmaticallyand humanely dealing with the drug problem. What you propose has a relatively minimal impact WRT reducing use, but is atrociously expensive, increases crime (other than drug use), creates massive criminal organizations, reduces the likelihood for troubled people to seek help, and destroys lives,

Captain, it is daft, inhumane, unjust, and straight up tyrannical. You are a stupid sh!t.

What?!A doctor has to give you a prescription to get a prescription drug. Thats how it works. Are you saying there are other ways?

Also are you seriously telling me that drug possessors and/or dealers shouldn't go to prison for such a heinous crime? Especially scumbag dealers? Those dealers deserve much more than that. Prison is a fvcking courtesy for them. If not prison then what? What else is there to do with them? They broke the law. A price must be paid. I do care about the people, I want them to change their ways and become well adjusted happy members of society. Drugs get in the way of that. This isn't tyranny, it's a solution. No need to get your knickers in a bunch if you don't like it. If you have a better idea then say it.

Legalize PCP alreadyplaymynutz

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"] Ummm. ok? Why are you telling me what I wrote? . What am I unaware of about prescription drug abuse? Doctor gives person pain killers. Person decides to use pain killers for more than just alleviating pain. Person overdoses and a life is lost to another damn drug and you and others want more deadly versions of these drugs available to all? I just can't see America being responsible enough to handle such a thing.

 

 

I think plenty before I type! Locking them up is a perfectly valid solution. They dont wanna follow the law then they go to prison. Of course thats not to say that prison cant be a place for redemption and resolution. As I said before the prison should show them what went wrong and what they need to do and guide them towards a better life. There doesnt need to be a cycle of drug abuse, prison, get out, abuse more drugs, go back in. Theres a lot of factors that go into incarceration rates btw. Not daft, this is Justice.

Capitan_Kid

You said that prescription drugs are only given to people with legit conditions. It stuck out as a typically intelligent post of yours.

If you think before you type, I suggest avoiding typing and thinking. Sending people to prison simply for "breaking the law" isn't useful and can actually be quite detrimental. Sending people to prison is not an effective method to fight illicit drug use. It simply destroys the same people you pretend to care about (but don't actually give a sh!t, you fvcking sociopath). You are correct; it doesn't need to be this cycle, but the system in place makes it so. The system needs a thorough reevaluation based upon pragmaticallyand humanely dealing with the drug problem. What you propose has a relatively minimal impact WRT reducing use, but is atrociously expensive, increases crime (other than drug use), creates massive criminal organizations, reduces the likelihood for troubled people to seek help, and destroys lives,

Captain, it is daft, inhumane, unjust, and straight up tyrannical. You are a stupid sh!t.

What?!A doctor has to give you a prescription to get a prescription drug. Thats how it works. Are you saying there are other ways?

Also are you seriously telling me that drug possessors and/or dealers shouldn't go to prison for such a heinous crime? Especially scumbag dealers? Those dealers deserve much more than that. Prison is a fvcking courtesy for them. If not prison then what? What else is there to do with them? They broke the law. A price must be paid. I do care about the people, I want them to change their ways and become well adjusted happy members of society. Drugs get in the way of that. This isn't tyranny, it's a solution. No need to get your knickers in a bunch if you don't like it. If you have a better idea then say it.

Ideally, that is how it works, but I am past trying to explain simple things to you.

Possessors shouldn't go to jail. Possessing isn't really a heinous crime, and in many cases under current legal provisions isn't harmful. Dealers of what? A guy dealing weed? No big deal. The ones in cartels that are armed to the teeth and regularly commit other crimes because we created them with our laws? Yeah, those guys suck (and the law is largely to blame for that). There are instances where they should be imprisoned, but others where they shouldn't (see: dime bag dealer). What to do with people who use drugs? Depending on the drug, nothing. Some of the laws are dumb and should be done away with. Moreover, in terms of making people who have abused drugs, IDK, PRODUCTIVE, HEALTHY AND HAPPY again, rehab is pretty useful. Drug users in Portugal were apparently a bit more likely to seek help after decriminalization, so if you actually give a sh!t about people instead of this sadistic expressed desire of yours to wreck their entire lives, you might want to consider that before locking them up.

It isn't a solution, you idiot. A solution solves a problem. The war on drugs has not solved drug abuse. It barely brings use rates down, doesn't help addicts (the situations we are actually trying to prevent here), in many cases imprisons people for victimless crimes, and it is a never-ending cash sink. The war on drugs is a problem. That has a pretty clear solution: End it.

Most people here seem to think that as long as the intention or result is to "help people" it is okay to use force/law to infringe on people's personal choices. This line of thinking has been used throughout history to justify many things that we today would deem wrong. The Spanish enslaved thousands of people in the colonial era in the name of Christianizing them. As long as their soul was saved, then it was okay to enslave them. And maybe for many there was some merit in it. I mean, perhaps instilling an alternate moral code kept many people from doing the traditional excessive piercings that made them more prone to infections and death. Or maybe it kept them from having three wives, and the high blood pressure that would entail. But can we justify it on those grounds? Clearly not.

Another example would be the banning of alcohol. It probably saved thousands of families from the horrors of drunk abusive fathers. But at the same time, it put responsible businesses and breweries on the brink, and took many peoples' happy hour away from them. All they wanted to do was sit down and have a drink or two with a buddy. Was prohibition really worth it? I would say no.

I've been around people who used hard drugs such as acid, heroin, cocaine, and shrooms. And you know what? They really weren't that violent of people. And this was in one of the most, if not the most, violent cities in America, New Orleans. I didn't always like to be around them, but honestly throwing the book of law at them does more harm than good. They would do the stuff on their own down time, and when not on down time they were pursuing college degrees. And they were doing reasonably well too. But if they get caught, all that effort for a better life goes out the window. Not because they got addicted and face the natural health consequences along with people maybe not wanting to be around them. It goes out the window because we, as a society, dictate that they must be punished in the name of the law. No more student loans for them, no more college opportunity because they got expelled. And so they go to prison and face possible rape, etc. It really makes no sense.

Many people want to imagine this worse case scenario of some druggie under a bridge shaking all the time, and blisters all over, when in reality most people who do the drugs aren't like that. And even if they were, has it ever occured to anyone that if someone does make that mistake of becoming a drug addict, that something more lies at the root of the problem; not the drug itself? But no one asks that.

At the end of the day, the war on drugs is nothing more the misguided efforts of conceited people who try to help others through force who are likely just as good as them.

But can we justify it on those grounds? Clearly not.Amvis

Genetics, mental illnesses, marital problems, financial problems, psychological problems even environments contribute hugely to the addiction risk. Addiction is far to complex to simply attribute to the substance alone. In many cases one could argue that, in the case of a ban, a person would just used a different drug instead. For example, sedating yourself with a harddrug or huge amount of alcohol makes little difference when you are using it as a comfort to 'battle' your depression.
Possible addictions starting out as recreational can be reduced to a minimum with decent information and education. Look how unpopular smoking has become and how the rates have declined over the years. Note that nicotine is more addictive than most hard drugs.rastotm

I dont even know why we are having this conversation; In 2001, Portugal decrimilized nearly every substance.

5 years later, a 2009 study showed that results looked promising.

12 years later, a 2013 analysis showed results look good.

XaosII

stay away from druga and valu your lives.i only want to say this.truth310

stay away from druga and valu your lives.i only want to say this.truth310

I take drugs precisely because I value my life. Drugs are a natural part of human life, they have been for thousands of years.

[QUOTE="FuggaJ"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] How do you feel about food safety laws? Should businesses be allowed to sell tainted food (provided that they don't deceive the customer)? Why would you care what someone else does? If I want to save some money by eating shrimp that's probably spoiled, why should the government be able to prevent you from selling it to me?MrGeezer

I never said there shouldn't be quality control. You gave me a ludicrous hypothetical which doesn't really demonstrate a point at all. You asked if a company should be able to sell the food provided that they don't decieve a customer. So if two parties both know the terms and the quality of a product, why should they not be allowed to make the purchase. If someone wants to eat some spoiled food, than thats their deal and not the government or me should have the right to say no you can't eat that.FuggaJ

[QUOTE="FuggaJ"]I never said there shouldn't be quality control. You gave me a ludicrous hypothetical which doesn't really demonstrate a point at all. You asked if a company should be able to sell the food provided that they don't decieve a customer. So if two parties both know the terms and the quality of a product, why should they not be allowed to make the purchase. If someone wants to eat some spoiled food, than thats their deal and not the government or me should have the right to say no you can't eat that.MrGeezer

Yeah, he's the one pretty far out there. Speaking about public safety, I hear the NSA is protecting public safety too. :roll:

Yeah, he's the one pretty far out there. Speaking about public safety, I hear the NSA is protecting public safety too. :roll:

[QUOTE="Amvis"]

Yeah, he's the one pretty far out there. Speaking about public safety, I hear the NSA is protecting public safety too. :roll:

MrGeezer

If you're gonna argue something on the grounds of public safety then you should be prepared to explain how far you are prepared to take that concept. You call someone crazy for supporting clear contracts between two individuals, all the meanwhile arguing against it on the basis of a vague concept that has historically been used by autocrats to oppress the civilian population. It has everything to do with your argument precisely because you made it fair game.

If you're gonna argue something on the grounds of public safety then you should be prepared to explain how far you are prepared to take that concept. You call someone crazy for supporting clear contracts between two individuals, all the meanwhile arguing against it on the basis of a vague concept that has historically been used by autocrats to oppress the civilian population. It has everything to do with your argument precisely because you made it fair game.

Amvis

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

You said that prescription drugs are only given to people with legit conditions. It stuck out as a typically intelligent post of yours.

If you think before you type, I suggest avoiding typing and thinking. Sending people to prison simply for "breaking the law" isn't useful and can actually be quite detrimental. Sending people to prison is not an effective method to fight illicit drug use. It simply destroys the same people you pretend to care about (but don't actually give a sh!t, you fvcking sociopath). You are correct; it doesn't need to be this cycle, but the system in place makes it so. The system needs a thorough reevaluation based upon pragmaticallyand humanely dealing with the drug problem. What you propose has a relatively minimal impact WRT reducing use, but is atrociously expensive, increases crime (other than drug use), creates massive criminal organizations, reduces the likelihood for troubled people to seek help, and destroys lives,

Captain, it is daft, inhumane, unjust, and straight up tyrannical. You are a stupid sh!t.

Rich3232

What?!A doctor has to give you a prescription to get a prescription drug. Thats how it works. Are you saying there are other ways?

Also are you seriously telling me that drug possessors and/or dealers shouldn't go to prison for such a heinous crime? Especially scumbag dealers? Those dealers deserve much more than that. Prison is a fvcking courtesy for them. If not prison then what? What else is there to do with them? They broke the law. A price must be paid. I do care about the people, I want them to change their ways and become well adjusted happy members of society. Drugs get in the way of that. This isn't tyranny, it's a solution. No need to get your knickers in a bunch if you don't like it. If you have a better idea then say it.

OP seems to be genuinely under the belief that legalisation of drugs means that heroin and crack rock will be for sale in Wal Mart. I don't know why you're bothering to argue with him.Ninja-Hippo

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]OP seems to be genuinely under the belief that legalisation of drugs means that heroin and crack rock will be for sale in Wal Mart. I don't know why you're bothering to argue with him.MakeMeaSammitch

For weed, at least, their is not now, nor has their ever been a logical reason to ban it. The very start of the illegal status for weed was crooked as sh*t from the word go, that is widely recognized, yet it remains illegal. Which is just stupid.