4 Forum Posts by "Altfer"
At 4/8/07 11:59 PM, JackRabbitStudios wrote: But there is the whole notion that once you hit a certain age that you shoulddo it. A sort of rite of passage, dickshit.
Well, if we want to get on to this point, this is really where education should come in, and this goes for alcohol too. If a kid is going to start using a drug, it should be under the supervision of a responsible person with experience with drugs in general, such as an adult. If they're taught to use a drug responsibly at a young age, it's far more likely that they won't abuse it.
For example, in Europe, they start drinking at a young age, but generally with parents, and there's often less binge drinking and more moderate drinking. Whenever I meet someone from Europe, they're almost always surprised at the way North Americans tend to drink.
In addition, everyone knows that using drugs as a rite of passage is their own choice, and you'd be surprised at how relaxed the attitude towards it is now. If someone doesn't want to do something, people are usually really accepting of that. For example, I've never smoked a tobacco cigarette in my entire life, and I suspect I never will. Just don't want to do it, so I didn't. Not that hard.
Potentcy of specific drugs vary from the different kinds. I chose heroin as my main example because heroin is a drug that is VERY easily to get addicted to. And if there is a certain obligation towards taking a drug that can be addictive, than that's bad, no?
Again, nicotine, more addictive than heroin. However, through public education campaigns handled by the public health system, smoking rates are declining, and people are making a concerted effort to quit.
I'm not saying that drugs aren't bad, I'm saying that if we keep prohibition in place, we can never really fix our drug problem. The police aren't there to get people off of drugs, that's the job of health services, or maybe someone else, but definitely not law enforcement.
At 4/8/07 11:56 PM, Daddy-L-Jackson wrote: Omg you are all so hardcore, drugs! Whoa man, whoa.
Read topic or fuck off. This isn't at all about being hardcore.
At 4/8/07 11:35 PM, capn-g wrote: They're not going to upset their own apple carts just so the drug addled masses can get their fixes minus lawful entanglements. What do you think the DEA's gonna do, start handing out parking tickets? Not fucking likely.
Not to be overtly cliche but if you think the government will EVER legalize drugs, you must be seriously high. Some? Eventually... maybe. All? NEVER.
See, this isn't necessarily true. The government will do whatever it needs to do to get elected. If a significant majority of people are in favour of ending prohibition, it ends.
Of course, I don't claim this is a realistic goal right now, probably not even in the next fifty years, maybe not even in a hundred. But if you want to get the ball rolling, people need to get talking about prohibition and the harm it's causing to society, and we need to stop supporting a policy that doesn't work.
Basically, we need to stop telling people stupid shit and start telling them the truth, until the numbers are big enough to get the government to fix this shit once and for all.
At 4/8/07 11:37 PM, Cool-Points wrote: And yes, while there are some heroin addicts who were once people who could hold a job and reason for themselves as a normal human being, I find it very difficult to believe that a heroin ADDICT would be able to have the motor functions to perform his job right.
Perhaps you're not really sure of what the effects of heroin are on the majority of addicts. For the first hour or two after use, they get the nods, which yeah, is where they're fucked up and can't function right. But after that, for about 8-10 hours, they function normally. Then after that, they start to go into withdrawal and want their fix again. The time that they're normal is when they'd generally be looking for their next fix, but if they know where that's coming from, they don't need to worry about it and can get a job instead.
I'm not just making this up or speculating, this is what actually happens with heroin clinics in Europe.
At 4/8/07 11:25 PM, capn-g wrote: The notion that legalizing drugs will somehow effect the crime rate is hopelessly naive. It would certainly put darwinism to the test however.
If there's no more drug revenue for criminals, there's no more profit motive for drug dealers, and there's no more profit motive for trying to keep other drug dealers off of your territory with violent methods.
Not to mention, no drug users are criminals anymore, and wouldn't be arrested.
Legalized drugs means a lower crime rate in terms of both the direct elimination of drug possession and trafficking as a crime, as well as the elimination of crimes related to drug prohibition, such as drug-related shootings, a great deal of petty crime, money laundering, what have you.
In either case, darwinism is put to the test anyway, because you can still get drugs. People act as though making them illegal makes them impossible to get. If that were true, prohibition would be a great system. But the reality is, if you want drugs and you've got the money in your pocket to make it happen, there will be someone there to sell them to you.
