Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 7/12/08 01:40 AM, poxpower wrote: WARNING: DEAD HORSE BEATING AHEAD.

What % of people who oppose drug use are religious vs the number of people who don't?
============

First off, don't use an ad hominem argument. Second off, the majority of the country is religious. Are you implying that most religious people are against drugs because their spiritual leaders told them to?
I really don't see how religion should come into this.

---

At 7/11/08 11:51 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: We as a society can not let something as evil as hardcore drugs be available for casual use. Let the darkness stay within the dark. Let the parasites of society be hidden away from the people who contribute to it. Let them hide in the dark areas, away from the light of civilization. Let them know that they are filth, and as filth, shall be bought and sold by filth. If we allow drugs to be legal, we are stooping down to a criminal level, selling things that tear families apart. One must not fight fire with fire.

Remove yourself from your horse before you bang your head against logical reasoning. This entire arguement is a joke and can be summarised as 'OH WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?'. Well I'm sorry to be the one who has to dispell your delusions but illegalising drugs does not force them out of the light, not really. Children are still confronted by these ruined spectres the only difference is that while the criminals decide what gets sold to who these children can also become one of those ghosts. The terrible truth of the dark is that it only exists because of the light and for it to be battled effectively it must be illumined. The truth of drugs must br brought in to public scrutiny. Education, dear boy, will reduce drug usage not criminalisation.

On a more pragmatic level if drug usage is controlled & regulated, addicts are given help instead of sentences and the money is taken away from the criminals all those terrible creatures of the dark you seem so terrified of society will become both safer and cleaner. The reason this is so is quite simply because the actual percentage of addicts won't really change; merely the amount of criminals, crack dens, slum housing, overdoses, intoxication due to adulterated substances and prostitutes. As the video Eifer linked to (something everyone really ought to watch regardless of opinion) states the amount of people addicted in America to substances when drug legislation was first introduced was 1.3%, when the 'War on Drugs' really started the figure was 1.3% and today after the billions of dollars spent and lives lost that figure is still 1.3%.

While I am sure it is comforting to veil yourself in a cloak of smug moral righteousness and place your principles, and by extension yourself, higher than other people (which is, after all human nature) one must be adult about these things. Drugs are not going to go away so instead we can help the addicts, educate the world honestly and truthfully and just try to make sure people don't hurt others with their activities. We all saw what happened due to the prohibition across the world in the early 20th century: crime increased, incidents related to the usage of alcohol increased but the actual amount drank? It was barely affected at all. Tobacco usage? It was never outlawed but instead a massive campaign for public awarness was brought about and the amount of people smoking now is declining.

Legalisation and regulation will help our crime problems; education our drug problems.

---

I do agree that drug prohibition is a bad idea, but just allowing these drugs to be legal won't work either, it will only allow people to do their business more openly then they do it now. Drug companies won't manufacture them because they won't make as much money selling that then they do selling pharmaceutical drugs to doctors and the like. Plus, it would require a drug company to have to change what they are producing which they won't do. They won't sell something that just became legal because if it becomes illegal again in the future, people will remember that these companies were producing the very things that were destroying. Also, the people who make all of these drugs don't want them to be legal because then everyone would try to produce their own stuff and the value of these drugs would fall. Legalizing drugs would make drugs cheap but wouldn't stop people from using them, but prohibiting these drugs causes crime and makes selling drugs more economically satisfying, which causes more people to try to sell them.

---

Don't worry. If you are being reckless and fall on the ground, the government will always be there to salt your wounds.

---

At 7/12/08 11:25 AM, Pontificate wrote:

At 7/11/08 11:51 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: We as a society can not let something as evil as hardcore drugs be available for casual use. Let the darkness stay within the dark. Let the parasites of society be hidden away from the people who contribute to it. Let them hide in the dark areas, away from the light of civilization. Let them know that they are filth, and as filth, shall be bought and sold by filth. If we allow drugs to be legal, we are stooping down to a criminal level, selling things that tear families apart. One must not fight fire with fire.

Remove yourself from your horse before you bang your head against logical reasoning. This entire arguement is a joke and can be summarised as 'OH WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?'. Well I'm sorry to be the one who has to dispell your delusions but illegalising drugs does not force them out of the light, not really. Children are still confronted by these ruined spectres the only difference is that while the criminals decide what gets sold to who these children can also become one of those ghosts. The terrible truth of the dark is that it only exists because of the light and for it to be battled effectively it must be illumined. The truth of drugs must br brought in to public scrutiny. Education, dear boy, will reduce drug usage not criminalisation.

Hm, first off, I don't take kindly to ad hominem attacks on me. Neither do I enjoy your patronizing of me. If you oppose my argument, fine, but don't resort to insults. My point was not, as you sterotypically summed up, "OH GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN". It was the fact that drugs have bad effects on people, and the principle of making it illegal is just as important as educating kids that drugs are bad. If we tell kids drugs are bad, yet sell them at the same time, we are using a "Do as I say, not as I do" policy.

On a more pragmatic level if drug usage is controlled & regulated, addicts are given help instead of sentences and the money is taken away from the criminals all those terrible creatures of the dark you seem so terrified of society will become both safer and cleaner. The reason this is so is quite simply because the actual percentage of addicts won't really change; merely the amount of criminals, crack dens, slum housing, overdoses, intoxication due to adulterated substances and prostitutes. As the video Eifer linked to (something everyone really ought to watch regardless of opinion) states the amount of people addicted in America to substances when drug legislation was first introduced was 1.3%, when the 'War on Drugs' really started the figure was 1.3% and today after the billions of dollars spent and lives lost that figure is still 1.3%.

While I agree that we should help addicts if it costs less then imprisoning them, I don't think you understand what I am saying. My view on drugs is what they should be associated with. Most people don't like crime, and less will do drugs if they are associated with crime. But when we make drugs legal, we have drugs associated to daily life, which would have terrible effects, due to the "lie" that we would create, that drugs are fine to do, heck, we are the ones who would be cashing in on it.
Let me clear one thing up for you. I don't believe drug laws prevent people from doing them, I just think that they do, rightly, show that our society does not believe in drugs. Principles go a long way, and if we adjust our principle to make drugs LEGAL, you bet more people are going to do them.

While I am sure it is comforting to veil yourself in a cloak of smug moral righteousness and place your principles, and by extension yourself, higher than other people (which is, after all human nature) one must be adult about these things. Drugs are not going to go away so instead we can help the addicts, educate the world honestly and truthfully and just try to make sure people don't hurt others with their activities. We all saw what happened due to the prohibition across the world in the early 20th century: crime increased, incidents related to the usage of alcohol increased but the actual amount drank? It was barely affected at all. Tobacco usage? It was never outlawed but instead a massive campaign for public awarness was brought about and the amount of people smoking now is declining.

Ugh, you call me smug? I never made an attack on anyone while presenting an argument, but your driving factor seems to be that you know all, and everyone else is just a blind righteous sheep who knows nothing about human nature.
Ok, well onto your arguments.
Tobacco usage right? Well, hate to break it to you, but smoking a cig does not have quite the effect of taking crystal meth. Tobacco kills you slowly, Stuff like meth is so dangerous that just once can really hurt you. You are comparing a bow and arrow to a high powered machine gun, the danger level is so hugely different that you can't place them in the same category. Alcohol is in the same thing, it does not have NEARLY the same effect as crystal meth does. Let me outline my argument and cut out the fluff so you don't insult me anymore like a 13 year old.

1. Certain hardcore drugs have terrible effects on people's lives, and by making them legal we would therefore be endorsing those effects.
2. By endorsing those effects, we are in effect saying its ok to do said hardcore drugs.
3. If said hardcore drugs are ok to do, more people will do them.
4. More people will do them, leading to more bad effects happening.
5. Bad effects have a drain on society.
Get my point? Once again, it is solely the HARDCORE drugs I am talking about, I do think softcore drugs should be legal, as they do not have as terrible an effect as the hardcore stuff.

Legalisation and REGULATION will help our crime problems; education our drug problems.

Education won't help jack. Seeing some people having a good trip in 7-11 will send me a better message then some half ass teacher will ever . You live based on what you see and hear.

Crime- You argue that by legalising drugs, crime will run out of funds, and therefore drop. First off the bat, crime will always find a way to make money, there will always be scum out there. Second off, if we regulated drugs, there would therefore be a market for UNREGULATED drugs. Crime would still prevail.

You look upon me as someone on his high horse, and I guess I did kinda add a bit of fluff to my arguments. But my message remains the same, by legalising HARDCORE drugs, we are sending a message to society that Hardcore drugs and their terrible effects are 100% A-ok, since we allow them to be sold. You compared drugs to tobacco and alcohol, but I proved that drugs are much more dangerous than a cig or a bud. When it came down to it, you could not disprove my main argument, that hardcore drugs being a part of normal life in society will have a BAD effect on society.

---

Your argument can easily be defeated by your morals. If all drugs were legalized tomorrow, you would not start doing them because you said so yourself that illegalization isn't meant to prevent the access to drugs.

---

At 7/12/08 05:50 PM, CIX wrote: Your argument can easily be defeated by your morals. If all drugs were legalized tomorrow, you would not start doing them because you said so yourself that illegalization isn't meant to prevent the access to drugs.

Um, MY morals, not everyone elses. You assume people are all the same, which is untrue. Also, one could argue the reason I have my morals is due to the fact I grew up in a society that was tough on drugs, and as a result, am myself tough on drugs. You see, it is true that if meth were legalized i would not touch it, but only due to the morals installed upon me by growing up in a society that shunned drugs. If I grew up in a society where meth could be sold next to coke, perhaps my morals would be different. So all you've managed to do is PROVE that the morals of growing up in a society which is tough on drugs makes people not want to do drugs.

---

At 7/12/08 04:47 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: You look upon me as someone on his high horse, and I guess I did kinda add a bit of fluff to my arguments. But my message remains the same, by legalising HARDCORE drugs, we are sending a message to society that Hardcore drugs and their terrible effects are 100% A-ok, since we allow them to be sold. You compared drugs to tobacco and alcohol, but I proved that drugs are much more dangerous than a cig or a bud. When it came down to it, you could not disprove my main argument, that hardcore drugs being a part of normal life in society will have a BAD effect on society.

Do you hope that by using the past tense I won't offer a riposte? How very odd.

Anywho I'm afraid that I'm going to have to point out that while not actually directly insulting anyone on the forum you said, and I quote ad verbatim, 'Let the darkness stay within the dark. Let the parasites of society be hidden away from the people who contribute to it. Let them hide in the dark areas, away from the light of civilization. Let them know that they are filth, and as filth, shall be bought and sold by filth.'. So every unfortunate addict, for that matter anyone who ever tried anything you deem as 'immoral', is filth and could undergo the horros of that lifestlye for all you care. Now kindly apologise for your specious arguments about me being unbearably smug (I was being ironic, I chose to fight fire with fire because your post so clearly stated that was a bad idea) becaue I could barely hear it over that tirade of self-righteousness. Oh and before you point out you admitted to a 'bit of fluff' come now, I don't think that vast, labarynthine understatement serves to do anything but highlight the depths of your arrogance.

Now to follow your format, that is a torrent of insults followed by a small summary (I'm glad to see you have your priorities right), your arguement is largely still 'oh won't someone please think of the children' because you're stating that keeping drugs illegal sends the message they're bad and so society will be less affected by its evils. Now this is still patently false as, a point you so wonderfully glossed over, the addiction levels haven't changed at all. Not from the very beginning of drug legislation in the 1920's up to the present day. Ergo criminalising drugs does nothing but turns a vast section of people who need help in to criminals while feeding the actual criminals vast amounts of money.

As for your arguement that legalising and regulating would somehow not affect crime at all, well, I'm sorry if this comes across as smug (and I mean this) but that really is absurd. Alcohol is legal, regulated and is taxed beyond measure (similarly tobacco) but the only criminal blackmarket springing forth from this is smuggling cheap products in. The substances themselves are still genuine and therefore safer which is the point of regulation. Furthermore noone has once stated this would be the deathblow to all criminal organisations everywhere but it would seriously dent their profits. To the extent a great deal of street gangs would no longer be able to operate which really would make society safer for all (especially the children).

In regards to your statement that tobacco is less devestating than, say, crystal meth this is entirely true but has nothing to do with the point. Which was education and public awareness decreases usage. Nicotine is really one of the most addictive substances we've found and yet smoker populations are decreasing. Therefore education is a much better way of preventing addicts than criminalisation. You see now how my point had nothing to do with potency or effects? Oh and just so you know actualy alcohol really is a powerful inebriant; it ravages the body and mind to a similar extent but because it's legalised you don't get many alcoholics stealing, mugging or prostituting themselves to feed their habit. It also means they can seek help without becoming a social pariah.

I'm afraid your numbered list is similarly flawed because it not only assumes that firstly legalising drugs is endorsing them but that also if they became legalised more people would use them. For the first part no, legalisign them does not show endorsement. It merely treats the subject with maturity and any potential sense of endorsement would be entirely removed by the educational campaigns suggested. As for the latter, well, would you take meth or cocaine if it was legalised? I'm going to assume no but what this implies is that you believe many people would because these people are evidently so less high-minded and principled than you are. Do you understand now why that viewpoint could easily be considered smug and self righteous (never mind the hate-filled speech you treated us all to)? As explained before addiction rates HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE BEFORE DRUGS WERE OUTLAWED. Ergo legal status doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.

As an aside what do you define as 'hardcore'? Both pscyhadelic mushrooms and LSD are Schedule I in the USA but both are remarkably non-toxic and have no far reaching effects (bar the possibility of flashbacks but these are extremely rare and are more likely related to PTSD than the drug itself).

Education is important and it works. To state otherwise is being stubborn: as the cigarette example illustrated (regardless as to what you thought it meant) honest education about a substance's ill effects reduces the usage of that substance. To use your example about watching people use something in public: if you saw a person smoking and they appeared simply ecstatic (as they so often do during that first cigarette of the day) would you start smoking? More importantly, would most?

Now in my last paragraph I'm not going to start referring to my arguements or my opponent's in the past tense as that strikes me as unbelievably arrogant but I will say that I feel that you did not 'prove' anything and I was quite capable of poking holes in your main arguement.

---

At 7/12/08 05:59 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: Um, MY morals, not everyone elses. You assume people are all the same, which is untrue. Also, one could argue the reason I have my morals is due to the fact I grew up in a society that was tough on drugs, and as a result, am myself tough on drugs. You see, it is true that if meth were legalized i would not touch it, but only due to the morals installed upon me by growing up in a society that shunned drugs. If I grew up in a society where meth could be sold next to coke, perhaps my morals would be different. So all you've managed to do is PROVE that the morals of growing up in a society which is tough on drugs makes people not want to do drugs.

Sorry for the doublepost but I missed this particular little gem. You make the assumption that the fact these drugs are illegal makes you not want to use them ratehr than your being educated about them enough to know the terrible things they do. From what I can tell what actually stops you from taking them is your acknowledgement of the fact they do terrible thigns to people not the legal status and therefore actually you're the one who shot holes in your own arguement. That and beforehand you said noone is the same so you cannot, by your own logic, extrapolate your point any further than yourself which is good because your point is, as shown, a false assumption. Even if I ignore this it still means that people would not start taking drugs because we've all grown up in a society where they're criminalised (and yet people still take them, odd that).

The position, whether you deny it or not, is still 'people would take drugs if they were legalised' despite that being a false or smug assumption (which is made worse by you stating not everyone is the 'same' but believing your position to be right so by extension you consider a lot of people inherently worse than you).

---

Hm, you make a good point actually. I'll agree with you, but with one added condition. We get rid of welfare for all people who do drugs. That way, we eliminate crime and the burden druggies have on the economy?

Oh, and I take no offense to you calling me self centered. I AM self centered, as are all human beings. We glorify our own opinions, but yours actually makes a bit of sense so I'll agree with you, under the condition we remove welfare for druggies. I am not going to pay taxes for someone else's harmful habit.

---

At 7/12/08 06:09 PM, Pontificate wrote:

At 7/12/08 05:59 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: Um, MY morals, not everyone elses. You assume people are all the same, which is untrue. Also, one could argue the reason I have my morals is due to the fact I grew up in a society that was tough on drugs, and as a result, am myself tough on drugs. You see, it is true that if meth were legalized i would not touch it, but only due to the morals installed upon me by growing up in a society that shunned drugs. If I grew up in a society where meth could be sold next to coke, perhaps my morals would be different. So all you've managed to do is PROVE that the morals of growing up in a society which is tough on drugs makes people not want to do drugs.

Sorry for the doublepost but I missed this particular little gem. You make the assumption that the fact these drugs are illegal makes you not want to use them ratehr than your being educated about them enough to know the terrible things they do. From what I can tell what actually stops you from taking them is your acknowledgement of the fact they do terrible thigns to people not the legal status and therefore actually you're the one who shot holes in your own arguement. That and beforehand you said noone is the same so you cannot, by your own logic, extrapolate your point any further than yourself which is good because your point is, as shown, a false assumption. Even if I ignore this it still means that people would not start taking drugs because we've all grown up in a society where they're criminalised (and yet people still take them, odd that).

Well, this is after the fact now, but I would say it is the harmful effects I've seen it have on people. My uncle died due to drug usage. So I guess thats why I am disgusted by drugs in general.

The position, whether you deny it or not, is still 'people would take drugs if they were legalised' despite that being a false or smug assumption (which is made worse by you stating not everyone is the 'same' but believing your position to be right so by extension you consider a lot of people inherently worse than you).

Well, do you consider yourself to be right? What's wrong with thinking that one is better than others? Don't damn me for thinking I am right, otherwise I wouldn't be arguing with you! Also, keep in mind that this is the internet, you are allowed to act a bit unusual here:D

---

At 7/11/08 12:07 PM, Elfer wrote: Because drugs are so low-risk for users, prohibition is not an effective deterrent.

It really depends on what drugs. There is a major difference between marijuana and heroine.

Therefore, I don't want to see an argument about how everyone will start using drugs if prohibition is repealed unless you have some justification for making such a claim.

Many people do not do drugs simply because it is illegal. They do not want to risk losing their job amongst other things.

but we need to face the reality of the existence of drugs if we want to actually get anything done

don't you think we have enough of "facing the reality of drugs"? There are many drug-related crimes usually associated with drugs like PCP and cocaine. Now if they were legal, they would be so much easier and cheaper to get. Imagine all the kids in high school on PCP and Cocaine. And there is a vast difference in effects of marijuana and drugs like coke.

At 7/11/08 08:25 PM, evil-clown-12 wrote: I mean it's not addictive and you'd have to smoke a lot of weed for it to kill you.

haha, I don't think that's possible. I mean there is a point where you're so stoned you just wouldn't be able to smoke anymore.

At 7/11/08 11:02 PM, arxarts wrote: effectively, by legalizing, you are controlling and protecting,

I disagree, because some people who are 'nerds' or idiots don't know where to get these drugs from. That problem would disappear to them if they could just walk in a local drug store.

-drug cartels will fight to the last man to avoid this: if it's legalized, they lose. this means violence, a lot of violence....

They can punch at the wall all they want, gangs won't have money to buy guns.

-some substances should not be made legal because of their dangerous effects, for example, someone could put ecstasy in your drink in a bar to rape you (if you're a woman) or to loot you (if you are a rich guy who drove in with a brand new bmw)

But they can still do that, legal or not. The only difference is they would walk in a local store and get it instead of get it from a guy called 'D'.

At 7/12/08 01:40 AM, poxpower wrote: WARNING: DEAD HORSE BEATING AHEAD.

What % of people who oppose drug use are religious vs the number of people who don't?

What argument are you trying to make? whatever it is it's off topic.

I'm not religious, but I do have a religion. I support 100% the legalization of marijuana. Infact, many people of my religion smoke marijuana. (even Adam Sandler)

I don't even know someone from college who hasn't smoked pot. It's completely ridiculous. You can walk around in the city and smell joint smoke. I even watched a comedy show yesterday where the dude smoked a joint right on stage.

There's a difference between a joint and crime-related life-endangering drugs like crack cocaine, crystal meth, and heroine.

It just CREATES crime.

That should be expected with every single law out there lol. My problem with marijuana prohibition is it's FUNDING crime.

At 7/12/08 11:25 AM, Pontificate wrote: The truth of drugs must br brought in to public scrutiny. Education, dear boy, will reduce drug usage not criminalisation.

Any educated person knows the truth about drugs. They stop feeding you bullshit soon as you enter highschool. You should expect junior high to teach you crap like 'Marijuana Kills' etc...

Criminalization is good if there is a reason for it to be criminalized. There are definite reasons for drugs like PCP, Cocaine, and meth to be criminalized. They are crime-related drugs, and they also fry your brain.

On a more pragmatic level if drug usage is controlled & regulated, addicts are given help instead of sentences and the money is taken away from the criminals all those terrible creatures of the dark you seem so terrified of society will become both safer and cleaner.

It's not all that easy to deal with the withdrawal symptoms of heroine addiction. People go back to drugs because of addiction, because they don't want to react to the withdrawal symptoms. Again, they don't want to get help.

The reason this is so is quite simply because the actual percentage of addicts won't really change;

Sure it will, as cocaine and other drugs will be accepted as an "A-O.K" thing by society.

Drugs are not going to go away so instead we can help the addicts, educate the world honestly and truthfully and just try to make sure people don't hurt others with their activities.

Oh please, you think if those people cared about their lives they would start injecting heroine?

It was barely affected at all. Tobacco usage? It was never outlawed but instead a massive campaign for public awarness was brought about and the amount of people smoking now is declining.

Smoking is just stupid and pointless. Only reason to smoke is when you're addicted. Only reason to start smoking is when you're young, you do it to look cool, and before you know it, you're addicted. Won't the same happen for other drugs if they were made legal and easily accessible? I think so.

Also, I found this.
Decline in Cigarette Smoking In U.S. Significantly Offset by Increase in Use of Cigars, Snuff, Roll-Your-Own and Other Tobacco Products

---

At 7/13/08 01:59 AM, Creek wrote:

At 7/11/08 08:25 PM, evil-clown-12 wrote: I mean it's not addictive and you'd have to smoke a lot of weed for it to kill you.

haha, I don't think that's possible. I mean there is a point where you're so stoned you just wouldn't be able to smoke anymore.

Apparently you can, but very few people actually have. Like a dozen a year or something ridiculous.

---

At 7/12/08 06:41 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: Hm, you make a good point actually. I'll agree with you, but with one added condition. We get rid of welfare for all people who do drugs. That way, we eliminate crime and the burden druggies have on the economy?

Oh, and I take no offense to you calling me self centered. I AM self centered, as are all human beings. We glorify our own opinions, but yours actually makes a bit of sense so I'll agree with you, under the condition we remove welfare for druggies. I am not going to pay taxes for someone else's harmful habit.

Well as I said, being that way is human nature. I just took offense when you accused me of being smug. Which I am. Unbearbably so at times.

Anywho I'd say the wonder of ending the war on drugs is the billions spent in it could be diverted towards helping people anyway so you wouldn't have to pay for them in any greater a capacity than you do now.

---

At 7/13/08 01:59 AM, Creek wrote: Any educated person knows the truth about drugs. They stop feeding you bullshit soon as you enter highschool. You should expect junior high to teach you crap like 'Marijuana Kills' etc...

Will people please stop equating education with scool? I can understand why but really it's a grand generalisation. When I say education I mean a public wide awareness campaign: posters, flyers, television adverts, radio adverts, messages on the packaging as you get with tobacco products and what have you. Lessons in school naturally but I say they should not use any misinformation at any level; lying to children does not engender trust or obediance.

Before you scoff at this education (and an honest educational scheme is actually fairly new) ask yourself: what stops you from taking cocaine or meth? Is it its legal status or is it because you know the harm it inflicts? The legal status is irrelevent as I've already pointed out: the percentage of addicts in america has not changed since drugs were first criminalised and anyway buying drugs is actually a very low-risk venture (as is any activity between consenting adults) and so no, it doesn't really discourage people from buying them.

Criminalization is good if there is a reason for it to be criminalized. There are definite reasons for drugs like PCP, Cocaine, and meth to be criminalized. They are crime-related drugs, and they also fry your brain.

The only reason they're crime related drugs is, surprise surprise, because they're ILLEGAL. If they were regulated people wouldn't have to commit crimes in order to get the money to buy them and the street gangs (and subsequent nightmares related to this) would be seriously affected possibly to the point they would be unable to operate. Naturally major crime organisations will survive, they always have, but anyone who denies that removing drug profits will have a very large negative affect on the people selling them is being dishonest.

As for 'frying your brain' so does alcohol and many prescription drugs. Your point being? Protecting people from themselves is firstly incredibly arrogant and secondly entirely impossible.

It's not all that easy to deal with the withdrawal symptoms of heroine addiction. People go back to drugs because of addiction, because they don't want to react to the withdrawal symptoms. Again, they don't want to get help.

All drug addicts at some point want help. Whether it's due to common sense when they see their lives starting to slip or if its when they're lying almost dead in a filthy crack den is regardless, they want and need help. Until they get off the drugs we can at least sanitise the situation by placing them in clinics where they're cared for and don't have to kill, steal or prostitute themselves to get their fix. Less street crime and better lives for these people and the unfortunates who live in afflicted neighbourhoods.

The reason this is so is quite simply because the actual percentage of addicts won't really change;

Sure it will, as cocaine and other drugs will be accepted as an "A-O.K" thing by society.

Did you miss the part where I repeatedly stated that the addiction rate for the USA is 1.3% and has been since drug legislation was brought in to effect? It wouldn't be 'accepted'. It would be dealt with maturely; simply locking something away and saying 'no you cannot have this' does not change how it's viewed in society nor does it change the fact people will still try to get it, merely put the money in the hands of people willing to sell impure products to anyone. By your logic people should love alcoholics (alcohol is legal after all) but they don't; social views operate independantly of laws and will always shun those who allow themselves to become addicted.

Oh please, you think if those people cared about their lives they would start injecting heroine?

I'm sorry, I thought your viewpoint was we should protect people from themselves. You do, afterall, support the limiting of people's rights in order to stop them hurting themselves. So what is it? Do you not care about people or do you want to protect them from themselves? Alternatively are you just a massively self-righteous prig who believes you're better than other people based upon your personal principles? You can't have your cake and eat it I'm afraid.

Smoking is just stupid and pointless. Only reason to smoke is when you're addicted. Only reason to start smoking is when you're young, you do it to look cool, and before you know it, you're addicted. Won't the same happen for other drugs if they were made legal and easily accessible? I think so.

Your pointless opining aside actually most people start smoking due to immitation and peer pressuring. I'm afraid we're talking about different ballparks here; injecting heroin cannot be equated to smoking in that respect as the risks as understood by the people are much greater.

Besides, strict regulation includes age limits and possibly specified areas where they can be taken but nowhere else depending upon the drug.

Also, I found this.
Decline in Cigarette Smoking In U.S. Significantly Offset by Increase in Use of Cigars, Snuff, Roll-Your-Own and Other Tobacco Products

A decline in cigarette usage? When was the last time you saw an anti-smoking campaign centred around pipes, cigars or snuff? Personally I feel this is proof it's working but people equate it with cigarettes instead of all tobaco products.

---

At 7/13/08 12:47 PM, Pontificate wrote:

At 7/12/08 06:41 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: Hm, you make a good point actually. I'll agree with you, but with one added condition. We get rid of welfare for all people who do drugs. That way, we eliminate crime and the burden druggies have on the economy?

Oh, and I take no offense to you calling me self centered. I AM self centered, as are all human beings. We glorify our own opinions, but yours actually makes a bit of sense so I'll agree with you, under the condition we remove welfare for druggies. I am not going to pay taxes for someone else's harmful habit.

Well as I said, being that way is human nature. I just took offense when you accused me of being smug. Which I am. Unbearbably so at times.

Anywho I'd say the wonder of ending the war on drugs is the billions spent in it could be diverted towards helping people anyway so you wouldn't have to pay for them in any greater a capacity than you do now.

Well, to be honest, I don't think we should waste ANY money to go for someone's drug habit. We divert money from the people who deserve it, poor people who are working 2 jobs and can barely make ends meet. We should not give any money to people who would waste some of it on drugs.

---

At 7/13/08 01:15 PM, Pontificate wrote: Will people please stop equating education with scool? When I say education I mean a public wide awareness campaign. Lessons in school naturally but I say they should not use any misinformation at any level;

I agree that we shouldn't lie to kids either. Before I was exposed to marijuana I thought it was some devilish plant that only stupid people who want to throw their lives away take. I look back at it now and think it's ridiculous the way I thought. Maybe they should educate kids truthfully in pre-highschool years. But then again, most of us don't care about drugs when we're that young (assumption from my experience in life). Kids really don't care for drugs.

Before you scoff at this education (and an honest educational scheme is actually fairly new) ask yourself: what stops you from taking cocaine or meth? Is it its legal status or is it because you know the harm it inflicts?

It's both.

I agree about increasing our education and awareness of drugs, especially with marijuana. I'm taking health class and the only things they told us are: Marijuana is a hallucinogen, it distorts your perception of time, it can be harmful when you drive (duh?), it lowers your reaction time, and that the long term effects can really hurt you (they described short-term memory loss, and difficulty to concentrate *both of which I was born with x_x*).

My complaint with this isn't that it's untruthful, it's that it explains it as if it's a bad thing.
let's see... when you're high you know you're going to have a low reaction time, distorted sense of time, and if you smoked enough hallucinate. what's bad about those? you liiiike those :) it's fun :D!

But they don't tell you that because it's illegal / teachers have to be a good example blah blah blah. I debated some nerds about marijuana legalization and won every time.

The legal status is irrelevent as I've already pointed out: the percentage of addicts in america has not changed since drugs were first criminalised

Because a youtube video is great source. Drug addiction rates change all the time.
America's Drug Abuse Profile

and this is what happened in the Netherlands CATO Institute's Drug Deception

"The number of registered addicts in the Netherlands has risen 22 percent
in the past 5 years, and there were 25,000 new addicts in 1993 alone. In
addition, the number of organized crime groups in the Netherlands has
increased from 3 in 1988 to 93 in 1993."

and anyway buying drugs is actually a very low-risk venture (as is any activity between consenting adults) and so no, it doesn't really discourage people from buying them.

But selling / producing drugs can get you fucked.

They are crime-related drugs, and they also fry your brain.

The only reason they're crime related drugs is, surprise surprise, because they're ILLEGAL.

Wow, this clearly went over your head. I apologize and I will try to explain it better. By crime-related, I'm talking about robbing banks, assaulting police officers, assaulting civilians, homicide, and other serious crimes. There is an undeniable connection between substance abuse and crime.

Naturally major crime organisations will survive, they always have, but anyone who denies that removing drug profits will have a very large negative affect on the people selling them is being dishonest.

I know. I was not denying this fact. I use this point to debate for marijuana legalization. Marijuana is their biggest source of income. Eliminate this and a huge chunk of their money is gone.

As for 'frying your brain' so does alcohol and many prescription drugs. Your point being?

Alcohol doesn't fry your brain. Neither does marijuana or the use (not abuse) of prescription drugs.
They may burn brain cells, but it's not what I meant by 'fry'. What I meant by 'fry' is the serious brain damage causing substances. Ecstasy, for example, burns holes through your brain.

All drug addicts at some point want help. Whether it's due to common sense when they see their lives starting to slip or if its when they're lying almost dead in a filthy crack den is regardless, they want and need help.

But they don't want to leave the drug. Therefore they don't go and get help. Why would they? Their drug will be taken away.

And even if they do consider getting help, they still can. Legal status doesn't affect this.

Until they get off the drugs we can at least sanitise the situation by placing them in clinics where they're cared for and don't have to kill, steal or prostitute themselves to get their fix.

but they still don't get their fix in the hospital.

Less street crime and better lives for these people and the unfortunates who live in afflicted neighbourhoods.

I fail to understand how legalization will give them a better life and reduce crime. It will simply make it easier for them to get the drug, therefore keeping them on the drug without having to worry about losing it. Is this what you see as a fortunate person?

It wouldn't be 'accepted'. It would be dealt with maturely;

It's dealt with maturely today. If you do drugs your family will try to get you help, most likely rehab or special programs. Also first-time drug offenders are given a chance, they are sent to rehab to get help, they don't get locked up (this is the law in my state, so it may vary where you live)

simply locking something away and saying 'no you cannot have this' does not change how it's viewed in society

Certainly does, it is viewed as low-life, crime, and obviously against the law.

nor does it change the fact people will still try to get it,

I agree, reasonable people with good lives won't try to get it (I'm talking about harder drugs *Not Marijuana*)

By your logic people should love alcoholics (alcohol is legal after all) but they don't;

I'm sorry, but you failed to understand my logic, I hate miscommunication >_<. I know, and I think it's obvious that people don't love alcoholics. What I was trying to get across is that alcohol abuse is accepted. and almost every person tried it once in their lives. And many do on daily basis, during dinner w/e. You don't have to be an alcoholic to have a drink here and there.

You do, afterall, support the limiting of people's rights in order to stop them hurting themselves.

If I wanted to do that I would make tackling in football illegal. Also I would ban sticks and stones.

Alternatively are you just a massively self-righteous prig who believes you're better than other people based upon your personal principles?

Thanks for judging! Also the answer is no. I don't know where you came up with that conclusion.

You can't have your cake and eat it I'm afraid.

I didn't buy any cake. And if I did, why would I not eat it? Cake's delicious.

Your pointless opining aside actually most people start smoking due to immitation and peer pressuring. I'm afraid we're talking about different ballparks here; injecting heroin cannot be equated to smoking in that respect as the risks as understood by the people are much greater.

You're shitting me right? Maybe not heroin, but amphetamines would be abused with VAST popularity throughout high school and college. Now that it's illegal, kids either have a hard time getting it, think it will burn your brain and kill you, or just don't want to get it from the streets because of it's impurity. Adderall abuse (a drug used to treat ADHD, mixed amphetamines) is bad enough among college students, it gives them an unfair advantage. Imagine when it will become an over the counter drug. Any student NOT taking amphetamines is lagging behind. And the health risks really are worth it. Everybody would be self-medicated on it.

---

At 7/12/08 12:51 AM, fli wrote: Now, yes. Prohibition pushes this down. HOWEVER, it gives the law to persecute the real perpetrators of evil. Gives precedent and reason for raids, which reduces incidents that involves meth.

Relevant question: At what point has arresting people who create meth actually reduced the availability of meth?

It's not like there's a finite number of them out there, and if we catch 'em all, meth disappears forever. If one lab goes down in a bust, that just leaves a hole in the market to be filled by another opportunist. Considering that a 35 year drug war has had no discernible effect on the availability of meth, just the ability to arrest meth producers is not a valid argument for prohibition.

---

At 7/12/08 09:17 AM, uhnoesanoob wrote:

At 7/12/08 01:40 AM, poxpower wrote: WARNING: DEAD HORSE BEATING AHEAD.

What % of people who oppose drug use are religious vs the number of people who don't?
============

First off, don't use an ad hominem argument. Second off, the majority of the country is religious. Are you implying that most religious people are against drugs because their spiritual leaders told them to?
I really don't see how religion should come into this.

I think the association he's trying to show is that people who are religious have a natural tendency to be susceptible to misinformation, and will just take it at face value.

---

At 7/11/08 11:51 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: The answer to that, is clearly no. Gangs will always exist, and they will always find a way to make money.

The drug market is worth billions upon billions of dollars. I think that kind of blow would be pretty hard to recover from. How many corporations in the world do you think could weather a 65 billion dollar drop in revenue and manage to just "find another way" to make the money?

We as a society can not let something as evil as hardcore drugs be available for casual use. Let the darkness stay within the dark. Let the parasites of society be hidden away from the people who contribute to it. Let them hide in the dark areas, away from the light of civilization. Let them know that they are filth, and as filth, shall be bought and sold by filth. If we allow drugs to be legal, we are stooping down to a criminal level, selling things that tear families apart. One must not fight fire with fire.

Let's solve this with comparative analysis:

Problems with each system:

Legalzation

- Drugs universally available

Prohibition
- Urban gang warfare initiated over issues of drug territory. Innocent bystanders frequently injured or killed.
- Drugs universally available

---

At 7/12/08 12:20 AM, jonnyrules935 wrote:
So, control is vital for the protection of the user, so there should be some organization that regulates it to ensure a proper market price and quality. Legalize to control better, that's my opinion.

The control right now on what you described is just as non existent. THey just outlaw it, so it's a TOTAL free for all. It's not open to public scrutiny even.

---

At 7/12/08 01:40 AM, poxpower wrote:
Anyways it's a hard decision to make, just as with alcohol. Drug use is not always confined to indoors and causes property damage, car crashes and can lead people to fuck up their lives and thus their family's.

It does so already. The argument isn't against drugs being harmful...

So yeah if, hypothetically, drinking alcohol at bars lead 25% of the time to some vandalism, would it be justified to ban it?
If private drug use ruined families, say, 1% of the time, would it be worth banning it?

It's a person's responsibility to take care of themselves, leaving it to the state dehumanizes the public and de-evolves society.

Anyways, it's a touchy subject to know how to regulate it exactly, but yeah banning it completely is just not working whatsoever.

mhmmmz

I agree.

---

At 7/13/08 11:22 PM, Elfer wrote: .

Here's the thing. Yes, close one... up comes another.
But, that does not mean we have to give up altogether. Maybe it's not fully effective, but at least it's slowing it down.

I think that's a good starting place.

Yes, legalizing certain things may reduce crime. In fact, that's what happene for that one certain European country of great infamy that sells "special brownies." But even places such as Amsterdam have a huge notion between what is soft and harmless, and what is hard and destructive.

But it's being naive to think that a draconian legalization of all drugs would be effective to reduce crime (Or, a blanket ban on drugs too for that matter.)

There's a huge distinction between soft and hard drugs.
Regulating soft drugs will reduce crime, but doing that for the hard types?

That's basically going to ripe up any community.

---

At 7/13/08 05:35 PM, Creek wrote: and this is what happened in the Netherlands CATO Institute's Drug Deception

"The number of registered addicts in the Netherlands has risen 22 percent
in the past 5 years, and there were 25,000 new addicts in 1993 alone. In
addition, the number of organized crime groups in the Netherlands has
increased from 3 in 1988 to 93 in 1993."

Prohibition implicitly creates unintended effects that can have an effect in society. The Netherlands only legalized cannabis for licensed cafes, it is still illegal to possess narcotic drugs and a certain amount of cannabis. It is around 1988 that the Netherlands banned firearms in the Arms and Ammunitions Act that gave power to organized crime.

Wow, this clearly went over your head. I apologize and I will try to explain it better. By crime-related, I'm talking about robbing banks, assaulting police officers, assaulting civilians, homicide, and other serious crimes. There is an undeniable connection between substance abuse and crime.

There is also a relationship between people who wear pants and commit violent crimes.

Alcohol doesn't fry your brain. Neither does marijuana or the use (not abuse) of prescription drugs.
They may burn brain cells, but it's not what I meant by 'fry'. What I meant by 'fry' is the serious brain damage causing substances. Ecstasy, for example, burns holes through your brain.

Before you try to correct someone for your own mistake, how about you do some googling and find that 'ecstasy burning a hole in your brain' is a myth.

I fail to understand how legalization will give them a better life and reduce crime. It will simply make it easier for them to get the drug, therefore keeping them on the drug without having to worry about losing it. Is this what you see as a fortunate person?

I don't see how this is any different than the current situation we're in. Whether or not legalization gives someone a 'better life' is a null factor for me because I can't control someone who wants to inject or smoke something into their body, but there will be more job opportunities with drug legalization.

It's dealt with maturely today. If you do drugs your family will try to get you help, most likely rehab or special programs. Also first-time drug offenders are given a chance, they are sent to rehab to get help, they don't get locked up (this is the law in my state, so it may vary where you live)

That seems like a double-standard. First time killers don't get that kind of help, but someone who is a repeat drug offender will be jailed with the killer.

If I wanted to do that I would make tackling in football illegal. Also I would ban sticks and stones.

Those are not similar in any way. Taking drugs is a personal choice, hurting someone without the expectations is not.

You're shitting me right? Maybe not heroin, but amphetamines would be abused with VAST popularity throughout high school and college. Now that it's illegal, kids either have a hard time getting it, think it will burn your brain and kill you, or just don't want to get it from the streets because of it's impurity. Adderall abuse (a drug used to treat ADHD, mixed amphetamines) is bad enough among college students, it gives them an unfair advantage. Imagine when it will become an over the counter drug. Any student NOT taking amphetamines is lagging behind. And the health risks really are worth it. Everybody would be self-medicated on it.

This really is an irrational fear. HOW DARE THESE KIDS TAKE DRUGS TO DO BETTER IN LIFE

---

At 7/14/08 04:24 AM, fli wrote:

At 7/13/08 11:22 PM, Elfer wrote: .

Here's the thing. Yes, close one... up comes another.
But, that does not mean we have to give up altogether. Maybe it's not fully effective, but at least it's slowing it down.

Do you have evidence to support this? As far as I can tell, methamphetamine is already ubiquitous despite prohibition. The price is also still low enough to fail to deter development of an addiction. No amount of enforcement has ever changed any of this, so could you explain what drug prohibition has actually, demonstrably been doing?

Yes, legalizing certain things may reduce crime. In fact, that's what happene for that one certain European country of great infamy that sells "special brownies." But even places such as Amsterdam have a huge notion between what is soft and harmless, and what is hard and destructive.

The same arguments apply to those countries. Drug prohibition doesn't work there either.

But it's being naive to think that a draconian legalization of all drugs would be effective to reduce crime (Or, a blanket ban on drugs too for that matter.)

Draconian legalization?

Anyway, what I said is that Schedule I is killing us.

Since the majority of meth use is by junkies, it would be possible to make meth available say, by prescription as part of a rehab program. It doesn't have to be completely free for all use.

There's a huge distinction between soft and hard drugs.

Which lies exactly where? Does LSD count as a hard drug? What about things on the level of prescription painkillers?

Regulating soft drugs will reduce crime, but doing that for the hard types?

That's basically going to ripe up any community.

How? What's actually going to happen? People aren't going to run out and start gobbling up as much meth as they can just because it's legal.

---

If we truly wanted to affect drug supply then legalization would be the best idea. Soon after the law is passed the market would be flooded with product driving prices down to the point where the drugs are not profitable, meaning that the various groups that profit off of these shady trades would most likely default to more likely at a point causing supply to nosedive soon after. If nothing else it would causes a lot of druggies to go cold turkey for quite awhile.

---

At 7/14/08 05:45 AM, CIX wrote:

Wow, this clearly went over your head. I apologize and I will try to explain it better. By crime-related, I'm talking about robbing banks, assaulting police officers, assaulting civilians, homicide, and other serious crimes. There is an undeniable connection between substance abuse and crime.

There is also a relationship between people who wear pants and commit violent crimes.

Oh, and people that breath air and commit violent crimes. But what does that have to do with anything?

Substances like Cocaine and PCP make you aggressive, violent, and likely to commit crime.

Alcohol doesn't fry your brain. Neither does marijuana or the use (not abuse) of prescription drugs.
They may burn brain cells, but it's not what I meant by 'fry'. What I meant by 'fry' is the serious brain damage causing substances. Ecstasy, for example, burns holes through your brain.

Before you try to correct someone for your own mistake, how about you do some googling and find that 'ecstasy burning a hole in your brain' is a myth.

I'm not about to do start reading blogs and shit with people saying ecstacy didn't burn their brain cells. I don't give a fuck, that's besides the point. I was only giving one example.

The point was that, unlike alcohol and marijuana, hard drugs really are destructive to your brain. Don't ignore what I was saying. You know exactly what I meant.

I fail to understand how legalization will give them a better life and reduce crime. It will simply make it easier for them to get the drug, therefore keeping them on the drug without having to worry about losing it. Is this what you see as a fortunate person?

I don't see how this is any different than the current situation we're in.

Like I said "It will simply make it easier for them to get the drug" because of this they wouldn't have to worry about losing it / paying a shitload to get it.

Whether or not legalization gives someone a 'better life' is a null factor for me because I can't control someone who wants to inject or smoke something into their body, but there will be more job opportunities with drug legalization.

Job opportunities at McDonalds, where they will hold their jobs for a little over a 2 weeks.
Who the fuck would hire someone whose an addict, seriously. You can't expect it to be a job in an office.

It's dealt with maturely today. If you do drugs your family will try to get you help, most likely rehab or special programs. Also first-time drug offenders are given a chance, they are sent to rehab to get help, they don't get locked up (this is the law in my state, so it may vary where you live)

That seems like a double-standard. First time killers don't get that kind of help, but someone who is a repeat drug offender will be jailed with the killer.

That's because they murdered. You don't need rehab for murdering. People go to jail, doesn't matter who they are jailed with. Someone can go to jail for stealing a bicycle and be jailed with a killer.

If I wanted to do that I would make tackling in football illegal. Also I would ban sticks and stones.

Those are not similar in any way. Taking drugs is a personal choice, hurting someone without the expectations is not.

Fine, then I'd ban taking a dip in the arctic ocean. Also I would ban scissors.

Oh, and Pants being related with Crime & Drugs being related with crime aren't similiar in any way either.

You're shitting me right? Maybe not heroin, but amphetamines would be abused with VAST popularity throughout high school and college. Now that it's illegal, kids either have a hard time getting it, think it will burn your brain and kill you, or just don't want to get it from the streets because of it's impurity. Adderall abuse (a drug used to treat ADHD, mixed amphetamines) is bad enough among college students, it gives them an unfair advantage. Imagine when it will become an over the counter drug. Any student NOT taking amphetamines is lagging behind. And the health risks really are worth it. Everybody would be self-medicated on it.

This really is an irrational fear. HOW DARE THESE KIDS TAKE DRUGS TO DO BETTER IN LIFE

Haha, they aren't medicated, it's pure abuse. Also that could be just like saying "HOW DARE THESE KIDS CHEAT TO DO BETTER IN LIFE" it's the exact same principle. It's cheating. And just because some students start taking amphetamines, everybody else will. Or, like I said, any student not taking amphetamines is lagging behind. Abuse of amphetamines =/= good.

Get your head out of your ass, please. Anybody knows the dangers of hard drugs. I support marijuana legalization. That is the biggest source of money for gangs. It's less dangerous then alcohol and non addictive. It's ridiculous and naive to think that you could do the same with hard drugs.

---

At 7/14/08 07:03 PM, Creek wrote: Oh, and people that breath air and commit violent crimes. But what does that have to do with anything?

You disproved your own "correlation equals causation" fallacy.

At 7/14/08 07:03 PM, Creek wrote: I'm not about to do start reading blogs and shit with people saying ecstacy didn't burn their brain cells. I don't give a fuck, that's besides the point. I was only giving one example.

The point was that, unlike alcohol and marijuana, hard drugs really are destructive to your brain. Don't ignore what I was saying. You know exactly what I meant.

???
Alcohol and smoking destroy brain cells.

At 7/14/08 07:03 PM, Creek wrote: Like I said "It will simply make it easier for them to get the drug" because of this they wouldn't have to worry about losing it / paying a shitload to get it.

Why are you bothered by this?

Job opportunities at McDonalds, where they will hold their jobs for a little over a 2 weeks.
Who the fuck would hire someone whose an addict, seriously. You can't expect it to be a job in an office.

A good businessman will not care what someone does in their private life as long as they get the job done.

At 7/14/08 07:03 PM, Creek wrote: That's because they murdered. You don't need rehab for murdering. People go to jail, doesn't matter who they are jailed with. Someone can go to jail for stealing a bicycle and be jailed with a killer.

Stealing and killing are victim related crimes so they should be jailed together.

At 7/14/08 07:03 PM, Creek wrote: Fine, then I'd ban taking a dip in the arctic ocean. Also I would ban scissors.

I know you will. Drug prohibition is a gateway ban for a Nanny State.

At 7/14/08 07:03 PM, Creek wrote: Oh, and Pants being related with Crime & Drugs being related with crime aren't similiar in any way either.

Then neither are drugs if you want to go that route.

At 7/14/08 07:03 PM, Creek wrote: Haha, they aren't medicated, it's pure abuse. Also that could be just like saying "HOW DARE THESE KIDS CHEAT TO DO BETTER IN LIFE" it's the exact same principle. It's cheating. And just because some students start taking amphetamines, everybody else will. Or, like I said, any student not taking amphetamines is lagging behind. Abuse of amphetamines =/= good.

Get your head out of your ass, please. Anybody knows the dangers of hard drugs. I support marijuana legalization. That is the biggest source of money for gangs. It's less dangerous then alcohol and non addictive. It's ridiculous and naive to think that you could do the same with hard drugs.

Taking a drug isn't cheating.

---

At 7/14/08 07:03 PM, Creek wrote: Substances like Cocaine and PCP make you aggressive, violent, and likely to commit crime.

And this is relevant how? Cocaine and PCP are universally available despite prohibition. What is prohibition doing to prevent this violent behaviour?

I'm not about to do start reading blogs and shit with people saying ecstacy didn't burn their brain cells. I don't give a fuck, that's besides the point. I was only giving one example.

I'm not about to start reading DEA-sponsored drug propaganda for information. How about you provide say, one medical study that supports what you're saying?

Like I said "It will simply make it easier for them to get the drug" because of this they wouldn't have to worry about losing it / paying a shitload to get it.

Drugs are already disgustingly easy to get. Availability will not increase with legalization. If anything, legalization combined with proper regulation would drive black market producers out of business while reducing availability.

Job opportunities at McDonalds, where they will hold their jobs for a little over a 2 weeks.
Who the fuck would hire someone whose an addict, seriously. You can't expect it to be a job in an office.

He meant manufacturing jobs. People don't hire alcoholics, but there are still jobs created by the alcohol industry.

Haha, they aren't medicated, it's pure abuse. Also that could be just like saying "HOW DARE THESE KIDS CHEAT TO DO BETTER IN LIFE" it's the exact same principle. It's cheating. And just because some students start taking amphetamines, everybody else will. Or, like I said, any student not taking amphetamines is lagging behind. Abuse of amphetamines =/= good.

Amphetamine use among students in competitive systems is already a problem. The solution isn't trying to take away the drugs, the solution is to re-structure the system to do away with high-stakes rank-based tests like the SAT. You can't eliminate drug use without eliminating the incentive for drug use.

Get your head out of your ass, please. Anybody knows the dangers of hard drugs.

Yes, what people don't seem to understand is that prohibition is doing nothing to curtail the use of such drugs.

All of the arguments against I've seen have to do with the dangers of hard drugs. I am not arguing against those dangers. If we could get all the meth, crack, heroin and PCP in the world to just disappear, I'd be the first to say the magic words and snap my fingers. However, this isn't the case.

If you're going to try to argue against me in this topic, stop arguing for the dangers of the drugs. You have to argue for the merits of prohibition. Can you find any evidence that shows that prohibition has had a demonstrable effect on the drug problem?

---

At 7/14/08 08:08 PM, CIX wrote:

At 7/14/08 07:03 PM, Creek wrote: Oh, and people that breath air and commit violent crimes. But what does that have to do with anything?

You disproved your own "correlation equals causation" fallacy.

Okay I'm starting to think you're a troll. because you ignored my point twice. So I will clearly state it again by copy and pasting

"Alcohol doesn't fry your brain. Neither does marijuana or the use (not abuse) of prescription drugs.
They may burn brain cells, but it's not what I meant by 'fry'. What I meant by 'fry' is the serious brain damage causing substances. Ecstasy, for example, burns holes through your brain."

The point was that, unlike alcohol and marijuana, hard drugs really are destructive to your brain. Don't ignore what I was saying. You know exactly what I meant.

???
Alcohol and smoking destroy brain cells.

Yes but there is a big difference in brain damage between having a 2 drinks a night and smoking a bag of meth.

Like I said "It will simply make it easier for them to get the drug" because of this they wouldn't have to worry about losing it / paying a shitload to get it.

Why are you bothered by this?

Keeps the person addicted, damaging himself more. The person would basically be living from high to high. And the amount of brain damage from daily use of hard drugs would be devastating to those people's brains. But they wouldn't need to care about that, because they can just go buy some more and get happy again. that is, until the drug wares off.

Job opportunities at McDonalds, where they will hold their jobs for a little over a 2 weeks.
Who the fuck would hire someone whose an addict, seriously. You can't expect it to be a job in an office.

A good businessman will not care what someone does in their private life as long as they get the job done.

True, but a good businessman also wants his employees to be efficient. every employee is an investment. Why would he hire a guy that is slow, and has a hard time thinking. Oh, and don't deny the fact that hard drugs DO cause brain damage.

Haha, they aren't medicated, it's pure abuse. Also that could be just like saying "HOW DARE THESE KIDS CHEAT TO DO BETTER IN LIFE" it's the exact same principle. It's cheating. And just because some students start taking amphetamines, everybody else will. Or, like I said, any student not taking amphetamines is lagging behind. Abuse of amphetamines =/= good.

Get your head out of your ass, please. Anybody knows the dangers of hard drugs. I support marijuana legalization. That is the biggest source of money for gangs. It's less dangerous then alcohol and non addictive. It's ridiculous and naive to think that you could do the same with hard drugs.

Taking a drug isn't cheating.

Haha!!! when you're on amphetamines, you can do homework that would take you 2 weeks in 2 hours. It stimulates your brain and gives you an advantage over other people who aren't on the drug.
Now I'm not going to argue with you if that's cheating or not, because I don't care what you consider to be cheating. I know I consider this to be cheating, and any person who is thinking clearly can see why this is an unfair advantage.