drugs are bad mkay.

[FallenRainbows]

My Fav cop may have or is going to post his story about someone freaking out and trowing his baby from a 3rd story window. Thanks to weed... I think it was weed, let him clarify.

 

[Ago Iterum]

Why couldn't you guys on page one just wait for the text to appear...

Anyway. I agree with most of what you've said here, I feel the same way. It won't happen though because it would be a bit hypocritical, after all the propaganda they've used against weed...

 

[Ace of Spades]

Whats this thread about? are we meant to discuss if drugs are bad or something? this is fail!

He either pressed enter before he should have by mistake, or he's a troll.

How many times is the latter ever true?

9 times out of 10 usually.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Says the person who prefers personal freedom to be illegal and who would rather have law enforcement and more innocents die in a needless and un winnable war on drugs, whatever.

Depends on what you consider freedom. Laws are there for a reason you know, not to restrict freedom but to govern what is acceptable under social guidelines. Besides, don't you live in the old US of A, which places so much value on liberty and freedom? I think you might have been exposed to too much media hysteria when it comes to the war on drugs and are overestimating the extent to which we're 'losing' the battle.

But your solution does not solve anything, it creates the same amount of misery and suffering except in your view its endorsed by the state rather than opposed by it.

From a purely utilitarian standpoint wouldn't legalising drugs actually be prudent? Taxation from tobacco far outweighs the healthcare bill it entails (in the UK at least, £10.5 billion raised compared to £1.7 billion spent on treating smoking related diseases). Arguably the same outcome is likely from the legalisation and taxation of most narcotics. Plus it would create a massive new industry overnight which would have a fair impact on the depression we are going through.

 

[Inverse Skies]

From a purely utilitarian standpoint wouldn't legalising drugs actually be prudent? Taxation from tobacco far outweighs the healthcare bill it entails (in the UK at least, £10.5 billion raised compared to £1.7 billion spent on treating smoking related diseases). Arguably the same outcome is likely from the legalisation and taxation of most narcotics. Plus it would create a massive new industry overnight which would have a fair impact on the depression we are going through.

No doubt it would be big business, but think about it. How much money is poured into campaigns to try and get people to stop smoking?. And 1.7billion is a lot of money which could be freed up to treat other illnesses as well. Here in Aus all cigarette packets are sold with pictures of emphysema riddled lungs or blocked arteries or mouth cancers or whatever and one of the statistics was smoking related deaths a year and it was something like 18,000 +. That's a stupidly high number.

The question I still raise is, why would you want to legalise drugs? Their addictive properties means they quickly start to consume the persons life and thoughts... all the time doing absolutely nothing to be of a benefit for them. When you think about it, the only reason tobacco is still legal is at has been socially accepted for so long and a huge industry was built out of it, whilst illicit drugs have been declared illegal for so long and have been shunned. That really was the only distinction between them. If it were up to me, I'd throw tobacco into that mix as well. You probably couldn't do it now, considering how big a business it is (which is sad in itself, smoking produces no benefit to the person doing it and yet people spent 10.5billion on it, that's really sad).

I guess the difference with drugs compared to tobacco is drugs exert their insidious effects a lot faster, whereas tobacco usually promotes the development of cancers/atherosclerosis/emphysema many years down the track. Personally I would rather see governments invest in infrastructure projects in order to tackle the depression, start looking at improving the public transport of major cities or something like that. There is something that would create jobs and be positive to society rather than detrimental to it.

 

[jockslap]

Whats this thread about? are we meant to discuss if drugs are bad or something? this is fail!

He either pressed enter before he should have by mistake, or he's a troll.

How many times is the latter ever true?

9 times out of 10 usually.

That's news to me.

My Fav cop may have or is going to post his story about someone freaking out and trowing his baby from a 3rd story window. Thanks to weed... I think it was weed, let him clarify.

I'm guessing this is already one unstable ************.

ditto to that, theres no way weed makes u throw babies

 

[ezeroast]

one of my brothers friends used to smoke alot of pot, now he's just a shell. No real facial expressions, always mumbling and all that. I used to smoke heaps too but i guess its just a 1 in 10 thing. Most people will be fine but its still too many.

I have no problem with casual smokers, its the ones that sit around getting stoned all day that realy get screwed up. Aswell as all the shit that gets smoked now is hardly weed anymore with the amount of shit they pump into it now.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

No doubt it would be big business, but think about it. How much money is poured into campaigns to try and get people to stop smoking?. And 1.7billion is a lot of money which could be freed up to treat other illnesses as well.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough, 10.5 billion was raised in taxes but 1.7 billion was spent on health problems arising from smoking. That's 8.8 billion in the public coffers which wouldn't be there if it weren't for smoking. That 1.7 couldn't be freed up as it wouldn't exist. The tax revenue is one of the main reasons tobacco continues to be legal, Liberal Democrat MP's have previously admitted as much. It is likely (though I admit by no means assured) that the result of legalising other narcotics would be the same, with the revenue raised by taxation far outweighing the healthcare cost. So whats the problem?

I guess the difference with drugs compared to tobacco is drugs exert their insidious effects a lot faster

I'm deliberately trying to avoid putting my personal experiences in here so for now lets just say that I think the majority of people are capable of moderation.

 

[Inverse Skies]

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough, 10.5 billion was raised in taxes but 1.7 billion was spent on health problems arising from smoking. That's 8.8 billion in the public coffers which wouldn't be there if it weren't for smoking. That 1.7 couldn't be freed up as it wouldn't exist. The tax revenue is one of the main reasons tobacco continues to be legal, Liberal Democrat MP's have previously admitted as much. It is likely (though I admit by no means assured) that the result of legalising other narcotics would be the same, with the revenue raised by taxation far outweighing the healthcare cost. So whats the problem?

I'm deliberately trying to avoid putting my personal experiences in here so for now lets just say that I think the majority of people are capable of moderation.

Have you ever seen someone dying of lung cancer caused directly by smoking? No? Then you have NO IDEA of how much they regret their decision to smoke after being inflicted with a cancer with an 80% mortality rate. I want to be an oncologist and it sickens me whenever people buy cigarettes (I work in a liqour store) because they're shortening their lifespan (and wasting their money) for no other purpose than they're addicted to it and have trouble stopping.

You're oversimplifying the issue by only looking at it from a money point of view, without thinking of the families behind those who would suffer if drugs became legalised. Families suffer enough just from tobacco abuse, if they don't now they will later on when loved ones start to suffer the terrible illnesses which smoking raises the risk of. Why inflict more pain and suffering on families for the sake of making extra cash?

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough, 10.5 billion was raised in taxes but 1.7 billion was spent on health problems arising from smoking. That's 8.8 billion in the public coffers which wouldn't be there if it weren't for smoking. That 1.7 couldn't be freed up as it wouldn't exist. The tax revenue is one of the main reasons tobacco continues to be legal, Liberal Democrat MP's have previously admitted as much. It is likely (though I admit by no means assured) that the result of legalising other narcotics would be the same, with the revenue raised by taxation far outweighing the healthcare cost. So whats the problem?

I'm deliberately trying to avoid putting my personal experiences in here so for now lets just say that I think the majority of people are capable of moderation.

Have you ever seen someone dying of lung cancer caused directly by smoking? No? Then you have NO IDEA of how much they regret their decision to smoke after being inflicted with a cancer with an 80% mortality rate. I want to be an oncologist and it sickens me whenever people buy cigarettes (I work in a liqour store) because they're shortening their lifespan (and wasting their money) for no other purpose than they're addicted to it and have trouble stopping.

You're oversimplifying the issue by only looking at it from a money point of view, without thinking of the families behind those who would suffer if drugs became legalised. Families suffer enough just from tobacco abuse, if they don't now they will later on when loved ones start to suffer the terrible illnesses which smoking raises the risk of. Why inflict more pain and suffering on families for the sake of making extra cash?

To some extent I am oversimplifying but I also feel that you are also guilty of this with a kneejerk reaction to the suggestion that drugs are legalised which comes from a strictly 'drugs are bad' standpoint. Please do not make assumptions about me like in the first two lines of your counterpoint, I understand you feel strongly about this and so do I. I am trying to avoid resorting to personal experience in my rhetoric as I feel it is unnecessary and counterproductive in these sorts of debates.

Yes, there will always be people who cannot moderate themselves and will likely harm themselves, this can be readily observed with alcohol. However, the majority of people DO control themselves and can enjoy (refreshing) alcoholic beverages without being drunk everyday.

We live in a free society. To this end we are allowed to make choices which may cause us to come to harm free of state intervention. The State however is often required to pick up the pieces after personal misadventure, this costs money. Legalisation pays for these expenses through taxation (eg the cost of rehabilitating 'families', in fact the extra money could be used to rehabilitate the families who suffer losses and problems which are entirely unrelated to this debate, victims of rape, car accidents and the like).

It is hypocritical to allow certain types of narcotic (tobacco, alcohol) and not others.

Crime has been mentioned before, which I personally think is a very valid point and I dont feel requires reiteration. This would also affect health damage as substances would be controlled. By bringing narcotics into the open with legalisation awareness is also created. People would more readily recognize their own issues and be able to seek help without as much stigma being attached to their behaviour, increasing the chances of them actually seeking it in the first place. Beyond this, there is evidence to suggest that narcotics use would actually decline slightly, as in the Netherlands with Marijuana (as someone pointed out, despite it being legal usage is still lower than France and Germany where it is still criminalised). A lot of this could be to do with the fact that fairly normal legal activities rarely have romantic conotations for teenagers.

Sorry if that was kinda disjointed, its nearly 3am.

 

[Inverse Skies]

To some extent I am oversimplifying but I also feel that you are also guilty of this with a kneejerk reaction to the suggestion that drugs are legalised which comes from a strictly 'drugs are bad' standpoint. Please do not make assumptions about me like in the first two lines of your counterpoint, I understand you feel strongly about this and so do I. I am trying to avoid resorting to personal experience in my rhetoric as I feel it is unnecessary and counterproductive in these sorts of debates.

Yes, there will always be people who cannot moderate themselves and will likely harm themselves, this can be readily observed with alcohol. However, the majority of people DO control themselves and can enjoy (refreshing) alcoholic beverages without being drunk everyday.

We live in a free society. To this end we are allowed to make choices which may cause us to come to harm free of state intervention. The State however is often required to pick up the pieces after personal misadventure, this costs money. Legalisation pays for these expenses through taxation (eg the cost of rehabilitating 'families', in fact the extra money could be used to rehabilitate the families who suffer losses and problems which are entirely unrelated to this debate, victims of rape, car accidents and the like).

It is hypocritical to allow certain types of narcotic (tobacco, alcohol) and not others.

Crime has been mentioned before, which I personally think is a very valid point and I dont feel requires reiteration. This would also affect health damage as substances would be controlled. By bringing narcotics into the open with legalisation awareness is also created. People would more readily recognize their own issues and be able to seek help without as much stigma being attached to their behaviour, increasing the chances of them actually seeking it in the first place. Beyond this, there is evidence to suggest that narcotics use would actually decline slightly, as in the Netherlands with Marijuana (as someone pointed out, despite it being legal usage is still lower than France and Germany where it is still criminalised). A lot of this could be to do with the fact that fairly normal legal activities rarely have romantic conotations for teenagers.

Sorry if that was kinda disjointed, its nearly 3am.

You and I have veeerrrryyyy different ideas on the 'romanticism of drugs' my friend. I can't see anything romantic about it at all, just stupid. It's illegal so what? That doesn't make it more enticing or interesting, at least not in my book. That's the exact sort of behaviour which continues to confuse the hell out of me. If it's illegal, why bother? Surely your life can't be that devoid of fun and excitement to have to resort to drugs in order to score some sort of high out of it.

Also once again, why legalise a substance when it has no therapuetic effects and no advantage to people taking it?. The argument about tobacco and alcohol and being hyprocritical is an irrelevant point because of the historical reason surrounding both of those substances places not only in the economy but also human culture and society. We know both of those substances can do harm in the long run, we know alcohol is theoretically safe in moderated doses. We know the nicotiene is addictive and that smoking is a burden on society in terms of health care costs. Yet once these practices are established as big businesses theres nothing we can do about removing them, so ignore them.

The whole point about drugs is how they damage the body even in relatively small doses and produce shocking addiction and withdrawl syndromes. NONE of the currently illict drugs have any purpose which could classify them as being useful or helpful for society (and if you say analgesia for marijuana forget it because theres thousands more, better analgesics out there). Sure you could argue about crime rates and moderated doses and less usage and all other 'lets feel great about ourselves and others' sort of rhetoric whilst all the time ignoring the simple fact that none of these drugs have any use whatsoever.

Tell me please how ice is good and should be made legal? What about cocaine? You do know that prolonged cocaine use can create a hole between the nasal passages and soft palate (roof) of the mouth? It's nasty stuff, I've seen it. Ecstasy? What good does that do? Heorin? Yeah that's a fantastic compound for the body (read that in an incredibly sarcastic tone). Your argument falls down simply because none of these compounds have any medicinal effects and legalising them really achieves nothing in society, it just takes one problem we already have and puts a new spin on it. It's like writing the wrong answer on a test, but instead of doing it in pen you do it in pencil because that looks better. It's still wrong and you've gained nothing at all.

No good will come out of changing the system we have now. Simple really.

 

[Aardvark Soup]

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly supporting the Dutch gedoogbeleid but I do think the effects of weed are grossly underestimated here. It is more damaging than smoking (and users will have an even larger chance of eventually getting lung cancer), it is also certainly addicting and heavy use can cause brain damage at a later age. Of course its effects differ greatly per person but I would still strongly recommend against using it. Just as I would recommend against smoking and heavy use of alcohol.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

To some extent I am oversimplifying but I also feel that you are also guilty of this with a kneejerk reaction to the suggestion that drugs are legalised which comes from a strictly 'drugs are bad' standpoint. Please do not make assumptions about me like in the first two lines of your counterpoint, I understand you feel strongly about this and so do I. I am trying to avoid resorting to personal experience in my rhetoric as I feel it is unnecessary and counterproductive in these sorts of debates.

Yes, there will always be people who cannot moderate themselves and will likely harm themselves, this can be readily observed with alcohol. However, the majority of people DO control themselves and can enjoy (refreshing) alcoholic beverages without being drunk everyday.

We live in a free society. To this end we are allowed to make choices which may cause us to come to harm free of state intervention. The State however is often required to pick up the pieces after personal misadventure, this costs money. Legalisation pays for these expenses through taxation (eg the cost of rehabilitating 'families', in fact the extra money could be used to rehabilitate the families who suffer losses and problems which are entirely unrelated to this debate, victims of rape, car accidents and the like).

It is hypocritical to allow certain types of narcotic (tobacco, alcohol) and not others.

Crime has been mentioned before, which I personally think is a very valid point and I dont feel requires reiteration. This would also affect health damage as substances would be controlled. By bringing narcotics into the open with legalisation awareness is also created. People would more readily recognize their own issues and be able to seek help without as much stigma being attached to their behaviour, increasing the chances of them actually seeking it in the first place. Beyond this, there is evidence to suggest that narcotics use would actually decline slightly, as in the Netherlands with Marijuana (as someone pointed out, despite it being legal usage is still lower than France and Germany where it is still criminalised). A lot of this could be to do with the fact that fairly normal legal activities rarely have romantic conotations for teenagers.

Sorry if that was kinda disjointed, its nearly 3am.

You and I have veeerrrryyyy different ideas on the 'romanticism of drugs' my friend. I can't see anything romantic about it at all, just stupid. It's illegal so what? That doesn't make it more enticing or interesting, at least not in my book. That's the exact sort of behaviour which continues to confuse the hell out of me. If it's illegal, why bother? Surely your life can't be that devoid of fun and excitement to have to resort to drugs in order to score some sort of high out of it.

Also once again, why legalise a substance when it has no therapuetic effects and no advantage to people taking it?. The argument about tobacco and alcohol and being hyprocritical is an irrelevant point because of the historical reason surrounding both of those substances places not only in the economy but also human culture and society. We know both of those substances can do harm in the long run, we know alcohol is theoretically safe in moderated doses. We know the nicotiene is addictive and that smoking is a burden on society in terms of health care costs. Yet once these practices are established as big businesses theres nothing we can do about removing them, so ignore them.

The whole point about drugs is how they damage the body even in relatively small doses and produce shocking addiction and withdrawl syndromes. NONE of the currently illict drugs have any purpose which could classify them as being useful or helpful for society (and if you say analgesia for marijuana forget it because theres thousands more, better analgesics out there). Sure you could argue about crime rates and moderated doses and less usage and all other 'lets feel great about ourselves and others' sort of rhetoric whilst all the time ignoring the simple fact that none of these drugs have any use whatsoever.

Tell me please how ice is good and should be made legal? What about cocaine? You do know that prolonged cocaine use can create a hole between the nasal passages and soft palate (roof) of the mouth? It's nasty stuff, I've seen it. Ecstasy? What good does that do? Heorin? Yeah that's a fantastic compound for the body (read that in an incredibly sarcastic tone). Your argument falls down simply because none of these compounds have any medicinal effects and legalising them really achieves nothing in society, it just takes one problem we already have and puts a new spin on it. It's like writing the wrong answer on a test, but instead of doing it in pen you do it in pencil because that looks better. It's still wrong and you've gained nothing at all.

No good will come out of changing the system we have now. Simple really.

I certainly agree they have no (or at least very little) therapeutic or medicinal value but that is not to say they have no SOCIETAL value. The creation of jobs and a boost to the economy is pretty high on the scale of societal value. By your logic videogames and the film industry have no societal value.

By legalising drugs, things like Ice (Im assuming this is some form of crack or meth) should actually in theory disappear as they are bastardisations of other narcotics created as a cheaper alternative to the regular kinds. This is one of the benefits of state control over substances, quality is assured.

Drugs are another form of escapism, nothing more nothing less. They may have the capacity to be more damaging to your health than other pastimes but so what? Millions of people already use them. Your assuming that by legalising them millions more would, which evidence from countries with more progressive drugs policies shows to be inaccurate. Couple this with the fact that substances would inherently be in a healthier (alright, less unhealthy) form and I personally think that the benefits outweigh the costs.

 

[Inverse Skies]

I certainly agree they have no (or at least very little) therapeutic or medicinal value but that is not to say they have no SOCIETAL value. The creation of jobs and a boost to the economy is pretty high on the scale of societal value. By your logic videogames and the film industry have no societal value.

By legalising drugs, things like Ice (Im assuming this is some form of crack or meth) should actually in theory disappear as they are bastardisations of other narcotics created as a cheaper alternative to the regular kinds. This is one of the benefits of state control over substances, quality is assured.

Drugs are another form of escapism, nothing more nothing less. They may have the capacity to be more damaging to your health than other pastimes but so what? Millions of people already use them. Your assuming that by legalising them millions more would, which evidence from countries with more progressive drugs policies shows to be inaccurate. Couple this with the fact that substances would inherently be in a healthier (alright, less unhealthy) form and I personally think that the benefits outweigh the costs.

(Repeatedly bangs his head against keyboard) Why is it that drugs are promoted as this big 'escape' thing? Are peoples lives really that pathetic that they have to escape into the fantasy world of drugs just to remove themselves from their terrible terrible lives for a while? You make it sound like the distribution and control of illict drugs would be as simple as switching on a tv without considering the nasty damage they can and DO cause. Ice is an amphetamine like speed - it causes violent outbursts and is nastily addictive. So no it's not bastardisation and does just as much damage in its pure form (LIKE THEY ALL DO) as it does cut with other substances.

I assume not that millions more will use drugs, although with their addictive properties who knows, that legalising them serves no purpose other than to give people a lame disjointed justification for themselves using these banned substances. Also think about it logically for one second, how many 'jobs' would this in theory create? How would you go about distributing licenses and the sort and promoting control? You'd have to have specialised settings - say a hospital or clinic (so very little new jobs there) and their production would probably be done by pharmacuetical companies as the pre-requisite skills and machinery would already be present there (again no real job creation as its mostly preexisting stuff). So where's the point? That's right. There is none..

 

[Zykon TheLich]

So where's the point? That's right. There is none..

The point is mainly that people who still want to use currently illegal drugs will be able to do so without fear of prosecution. That is the long and short of it.

It would probably free up some police time and bring in another source of revenue to various pharmaceutical companies. A lot of people would lose illegal sources of income and a few would gain legal ones, but these are incidental to most peoples reasoning, the first reason is the most important one. But I assume you already knew that, it's just a reason that means nothing to you.

 

[Inverse Skies]

The point is mainly that people who still want to use currently illegal drugs will be able to do so without fear of prosecution. That is the long and short of it.

It would probably free up some police time and bring in another source of revenue to various pharmaceutical companies. A lot of people would lose illegal sources of income and a few would gain legal ones, but these are incidental to most peoples reasoning, the first reason is the most important one. But I assume you already knew that, it's just a reason that means nothing to you.

Ah hah! I was right! The only reason people argue so long and hard for legalisation of drugs is they want to feel less guilty about using illegal substances and need some sort of contrived and warped justification to do so.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Ah hah! I was right! The only reason people argue so long and hard for legalisation of drugs is they want to feel less guilty about using illegal substances and need some sort of contrived and warped justification to do so.

Not guilty, there is no guilt involved for most people. It is simply fear of prosecution, there is a difference, as I'm sure you know.

 

[Inverse Skies]

Not guilty. There is no guilt involved for most people. It is simply fear of prosecution, there is a difference, as I'm sure you know.

See? They fear because they know it's wrong. If it wasn't wrong then there would be nothing to worry about. Case Closed.