[QUOTE]On July 08 2008 04:34 GrandInquisitor wrote:
I remain unconvinced that cocaine and heroin are truly much more dangerous than alcohol. You've done nothing but make assertions that this is indeed the case. Other than anecdotal stories and common logic, do you have any proof that cocaine is the dangerous destroyer of lives that you make it out to be? If we're having a debate grounded in logical rigor, hearsay isn't really enough. I've done my best to point out the similarity between alcohol and cocaine and you've brushed aside with a flippant comparison to beer.
Are beer and cocaine the same? Not really. The only difference is dosage. An eightball of cocaine is very much the same as a quart of whisky . . . or a twelve pack of beer.
I also disagree that its up to the Con side to establish that it isn't a problem. I think its up to the pro side to establish that the War on Drugs has had any effect at all on usage rates. Of course that hasn't happened. If the War on Drugs is good at one thing - its propaganda. The War of Drugs is really good at making it look like the War on Drugs is working - with very little objective research on usage rates to verify that perception. I don't think its done anything, and I really don't thing that there is going to be a tremendous increase in usage with these hard drugs legal.
The closest parallel is of course the prohibition on alcohol. Alcohol use wasn't significantly impacted by the 18th amendment - it was just driven underground with disastrous consequences.
There are key differences between the prohibition on these hard drugs and that on alcohol. For one alcohol has always been (and likely always will be) a centerpiece of human social interaction and an accepted activity at parties and such. However, those same societal perceptions will prevent cocaine / heroin from taking hold the same way alcohol has now. Just because they are legal doesn't mean that they suddenly become socially acceptable. A parallel here is cough syrup. Yes its legal, but not very much of a social activity.
[quote]The alternative is benefiting large pharmaceutical companies that are going to invest billions in R&D to come up with the most addictive drugs possible, and who will advertise heavily to get more people to consume the drugs.[/quote]
A terrifying possibility maybe, but an unlikely slippery slope. What if the Drug War leads to a suspension of habeas corpus, and a slide into fascism as our desire to stamp out drugs overrides civil liberties? We can deal with this problem when legalization comes. Simplest option: don't allow companies to release new drugs
[quote]This is a kind of circular argument, not a point on its own.[/quote]
I think that supporters of the War on Drugs need to demonstrate some benefit from this massive expenditure. I am not accepting with no evidence that it is doing what it purports, and until I see some evidence I have to regard it as a complete waste
[quote]Hold on one gosh-darned second. It is the drug addict himself that chose to start doing crack. It is he that is ruining his family. This is like saying we shouldn't jail murderers because their families and employers will suffer. As for imprisonment policy, that's an area that can be done better. But it's got nothing to do with the overall policy behind the Drug War. We can have better imprisonment and still continue the drug war.[/quote] Matters of free will aside, being put in prison on top of your drug habit isn't helping anybody.
[quote]A person's tolerance for these drugs increases exponentially, and more and more is needed to satisfy the craving.[/quote]
Wrong. Most drug users hit a plateau of demand. I am unfortunately unable to locate the study at this point, but rats given unlimited access to heroin would stop taking at a certain point - to the point that it won't expand forever. Another is a swiss study that found that users in their "maintenance" (read prescription) program would max at 300-500 mg a day, and that no increase in use was seen after 6 months.
In short Its just as much on the pro side to establish that these drugs are in fact dangerous as it is our job to prove that legalizing won't incur harm. There are many reasons to legalize and you've stuck to just one shaky argument in favor of prohibition.
I don't really have an opinion either way but some of the things written i disagree with. Sorry that they're all by you GI, i think you've made some good points.
It is a massive drain on the national budget that has little benefit to show for its work.
This is a kind of circular argument, not a point on its own.
I don't understand how this is not a point, we want a policy that makes the real world a better place, money spent here stops money being spent elsewhere when it can do good. I see that the cost of having drugs (legal or illegal) is that it wrecks ppl's lives, but the gov't wasting all it's money costs lives that could have been saved by health care or the benefits of a better economy.
Drug users who are arguably harming their families / employers are being put in jail. The result is those families are hurt even more, employers lose their employees, and we're spending even more of our precious budget putting nonviolent offenders in with the worst criminals where unsurprisingly, many of them become one themselves.
Hold on one gosh-darned second. It is the drug addict himself that chose to start doing crack. It is he that is ruining his family. This is like saying we shouldn't jail murderers because their families and employers will suffer.
This is a false analogy, we imprison murderers because they do something we deem socially unacceptable, currently we deem drug use socially unacceptable so we imprison them. If we legalized the drugs then it would be acceptable behavior, so no need to imprison. If as a result of drug taking they break the law, then fine, bang them up. A truer analogy would be an alcoholic, someone who willing damages themselves and by proxy their loved ones, should they be locked up?
On July 08 2008 02:14 Slithe wrote: War on Drugs - Con Side
Issue #1: The War on Drugs pushes the market underground. The drug industry is very profitable, and won't go away any time soon. As a result, the war on drugs forces people to operate via illegal channels. This puts more money in the hands of drug lords, and amounts to more crime and violence.
Well, duh. Likewise, more crack addicts = more crime, no? People when drunk do a lot of stupid things. (Think about drunk drivers.) People when under the influence of cocaine do even more stupid stuff.
Whilst very true, the point i think he wanted to make was that the money in organized crime will drop massively, at the cost of an increase in petty crime.
PRO The government, through its laws, serves as a sort of moral teacher. The population, as a whole, views that the use of certain drugs is a bad thing. Even the use of legal drugs in certain situations is considered inappropriate (like drunk driving, alcohol in public, smoking in certain places, age restrictions, etc).
Drugs have negative externalities meaning that they incur more costs on society than the actual cost to buy the drug. I'm not going to list the dangers of drug use because i don't really know them, but the negative affects of addiction goes beyond mortality rates. Addiction incurs huge financial costs on the individual as well as making it hard to keep a job because the effects of the drug. If the amount the government spends to deter drug use costs less than the cost of drugs on society, then there is an economic benefit to the war as well.
Legalization of drugs is one of the worst things the government can do. I don't think anyone can argue with the notion that drugs are bad. The degree of badness is questionable, but it's still bad. Shouldn't we want to keep bad things off the market? It's not about putting that one drug dealer out of business with lower prices, but rather preventing the population from being exposed to harm.
About 100 years ago, a real drug war was fought to open the chinese markets to opium so that the british could trade cheaply produced drugs for tea and porcelain. After opium became legalized, about a third of China's population became addicted and consumed a ridiculous portion of the world's opium. (legalization is bad)
GeneralStan already covered some of the redundant arguments. I'll just cover what hasn't been said.
On July 08 2008 04:34 GrandInquisitor wrote:Let's consider other controlled substances: tobacco and alcohol. Advertised on TV? Check. Sold at every convenience store? Check. I'm not sure why drugs will be any different when you legalize them.
You have pointed out the two most commercialized drugs, but there are plenty of other drugs that are legal and aren't being commercialized all over the place (GeneralStan mentioned cough syrup). However, let's talk about alcohol and tobacco.
With alcohol, the government has tried prohibition, and failed in spectacular fashion. Why? Because there was a lot of money in the market, and the crime bosses saw an opportunity. The only thing that changed was that the supply shifted from legal corporations to underground businesses.
Regarding tobacco, it's use has gone down significantly over the decades, and it didn't require any prohibition to do it. What did change was the image of tobacco. First were the results from studies that very clearly showed the adverse health effects. Then there were restrictions on the commercialization of tobacco, and gradual taxes on the cigarettes.
So...you want the GOVERNMENT to make cocaine for people to use? This is kind of terrifying, our own government subsidizing (if not encouraging) people to become addicted to a substance that destroys their life.
The government will not be encouraging use that's for sure. And yes I would prefer that the government make cocaine over the drug lords. Regardless of whether it's the government or private companies that make the drugs, it would be carefully regulated by laws, and in my opinion that is highly preferable over illegal, unregulated solicitation of drugs.
We educate people about smoking, and people still do it. We educate people about alcohol, and millions still die from it. Drug education isn't going to be any more magically effective. And besides, why are the two mutually exclusive? If anything, illegalization makes the education more effective. We can teach people that doing drugs is wrong and then show them that it's illegal. Maybe that's the main reason our alcohol/tobacco education programs are so ineffective.
As I mentioned before, smoking use has gone down over time.
The reason why our alcohol education programs fail is society's glorification of it. Alcohol is currently so ingrained in our society that it's difficult to make a difference. However, this is not the case with the hard drugs, and it's not like legalization will cause these drugs to become the next alcohol.
The Main Idea The way I see it, it's a matter of supply and demand. We've seen that trying to eliminate the supply has only resulted in a shift to an underground supplier, which is unfavorable. Legalization will keep the supply clean and safe. The demand side is where we must work to actually decrease drug abuse. Through education and information, we can decrease the demand. Previous campaign attempts such as "DARE" have suffered from being too ideological. We should take a lesson from sex education, and realize that preaching abstinence is ineffective.
On July 08 2008 07:29 geometryb wrote: Legalization of drugs is one of the worst things the government can do. I don't think anyone can argue with the notion that drugs are bad. The degree of badness is questionable, but it's still bad. Shouldn't we want to keep bad things off the market? It's not about putting that one drug dealer out of business with lower prices, but rather preventing the population from being exposed to harm.
About 100 years ago, a real drug war was fought to open the chinese markets to opium so that the british could trade cheaply produced drugs for tea and porcelain. After opium became legalized, about a third of China's population became addicted and consumed a ridiculous portion of the world's opium. (legalization is bad)
Worry about increased drug abuse is a valid concern regarding the legalization of drugs. However, the example in China is not quite appropriate, as there are significant differences between the situation in China over 100 years ago, and the situation in the US today.
The issue in the former case was that China was not nearly as developed, and the populace was much more susceptible to drug abuse. Furthermore, the legalization of opium was forced upon China so that the drug traffickers could profit from it.
In the US, we are far more established, and are better positioned to inform the people about these drugs and prevent rampant abuse. Also, the argument to legalize drugs is not to make a profit off of civilians, but to protect people from the dangers of the illegal drug trade and suffocate the drug traffickers.
On July 08 2008 05:19 GeneralStan wrote: I remain unconvinced that cocaine and heroin are truly much more dangerous than alcohol. You've done nothing but make assertions that this is indeed the case. Other than anecdotal stories and common logic, do you have any proof that cocaine is the dangerous destroyer of lives that you make it out to be? If we're having a debate grounded in logical rigor, hearsay isn't really enough. I've done my best to point out the similarity between alcohol and cocaine and you've brushed aside with a flippant comparison to beer.
Are beer and cocaine the same? Not really. The only difference is dosage. An eightball of cocaine is very much the same as a quart of whisky . . . or a twelve pack of beer.
Have I gone stark raving mad or am I the only person that realizes that crack cocaine is more dangerous than beer?
I also disagree that its up to the Con side to establish that it isn't a problem. I think its up to the pro side to establish that the War on Drugs has had any effect at all on usage rates. Of course that hasn't happened. If the War on Drugs is good at one thing - its propaganda. The War of Drugs is really good at making it look like the War on Drugs is working - with very little objective research on usage rates to verify that perception. I don't think its done anything, and I really don't thing that there is going to be a tremendous increase in usage with these hard drugs legal.
The closest parallel is of course the prohibition on alcohol. Alcohol use wasn't significantly impacted by the 18th amendment - it was just driven underground with disastrous consequences.
1. You yourself point out the differences between Prohibition and the War on Drugs. For one, Prohibition started after alcohol use was already widespread; there is a difference in the proactive banning of a substance, and the keeping of a not-widely-consumed-substance illegal. 2. Drug rates having gone up over the last thirty years does not mean the War on Drugs does not work. Logically speaking, the correct comparison is between an American society without the War on Drugs and an American society with the War on Drugs. Since we have no basis for this comparison, we can only theorycraft about what will happen to drug use in the country when the war on drugs is repealed. I've given you some pretty solid analysis as to why it'll become more popular; there's not been any response except LOL PROHIBITION SUCKED
There are key differences between the prohibition on these hard drugs and that on alcohol. For one alcohol has always been (and likely always will be) a centerpiece of human social interaction and an accepted activity at parties and such. However, those same societal perceptions will prevent cocaine / heroin from taking hold the same way alcohol has now. Just because they are legal doesn't mean that they suddenly become socially acceptable. A parallel here is cough syrup. Yes its legal, but not very much of a social activity.
*facepalm*
So is your argument "Drugs won't become popular when legal because cough syrup isn't popular even though it's legal"?
A terrifying possibility maybe, but an unlikely slippery slope. What if the Drug War leads to a suspension of habeas corpus, and a slide into fascism as our desire to stamp out drugs overrides civil liberties? We can deal with this problem when legalization comes. Simplest option: don't allow companies to release new drugs
What? Why is it unlikely? This isn't weed we're talking about. Hard drugs are specially formulated synthetic chemicals designed to stimulate parts of your brain - we've never had systematic corporate R&D into how to make them more addictive. Isn't that a huge market? And what the hell do you mean by "don't allow companies to release new drugs?" You can't just enact sweeping societal changes and say "we'll deal with this problem when it comes up later". That's the worst kind of shortsightedness.
I think that supporters of the War on Drugs need to demonstrate some benefit from this massive expenditure. I am not accepting with no evidence that it is doing what it purports, and until I see some evidence I have to regard it as a complete waste.
Wasn't that like, you know, my whole post? Right, the one you didn't read or respond to?
Matters of free will aside, being put in prison on top of your drug habit isn't helping anybody.
Does being put in jail on top of your addiction to child porn / murder / drunk driving help anybody? ~_~
Wrong. Most drug users hit a plateau of demand. I am unfortunately unable to locate the study at this point, but rats given unlimited access to heroin would stop taking at a certain point - to the point that it won't expand forever. Another is a swiss study that found that users in their "maintenance" (read prescription) program would max at 300-500 mg a day, and that no increase in use was seen after 6 months.
In short Its just as much on the pro side to establish that these drugs are in fact dangerous as it is our job to prove that legalizing won't incur harm. There are many reasons to legalize and you've stuck to just one shaky argument in favor of prohibition.
I need to establish that cocaine is bad for you? That it's dangerous?
On July 08 2008 06:53 drift0ut wrote: I don't really have an opinion either way but some of the things written i disagree with. Sorry that they're all by you GI, i think you've made some good points.
I don't understand how this is not a point, we want a policy that makes the real world a better place, money spent here stops money being spent elsewhere when it can do good. I see that the cost of having drugs (legal or illegal) is that it wrecks ppl's lives, but the gov't wasting all it's money costs lives that could have been saved by health care or the benefits of a better economy.
The point is that you can't say "The Drug War is bad because it costs a lot of money and doesn't do anything." and have that be an argument in and of itself. Obviously it does something - it keeps drugs illegal. You need to demonstrate that that is not worth the financial cost, not simply say it costs money and move on.
This is a false analogy, we imprison murderers because they do something we deem socially unacceptable, currently we deem drug use socially unacceptable so we imprison them. If we legalized the drugs then it would be acceptable behavior, so no need to imprison.
And if we legalized kiddy porn, then it would probably become acceptable behavior too.
Whilst very true, the point i think he wanted to make was that the money in organized crime will drop massively, at the cost of an increase in petty crime.
You think organized crime can only function via drugs? More likely than not they'll shift onto other substances. Maybe we only legalize certain drugs and not others and so they make the still-illegal ones. Maybe we try and regulate it and put taxes on it and discourage people from it so they make cheaper versions of the drug. Maybe we make safe, non-immediately-lethal versions of cocaine and they start producing the super-satisfying-and-super-addicting kind. Organized crime doesn't just vanish because drugs are legal.
You have pointed out the two most commercialized drugs, but there are plenty of other drugs that are legal and aren't being commercialized all over the place (GeneralStan mentioned cough syrup).
LOL
I mean, seriously.
Cough syrup? We're going to treat drugs like cough syrup? Is this your idea of 'regulation' and 'government oversight'?
However, let's talk about alcohol and tobacco.
With alcohol, the government has tried prohibition, and failed in spectacular fashion. Why? Because there was a lot of money in the market, and the crime bosses saw an opportunity. The only thing that changed was that the supply shifted from legal corporations to underground businesses.
Seriously, I don't get all the prohibition analogies. The argument against prohibition is that a lot of people still drank, therefore it didn't work. Well guess what - cocaine use is pretty rare right now (compared to alcohol and cigarettes). Doesn't that mean the Drug War works, on a scale Prohibition didn't?
Regarding tobacco, it's use has gone down significantly over the decades, and it didn't require any prohibition to do it. What did change was the image of tobacco. First were the results from studies that very clearly showed the adverse health effects. Then there were restrictions on the commercialization of tobacco, and gradual taxes on the cigarettes.
You know what? Smoking is still around. It still kills millions of people a year. We'll never come close to reducing the number of smokers to the number of drug users. Less people die than before, but it's still the number one killer in the United States.
The government will not be encouraging use that's for sure.
Nah, it's just going to spend a lot of money making it, regulating it, and then just hide it in a corner or something and hope no one sees it. Think about how much the government encourages another vice - gambling - when it's the one sponsoring it. All those lottery ads? Imagine them as cocaine ads instead.
And yes I would prefer that the government make cocaine over the drug lords. Regardless of whether it's the government or private companies that make the drugs, it would be carefully regulated by laws, and in my opinion that is highly preferable over illegal, unregulated solicitation of drugs.
Yep, so the black market still exists then. It's already got all the infrastructure in place; the government comes out with its super-taxed ultra-safe not-that-addictive cocaine, and while a lot of people as a result start trying it out, the hardcore drug users continue to just get it from their old source.
As I mentioned before, smoking use has gone down over time.
The reason why our alcohol education programs fail is society's glorification of it. Alcohol is currently so ingrained in our society that it's difficult to make a difference. However, this is not the case with the hard drugs, and it's not like legalization will cause these drugs to become the next alcohol.
The argument was that "we'll educate people (the magic solution!) that gets us all the benefits of the War on Drugs without any of the costs!" This is obviously never going to work if we can't even get kids to not buy beer and tobacco.
Moreover, do you really think legalization won't make drugs more popular? What about high school kids, hanging around the 7-11, and they see some crack on sale? (Crack, which, as you all have magically promised, will be "government-sanctioned!" and "safe!" and "clean!" and "socially acceptable!") You don't think that's a lower barrier to entry than kids having to go out of their way to find crack from shady dealers?
The Main Idea The way I see it, it's a matter of supply and demand. We've seen that trying to eliminate the supply has only resulted in a shift to an underground supplier, which is unfavorable. Legalization will keep the supply clean and safe. The demand side is where we must work to actually decrease drug abuse. Through education and information, we can decrease the demand. Previous campaign attempts such as "DARE" have suffered from being too ideological. We should take a lesson from sex education, and realize that preaching abstinence is ineffective.
What the fuck kind of education are you thinking of? "Inject heroin with a condom on, kids!" There is no "safe way" to take heroin.
On July 08 2008 08:04 Slithe wrote: Worry about increased drug abuse is a valid concern regarding the legalization of drugs. However, the example in China is not quite appropriate, as there are significant differences between the situation in China over 100 years ago, and the situation in the US today.
The issue in the former case was that China was not nearly as developed, and the populace was much more susceptible to drug abuse. Furthermore, the legalization of opium was forced upon China so that the drug traffickers could profit from it.
In the US, we are far more established, and are better positioned to inform the people about these drugs and prevent rampant abuse. Also, the argument to legalize drugs is not to make a profit off of civilians, but to protect people from the dangers of the illegal drug trade and suffocate the drug traffickers.
So this argument is "Chinese people will get addicted to opium when it is widespread and available BUT NOT AMERICANS BECAUSE WE'RE SMARTER AND MORE INFORMED ABOUT THIS SORT OF THING. Even though we have the highest rates of drug addiction in the world right now."
I mean, doesn't the fact that there are so many drug users despite the Drug War terrify anyone else as to how many will become addicted once there is absolutely no barrier to purchasing all the cocaine you want, whenever you want, wherever you want?
Cough syrup? We're going to treat drugs like cough syrup? Is this your idea of 'regulation' and 'government oversight'?
Just a heads up, but Heroin was developed as a cough suppressant. Its name comes from the fact that it performed 'heroically' well. Heroin is a synthetic chemical derived from morphine, chemically modified to allow it to pass through the blood brain barrier(BBB) were enzymes reconvert it into morphine. Being trapped in the CSF and other associated brain tissues, its action is akin to morphine, with a much stronger effect due to targetting and sequestering effects of the BBB.
Drugs should be evaluated on an individual basis in order to determine whether or not they pose substantial substance abuse problems; some cough medicines HAVE been pulled off the market for this very reason.
On July 08 2008 08:13 GrandInquisitor wrote: I need to establish that cocaine is bad for you? That it's dangerous?
Yes you do. The danger of Cocaine isn't self-evident in my book and I haven't seen anything that isn't an anecdote and isn't a DEA propaganda piece that paints cocaine as any more dangerous than alcohol (or at least only moderately more so).
Lets put it this way. What is it that makes a drug dangerous?
Furthermore, you're arguing that it is worth a massive government expenditure to keep cocaine illegal. You should be able to prove that cocaine is harmful enough to warrant this illegality.
That's really where the crux of this argument lies.
If cocaine is as dangerous as pointing a gun into your nose, then by all means dealers of cocaine should be treated harshly. If a cocaine user is ruined beyond all measure when the powder hits his If a cocaine user turns into a demon that stabs his children then he should be put away for using the powder.
However none of these things are true, and by my measure, there is no danger in cocaine that warrants the tremendous expenditure, the empowering of our enemies abroad, the imprisonment of otherwise innocent people, and the symbolic loss that we as free Americans do not have the right to do as we choose.
Ld50 of cocaine = 95.1 mg/kg - Active dose = 500mg = 14/1 Active - Lethal Dose ratio Ld50 of alcohol = 10.6 mg/kg - Active dose
I'm not arguing that cocaine isn't dangerous. Just not nearly dangerous enough to warrant such limits on individual freedom and especially not the effort we go through to keep it from users.
On July 08 2008 08:04 Slithe wrote: Worry about increased drug abuse is a valid concern regarding the legalization of drugs. However, the example in China is not quite appropriate, as there are significant differences between the situation in China over 100 years ago, and the situation in the US today.
The issue in the former case was that China was not nearly as developed, and the populace was much more susceptible to drug abuse. Furthermore, the legalization of opium was forced upon China so that the drug traffickers could profit from it.
In the US, we are far more established, and are better positioned to inform the people about these drugs and prevent rampant abuse. Also, the argument to legalize drugs is not to make a profit off of civilians, but to protect people from the dangers of the illegal drug trade and suffocate the drug traffickers.
So this argument is "Chinese people will get addicted to opium when it is widespread and available BUT NOT AMERICANS BECAUSE WE'RE SMARTER AND MORE INFORMED ABOUT THIS SORT OF THING. Even though we have the highest rates of drug addiction in the world right now."
I mean, doesn't the fact that there are so many drug users despite the Drug War terrify anyone else as to how many will become addicted once there is absolutely no barrier to purchasing all the cocaine you want, whenever you want, wherever you want?
You keep implying that by legalizing drugs we're somehow we're gonna go from cocaine being an illegal drug punishable by prison time to the next big thing that'll be in drug stores across the nation. This is simply not the case. Legalization does not necessarily mean free use of all drugs. The key idea is to move away from such zero-tolerance policies that we have in the government today that have proven ineffective. To do this, we should have a gradual relaxation of the laws, while still having regulation. On top of putting the drug lords out of business, we will stop victimizing the current drug users who cannot stop even if they want to. Filling our prisons with drug addicts solves nothing.
This is just an idea i had last night, its in the beta stage. Right now I am considering selecting 8 people for a tournament each week in a KOTH style, of course with more structured rules and better moderation. But I think this week is highly useful as it is generating interest as well as giving a gauge on how well this thread could do in future episodes. I think that so far we have had some very good adn serious discussion, and also some great feedback about the rules. Keep both of those coming I am going to update the tread later by putting all the arguments into pro and con sides so they are easier to see, Friday I am going to put up a poll and we can vote for 3 days.
Anyone who knows of some general debate rules that we can use would be great, though I have found quite a few online that would be suitable. Someone with experience would know better than me on which rules to use for such a casual yet formal environment. Thanks guys so far I think this thread has alot of potential, already we have begun to work out the bugs.
I'm really unsure as to which side I'd debate on this issue.
What I do know is that GI is fairly ignorant =\
The danger of alcohol is greater than, or at least comparable to, any drug on the market. Do your research before talking, please.
The cost of drugs has also decreased. Heroin for instance, adjusting for increase in quality and inflation of the dollar, is 600x cheaper than it was in the 1960s.
Extremism as a method to win an argument doesn't work. Nobody believes that crack would be sold in a convenience store. Chances are it'd be sold in a store similar to, or even the same establishment as, a liquor store. A place minors may not enter. At least, not where I'm from.
There is so much more to say but I really don't know which side to argue. I don't agree with the War on Drugs as is but do believe that one done properly could be effective. Which would be a good thing because I don't believe most people are mature and responsible enough for drugs to be legal. I feel the same way about alcohol and a number of other drugs.
At the same time, I don't think there is anything wrong or bad about drug use. As long as the user is being smart and responsible about it and not harming anybody, they should be able to do as they please. Unfortunately, people just aren't that smart or responsible. Not the ones that tend to be attracted to drugs, anyway.
On July 08 2008 13:55 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: The danger of alcohol is greater than, or at least comparable to, any drug on the market.
What justification do you have for this statement?
Any basic research on both drugs make it pretty clear. The ratio between active dose and lethal dose has already been mentioned.
It's pretty unfortunate that the effects of drugs are made to seems significantly worse than they are, even going so far as to make up effects that don't actually happen, and the effects of alcohol are minimalized. Blinds a lot of people to the truth.
Hurray for willfully drinking poison, I suppose.
For what it's worth, I think if drugs are illegal, alcohol should be too. It's a drug like the rest of them.
I still drink, by the way. I'm not just attacking it. I'm just aware of what it does and take steps to make sure it doesn't harm me.
On July 08 2008 14:42 Slithe wrote: Here's something pretty entertaining and moderately informative, although clearly biased. The War on Drugs episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit.
I love this episode. I researched the statement they made about the change in heroin prices when I first saw the episode years ago and it's one of my favorite things to reference.
On July 08 2008 13:55 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: I'm really unsure as to which side I'd debate on this issue.
What I do know is that GI is fairly ignorant =\
The danger of alcohol is greater than, or at least comparable to, any drug on the market. Do your research before talking, please.
Does alcohol do more damage to society right now than crack, cocaine, heroin, put together? Yes. Would those drugs still cause less damage to society if they were as widespread as alcohol? Almost certainly not.
I mean I seriously can't be the only one here who thinks cocaine is worse for you than beer.
Extremism as a method to win an argument doesn't work. Nobody believes that crack would be sold in a convenience store. Chances are it'd be sold in a store similar to, or even the same establishment as, a liquor store.
Pretty much every convenience store in my area sells alcohol. It's not extremism.
A place minors may not enter. At least, not where I'm from.
Really? Minors don't have access to alcohol in the US? That's a good one.