|
Upcoming Event:
Dr. Andrew Bernstein will be making the case for Ending Drug Prohibition on June 25th in Toronto. Click here for the Facebook event page.
The legal-political war on drugs is an abysmal failure: It violates the right of adults to legally buy, sell, or consume any substance(s) they choose, while failing—for necessary and predictable reasons—to control drug trafficking. Legalizing drugs both protects the right of adult citizens in a free society to legally choose which substances they will or will not ingest and, with the failed anti-drug war repudiated, leaves open the possibility of a vastly more effective effort: A moral-philosophic-educational campaign, exhorting each individual to recognize both that his life belongs to him—and the healthy, value-laden, joy-inducing possibilities his life holds out for him. The legalization of drugs is an integral aspect of an intensified, significantly more effective war on drugs.
How is it that prohibition has lasted this long, and with such little resistance? Who decides who puts what in their body? Who should make that decision?
|
So, we should allow all drugs because it's morally superior to not allowing all drugs?
Has this guy even seen what some of the drugs out there do to you?
|
The"War on Drugs" is an abysmal failure. I think that's an objective reality. Until we can agree on that part it's pretty hard to have fruitful discussion.
On June 11 2015 11:43 killa_robot wrote: So, we should allow all drugs because it's morally superior to not allowing all drugs?
Has this guy even seen what some of the drugs out there do to you?
Have people even seen what the War on Drugs has done to people?
|
The case is Portugal. Take the data and apply the best practices.
|
Some drugs must remain illegal. There is no safe way to take angel dust, ice or crack, but the sentencing and legal consequences must be changed - this beyond dispute as the current incarceration and measures taken against offenders is helping NOONE!!!!
|
On June 11 2015 11:26 Epocalypse wrote:Upcoming Event: Dr. Andrew Bernstein will be making the case for Ending Drug Prohibition on June 25th in Toronto. Click here for the Facebook event page.Show nested quote +The legal-political war on drugs is an abysmal failure: It violates the right of adults to legally buy, sell, or consume any substance(s) they choose, while failing—for necessary and predictable reasons—to control drug trafficking. Legalizing drugs both protects the right of adult citizens in a free society to legally choose which substances they will or will not ingest and, with the failed anti-drug war repudiated, leaves open the possibility of a vastly more effective effort: A moral-philosophic-educational campaign, exhorting each individual to recognize both that his life belongs to him—and the healthy, value-laden, joy-inducing possibilities his life holds out for him. The legalization of drugs is an integral aspect of an intensified, significantly more effective war on drugs. How is it that prohibition has lasted this long, and with such little resistance? Who decides who puts what in their body? Who should make that decision? "The war on drugs has failed, so we should just do the polar opposite and allow people to freely use them." How did that guy even get his PHD with simplistic thinking like that?
Both the US and EU have regulatory bodies who decide what kind of drugs (medicinal) they are allowed to "put in their bodies", largely because the governments of both entities want to protect their citizens from the more nasty side effects of taking dangerous drugs, such as death and mental or physical complications. I assume Canada has a similar regulatory body as well.
But of course, feel free to abolish that regulatory body. Of course that would mean that people become 100% responsible for whatever they stuff into their mouths, and cannot go complain to the state when it would appear that certain drugs cause some undesired side-effects. Treatment of drug abuse, addiction or of those side-effects will of course not be covered by insurance because the individual knew what he was getting into.
As much as the war of drugs is an abject failure, people who use drugs end up being abject failures as well. There's a reason why drugs are prohibited in most societies.
|
On June 11 2015 16:45 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 11:26 Epocalypse wrote:Upcoming Event: Dr. Andrew Bernstein will be making the case for Ending Drug Prohibition on June 25th in Toronto. Click here for the Facebook event page.The legal-political war on drugs is an abysmal failure: It violates the right of adults to legally buy, sell, or consume any substance(s) they choose, while failing—for necessary and predictable reasons—to control drug trafficking. Legalizing drugs both protects the right of adult citizens in a free society to legally choose which substances they will or will not ingest and, with the failed anti-drug war repudiated, leaves open the possibility of a vastly more effective effort: A moral-philosophic-educational campaign, exhorting each individual to recognize both that his life belongs to him—and the healthy, value-laden, joy-inducing possibilities his life holds out for him. The legalization of drugs is an integral aspect of an intensified, significantly more effective war on drugs. How is it that prohibition has lasted this long, and with such little resistance? Who decides who puts what in their body? Who should make that decision? "The war on drugs has failed, so we should just do the polar opposite and allow people to freely use them." How did that guy even get his PHD with simplistic thinking like that? Both the US and EU have regulatory bodies who decide what kind of drugs (medicinal) they are allowed to "put in their bodies", largely because the governments of both entities want to protect their citizens from the more nasty side effects of taking dangerous drugs, such as death and mental or physical complications. I assume Canada has a similar regulatory body as well. But of course, feel free to abolish that regulatory body. Of course that would mean that people become 100% responsible for whatever they stuff into their mouths, and cannot go complain to the state when it would appear that certain drugs cause some undesired side-effects. Treatment of drug abuse, addiction or of those side-effects will of course not be covered by insurance because the individual knew what he was getting into. As much as the war of drugs is an abject failure, people who use drugs end up being abject failures as well. There's a reason why drugs are prohibited in most societies.
Practically everyone uses drugs eventually.
I'm not for abolishing the FDA but they could certainly use an overhaul. Cannabis is the most obvious example of what's screwy, but this idea of keeping people safe is kind of hogwash.
The drugs the government regulates kill more people than the ones they don't.
Denying cannabis to veterans is probably the single most obvious case of the government pushing people towards addiction to more dangerous and addictive (and coincidentally legally profitable) drugs (opiates) directly in violation of the concept that they are trying to keep people safe.
Then when people find out crappy heroin is cheaper, everyone wants to blame heroin (even though it's usually adulterants that kill people [because that's how you make heroin cheaper]) and none of the things that led the person to it (unless it's that evil gateway 'drug' cannabis).
|
United Kingdom35817 Posts
On June 11 2015 16:45 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 11:26 Epocalypse wrote:Upcoming Event: Dr. Andrew Bernstein will be making the case for Ending Drug Prohibition on June 25th in Toronto. Click here for the Facebook event page.The legal-political war on drugs is an abysmal failure: It violates the right of adults to legally buy, sell, or consume any substance(s) they choose, while failing—for necessary and predictable reasons—to control drug trafficking. Legalizing drugs both protects the right of adult citizens in a free society to legally choose which substances they will or will not ingest and, with the failed anti-drug war repudiated, leaves open the possibility of a vastly more effective effort: A moral-philosophic-educational campaign, exhorting each individual to recognize both that his life belongs to him—and the healthy, value-laden, joy-inducing possibilities his life holds out for him. The legalization of drugs is an integral aspect of an intensified, significantly more effective war on drugs. How is it that prohibition has lasted this long, and with such little resistance? Who decides who puts what in their body? Who should make that decision? Both the US and EU have regulatory bodies who decide what kind of drugs (medicinal) they are allowed to "put in their bodies", largely because the governments of both entities want to protect their citizens from the more nasty side effects of taking dangerous drugs, such as death and mental or physical complications. I assume Canada has a similar regulatory body as well. But of course, feel free to abolish that regulatory body. Of course that would mean that people become 100% responsible for whatever they stuff into their mouths, and cannot go complain to the state when it would appear that certain drugs cause some undesired side-effects. Treatment of drug abuse, addiction or of those side-effects will of course not be covered by insurance because the individual knew what he was getting into. I may have missed it, but how did you get from legalising/decriminalising drugs to abolishing the FDA/regulatory bodies?
As much as the war of drugs is an abject failure, people who use drugs end up being abject failures as well. What a terrible, misinformed, narrow, stupid thing to say.
You can point to literally ANY activity and there will be a subset of people in that activity who are failures.
The overwhelming majority of drug users are recreational and perform perfectly normally in society
There's a reason why drugs are prohibited in most societies. Gay marriage is legal in about 20 countries around the globe, is "there a reason" (that is good, which you are implying) why it's not legal in the other 200+?
Or can it be that what is legal/illegal is not the same as what is right or moral or ethical?
|
I'm a big proponent for this case. Not only is it so that people who want to experiment will get their hands on the drug of choice eventually. But they'll most of the time get it via an unreliable source, making the possibility of it going wrong because impurity, unknown cocktail, wrong concentration, ... that much higher. Drugs are NOT dangerous in moderation, no matter how much you want to believe it is. No matter how you've been taught otherwise. If you learn to deal with it in a responsible way, if you're provided the grade A shit from a reliable source, so many ifs, .. then you'll see a dramatic change in 1) drug use en 2) drug related incidents.
But.. We have to look at the irresponsibility of human nature ofcourse. Alcohol, for example, is a hard drug, makes you addicted and fucks up your body. And this is where it stands in relation to other drugs when you look at dependence (how much you are likely to get addicted to it) versus the active/lethal dose (ratio between when you get a good high from it to when you die from it)
This is also a fun bunch of facts I quickly found http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics
The big problem is alot of people get to these drugs because they are uneducated, want relief for their shitty lives, are poor. They get their hands on the bad shit, feel incrementally better from their shitty lives and get hooked because.. it makes them feel better then to work all day in and out or having to fight for scraps or whatever (I'm going a bit hyperbolic here I know) Also, it's cheaper than alcohol. There is just a horrible backwards way of thinking with the approach to drug use control and distribution because it's not actually helping and it's spreading misinformation, seeping into a great percentage of people coming close to indoctrination.
It all comes down to this for me. Educate people, make sure they understand what it means to commit to a drug. Every drug CAN potentially be dangerous if you are irresponsible with it (take unnecessary cocktails, unnecessary amounts in a small amount of time, get it from an unreliable source, ...) but if you know what you're doing, if you're guided in the process, it only should be a positive experience.
Lastly a point about addiction. Don't you think that the people who are now addicted to alcohol would become addicted to something else anyway? So why would it be a bigger problem to have a cocaine addiction over an alocohol addiction for example? Both can be done in a functioning way (to a certain extent) and both are fucked up and shouldn't happen in the first place. But some people just can't exert enough control over themselves and will fall ino the trap anyway.
|
|
|
healthcare should charge extra for this shit
|
On June 11 2015 16:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 16:45 maartendq wrote:On June 11 2015 11:26 Epocalypse wrote:Upcoming Event: Dr. Andrew Bernstein will be making the case for Ending Drug Prohibition on June 25th in Toronto. Click here for the Facebook event page.The legal-political war on drugs is an abysmal failure: It violates the right of adults to legally buy, sell, or consume any substance(s) they choose, while failing—for necessary and predictable reasons—to control drug trafficking. Legalizing drugs both protects the right of adult citizens in a free society to legally choose which substances they will or will not ingest and, with the failed anti-drug war repudiated, leaves open the possibility of a vastly more effective effort: A moral-philosophic-educational campaign, exhorting each individual to recognize both that his life belongs to him—and the healthy, value-laden, joy-inducing possibilities his life holds out for him. The legalization of drugs is an integral aspect of an intensified, significantly more effective war on drugs. How is it that prohibition has lasted this long, and with such little resistance? Who decides who puts what in their body? Who should make that decision? "The war on drugs has failed, so we should just do the polar opposite and allow people to freely use them." How did that guy even get his PHD with simplistic thinking like that? Both the US and EU have regulatory bodies who decide what kind of drugs (medicinal) they are allowed to "put in their bodies", largely because the governments of both entities want to protect their citizens from the more nasty side effects of taking dangerous drugs, such as death and mental or physical complications. I assume Canada has a similar regulatory body as well. But of course, feel free to abolish that regulatory body. Of course that would mean that people become 100% responsible for whatever they stuff into their mouths, and cannot go complain to the state when it would appear that certain drugs cause some undesired side-effects. Treatment of drug abuse, addiction or of those side-effects will of course not be covered by insurance because the individual knew what he was getting into. As much as the war of drugs is an abject failure, people who use drugs end up being abject failures as well. There's a reason why drugs are prohibited in most societies. Practically everyone uses drugs eventually. I'm not for abolishing the FDA but they could certainly use an overhaul. Cannabis is the most obvious example of what's screwy, but this idea of keeping people safe is kind of hogwash. The drugs the government regulates kill more people than the ones they don't. Denying cannabis to veterans is probably the single most obvious case of the government pushing people towards addiction to more dangerous and addictive (and coincidentally legally profitable) drugs (opiates) directly in violation of the concept that they are trying to keep people safe. Then when people find out crappy heroin is cheaper, everyone wants to blame heroin (even though it's usually adulterants that kill people [because that's how you make heroin cheaper]) and none of the things that led the person to it (unless it's that evil gateway 'drug' cannabis).
I'm very interested in hearing what you would like to alter about the FDA? As well as what your experience with the FDA is?
Of course the drugs the government regulate kill more people than the ones they don't. The drugs the government regulate happen to be regulated because they are dangerous and they are only approved in the first place because they are to be used for severe illness which would, untreated, be more dangerous than the drugs.
Equating recreational cannabis-use to opioids is stupid as one is used recreationally whilst the other is being used to treat a disease is on the class A narcotics list and thus under strict surveillance. Whilst THC in a pill might be useful in future pain treatment (the literature could be better in that area), smoking/vaping marijuana will never be as it is a shitty way to introduce drugs to the body.
|
On June 11 2015 12:43 AxiomBlurr wrote: Some drugs must remain illegal. There is no safe way to take angel dust, ice or crack, but the sentencing and legal consequences must be changed - this beyond dispute as the current incarceration and measures taken against offenders is helping NOONE!!!!
That's why term should really be decriminalizing, not legalizing.
Weed is one thing. I really don't think society would be any worse if there was weed being sold where people buy alcohol, for example.
But the "hard stuff"? That should never be distributed. They need to remain "controlled substances". Just stop putting people in jail for using the stuff -- because that's fucking useless for everybody, at best.
|
On June 11 2015 21:36 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 12:43 AxiomBlurr wrote: Some drugs must remain illegal. There is no safe way to take angel dust, ice or crack, but the sentencing and legal consequences must be changed - this beyond dispute as the current incarceration and measures taken against offenders is helping NOONE!!!!
That's why term should really be decriminalizing, not legalizing. Weed is one thing. I really don't think society would be any worse if there was weed being sold where people buy alcohol, for example. But the "hard stuff"? That should never be distributed. They need to remain "controlled substances". Just stop putting people in jail for using the stuff -- because that's fucking useless for everybody, at best. Weed should not be legalised for the terrible smell it creates alone. Unless governments ban smoking in the public sphere altogether of coures.
I also can't help but notice that many people who want to decriminalise weed are potheads.
|
Some benefits of legalizing drugs: - lower cost for law enforcement, court proceedings and prisons - tax revenue from legally sold drugs, new legal jobs and businesses in that business area - controlled quality of drugs, lower health risks - youth protection when buying drugs in an ordinary shop or pharmacy instead of a criminal dealer - takes revenue away from dealers, mafia, gangs and drug cartels, resulting in the whole sector shrinking and fewer related crimes - cheaper drugs, resulting in less crime associated with obtaining drugs
|
On June 11 2015 21:48 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 21:36 Leporello wrote:On June 11 2015 12:43 AxiomBlurr wrote: Some drugs must remain illegal. There is no safe way to take angel dust, ice or crack, but the sentencing and legal consequences must be changed - this beyond dispute as the current incarceration and measures taken against offenders is helping NOONE!!!!
That's why term should really be decriminalizing, not legalizing. Weed is one thing. I really don't think society would be any worse if there was weed being sold where people buy alcohol, for example. But the "hard stuff"? That should never be distributed. They need to remain "controlled substances". Just stop putting people in jail for using the stuff -- because that's fucking useless for everybody, at best. Weed should not be legalised for the terrible smell it creates alone. Unless governments ban smoking in the public sphere altogether of coures. I also can't help but notice that many people who want to decriminalise weed are potheads. I don't use or have any desire to use any type of drug (I don't even drink) and I'm pro-legalization of marijuana. Once you look at the benefits of it, it's actually kinda hard to be against it. If we tax and regulate it like tobacco it ends up being a net positive. We can place the same restrictions on it for where it is used as tobacco (no smoking it in public places like restaurants). There's also the benefit of a lot of users not smoking it but instead using it by other means so it has the potential to be even less noticeable than tobacco.
But even for the "harder" drugs and party drugs, would it not be better to remove all that money from organized crime and ensure safety? I'm not for full on legalization of meth or anything, but decriminalizing that type of thing, maybe giving addicts a safer source to get them, while at the same time providing support programs to help those addicted get on the road to recovery is much better than basically shaming them and treating them like criminals. The sad truth is that there will always be people using those drugs, so it would be better to guarantee they have places and ways to do them in a safe manner and help with prevention of issues related to them (for example, providing needles to prevent the chance of spreading blood-borne illnesses).
That's the issue I've always had with the whole "War on Drugs" approach. It doesn't accomplish anything. Throwing people in jail and threatening them with moral arguments doesn't really do anything. Drug use prevention programs for children and the like are fine, but treating users like garbage and ignoring their issues will not make the problem go away. Treating them like human beings and offering them help will do far more.
|
|
I just think that if you decriminalize drugs that's just going to open the door for big pharma companies to create ultra high grade designer drugs legally.
Granted some drugs should be legal just like alcohol and tobacco but I've never seen a good argument for where to draw the line once you open that pandoras box.
|
On June 12 2015 00:51 Sermokala wrote: I just think that if you decriminalize drugs that's just going to open the door for big pharma companies to create ultra high grade designer drugs legally.
Granted some drugs should be legal just like alcohol and tobacco but I've never seen a good argument for where to draw the line once you open that pandoras box.
Do you think if big pharmacy made meth that was safer, slightly less addictive, and didn't rot your teeth and flesh as quickly you would take it? Sure, a lot of these scenarios involving drugs suck, but I just don't see the average person who avoids doing X or Y to suddenly pick up X or Y just because it is legal.
On June 11 2015 22:19 Scorch wrote: Some benefits of legalizing drugs: - lower cost for law enforcement, court proceedings and prisons - tax revenue from legally sold drugs, new legal jobs and businesses in that business area - controlled quality of drugs, lower health risks - youth protection when buying drugs in an ordinary shop or pharmacy instead of a criminal dealer - takes revenue away from dealers, mafia, gangs and drug cartels, resulting in the whole sector shrinking and fewer related crimes - cheaper drugs, resulting in less crime associated with obtaining drugs
Pretty much 100% what I was about to post. Right on!
|
|
|
|