Poll: Should We Be Able To Use Any Substance (drug) We Want?

Recommended Videos

ideitbawx

New member
Jan 4, 2008
184
0
0
blipblop said:
no I hate junkies more than anything. maby if I have the right to put an axe in my neighbour head if he/she is a substance user
so if i was your neighbour, you'd murder me over smoking a joint? and somehow you're not a threat to society by murdering someone?!

either your sarcasm/exaggeration sucked me in, or you're an idiot. i'm hoping it's the former and not the latter, but i'm not the most hopeful person on the planet

EDIT:
Perticular Elk said:
I believe that you a responsible for yourself, so if you want to use highly addictive drugs fine by me;however, I don't want you begging the Government or anyone else to help you with your addiction or the subsequent problems.

I would rather have to shoot a crack head breaking into my house than have the Government tell me what drugs I can use while using my money to pay for their rehab.
now, you see, an argument like that makes a little more sense than "if i could kill someone just because they do such&suchadrug"
 

Kiutu

New member
Sep 27, 2008
1,787
0
0
Hah, no. Something peopl should not have. I dont really care if some loser drugs himself to death, but when others get hurt cause of some dumb piece of shit, then we got problems. This is also my main reason against alchohol and even more so, smoking. I have scars and bad lungs cause my mom is a bad mother who decided to smoke. (cigarette burns are not fun)
 

Sethzard

Megalomaniac
Dec 22, 2007
1,820
0
41
Country
United Kingdom
TelHybrid said:
sethzard said:
No, people can't be trusted, and if they get addicted, then they will go to extreme measures to get more
By that logic lots of things should be banned then. Alcohol, ciggarettes, even things like chocolate.
I wouldn't say chocolate, but I would say so for cigarettes and alcohol, that way people have to face their problems
 

randomrob

New member
Aug 5, 2009
592
0
0
It will bring back a form of natural selection. People who are stupid enough to take drugs, either die or become infertile. The stupid gene then eventually dies out.
 

setvak

New member
Sep 6, 2009
119
0
0
Ideally, someone should be able to treat their own body as they want. For instance, there are no laws against obesity even though it's unhealthy and often disgusting. People should be properly educated against the effects of different drugs, instead of having government scare tactics used against them.

Although realistically, I wouldn't support the legalization of harder drugs like meth, heroin, etc. which have constantly proven to be very dangerous. But I see no reason why someone shouldn't be able to drink or take psychedelic substances if they wanted to and were somewhat responsible about it.
 

ace_of_something

New member
Sep 19, 2008
5,995
0
0
ideitbawx said:
iron codpiece said:
No. I grew up around that shit and it's horrible. I even used for a couple years (sober for 7 years now)
It's not a vast government plot to opress us or something It ruins people. People claim they aren't addicted but they are.

Taking any sort of drugs effects your family and friends not just you
ok then, let's ban seroquel.

often prescribed to treat depression, it has shown signs of, and i quote, "leading to suicidal thoughts in children, teenagers, and young adults", and can lead to severe paranoia, suicidal tendencies and physical problems in older adults.

but i should be arrested for smoking weed.

... since you say to us you've dealt with your own drug experiences, and perhaps the times you had weren't as memorable as you'd hoped they'd be, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

but while we're at it, let's ban computers, too. many people have been lured in by the promises of "interactive visual experiences" (aka video games), as well as this so-called "world wide web", depraving many a person of many an age from developing proper social skills, leading to paranioa and other social disorders, locking themselves into isolation, weakening their immunity to the sun's rays and, possibly, germs and bacteria (depending on the subjects obsessive-compulsive cleanliness: some are neat freaks who sanitize everything, and others, like me, are complete slobs).

/sarcasm

by the way, seroquel was the 2nd drug i ever tried. the first was prozac, and i almost killed myself when i was taking it. but no, weed's the real problem. also, i know you said "all drugs" and i keep mentioning weed, but as far as i can tell, a lot of the drugs coming from the pharmaceutical companies (eg ambien, the sleep-walking/cooking/driving drug) are just as dangerous--if not more--than some of the street drugs. but from the way you phrased your statement, it seemed like they were fair game too.

i'm not trying to pick a fight, per se, i just want to know where you're coming from.
So you're saying we should make perscription drug abuse illegal too? Because, ya know... it IS.
 

manaman

New member
Sep 2, 2007
3,218
0
0
Nobody complains when the goverment decides to make it mandatory for groups to disclose the amount of trans fats in products and to try and cut them out. I think it is because while they might just kill you dead as heroin, they doing have the nifty side effect of making you high - so nobody cares.

The goverment can and should have a say in what items manufactures use in their products. I personally do not want to see cocaine-o's in the breakfast isle. Really how long do you all think it would be after legalizing that they start adding designer drugs to processed goods to make the more addicting? A line I never want crossed, and while all drugs are obviously illegal it is one that never will be.
 

TelHybrid

New member
May 16, 2009
1,785
0
0
sethzard said:
TelHybrid said:
sethzard said:
No, people can't be trusted, and if they get addicted, then they will go to extreme measures to get more
By that logic lots of things should be banned then. Alcohol, ciggarettes, even things like chocolate.
I wouldn't say chocolate, but I would say so for cigarettes and alcohol, that way people have to face their problems
Or sometimes people fancy having some alcohol now and again to enjoy themselves on a night out? Not always something depressed losers do.
 

Gutterpunk

New member
Mar 5, 2008
44
0
0
@CIA : The problem with your argument is that the statements are interchangeable.

Look :

CIA said:
How our society thinks:

Scenario#1
Govt: Don't Do Heroin!

Human: I may drink a little, or try some weed, but heroin sounds like bad shit. I don't think it would be a good idea for me to have any.

Scenario #2
Govt: Do Any Drugs You Want.

Human: I will do as much heroin as I possibly can before passing out and dieing in a pool of my own urine! That is way hardcore! ROCK AND ROLL! WOOOOOO!
I removed the "Fuck authority" bit, as it didn't apply in the context, but those still describe valid statements.

The problem is not people that will try it and use moderation, it's the people who abuse it. If everything is allowed, then nothing should be done to help the abusers, as (from your statement) they made the decision to abuse on their own, and not as an answer to repression. A big part of the the reason why drugs are illegal is the rehabilitation cost of said drugs. People who need help on heroin rarely have any money left to pay for helping themselves, it went in the heroin...

The Government is trying to balance that. They do stupid stuff, but even if they did the "right" thing, they'd be doing it stupidly for someone, somewhere. The Government can't win, so they try to find an acceptable balance. Not to control people, but to keep people under control. What do you think would happen in the States if Obama would legalize all drugs tomorrow? An economic boom, or just a very loud boom?

The decision is not as clear cut as saying that drug abuse is an answer to repression.
 

Captain Pancake

New member
May 20, 2009
3,453
0
0
It's for our own good, in general they wouldn't ban something unless it has a detrimental effect on society as a whole.
 

Gutterpunk

New member
Mar 5, 2008
44
0
0
Glefistus said:
No, the reason the government tells you what you can and cannot do is to protect you from your own idiocy(even edumacated people are stupid sometimes, my old chem teacher told hilarious anecdotes of what he used to do to himself in chem labs). In America, it's more important, as so many of you get a shit education thanks to you school system.

Self-contradiction, multi-leveled irony, patronizing...

This post need to be nominated for a Best Post Award Of 2009!
 

WhiteTiger225

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,039
0
0
CIA said:
How our society thinks:

Scenerio#1
Govt: Don't Do Heroin!

Human: Fuck authority, I do my own thing! I will do as much heroin as I possibly can before passing out and dieing in a pool of my own urine! That is way hardcore! ROCK AND ROLL! WOOOOOO!

Scenerio #2
Govt: Do Any Drugs You Want.

Human: I may drink a little, or try some weed, but heroin sounds like bad shit. I don't think it would be a good idea for me to have any.



Personally, I think that kind of thing may happen.
Honestly, while I believe in safety of others (BTW that is so true XD) I also believe in the idea that the government SHOULD NOT control your body. It is your body, therefore if you want to inject bleach or air into your veins (Suicide) go right ahead as long as you do it inside. If you want to get high (Drugs) Go ahead, again, as long as you are inside a home of your own or apartment or residental. If you go naughts and run someone over with a car, well you will be charged with 1st degree murder because you responsibly took the drug and inrresponsibly drove. And who the fuck might I add to the first commentor ever "Took some P and hacked someone up with a samurai sword" When did this happen? And better yet, what was the persons mental state before hand? Also, show me repeat instances of people motivelessly murdering under drug influence just cause they can... And let me tell you, heroine for a long time, isnce the war on drugs started, has been nearly CHEAPER then alchohal, and sometimes even more easily accessible to children without the government monitoring the sales of it. If you made drugs legal, the government could not only tax it (Making it so druggies were actually helping the economy rather then driving it into the ground) you would also destroy 95% of the criminal element of marketing it, which would take it out ofmany childrens hands who had it in the first place, this would also make people less afraid to seek help to get treated as there would be no law intervention to punish them for coming forward about their problem
 

WhiteTiger225

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,039
0
0
Glefistus said:
No, the reason the government tells you what you can and cannot do is to protect you from your own idiocy(even edumacated people are stupid sometimes, my old chem teacher told hilarious anecdotes of what he used to do to himself in chem labs). In America, it's more important, as so many of you get a shit education thanks to you school system.
Thats why the government keeps alchohal, cigarettes, chewing tabacco, and unsafe household chemicals legal?
 

Kenjitsuka

New member
Sep 10, 2009
3,051
0
0
Drugs are all around; medicine like antidepressants and sleeping pills, caffeine, alcohol and nicotine are all legal, but by some arbitrary rule pot isn't?

I've never used it (really), but I don't see a problem with it being legal.
Some people just like that stuff, let them (and tax them, bwahahaha evil government).
 

Valiance

New member
Jan 14, 2009
3,823
0
0
Voted "NO" because "It depends" means "NOT EVERYTHING = NO," why is that option even there?

I say it's fine if you're gonna chill at home and smoke weed and be happy/relaxed/whatever, but it's not ok to get hopped up on coke and go beat the fuck out of someone's car.

ie: It's fine if it doesn't endanger others around you in a direct (or indirectly if they cannot watch out for themselves) fashion.

If you're gonna be hurting people, or it will cause you to do something otherwise illegal (ie: get drunk and accidentally run someone over), that is bad.

If you're gonna get high and you're supposed to be taking care of a minor or someone who otherwise needs assistance (grandma has a heart attack, you were too stoned to realize wtf was going on), then it's not ok.
 

Gutterpunk

New member
Mar 5, 2008
44
0
0
blipblop said:
no I hate junkies more than anything. maby if I have the right to put an axe in my neighbour head if he/she is a substance user
You sure have that right buddy! As long as you accept the face the consequences associated with it.

See, a "right" isn't something that you are free to do no matter what, it's something that you are allowed to do if you accept the consequences.

You have the right to put what you want in your body, but you have to accept the consequences for it. Incarceration, diseases, feeling good, being high... whatever happens.

You can kill someone because you don't agree with the way they use their rights, but you have to accept the consequence for it as well.
 

Jimmyjames

New member
Jan 4, 2008
725
0
0
Why I don't do drugs:

It's not an ethical issue about not getting high, it's a moral issue about not supporting the dirtbags that make the drugs.