surely there has been research. Also a good look at history with alcholism, sin taxes, quite a few decades of addiction to various drugs and the outcome for those addicted, governemt cost either way, worl for inner city people. In the case of refer theres quite a few decades with no related problems. These are all things which I based my opinion on.
Would it be better if drugs were legalized?
- Thread starter Vimana
- Start date
derek
Grey Eminence
Small scale trials. Might act as an indicator. I happen to agree with your second statement. I'm not sure either way.
I think the thing to ask is...why are people abusing drugs? To escape reality.
I purposely did not say, "use" drugs, because while it is true that a drug, in one way or another, is used to avoid reality, there are degrees, and it's in the degrees that matter.
To provide an example: There is a difference between a stock broker making a ton of money after a stock skyrockets and celebrating by having a cocktail, in comparison to a homeless man gathering a handful of coins to buy a bottle of vodka.
If one is able to fix the things which are wrong with their lives, drug use would drop because reality would be fun enough as it is. But if you are living a horrible life and want to feel good, you use drugs because it's your only way of feeling good, even if it is for only a certain period of time.
If one wants to solve drug abuse, one solves people's lives.
I purposely did not say, "use" drugs, because while it is true that a drug, in one way or another, is used to avoid reality, there are degrees, and it's in the degrees that matter.
To provide an example: There is a difference between a stock broker making a ton of money after a stock skyrockets and celebrating by having a cocktail, in comparison to a homeless man gathering a handful of coins to buy a bottle of vodka.
If one is able to fix the things which are wrong with their lives, drug use would drop because reality would be fun enough as it is. But if you are living a horrible life and want to feel good, you use drugs because it's your only way of feeling good, even if it is for only a certain period of time.
If one wants to solve drug abuse, one solves people's lives.
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
Yes, where does one cross the line? Those who want fixing or those whom one thinks requires fixing, and who shall bankroll this proposition?
Well the government bankrolls alot of it, through jail, rehab, probation, quite costly in reality. I dont think that will change with legalization of the hard and addictive drugs. Then there would still just be bootleg drugs for downtown business and affordability. So the gov would still be hard at it.
I dont have addiction issues so I really cant speak about those that have. I've had plenty of down and out times but never once contemplated drowning myself in a bottle for example, and certainly not the hard drugs, I know they are where "the devil" lives and thats all I need to know. Others are not like this so I just cant pass judgement or begin to understand. A crack head or junkie justs makes no sense to me what so ever.
I agree that you cant fix peoples lives, so in this instance the ultimate answer is to stop the drug trade. I dont think it would be as hard as they proclaim it is but my methods would go over like a fart in church. At times I also wonder about the theories heard by some black people if the whole drug thing is not just a play toy for the government, some amusment, some job security, some "keeping the brothers down". Its been talked about for decades but as of yet nothing has been done to return legitimate employment to the cities, without that how are you going to even begin to cure the problem. Work at MacDonalds for $225 a week or pedal crack for ???? $1000 a week or go whorin' for a few hundred a night... to support your crack habit ? Its just a vicious circle that has been totally ignored for the root of the problem.
I dont mean to imply that hard drugs are just a city problem, I just found out about 3 years ago, out here in the country we have crack heads... many of whom are middle aged women, I just couldnt believe it, made me feel like going down town and bustin heads. Drugs have always been around but not so addictive. Apparently some more obscure herion use too. Wouldnt take long to put an end to it but it would be bloody, blood well let in my opinion.
Fear is the ONLY deterrent
I dont have addiction issues so I really cant speak about those that have. I've had plenty of down and out times but never once contemplated drowning myself in a bottle for example, and certainly not the hard drugs, I know they are where "the devil" lives and thats all I need to know. Others are not like this so I just cant pass judgement or begin to understand. A crack head or junkie justs makes no sense to me what so ever.
I agree that you cant fix peoples lives, so in this instance the ultimate answer is to stop the drug trade. I dont think it would be as hard as they proclaim it is but my methods would go over like a fart in church. At times I also wonder about the theories heard by some black people if the whole drug thing is not just a play toy for the government, some amusment, some job security, some "keeping the brothers down". Its been talked about for decades but as of yet nothing has been done to return legitimate employment to the cities, without that how are you going to even begin to cure the problem. Work at MacDonalds for $225 a week or pedal crack for ???? $1000 a week or go whorin' for a few hundred a night... to support your crack habit ? Its just a vicious circle that has been totally ignored for the root of the problem.
I dont mean to imply that hard drugs are just a city problem, I just found out about 3 years ago, out here in the country we have crack heads... many of whom are middle aged women, I just couldnt believe it, made me feel like going down town and bustin heads. Drugs have always been around but not so addictive. Apparently some more obscure herion use too. Wouldnt take long to put an end to it but it would be bloody, blood well let in my opinion.
Fear is the ONLY deterrent
Simple marijuana possession is legal in British Columbia; there's your test case.
Marijuana and other soft drugs certainly should be legalized, without a doubt.
Marijuana and other soft drugs certainly should be legalized, without a doubt.
No I dont see it that way. In "fixing them" I was refering to addicts, rehab and such. Eliminating the drug trade would thus make this a non issue. Well, I guess you could have me for the fact that there are current addicts. I understand your point about fixing causes of abusive/addictive behavior, but I was talking about eliminating the possibilities for after the fact.
It just seems that if you look at an addict you pretty much have to say "no, that cant be legal"
I've spent years questioning alcohol, but I went through a period with a girl I cared very much about that had the problem... as well as drugs, so my view was/is tainted there. I'm better with drinking now than a decade ago and have plenty of good times again as I did prior to that relationship. I really, really hated it for along time. Still those hardcore drugs give me the creeps and there is much worse than I have seen, thank goodness.
It just seems that if you look at an addict you pretty much have to say "no, that cant be legal"
I've spent years questioning alcohol, but I went through a period with a girl I cared very much about that had the problem... as well as drugs, so my view was/is tainted there. I'm better with drinking now than a decade ago and have plenty of good times again as I did prior to that relationship. I really, really hated it for along time. Still those hardcore drugs give me the creeps and there is much worse than I have seen, thank goodness.
I suppose that would be as if saying "why not"
why doesnt need an explaination from my eyes
I just have to wonder why the consensus around here is to have a free for all society where everyone just does what they want and the strees is placed on the decent people to deal with whatever hand the do as they pleasers place on them.
the theif is great
the junkie is great
greed is great
violence is great
evolution is a reality but the evolution of mankinds social structure is all wrong... what ever
why doesnt need an explaination from my eyes
I just have to wonder why the consensus around here is to have a free for all society where everyone just does what they want and the strees is placed on the decent people to deal with whatever hand the do as they pleasers place on them.
the theif is great
the junkie is great
greed is great
violence is great
evolution is a reality but the evolution of mankinds social structure is all wrong... what ever
I highly doubt restrictions on drug abuse, child abuse, rape, murder, stealing, driving fast, driving influenced, public indecency ect. are meeting any resistance from a majority. These restrictions are in place, therefore justifaction lies with anyone suggesting removing these restrictions is necessary. All so very obvious stuff... :Smug:
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
Seconded.
As for the issue of justification, given that in a state of nature there would be no such restrictions, methinks the onus is upon the one who advocates such restrictions.
Child abuse, rape, murder, and theft are inherent violations of natural rights. The latter three I disagree with on account that in the event of an accident, one may take recourse through the courts, and public indecency may be remedied through property rights i.e. prohibiting one who is considered indecent entry onto one's property &/or place of business. Thus, one's enlightened self-interest would keep one in line, as automotive accidents and generally being known as strange is disincentive enough.
Drug abuse, as said before, is no one's business but one's own provided one keeps it that way. Any act perpetrated under the influence may be remedied by either existing civil or criminal remedies. Without a violation of natural rights (except one's own as to the willing there is no injury) or of a contract, this matter is certainly not the business of the state.
They were all considered justified at some point - whether they should still be considered justified should be questioned every so often, lest we persist with restriction purely for the sake of cultural habit.
Earlier you said "It just seems that if you look at an addict you pretty much have to say "no, that cant be legal"
So your argument is that the only reason it 'can't be legal' is that it currently isn't?
Not that, its just something we dont want to see, therefore keep it illegal, dont promote it.
Sorry but whats the sense in discussing whether hard drugs should be legal ? Whats next public masterbation ? Lower the offencing age for sex with a minor to 14 ?
Not that I care, you guys can struggle all you want to make your mark on the system but sorry... aint gonna happen. I suppose its easier to quivel over the petty stuff if you cant straighten out the real problems
Sorry but whats the sense in discussing whether hard drugs should be legal ? Whats next public masterbation ? Lower the offencing age for sex with a minor to 14 ?
Not that I care, you guys can struggle all you want to make your mark on the system but sorry... aint gonna happen. I suppose its easier to quivel over the petty stuff if you cant straighten out the real problems
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
Apparently you are either unable or unwilling to debunk the argument.
What you advocate is majoriatnism, the logical conclusion of which is tyranny.
A republic, like that which Franklin said would be ours if we could keep it, is limited in the nature and thus enshrines the rights of its people, something we used to have but the pernicious Roosevelt destroyed. Lincoln and Johnson likely started this nonsense with the suspensions of habeas corpus and posse comitatus and Reconstruction.
But I digress. Upon preponderance of the nature of the state, of natural rights, and of contracts, tempered with an examination of history, methinks my words will not longer be lost upon your ears.
What you advocate is majoriatnism, the logical conclusion of which is tyranny.
A republic, like that which Franklin said would be ours if we could keep it, is limited in the nature and thus enshrines the rights of its people, something we used to have but the pernicious Roosevelt destroyed. Lincoln and Johnson likely started this nonsense with the suspensions of habeas corpus and posse comitatus and Reconstruction.
But I digress. Upon preponderance of the nature of the state, of natural rights, and of contracts, tempered with an examination of history, methinks my words will not longer be lost upon your ears.
What's wrong with discussing any of those? You may wish to blindly accept what those in authority tell you, I imagine most here are far more interested in questioning and understanding the reasons behind it all.
There are far stronger arguments to prohibit drug usage than 'we don't want to see that'. To support legislation that substantially limits and alters the lives of many people, without an understanding of the reasons why, seems pretty backwards to me.
OK, I see, what you dont understand is... it is a step backwards for me, if I were not to understand why drugs are illegal. Whats wrong with the expression "we dont want to see that" ? The opposite is "we want to see that" (people addicted to drugs). Do you not see legalization as a promotion ? Has anyone been exposed to the uglier side of alcohol where many children of parents or older siblings who drink heavily just accept it as a way of life and follow suit ? Dont we need deterrents ? Some would say education, I would say this only helps to a degree, so laws help to some degree as well, common sense in others helps, yet others seems to throw the common sense out the door. Legalization will only add to those that sidestep the common sense, "its legal, its alright"
