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.
Good lord.
Well I suppose I would start with this...
In April 2005, the FDA issued a statement asserting that cannabis had no medical value and should not be accepted as a medicine, despite a great deal of research suggesting the opposite.
That's clearly corruption or insatiable ignorance.
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.
That's total bs. The ones they don't, like heroin, meth, and cocaine are the "dangerous hard drugs" people are generally talking about. Besides the fact that 2 are still currently marketed and sold by big pharma (desoxyn, morphine,etc...) they still kill less people than prescription medication OD's.
As for 'would be more serious if left untreated' how in the world can you think that?
Just look at something like Restless leg syndrome... Xanax and sinemet are so far from safer than just dealing with RLS it's ridiculous people would even think that.
Sinemet can turn you into a compulsive gambler, and it might even make you sleep drive to the casino to do it....
Sounds like you know nothing about medical cannabis and the opiate epidemic in our military.
I've personally spoken with vets from Vietnam to Iraq and the ones who were injured to the point they were being fed opiates all came to cannabis because they wanted their lives back. Opiates were destroying their livers, killed their sex drive, often led to depression and hopelessness about being addicted and a lot more problems. They have found that CBD's are actually quite helpful for the pain without much negative side effects (even if they still have to take some opiates).
On June 12 2015 04:17 Ghostcom wrote: If you wouldn't mind, please point me towards my anti drugs theories, because I'm not sure of which you speak?
If I wanted to talk about you, I would take it to PM's. A post on a thread is about a thread. If you can't find anti drug theories in here, that's another problem.
So you call out my penis size, tell me to educate myself because my theories are unsupported and then refuse to point out what theories you are talking about... Are you stoned right now?
Sorry if it came out like that but nothing below the first paragraph is about you specifically. Blame it on the fact that "you" and "you" write and sound the same
Would you then specify what I should educate myself more on?
http://www.liquiddota.com/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=24400508 Specifically the point about the big fish eats small fish. I'm pretty sure you know what he is talking about but you're too narrow-minded to accept it. It's ridiculous that we spent billions and decades on cancer, alzheimer and aids (and many others) and there's nothing close to a cure. There isn't even an argument to be made here when you compare the farmaceutical industry with other industries like communications and electronics with similar funding. If every company was like Bayer, we wouldn't have 3.0GHz Quad core commercial processors. We would just have iPhones (still black and white screen because color led screens are expensive to develop) with a new casing every year
By the way I found it interesting to look at Andrew Bernstein's bio Link. Turns out he LOVES AYN RAND!!! He's an objectivist philosopher!
His areas of expertise include Objectivism, Ayn Rand’s novels, the nature of heroism, the history of capitalism and its moral superiority to other systems, and application of the principle of individual rights to a broad array of topical issues, including health care, abortion, gun ownership, immigration, and the war on drugs. He also lectures at high schools, both in the New York area and nationally, regarding Ayn Rand’s novels and philosophy.
On June 12 2015 04:39 weikor wrote: Even if you argue that its your choice whatyou put into your body, another argument could also be made for what it does to society.
Drugs have a negative impact on productivity, even ones like tobacco and Alcohol. I think most of us would agree that we feel less comfortable in public when we see someone wasted / lying on the floor in his own urine.
Sure, for most "responsible people" drugs could all be legal and it wouldnt change anything. But to be honest - drugs can ruin lives, families and the people themselves. Its such a dark place to go, and for a lot of people there is no recovery.
Youre leeching off the accomplishments of society when you type on your computer, go to the fridge or consume anything that someone else has invented. Even drugs are discoveries made by someone else. So why shouldnt it be a collective decision if they are legal or not. You are allowed to invent your own drug and use it, are you not?
Im also sure that consumption would go up if they were legal. I know a lot more people that smoke cigarettes than weed.
"drugs can ruin lives, families and the people themselves" Drugs DO ruin lives. But the current state of things ruins way more lives. Bob is thinking of trying drugs (thousands of reasons, pick one, it isnt relevant). Bob is presented with an opportunity to do said drug he wanted to try (don't kid yourselves, the opportunity will present itself). Bob does drug. Now Bob has an addiction. He can either a) continue to do drugs, b) try to stop by himself or c) seek help. In a country where drug use is a crime he can't do C because he can go to jail and 90% won't be capable of achieving B. To me it makes perfect sense that if an addict is seeking help with his addiction he shouldn't be punished with jailtime. The only victim of his "crime" was himself, is he gonna sue charges for those crimes? How is jail time helping anyone in that position?
"Im also sure that consumption would go up if they were legal. "
As I said earlier, people should get their heads out of their asses. I fucking linked the article some posts before and you didn't even bother to read
My girlfriend has never had an opportunity to try any drug until she was 21, and that was offered by another one of her friends, who's never smoked weed before - to smoke weed. I think too many people don't realize, that if you truly want to stay away from drugs, you're able to quite easily. In high school, I didn't, I sought those kind of rebellious friends, but that was a decision I made.
I was a smoker for maybe 2 years, so I can relate to addiction. In Canada, from your example:
a) You don't just get addicted like that. It's not like you take a drug against your force and then all of the sudden you can't stop. There's always a reason you do so. This is what we want to avoid. b) Stopping yourself is a way. If you really ask yourself, why am I doing this? That's what I did with my smoking? What's the void in my life... Is it that I'm bored, stressed? How can I go to fix it?... I think almost any sane person, if they are educated in what Meth will do to them, will re-evaluate what happiness it's bringing them, and whether it's really worth it. That's how I stopped smoking, even though the health consequences are much smaller. c) If you go get help, you don't go to jail here. You come out, and they will help you, they'll make a program for you... They'll take you to a hospital where you wont have access to the drugs, give you education, give you a psychologist, get down to the root of your problem... If you want to quit, but don't have the willpower yourself, we will help you.
But your own examples is proof of what I claimed to be true. Opportunities present themselves, sooner or later. And the more you want something, the sooner it will come. Your GF didn't seek drugs out and was presented with them anyway. She chose to stay away but not everyone would make the same decision. Making it hard to get won't make less people use it. Making it like any other thing will.
I didn't try to suggest that addiction will appear over night. Conversely, the reason that led you to drugs doesn't appear over night either. Some will get out of it without an addiction but most don't. It's great that in Canada you can seek help without fear of incarceration but I don't think the same applies to every other place in the world, including the US. Do you get a criminal record there though?
Deep, my own mother died of cancer and I wished people back then were more open minded (before decriminalization) because I know how much the chemo affected her.
Deep, my own mother died of cancer and I wished people back then were more open minded (before decriminalization) because I know how much the chemo affected her.
It doesn't work for everyone but it takes some proud ignorance and/or wicked vitriol to deny cannabis as an option for dealing with chemo's side effects.
Imo, alcohol is already borderline, you don't get addicted that easily but once it's started the exposition is so huge it ruins a lot of lives. Those kind of drugs should be forbidden. And that's from a consumer point of view, who also happened to work in several ospitals.
On the other hand, I've first hand witnessed cannabis being way more effective than morphine as a painkiller with lesser side effects.
Overall there should be some changes legislation wise, but allowing everything is too dangerous. Alcohol is already doing too much damage imo but it's so effective taken the right way to feel relaxed and have some good time.
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.
Good lord.
Yeah, how dare I ask for you to clarify your initially unsubstantiated wild claims... Stuff the attitude.
On June 12 2015 05:23 GreenHorizons wrote: Well I suppose I would start with this...
In April 2005, the FDA issued a statement asserting that cannabis had no medical value and should not be accepted as a medicine, despite a great deal of research suggesting the opposite.
That's clearly corruption or insatiable ignorance.
Source? Every single official statement I have been able to find by the FDA states something along the lines of:
"HHS and FDA recognize the need for objective evaluations of the potential merits of cannabinoids for medical uses. If the scientific community discovers a positive benefit, HHS also recognizes the need to stimulate development of alternative, safer dosage forms." (Source)
That was from 2004. I would be more than a little surprised if they had less than a year following that made such an adamant statement as the one you linked. Knowing the FDA's usually wording they would have at least tossed a "currently established" in there.
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.
That's total bs. The ones they don't, like heroin, meth, and cocaine are the "dangerous hard drugs" people are generally talking about. Besides the fact that 2 are still currently marketed and sold by big pharma (desoxyn, morphine,etc...) they still kill less people than prescription medication OD's.
As for 'would be more serious if left untreated' how in the world can you think that?
Just look at something like Restless leg syndrome... Xanax and sinemet are so far from safer than just dealing with RLS it's ridiculous people would even think that.
Sinemet can turn you into a compulsive gambler, and it might even make you sleep drive to the casino to do it....
Sounds like you know nothing about medical cannabis and the opiate epidemic in our military.
I'm currently writing a PhD on the somatic consequences of the opioid use - I have received a fair amount of my funding EXACTLY because of the opioid "epidemic". As you already know I have had multiple research stays at top 10 medical centers in the US studying pain.
My statement is 100% true - it is in fact a requirement to achieve FDA approval that the benefits of a drug outweighs the adverse effects. A high-profile recent example of a drug that has previously failed on exactly criteria is Flibanserin aka viagra for women.
For that reason Morphine would NEVER have been approved for recreational use. If we were to decriminalize hard drugs like heroin/meth/cocaine it would be like approving their use for recreational use. If you want to argue that we should simply legalize them on the same level as Morphine, then well - we partly already have as you yourself point out - but they would still require a prescription and thus their current recreational use would remain illegal. Thus it is a faulty line of argumentation. That more people die of prescription opioids than other, illicit, drugs doesn't disprove the usefulness of opioids and the vast majority of those who are prescribed opioids desperately need them (and cannabis has shown inferiority in clinical trials).
Now, on to your your example of RLS which should supposedly disprove me:
1) Do you have any clue about how it is to live with RLS? It is life-shattering. To suggest people simply "deal with it" is ignorant beyond belief - it's like asking a severely depressed person to just "walk it off". It is true that some achieve satisfactory results without medication, however for those who don't, it isn't something "they can simply deal with". 2) Xanax and Sinemet are both off-label when used for RLS. 3) The side-effects you listed occur in less than 1 in 1000 treated... Probably a lot less dangerous than the number who considers suicide for untreated RLS.
I've personally spoken with vets from Vietnam to Iraq and the ones who were injured to the point they were being fed opiates all came to cannabis because they wanted their lives back. Opiates were destroying their livers, killed their sex drive, often led to depression and hopelessness about being addicted and a lot more problems. They have found that CBD's are actually quite helpful for the pain without much negative side effects (even if they still have to take some opiates).
Good on you - I have also talked with plenty of Vets who wouldn't be able to get through their day if not for opioids to quell their pain. I'm also fairly certain I never said cannabis was useless in pain treatment, so I would appreciate it if you for once could refrain from strawmanning me like you always do.
The propaganda is strong...
What have I posted that could even remotely closely be qualified as propaganda? You are the one posting analogies and shitty youtube videos.
Deep, my own mother died of cancer and I wished people back then were more open minded (before decriminalization) because I know how much the chemo affected her.
It doesn't work for everyone but it takes some proud ignorance and/or wicked vitriol to deny cannabis as an option for dealing with chemo's side effects.
Which is why you can get cannabinoids in pill-form which have been given FDA-approval for EXACTLY that purpose. Smoking marijuana has proven slightly more effective, but then there is the issue of smoking causing cancer (yes, that also goes for vaping but to a lesser degree).
EDIT: All this is discussion that are either only peripherally relevant to the thread or is discussion we have all had before. I'm more interested in what you would actually like to happen by decriminalizing all drugs? OTC sales of meth?
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.
Good lord.
Yeah, how dare I ask for you to clarify your initially unsubstantiated wild claims... Stuff the attitude.
On June 12 2015 05:23 GreenHorizons wrote: Well I suppose I would start with this...
In April 2005, the FDA issued a statement asserting that cannabis had no medical value and should not be accepted as a medicine, despite a great deal of research suggesting the opposite.
That's clearly corruption or insatiable ignorance.
Source? Every single official statement I have been able to find by the FDA states something along the lines of:
"HHS and FDA recognize the need for objective evaluations of the potential merits of cannabinoids for medical uses. If the scientific community discovers a positive benefit, HHS also recognizes the need to stimulate development of alternative, safer dosage forms." (Source)
That was from 2004. I would be more than a little surprised if they had less than a year following that made such an adamant statement as the one you linked. Knowing the FDA's usually wording they would have at least tossed a "currently established" in there.
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.
That's total bs. The ones they don't, like heroin, meth, and cocaine are the "dangerous hard drugs" people are generally talking about. Besides the fact that 2 are still currently marketed and sold by big pharma (desoxyn, morphine,etc...) they still kill less people than prescription medication OD's.
As for 'would be more serious if left untreated' how in the world can you think that?
Just look at something like Restless leg syndrome... Xanax and sinemet are so far from safer than just dealing with RLS it's ridiculous people would even think that.
Sinemet can turn you into a compulsive gambler, and it might even make you sleep drive to the casino to do it....
Sounds like you know nothing about medical cannabis and the opiate epidemic in our military.
I'm currently writing a PhD on the somatic consequences of the opioid use - I have received a fair amount of my funding EXACTLY because of the opioid "epidemic". As you already know I have had multiple research stays at top 10 medical centers in the US studying pain.
My statement is 100% true - it is in fact a requirement to achieve FDA approval that the benefits of a drug outweighs the adverse effects. A high-profile recent example of a drug that has previously failed on exactly criteria is Flibanserin aka viagra for women.
For that reason Morphine would NEVER have been approved for recreational use. If we were to decriminalize hard drugs like heroin/meth/cocaine it would be like approving their use for recreational use. If you want to argue that we should simply legalize them on the same level as Morphine, then well - we partly already have as you yourself point out - but they would still require a prescription and thus their current recreational use would remain illegal. Thus it is a faulty line of argumentation. That more people die of prescription opioids than other, illicit, drugs doesn't disprove the usefulness of opioids and the vast majority of those who are prescribed opioids desperately need them (and cannabis has shown inferiority in clinical trials).
Now, on to your your example of RLS which should supposedly disprove me:
1) Do you have any clue about how it is to live with RLS? It is life-shattering. To suggest people simply "deal with it" is ignorant beyond belief - it's like asking a severely depressed person to just "walk it off". It is true that some achieve satisfactory results without medication, however for those who don't, it isn't something "they can simply deal with". 2) Xanax and Sinemet are both off-label when used for RLS. 3) The side-effects you listed occur in less than 1 in 1000 treated... Probably a lot less dangerous than the number who considers suicide for untreated RLS.
I've personally spoken with vets from Vietnam to Iraq and the ones who were injured to the point they were being fed opiates all came to cannabis because they wanted their lives back. Opiates were destroying their livers, killed their sex drive, often led to depression and hopelessness about being addicted and a lot more problems. They have found that CBD's are actually quite helpful for the pain without much negative side effects (even if they still have to take some opiates).
Good on you - I have also talked with plenty of Vets who wouldn't be able to get through their day if not for opioids to quell their pain. I'm also fairly certain I never said cannabis was useless in pain treatment, so I would appreciate it if you for once could refrain from strawmanning me like you always do.
Deep, my own mother died of cancer and I wished people back then were more open minded (before decriminalization) because I know how much the chemo affected her.
It doesn't work for everyone but it takes some proud ignorance and/or wicked vitriol to deny cannabis as an option for dealing with chemo's side effects.
Which is why you can get cannabinoids in pill-form which have been given FDA-approval for EXACTLY that purpose. Smoking marijuana has proven slightly more effective, but then there is the issue of smoking causing cancer (yes, that also goes for vaping but to a lesser degree).
EDIT: All this is discussion that are either only peripherally relevant to the thread or is discussion we have all had before. I'm more interested in what you would actually like to happen by decriminalizing all drugs? OTC sales of meth?
Decriminalization to me would entail removing draconian drug laws. Testing positive for cannabis wouldn't result in destroying plea deals and end up putting otherwise functional people in prison for something they did in their past. Frankly when it comes to 'hard drugs' like meth, heroine, and cocaine, I personally think it would be far more effective to treat it like tobacco. Make them spend more on treatment and keep them from commercializing their product.
It would essentially be using the hundreds of billions of dollars generated by drug consumption for treatment as opposed to the practically 0 money and assets seized currently used to actually solve the problem.
As use goes down so do profits, so do expenses, until we reach a homeostasis of users (eliminating recreational drug use is impossible).
Considering the current status one could put as many restrictions as one wants on access (special facilities, special locations, special classes and tests one has to take, etc...)
It's hard to assess all of the benefits and consequences, particularly in relation to how American drug use is funding Central and South American drug lords and dictators.
The bottom line is what we have now is shit and needs to be changed. How it should be changed is a reasonable place to debate but whether it should be changed is not really a point of debate.
TLDR: People are going to use drugs even if you threaten them with death for being caught so trying to stop use is a futile effort. Might as well not give the money to foreign nations who have 0 interest in preventing addiction and the related dangers. Makes more sense to sell it ourselves and make the money go towards paying for treatment/prevention.
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!!!!
There's no safe way to drink chlorine or sniff talcum powder. Let's ban those too. This sound deliberately ridiculous in order to evoke a more general point. We choose what we put in our bodies, and that's what we should be encouraging.
Why do drugs, cell phones, and cigarettes exist in prison? There's a 100% prohibition there.
On June 11 2015 16:45 maartendq wrote: "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?
"Truth is sometimes paradoxical. Can you reach the Far East by sailing west? Yes, you can. Is drug legalization a necessary step in a proper war on drugs? Yes, it is". — Andrew Bernstien
EDIT: All this is discussion that are either only peripherally relevant to the thread or is discussion we have all had before. I'm more interested in what you would actually like to happen by decriminalizing all drugs? OTC sales of meth?
I'm pretty happy with the current status of decriminalization here. If it were to become legal, I would be looking up to the a) tax generated through drug sale b)coffee shops c)people growing their own weed
As a liberal and free person you should of course be allowed to do whatever you want in accordance to the golden rule. The state could advise you not to take certain substances and warn you of consequences. But since the state/society sees you as a servant to the state and an asset in which they invested thousands of dollars (education etc.) they want to keep you healthy and productive so they get a good return on their investment.
It's either that or the state really just wants to protect you out of goodwill but fails spectacularly at it like a lawful stupid paladin in RPGs.
On June 12 2015 04:39 weikor wrote: Even if you argue that its your choice whatyou put into your body, another argument could also be made for what it does to society.
Drugs have a negative impact on productivity, even ones like tobacco and Alcohol. I think most of us would agree that we feel less comfortable in public when we see someone wasted / lying on the floor in his own urine.
Sure, for most "responsible people" drugs could all be legal and it wouldnt change anything. But to be honest - drugs can ruin lives, families and the people themselves. Its such a dark place to go, and for a lot of people there is no recovery.
Youre leeching off the accomplishments of society when you type on your computer, go to the fridge or consume anything that someone else has invented. Even drugs are discoveries made by someone else. So why shouldnt it be a collective decision if they are legal or not. You are allowed to invent your own drug and use it, are you not?
Im also sure that consumption would go up if they were legal. I know a lot more people that smoke cigarettes than weed.
The philosophical "Choice what you put into your body" argument against prohibition is really the weakest one of the bunch, and probably only there because americans have this huge boner for anything that sound like FREEDOM!!!!!!.
The much better argument is that prohibition is simply not working at accomplishing any of its goals, while having gigantic unreasonable sideeffects. If you put a lot of people in jail and support criminal cartels that basically destroy mexico, prevent addicted people from getting help and enahnce the spread of HIV & Co due to a difficulty of obtaining clean needles, you should better be able to point out some major positives that justify those necessary evils. Drug prohibition doesn't have any.
On June 12 2015 04:39 weikor wrote: Even if you argue that its your choice whatyou put into your body, another argument could also be made for what it does to society.
Drugs have a negative impact on productivity, even ones like tobacco and Alcohol. I think most of us would agree that we feel less comfortable in public when we see someone wasted / lying on the floor in his own urine.
Sure, for most "responsible people" drugs could all be legal and it wouldnt change anything. But to be honest - drugs can ruin lives, families and the people themselves. Its such a dark place to go, and for a lot of people there is no recovery.
Youre leeching off the accomplishments of society when you type on your computer, go to the fridge or consume anything that someone else has invented. Even drugs are discoveries made by someone else. So why shouldnt it be a collective decision if they are legal or not. You are allowed to invent your own drug and use it, are you not?
Im also sure that consumption would go up if they were legal. I know a lot more people that smoke cigarettes than weed.
The philosophical "Choice what you put into your body" argument against prohibition is really the weakest one of the bunch, and probably only there because americans have this huge boner for anything that sound like FREEDOM!!!!!!.
The much better argument is that prohibition is simply not working at accomplishing any of its goals, while having gigantic unreasonable sideeffects. If you put a lot of people in jail and support criminal cartels that basically destroy mexico, prevent addicted people from getting help and enahnce the spread of HIV & Co due to a difficulty of obtaining clean needles, you should better be able to point out some major positives that justify those necessary evils. Drug prohibition doesn't have any.
It does if you're a dirty cop/agent, corrupt official, part of big pharma, a racist, or part of the prison industrial complex in general.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence those are the main opponents of rational drug laws though. + Show Spoiler +
(I'm not saying every opponent falls in one of those categories)
On June 11 2015 16:45 maartendq wrote: "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?
"Truth is sometimes paradoxical. Can you reach the Far East by sailing west? Yes, you can. Is drug legalization a necessary step in a proper war on drugs? Yes, it is". — Andrew Bernstien
Actually, legalising drugs is just doing the polar opposite of what you were doing before because it didn't work. There's an enormous grey zone between "war" and "legalisation", but that would require actually putting in some thought.
Equally short-sighted (and downright stupid) would be that because communism didn't work in Eastern Europe before 1989 those countries should instead opt for an objectivist regime.
On June 12 2015 04:39 weikor wrote: Even if you argue that its your choice whatyou put into your body, another argument could also be made for what it does to society.
Drugs have a negative impact on productivity, even ones like tobacco and Alcohol. I think most of us would agree that we feel less comfortable in public when we see someone wasted / lying on the floor in his own urine.
Sure, for most "responsible people" drugs could all be legal and it wouldnt change anything. But to be honest - drugs can ruin lives, families and the people themselves. Its such a dark place to go, and for a lot of people there is no recovery.
Youre leeching off the accomplishments of society when you type on your computer, go to the fridge or consume anything that someone else has invented. Even drugs are discoveries made by someone else. So why shouldnt it be a collective decision if they are legal or not. You are allowed to invent your own drug and use it, are you not?
Im also sure that consumption would go up if they were legal. I know a lot more people that smoke cigarettes than weed.
The philosophical "Choice what you put into your body" argument against prohibition is really the weakest one of the bunch, and probably only there because americans have this huge boner for anything that sound like FREEDOM!!!!!!.
The much better argument is that prohibition is simply not working at accomplishing any of its goals, while having gigantic unreasonable sideeffects. If you put a lot of people in jail and support criminal cartels that basically destroy mexico, prevent addicted people from getting help and enahnce the spread of HIV & Co due to a difficulty of obtaining clean needles, you should better be able to point out some major positives that justify those necessary evils. Drug prohibition doesn't have any.
It does if you're a dirty cop/agent, corrupt official, part of big pharma, a racist, or part of the prison industrial complex in general.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence those are the main opponents of rational drug laws though. + Show Spoiler +
(I'm not saying every opponent falls in one of those categories)
How does Big Pharma as a group gain from the prohibition in your eyes? If recreational drug use was made legal wouldn't that open an entire new market for them? Additionally the new psychotic events that will invariably follow will only increase the sales of their blockbuster antipsychotics. Or is it the usual (faulty) pothead argument of smoked cannabis replacing all current pain treatment to such a degree that big pharma would no longer have any market (nevermind that the vast majority of opioid-patents have expired)?
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