Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/22/11 12:27 PM, Magic-Mushroom wrote: Irony of it all is that our own constitution was written on hemp paper.

Not only that, but until the early 1900's, every type of drug was legal for personal use, and was in a lot of tonics, medicines and even in Coca-Cola. The sad thing is that drugs were illegalized mostly because of racism and paranoia at the time, and starting in the early 70's, we spent billions in tax dollars going after druggies and dealers instead of much more important things, like green technology or infrastructure.

Of course if you ask gang members or the Mexican Cartel right now, {hypothetically speaking, of course}, they wouldn't give a shit if drugs are legal or not, they'll still find ways to sell drugs for huge profits, and kill their rivals who want to get that corner anyways.

At 4/23/11 11:28 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 4/22/11 12:27 PM, Magic-Mushroom wrote: Irony of it all is that our own constitution was written on hemp paper.

Not only that, but until the early 1900's, every type of drug was legal for personal use, and was in a lot of tonics, medicines and even in Coca-Cola.

i don't know what the hype about hemp is among those interested in seeing marijuana legalized. hemp is not a drug.

but anyways; we've been talking about terrible things we do to ourselves, but i haven't seen too many people object to do not resuscitate orders.

At 4/24/11 01:09 AM, SolInvictus wrote: we've been talking about terrible things we do to ourselves, but i haven't seen too many people object to do not resuscitate orders.

On people who attempt suicide?

Ha.

I guess the biggest issue I can't point out in favor of you're argument is that at one point in the history of this country, every single drug that is outlawed and on a schedule now, was at one point a prescribed 'medicine' Take LSD for instance, They used to prescribed liquid microdot to people for an array of ailments, Have anxiety? Try some acid, Can't sleep at night? Here ya go this acid will put you right to sleep. Hell even methamphetamine at one point was legal, Ofcourse it's all pure synthesised forms of the drug, not the crap that someone makes out of draino and poison in their basement. It's true that freedom is supposed to mean you can technically do whatever you want as long as you're not hurting anyone, but at the same time if all that person does is get high in their basement and not contribute to society there's something wrong with that. I pay my taxes and everyone else should have to too. If they want to get high and not do shit all day then I agree with what someone else posted in a reply, they don't get shit. If they want to waste their lives and just do drugs, power to you but when you're broke and have no money because you didn't want to work then we shouldn't have to help bail your ass out. I guess the main point I'm trying to make is that if everyone just sat at home and got high all the time this country would be in a much worse situation than we're already in..if that's even possible. In addition, legalizing drugs wouldn't be the thing to do and this is why. If you legalize every controlled substance and scheduled narcotics then the goverment puts it's tax on everything. Drugs are already expensive think about what would happen if the greedy bastards that run the show had their hands in it more than they already do? In another light, if drugs were legal then kids would probably have a smaller chance of getting addicted to them because it wouldn't be 'cool' to drink and get high so there would probably be less addicts in low income neighborhoods, less crack dealers shooting children and kidnapping women. Of course that's all a bunch of ifs but you never know. One thing I do have against drugs, is if you've ever met someone that's strung out, or gone through it yourself, then you know what dope does to people and personally I'd rather live somewhere where I don't have to carry a .45 because I'm worried that some crack head or heroin addicts will try and rob me or rape my girlfriend. They probably will legalize marijuana in our lifetimes, Seeing as it's probably less harmful to your body physically and mentally than alcohol and liquor. But that brings up another point, They'll never get rid of drugs, look what happened during the prohibition, they tried to tell people what they could and couldn't drink, and people did exactly what they do with drugs now. They got them, sold them and did them anyways, theres no stopping drugs just like there's no stopping guns in this country. What I guess it really comes down to is that it's very difficult to re-legalize something after it's been outlawed for so many years, but if you're not good enough to not get caught then you probably shouldn't be doing drugs anyways...Anyone agree?

At 4/23/11 09:14 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:

At 4/23/11 09:03 PM, Warforger wrote: Well that wouldn't cause it to stop them from getting fat, that would just mean that they'll have to eat alot more expensive food, because some fat people actually have a disease that causes addiction to food, it's genetic so it's not a lifestyle choice, it's theorized to be a leftover gene from the time where famines were rampant, if he had to eat more then he would survive longer.

I know, I was just making a comparison. I was in no way trying to say it's exactly the same. Still, it's the same with drugs. Some have addictions, and letting them fall into drugs, is not something we can call respecting "freedom of choice". Especially when you know that it's not a rationnal choice.

Well then again, they may not like their addiction and may want to go to rehab, but this means they also turn themselves over to the authorities and get punished for doing drugs. So banning drugs is the wrong thing to do.

Because it's relative, you could do something you think is right and someone else wrong.

If it's relative, then why do we care about the respect for the safety of others? Your own preference for freedom for individuals is also relative.

........What exactly are you saying?

As far as I'm concerned, we still have to live together and find proper ways to do so. That's why we have things like Geneva Convention... (or any other convetion for Human Rights... really). I know you can argue that it's not the same, cause Geneva Convention is to prevent one from harming another. But just try to understand my point of view. It's an ideology you are following, it's not all that relative. The fact that you believe the freedom of choice is more important than the health of individuals, just shows that you give more weight to someone's individual choice over rationnal behavior.

The Geneva convention however is a doctrione the tells people on how to make decisions that effect OTHER people not things to yourself.

Everything is not "ok". If someone harms himself, I think that it's not only a right, but a duty to do so. Because it is irrationnal to harm yourself. Then again, I will just use the suicide argument... Is it okay to let someone who really just isn't in control over himself, kill himself?

In suicide no you should turn them over to a hospital, however if you're doing a fair amount of drugs it's ok.

Read: Decisions that effect only yourself. Suicide effects everyone around you so it doesn't really apply.

If someone dies from an heart-attack because he his too fat, it will affect others also.

You're going to die anyway and it's out of he or she's power to not be fat most of the time, on top of that suicide it's in your power and you can stop it.

At 4/22/11 04:15 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Given as you mentioned you ignore the fact that the junkie is down and out and probably won't contribute to society at all.

And an alcoholic is any better? Furthermore, what does one's "utility to society" matter at all? We have plenty of sober and clean deadbeats too.

It would be plainly logical to cut all sorts of welfare for people who refuse to go into rehab if drugs were allowed.

Well, yes, that would be a very logical step. In fact, having a drug screening would probably increase the effectiveness and utility of welfare.

At 4/22/11 07:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Crime is crime. It'll happen regardless.

The problem with this is that these activities are indirectly caused by the laws themselves, i.e. see: Prohibition. I've never gone berserk on anything even after heavy use. I've had some withdrawal symptoms but they were manageable just as long as I didn't try to solve the problem by taking more of it. I had no compulsion to go into crime to get them even if they were expensive and hard to obtain.

Again, drugs aren't causing this. Drugs are just one avenue. Remove drugs from this and who knows what other crimes people will flock to to make easy money from a world they believe (and in many cases, rightfully so) has abandoned them.

While it won't eliminate crime it would at least get rid of that one avenue, which is essentially a self-perpetuating one.

At 4/23/11 11:28 PM, orangebomb wrote: Of course if you ask gang members or the Mexican Cartel right now, {hypothetically speaking, of course}, they wouldn't give a shit if drugs are legal or not, they'll still find ways to sell drugs for huge profits, and kill their rivals who want to get that corner anyways.

I've heard interviews with drug suppliers and they've all said, unambiguously, that the war on drugs is good for them and good for profits. Some might want them to become legal for the same ideological reasons we do, and think no-one should be punished for trading in cannabis, but as far as I've heard they all view the illegal nature of drugs as the main reason it's such a cash cow and such a 'good' business to get into.

Maybe you've heard differently, I don't know. Would love supporting evidence.

My evidence is a few scenes in this movie I cba finding in isolation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqJO-RFQf Hk

Also I'm reading Mr Nice at the moment and Howard Marks says the same thing; that cannabis illegality was good for his profits but disagrees with it on an ideological level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Nice

At 4/25/11 08:31 AM, KemCab wrote:

At 4/22/11 04:15 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Given as you mentioned you ignore the fact that the junkie is down and out and probably won't contribute to society at all.

And an alcoholic is any better? Furthermore, what does one's "utility to society" matter at all? We have plenty of sober and clean deadbeats too.

When it comes to alcohol, there's also a few laws technically. You aren't allowed to be drunk out in public and a bar owner isn't allowed to offer more drinks when you're clearly drunk.
As far as utility goes, technically everyone is forced to contribute to society, unless for serious clinical reasons (like invalidity or mental instability). You have things like welfare, but to earn your check, you have to make efforts at finding a job. If using drugs, as a conscious choice, makes you end up with being incapable of holding a job, you should be forced into rehab or lose all privileges to welfare.

As far as comparing hard drugs with alcohol, I still remain curious if taking a pill of XTC has as little effect a drinking a glass of beer. And does alcohol make larger scale effects than any other hard drug can possibly do? I know alcoholism isn't a trifle matter, but I am confident that he majority of people who touch alcohol don't become alcoholics.

The problem with alcohol is, it dullens the senses so much that you can easily drink too much of it. And then you can black out, or carry on drinking until you get alcohol poisoning and die.

You can also do very stupid things when you're on alcohol and have less self control.

What's good about alcohol is how nice it is when you only have a little of it. You would only have MDMA on a night out. When comparing how much damage a night out drinking alcohol does to your body compared to how much damage a night on MDMA (ecstasy) does to your body - well, it certainly FEELS like alcohol is a lot worse for you, when you wake up the next day. And you do more stupid things and get in fights and run in front of cars and fall over when you're drunk. I am almost certain that drinking alcohol on a night out, when you will drink excessively, is worse for your system and yourself than taking MDMA.

And to be honest, it's fucking embarrassing what you do when you're drunk. There's a big drinking culture here in England and whenever I went out and took MDMA when everyone else was drunk, I was fucking embarrassed for them. I had total self-control and they did not.

Whenever I went out and drank alcohol with them, I would feel fucking embarrassed the next day. And would've tried it on with everyone and failed miserably.

I no longer partake in England's crazy drinking culture.

At 4/25/11 09:39 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: When it comes to alcohol, there's also a few laws technically. You aren't allowed to be drunk out in public and a bar owner isn't allowed to offer more drinks when you're clearly drunk.

Pshhhh, as if the first one is really enforced. I've been heavily intoxicated in public before. Just don't make a goddamn fool of yourself in the process and everybody's happy.

As far as utility goes, technically everyone is forced to contribute to society, unless for serious clinical reasons (like invalidity or mental instability).

Yes, and society enforces this (indirectly) through money. You "contribute" and you get paid. If you don't, you suffer. (Of course, this only works like that in theory, which is why I said that there are also "sober and clean deadbeats" as well.)

If using drugs, as a conscious choice, makes you end up with being incapable of holding a job, you should be forced into rehab or lose all privileges to welfare.

No objection to that, really.

As far as comparing hard drugs with alcohol, I still remain curious if taking a pill of XTC has as little effect a drinking a glass of beer. And does alcohol make larger scale effects than any other hard drug can possibly do? I know alcoholism isn't a trifle matter, but I am confident that he majority of people who touch alcohol don't become alcoholics.

The vast majority of people who try E don't develop an addiction to it either. It probably has worse short-term and long-term effects, but it is not like tobacco and alcohol are all that much better for you. Either way, a person can wreck his life with pretty much anything, not just "hard drugs."

At 4/25/11 09:46 AM, Earfetish wrote: The problem with alcohol is, it dullens the senses so much that you can easily drink too much of it. And then you can black out, or carry on drinking until you get alcohol poisoning and die.

Never had that problem, really. Of course it doesn't mean that it won't (15 shots of vodka is not exactly a great way to start a night, in retrospect) but generally I have some measure of self-control over what I do no matter how much I drink.

What's good about alcohol is how nice it is when you only have a little of it.

Define "a little." A few glasses of wine gives me this nice feeling for maybe a few hours but then I feel like sleeping it off. On the other hand, 6 or 7 shots gets me going a little while longer and is generally a great deal more fun. Once I start taking more than 10, then things get bad.

And you do more stupid things and get in fights and run in front of cars and fall over when you're drunk.

Actually part of the reason why I like drinking is that I would generally do things that I wouldn't normally do. When I wake up I remember some of it and it's kind of embarrassing but then I remember I was drunk and excuse myself in part for it.

The hangover is kind of the worst part for me.

At 4/24/11 10:43 PM, Warforger wrote: Well then again, they may not like their addiction and may want to go to rehab, but this means they also turn themselves over to the authorities and get punished for doing drugs. So banning drugs is the wrong thing to do.

We shouldn't punish people for doing drugs. It's not a crime here in Canada to have drugs, but it's not allowed. So it's not a crime, but it's not legal. Helping someone who's on an overdose or who's asking help with his drug problems should never face criminal charges.

........What exactly are you saying?

I'm trying to say that freedom of choice is not an eternal right guaranteed by a transcendantal power. The guys in the thread are talking about individuals as if they had a non-negotiable right to do whatever they liked because of some individual rationnality that would be above all other human characteristics. What I'm claiming is, that it's not obvious that all human beings really have control over themselves, so in some case, we should make a move to prevent them from hurting themselves.

The Geneva convention however is a doctrione the tells people on how to make decisions that effect OTHER people not things to yourself.

I know, and I said that two. I was just trying to make a comparison. Maybe it was not the best.

You're going to die anyway and it's out of he or she's power to not be fat most of the time, on top of that suicide it's in your power and you can stop it.

You are just pulling this way too far. A comparison is not supposed to be two identical situations that we compare. I'm talking about people who make irrationnal decisions and who will hurt themselves because of an addiction, stress, strong emotions or psychological issues. Of course everybody is going to die. But someone who's just overweight, will die sooner. Could we prevent that? I think we should try at least. Something can be done. Just compare the obesity rate between countries. If countries like the United States have more fat people than European countries or Canada, it's probably because of some eating habits and life habits. So there is something that can be done. Not everybody is born fat, you know.

At 4/25/11 01:53 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: What I'm claiming is, that it's not obvious that all human beings really have control over themselves, so in some case, we should make a move to prevent them from hurting themselves.

but this seems to be what everyone else is claiming, the difference is that they're saying those with control of themselves should have the right to treat themselves as they see fit.

nothing in the law about having to be rational about everything. (don't forget rationality isn't objective either)

At 4/25/11 06:41 PM, SolInvictus wrote: but this seems to be what everyone else is claiming, the difference is that they're saying those with control of themselves should have the right to treat themselves as they see fit.

Yeah well, that's why this matter is really hard. Not all people who do drugs are drug addicts or psychos :P

At 4/25/11 06:48 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Yeah well, that's why this matter is really hard. Not all people who do drugs are drug addicts or psychos :P

i guess addressing the issue i raised is really hard too :P

At 4/26/11 12:16 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/25/11 06:48 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Yeah well, that's why this matter is really hard. Not all people who do drugs are drug addicts or psychos :P

i guess addressing the issue i raised is really hard too :P

That's what I did. It's hard to say we should ban drugs completely for that reason. Yes, there is people who do drugs who also can control themselves, but we have a lot of problems of addiction and overdose. I'm not claiming that it should be all illegal. Hell, maybe the best solution would be to make it all legal, but to have some policies to make it safe, get some helplines, safe places to use drugs, legal selling spots.

And if I'm still not answering your question, then please, make your point clearer.

Is it your body, or the collective's?

At 4/26/11 06:31 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Is it your body, or the collective's?

The state has an interest in keeping the population safe and healthy, completely independent of the people's interest. A great deal of criminal prosecutions in many area other than drugs reflect this.

At 4/26/11 06:31 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Is it your body, or the collective's?

aye, them commies be trying to ruin our buzz

At 4/26/11 07:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/26/11 06:31 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Is it your body, or the collective's?

The state has an interest in keeping the population safe and healthy, completely independent of the people's interest. A great deal of criminal prosecutions in many area other than drugs reflect this.

Like tobacco and alcohol sales, right?

At 4/27/11 10:39 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 4/26/11 07:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/26/11 06:31 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Is it your body, or the collective's?

The state has an interest in keeping the population safe and healthy, completely independent of the people's interest. A great deal of criminal prosecutions in many area other than drugs reflect this.

Like tobacco and alcohol sales, right?

...completely independent of the people's interest?

Nevermind the fact that tobacco-related deaths and alcohol-related deaths are certainly within the same realms of interest.

At 4/26/11 05:54 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: That's what I did. I'm not claiming that it should be all illegal. Hell, maybe the best solution would be to make it all legal, but to have some policies to make it safe, get some helplines, safe places to use drugs, legal selling spots.

aw dick tits; i think i confused you for someone else, sorry about that.

At 4/27/11 10:59 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Like tobacco and alcohol sales, right?

No. Like domestic violence and rape. Often in these cases the victim ardently refuses to go forward with the case. However, the prosecutor is obligated to the state to go forward and prosecute anyway.

...completely independent of the people's interest?

Poorly worded, I admit. I meant completely independant of each person's interest.

Nevermind the fact that tobacco-related deaths and alcohol-related deaths are certainly within the same realms of interest.

Well our society has made the choice as a people, not person to person, that alcohol and tobacco are OK risks. Our society has not made that same distinction with any other drug. Until it does, the state has an interest in protecting those people from themselves.

At 4/27/11 12:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/27/11 10:59 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Like tobacco and alcohol sales, right?

No. Like domestic violence and rape. Often in these cases the victim ardently refuses to go forward with the case. However, the prosecutor is obligated to the state to go forward and prosecute anyway.

I need you to be clearer here. Do you mean prosecute the victim for refusing to testify against a person who could potentially harm them later on? Or do you mean prosecute the potential suspect?

...completely independent of the people's interest?

Poorly worded, I admit. I meant completely independant of each person's interest.

I'm still somewhat confused over what exactly you mean.

Nevermind the fact that tobacco-related deaths and alcohol-related deaths are certainly within the same realms of interest.

Well our society has made the choice as a people, not person to person, that alcohol and tobacco are OK risks. Our society has not made that same distinction with any other drug. Until it does, the state has an interest in protecting those people from themselves.

Do you think that's the first interest of the government, like an altruistic quality? I know they are making leaps and bounds in the cigarette department; now they require the tobacco companies to remove any indication of "lighter" or "healthier" species of smokes. Color-coated labels now dominate the boxes and softpacks for your consumer citizen protection.

Cue the Genesis.

this is the world we live in..

At 4/27/11 12:41 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

I need you to be clearer here. Do you mean prosecute the victim for refusing to testify against a person who could potentially harm them later on? Or do you mean prosecute the potential suspect?
I'm still somewhat confused over what exactly you mean.

I'll combine these two, as they fit together. Prosecutors in DV and rape cases often hav e to prosecute the defendant against the wishes of the victim. In numerous DV cases the victim not only turns away, they will go and side with the defendant that ebat them. In these situations the State has decided that the interests of the state in keeping the victim safe are stronger than the interest of the victim to remain in a position subject to future harm. (this last sentence is the answer to your second question)

Do you think that's the first interest of the government, like an altruistic quality? I know they are making leaps and bounds in the cigarette department; now they require the tobacco companies to remove any indication of "lighter" or "healthier" species of smokes. Color-coated labels now dominate the boxes and softpacks for your consumer citizen protection.

Not necessarily from altruism, rather from one of the fundamental purposes of a government. One of the most fundamental purposes of a government (to which even strong libertarians will agree) is to protect its people. It is not much of a leap to go from defending people from outside dangers, to defending them from inside dangers, such as themselves. The extent to which a state should defend its citizens, especially from themselves, can be debated though.

My biggest point with my statement about society is that laws, especially social laws, are based on morality. We do our best to make the morality involved is as non-denominational as possible, and that it is legalistic. Our society has deemed that tobacco and alcohol are moral, but other non-medicinal drugs are not. I see little reason to argue with the guidelines we have placed down on this issue, as these lines don't harm anyone.

At 4/26/11 07:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The state has an interest in keeping the population safe and healthy, completely independent of the people's interest.

Ahh. So fining someone for not wearing a helmet on a bike is to protect them from bad drivers, thus keeping them safe and healthy. That makes a lot of sense. NOT!

Well guess what, i was 'caught' crossing the road opposite my flat on an empty street. I wasn't cycling on some highway. Do pedestrians have to wear helmets crossing the road? Of course they bloody don't! The cop then threatened me with a $300 fine for riding on the footpath, which i wasn't. No wonder other countries looked at our retarded cycle helmet laws and decided against it because people will just avoid cycling altogether (bye bye healthy exercise) cos that's exactly what happens! Then people end up afraid to leave their fucken house, and just dial-a-pizza instead.

"The state has an interest in keeping the population safe and healthy" ..what an absolute crock of shit!!

At 4/27/11 12:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Well our society has made the choice as a people, not person to person, that alcohol and tobacco are OK risks. Our society has not made that same distinction with any other drug. Until it does, the state has an interest in protecting those people from themselves.

You are clearly just trying to wind us up. Tobacco packets with "SMOKING KILLS". People drinking themselves to death. It's only because ALL SAFER DRUGS ARE KEPT ILLEGAL, like we really have any option??

People die.

Our genes, our very DNA, just isn't well designed enough for us to live forever.

We blame drugs, we blame cars, we blame helmets, bicycles, disease, bacon, stress.

We blame everything but ourselves. We think if death is bad, then it needs to be something's fault. And we can get away with it, we try to blame someBODY, preferrably in court, and preferrably for a large sum of comletely unrelated money.

If a meteorite falls from the sky and kills me while I walk outside, is it my fault for being outside? Is it the meteorite's fault for falling on me? Is is the government's fault for not using radar to track the meteorite?

Of course not. Life is outside of our control. There's no one to blame, no thing to blame, just the risky nature of life itself.

Death is supposed to make us feel free, because we know that no matter how bad things go, they'll eventually be over and everyone will forget. If you kill a thousand people, if you torture puppies, the one right you should have is absolution in death. Instead, we all pretend we're "good people" and don't deserve to die. Anything dangerous we do becomes a crime, because death just shouldn't happen...

But it does. It does because it's at the core of who we are. People need the right to hurt themselves however stupid it may seem, because otherwise we take away the very thing that makes human life precious in the first place; it's brevity.