Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/28/11 04:23 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: 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.

If this were a real argument, shouldn't it be focused at anti-suicide laws instead of anti-drug laws?

At 4/28/11 04:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

If this were a real argument, shouldn't it be focused at anti-suicide laws instead of anti-drug laws?

Whats the difference? After you've had a few friends OD, you'll see it's really the same thing. Suicidal people kill themselves because they don't like their lives. Drug addicts OD because they don't like their lives without being high.

Once you run far enough away from your life with drugs, you end up getting away entirely. By dying.

Razor blades, gunshots, heroine, they're all just means to an end. People know about the risk of OD. They ignore it because they won't admit to themselves they're a little suicidal. Maybe not enough to put a gun in their mouth, but just enough to be willing to find out what snorting just ONE more pill will do.

Well I'm sure the founding fathers didn't want a bunch of fucking loser hippies sitting in their basements taking cocaine and heroin killing themselves, ruining their lives and not GETTING FUCKING JOBS AND BEING USEFUL TO SOCIETY.

Also just because some people won't harm other people doesn't mean some people will.

I'm not arguing about weed (weed is okay...I suppose) but the OP asks for something else and I challenge that.

At 4/29/11 02:41 AM, Saren wrote: Well I'm sure the founding fathers didn't want a bunch of fucking loser hippies sitting in their basements taking cocaine and heroin killing themselves, ruining their lives and not GETTING FUCKING JOBS AND BEING USEFUL TO SOCIETY.

As has been said, there are plenty of economically-active people addicted to pure heroin, one of the worst things about heroin is that people don't take the good stuff that doctors and stuff get addicted to.

And there are even more economically-active people addicted to cocaine.

In some countries, crystal meth is taken all the time by workers so they can do longer shifts.

I'm not saying it's a smart idea, personally, to get addicted to anything at all, even coffee, but it's a way of the world, and I'm sure an addiction to heroin is often very debilatating. But it's not true that all users are addicts. It's also not true that heroin addiction makes 'useless' members of society (I hate judging anyone like that, anyway, so many jobs are 'useless' too and so many jobs rely on drug addicts existing), the 'useless' members of society generally have a long backstory of childhood neglect and adult tragedy leading up to them becoming 'useless'. How terrible, to call people useless. Just fyi I don't consider junkies useless.

Also just because some people won't harm other people doesn't mean some people will.

The question is, since it seems that most people who lose their jobs and family and get addicted to hard drugs have preceding factors that give them a desire to get fucked out of their head, would there be significantly more addicts if drugs were legal? Would people like you go and shoot heroin into your veins because drugs are legal? Would you do it regularly, knowing full well how bad addiction to heroin is? Or would doing that be a symptom of a desire to escape your life?

I'm not arguing about weed (weed is okay...I suppose) but the OP asks for something else and I challenge that.

All drugs should be legal and controlled. To say otherwise is to support a massive and unnecessary black market. Btw, everyone in the world can get however many drugs of whatever type at any time, drug addiction transcends all countries, the war on drugs is a massive failure.

As Funk was saying, I also believe it is a fundamental human right to be able to choose whether you live or die and to be able to take your own life. Even if your whole fucking family disagrees - they have the right to stop you from doing it but the State has no business forcing you to live. And I agree with him also, if I didn't make it clear, that the people who live on the street and are addicted to hard drugs (or alcohol) are doing the same thing - deliberately and conciously escaping from the real world and real pain, just like suicide. In fact, I kinda think everyone who gets completely wasted on the weekend, and basically everyone 'normal' in the world, is doing the same thing but to a lesser extent. Everything we do is to escape the mundanity. And I think it should be a fundamental right to be able to do so.

At 4/28/11 04:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote: If this were a real argument, shouldn't it be focused at anti-suicide laws instead of anti-drug laws?

Funkbrs and i are just presenting the extreme ends of the same argument. Mine about cycle helmets. Funk's about suicide and overdose. When the state endeavors to "protect everyone", they are really just pandering to one person's tragedy that makes the news. The kid who got splattered riding a bike. The parents of some other kid who offed himself. Really thou, it might as well be the same kid who decided the best way to end all it is turn suddenly on a bike without caring to look.

The point is you can't protect people like that. Meanwhile people like me who grew up riding a bike for years without a helmet, feels the helmet deadens my sense perception. It makes it more dangerous, not less dangerous. Then you have cops who treat these "protective laws" with extreme overkill, turning innocent people into victims. Soon you have a sarcastic society full of semi-suicidal malcontents and nutjobs guzzling toxic alcohol, and then driving cos their so blind with it all. (ie. no different to the kid on the bike)

That's how real life is! But you're just here to feel superior, because you believe you're following every law to the letter, and people who don't are inferior. Defending the states position, regardless of how it affects real or innocent people, is just an ego trip for people who think they can do no wrong. We on the other hand are defending our basic rights as individuals who choose not to wear helmets whether it's biking, skateboarding, or rollerblading, cos we see no harm in exercise. We see bad drivers as the risk. Drunk drivers much more so. Alcohol is killing real innocent people, but you're defending that as "ok" just for the sake of your own personal ego.

At 4/29/11 11:06 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Alcohol is killing real innocent people, but you're defending that as "ok" just for the sake of your own personal ego.

Don't think for a second I am defending alcohol. I haven't had alcohol in almost 4 years and don't plan to again. I think its disgusting and dangerous. I am only defending the moral distinction our society has made, whether it be perfect or wholly flawed.

At 4/29/11 11:57 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I am only defending the moral distinction our society has made, whether it be perfect or wholly flawed.

And why would you defend something that might be wholly flawed, when this in no way affects you, since you don't even drink. There's no point saying "the state has such-and-such a law to protect people's health and safety" when you don't even care about any of the consequences of such a law.

At 4/29/11 12:33 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: And why would you defend something that might be wholly flawed, when this in no way affects you,

Because I see no benefit in changing the system from what it is now. This isn't a situation where there is a pressing need to change the status quo, or even a need of mild importance.

At 4/29/11 01:49 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/29/11 12:33 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: And why would you defend something that might be wholly flawed, when this in no way affects you,

Because I see no benefit in changing the system from what it is now. This isn't a situation where there is a pressing need to change the status quo, or even a need of mild importance.

Apart from the absolutely massive billion-dollar black market and the tens of thousands of people in jail right now.

have you guys ever wondered why Mexico is being so throughly torn apart by Cartels? Our actions against our fellow man aren't only effecting those "stupid worthless hippies"

At 4/29/11 01:49 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This isn't a situation where there is a pressing need to change the status quo, or even a need of mild importance.

How many countries need to go bankrupt (leading to revolution and wars) before a guy like you connects the dots only to realize you're too late? I mean we can give you a list of countries right now. It's quite a long list, but i imagine it's worth compiling. Or are you totally disinterested?

At 4/29/11 02:32 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: How many countries need to go bankrupt (leading to revolution and wars) before a guy like you connects the dots only to realize you're too late?

First off I don't believe legalizing it will make a spit of difference. They will just move on to the next profitable criminal acitivy and nothing will change. Who knows, maybe they will switch from drugs to pirated movies and such. Also, what's to say that legalization changes this at all? How do we know that there won't still be a massive black market? Furthermore, many of the foreign drug violence has to do with production, not demand. if we legalize the demand it will not change the production's problems.

I mean we can give you a list of countries right now. It's quite a long list, but i imagine it's worth compiling. Or are you totally disinterested?

Uninterested is more like it.

At 4/29/11 02:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: First off I don't believe legalizing it will make a spit of difference. They will just move on to the next profitable criminal acitivy and nothing will change. Who knows, maybe they will switch from drugs to pirated movies and such. Also, what's to say that legalization changes this at all? How do we know that there won't still be a massive black market? Furthermore, many of the foreign drug violence has to do with production, not demand. if we legalize the demand it will not change the production's problems.

I think you know all of what you said is absolute bullshit and I think you know the reasons why.

Hint, criminals already pirate movies. Not a lot of money in it.

Companies already run in the exact same countries, and other companies produce diamorphine or coca leaves or whatever, the exact same fucking product, without any production problems.
And ALL foreign drug problems worth talking about are due to demand and black market economics.

Uninterested is more like it.

so you don't actually care about it

At 4/29/11 02:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: They will just move on to the next profitable criminal activity and nothing will change.

I understand what you are saying. Criminals will be criminals. Drug users will be drug users. Innocent people will die other ways. Governments will waste money or bankrupt themselves other ways. Cops will still need guns, be corruptible and overzealous, and so on.

It ignores that we've gone from barbaric times to civilized times to hi-tech times, but why let a little thing like evolution and progress cloud the very dark nature of the human spirit.

if we legalize the demand it will not change the production's problems.

Right, and people in America still die today producing moonshine not doubt.

At 4/30/11 09:56 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: It ignores that we've gone from barbaric times to civilized times to hi-tech times, but why let a little thing like evolution and progress cloud the very dark nature of the human spirit.

How does this change anything?

Right, and people in America still die today producing moonshine not doubt.

Moonshine is very different. First off moonshining is a small operation, just like meth or garage weed. These small timers don't destroy countries, the big timer do for drugs like cocaine and heroin.

Legalizing drugs in the US isn't going to change the fact that violent cartels in Latin America produce most of the stuff. These cartels would still compete violently even if they were legal.

At 4/30/11 10:17 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/30/11 09:56 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: It ignores that we've gone from barbaric times to civilized times to hi-tech times, but why let a little thing like evolution and progress cloud the very dark nature of the human spirit.

How does this change anything?

Because it allows us to offer our cynical world view via the internets to a world audience. :P

Right, and people in America still die today producing moonshine no doubt.

Moonshine is very different. First off moonshining is a small operation.

Modern alcohol production is NOT a smalltime operation.

Legalizing drugs in the US isn't going to change the fact that violent cartels in Latin America produce most of the stuff. These cartels would still compete violently even if they were legal.

So price has nothing to do with anything. Are you saying that America cannot possibly grow poppies or coca plants in any quantity?

Oh and i just want to point out that the elephant in the room is now a rampaging psycho-elephant.

Herbal medicines banned as EU directive comes into force

At 4/30/11 11:29 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Modern alcohol production is NOT a smalltime operation.

Moonshine ain't modern alcohol production. For one, the illegal production before was quite small time, and when it wasn't, it was run out of countries where it was legal. These large alcohol producers had no need to engage in crime to produce their good.

So price has nothing to do with anything. Are you saying that America cannot possibly grow poppies or coca plants in any quantity?

Yikes, that prospect scares me even more. Do you think the cartels will sit back lightly and watch their multi million dollar business disappear? The cartels have been more ruthless than the dictators that supposedly rule them. I really doubt US production of these drugs would lower violence. My hypothesis is that it will escalate violence, and that violence will occur here.

Moonshine ain't modern alcohol production.

As we're talking about modern moonshine..

The 'WilliamsWarn' device is an all-in-one brewing machine capable of creating commercial-quality beer in as little as seven days.

At 4/30/11 12:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Do you think the cartels will sit back lightly and watch their multi million dollar business disappear?

prohibition quickly went in favour of the gangsters; it was repealed and they didn't try (or were capable of) anything.
increased production with limited interference (achieved through legal means) trumps the price and convenience of illegal products (hell, even if it still costs more, convenience and access shouldn't be underestimated).

At 4/30/11 12:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Do you think the cartels will sit back lightly and watch their multi (b)illion dollar business disappear? I really doubt US production of [illegal] drugs would lower violence. My hypothesis is that it will escalate violence, and that violence will occur here.

I think your analysis is 100% correct. But only in relation to US Pharmaceutical Cartels.

"Cartel is a formal (explicit) agreement among competing firms" -wikipedia

At 5/1/11 07:14 PM, Tokecat wrote: Weed also prevents the terrible sickness that comes with chemotherapy.

Having had chemotherapy myself, I really doubt that weed could prevent that... My dose was relatively low and the resulting sickness was powerful. I mean ultra powerful. However, I do not deny that is some cases certain currently illegal drugs may have some medicinal uses, but these are few and far between.

Frankly, millions of world-wide dollars get spent on the ridiculous war on drugs, when we are in a Recession. Imagine if we were to put the money currently invested in patrolling what we, as responsible, literate adults put into our body back into the world market.

So the DEA, FBI, and numerous local police departments as organizations don't pump money into the economy, and their employees don't pump tons of money into the economy?

This will always remain a dream, however, because people will always go "herp derp, drugs are bad, herp derp"

And they're wrong?

Drugs should just be de-criminalized.

I could argue for days why I think marijuana should be legal... but in the end, it doesn't matter. The problem with the drug laws isn't the fact that the drugs are illegal, it's that their punishment does not fit the crime. Having an 8th of weed shouldn't result in jail time. The crime, doesn't fit the punishment.

The person in question here has done nothing wrong other then having an illegal substance. so we lock them in a cage with dangerous criminals and thiefs, force them into treatment programs they don't want and in some cases don't need, and force them to deal with the reprocutions of going to jail (like the loss of their job... which can in turn lead to their inability to care for their families or pay their bills). Should a man lose his home and his family for having marijuana on his person?

No... that doesn't mean we should say "eh, fuck it... everybody smoke up" either though. We just need to reform the laws so those that use the drugs aren't unfairly punished. A casual pot smoker can get caught and face just a fine. It's enough to make you think twice about walking around town with it on you, but it's not the end of the world if you get caught.

However, if a herion addict robs a liqure store and has the drug... then clearly there is a larger problem. This person needs treatment... their drug addiction has lead them to lash out at society and innocent people are now at risk. Jail time may be required if for nothing else, but to help them clean up.

A hippy minding his own business in his own back yard high on LSD or mushrooms... fuck it, leave him be. Fine him some money and let him stay in his peaceful zen. But a maniac with a chainsaw high on PCP... treatment and jail time.

Drug possession itself shouldn't be a big deal. Being under the influence in public should increase the crime. Having the drug on you, or being under the influence when you commit other crimes should also increase the punishment. A persons personal history and record should also play a role.

The problem is that we assume everyone who uses any illegal substance is the same as the very worst a person can become on any other illegal substance. We assume marijuana users are just as bad as meth addicts... and if they aren't now, they will be soon. But that's not true. Punishing people as so seems unjust.

Decriminalize drug possession... don't make it all legal.

At 5/2/11 05:24 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Decriminalize drug possession... don't make it all legal.

Hey guys, we're ok with you buying drugs. You're just not allowed to sell them and all the money still goes to the black market. Cannabis is still naughty-naughty and worth a ticking-off.

Worst of both worlds.

If a junkie robs a liquor store, throw the book at them. If a straight, sober person robs a liquor store, throw the book at them.

At 4/29/11 02:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/29/11 02:32 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: How many countries need to go bankrupt (leading to revolution and wars) before a guy like you connects the dots only to realize you're too late?

First off I don't believe legalizing it will make a spit of difference. They will just move on to the next profitable criminal acitivy and nothing will change. Who knows, maybe they will switch from drugs to pirated movies and such. Also, what's to say that legalization changes this at all? How do we know that there won't still be a massive black market? Furthermore, many of the foreign drug violence has to do with production, not demand. if we legalize the demand it will not change the production's problems.

You're drawing an artificial distinction between production and demand as if those two things are separate. One cannot 'legalize demand' in the way you describe. It was never the demand for drugs which States, particularly our American one, have been targeting, they have targeted the production of goods already demanded.

When the production of a good that is highly demanded becomes illegal, as we all understand, it does not cease. The production will continue because there still exists demand and the fewer producers there are the greater the potential profits [I.e. the more you spend trying to crush the drug production you also increase the profits of those who continue the production]

Making the production of a good legal changes the way that production can be profitably exercised. Because you no longer run the risk of Government agents shutting your business down, it becomes more economical to conduct your business in an open and honest matter, [for obvious reasons] If you INSIST upon it, you can also argue that allowing production of a good to be carried on in the white market allows government agencies to monitor and 'regulate' production.

The question of violence relating to the drug trade is specifically connected with the legality of production itself. Violence occurs because it is profitable in conditions of secrecy and illegality to 1) Bribe or attack Government officials trying to prohibit a profitable trade 2) Use violence to eliminate other producers

Also in a black market, it may make economic sense to cripple your economic competitors by violent means because legal structures [which require open horizontal appeals to be effective] cannot form under conditions of secrecy. There is also the fact that people who enter black market production are 1) heavy risk takers [which isn't necessarily bad provided they finance their own risks] but also 2) lacking in moral scruples, since they are willing to break laws to earn money.

If Burger king tried to hire armed goons to eliminate Wendy's branches, they would [provided the legal system isn't too hopelessly corrupted] be met by resistance from the law and the general public. If one gang attacks another rival gang.

The violence associated with the drug trade is related directly to the fact that production of certain drugs is illegal. This is why you don't see alcohol manufacturers shooting eachother in the streets as may have happened during the 20s.

As for where the criminal groups who produced drugs will go if and when legalization occurs. Their production may enter the white market and the methods which they conduct themselves will, by economic necessity, have to be adjusted to white market circumstances.

However i do not see the possibility of them moving to other illegal activities as being particularly problematic. The pirated movie

But all of this is based on the assumes, of course, that criminal behavior is a result of a certain proportion of people in a country 'simply being criminals' and thus entering into whatever businesses are illegal. Instead of the fact that criminal behavior is a result of certain profitable economic activities being made illegal. These kinds of criminals only enter into a trade because it is profitable, even if a few of them move into new criminal fields that are also [albiet less] profitable, ON NET there will be fewer criminals and less crime in general.

Yes, but the difference between food and drugs is that drugs are unhealthy, while food is literally essential.

At 5/12/11 12:16 AM, SergeantLuke wrote: Yes, but the difference between food and drugs is that drugs are unhealthy, while food is literally essential.

overly generalized: there is a lot of food that does more harm than good out there and there are a lot of drugs that are essential for people suffering from certain conditions.

should we ban Chemo because its bad for people who don't have cancer? Should we ban red bull because it causes strokes, and happy meals because they make you fat?

answer to all of these questions is no.

At 5/12/11 01:33 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: overly generalized: there is a lot of food that does more harm than good out there and there are a lot of drugs that are essential for people suffering from certain conditions.

Umm.. not really. The drugs he was speaking of were illegal ones, not legal ones. However, you could consider percriptions that are improperly used as illegal drugs. Those may be able to help, but that is rarely the case. Just ask David Wu.

should we ban Chemo because its bad for people who don't have cancer?

I am proof that you are wrong.

Should we ban red bull because it causes strokes, and happy meals because they make you fat?

Not really, but we should start treating obesity like an addiction as opposed to a personality trait.

Just for kicks. More David Wu on perscription drugs:

At 5/12/11 10:24 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/12/11 01:33 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: overly generalized: there is a lot of food that does more harm than good out there..

Umm.. not really. The drugs he was speaking of were illegal ones, not legal ones.

Technicalities. It's always technicalities.

Statistically more people die every year taking legal drugs, than illegal drugs. (ie. regardless of the legal status of the drugs in question)

.

The War on Drugs is bullshit.

-For one, when you crack down on Marijuana, it decreases the cost for harder drugs.
-Useless drug raids just open up the market to illegal monopolies.
-Harm Reduction is cheaper and much more effective.
-What's so dangerous about some dopey Deadhead who gives everybody flowers?