Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 7/14/08 09:58 PM, Elfer wrote:

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?

They make you aggressive, violent, and likely to commit crime. how do you find this irrelevant?

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

It makes the drugs more expensive, definately harder to get then if it was legal, and unaccepted by society. Highschool kids would be taking PCP and Cocaine if they were legal they would think it's okay. Don't believe me? Let's look at what substances are legal... Alcohol and cigarettes. Kids are learning to stay away from stupid cigs because they don't give you any feeling, you just feel normal.

But almost every person in high school I know has tried / wants to try alcohol, because it has an effect. And I'm pretty sure will try it once in their life. Now if PCP and Coke and all this hard shit comes out legal, they would be getting those too, because they make you feel different.

Is it so easy to grasp that idea? You can deny it and ignore it because you want drugs legal. But this will still happen.

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.

I never asked you too.I was asked to google bullshit.

How about you provide say, one medical study that supports what you're saying?

Oh please, give me a break!

Club Drugs Inflict Damage Similar To Traumatic Brain Injury
"We found that a lot of brain cells are being injured by these drugs. That's alarming to society now. People don't seem to take club drugs as seriously as drugs such as heroin or cocaine."

give me a break man, you don't need me to google this shit for you to know that hard drug abuse causes brain damage.

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.

If is a demand, people will still sell it. and because we live in a capitalist economy, people would always compete to sell it for the cheapest price.

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.

Oh I see... my bad for misunderstanding.

but you realize what this would mean right? if there is production, there is buyers. the bigger the business is the more they are selling. How is getting people addicted on a drug beneficial to our economy. those addicts will end up losing their jobs, life, and their brains. I haven't heard of a daily coke and heroin user that lives great and goes to work fine and has a happy life with family and bullshit. They care about the drug more then the family, that's how bad addiction can get. Drug first, then family / freinds / job.

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.

It's keeping it unacceptable by society. look at marijuana, good fun drug, safer then alcohol. But because it's illegal society sees an image of crime and bad behind it. Of course, some people know the truth and know it's a safe drug. PCP and Cocaine on the other hand, aren't good, and society knows it's not good. You know it's not good. That's why many people don't even consider doing it.
Prohibition keeps people from thinking it's acceptable. If it was legal it would have a sense of acceptance by society. Of course this would never happen and people can just keep dreaming.

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?

I can tell you it makes people not even consider doing it. I know people who drink alcohol but don't smoke weed just because alcohol is legal. I know many many MANY parents who don't smoke weed simply because it's illegal, and they don't want to lose their job, or get arrested. It's bullshit to think that everybody who wants to do it is doing it. I'm telling you I KNOW many people, especially parents, who smoked weed in high school and would love to smoke weed again, but don't simply because it's illegal.

---

Yo creek.

Making something legal does not = HEY KIDS TRY THIS.

They want to try it more atm BECAUSE it's illegal. ANd they also want to join gangs and kill people because it's associated with crime.

I guarantee you that the only difference legalization will cause is that we stop wasting money on fighting it.

Fight it with information, not with force.

Why not, you know, spend more money telling those kids you seem to care about the dangers of drugs, why not spend more money on public schools so kids will actually have shit to do instead of drugs, maybe one less swat team and one more ceramics lab.

Legalization, (and in most cases with heavier drugs, mere decriminalization) will not change ANYTHING, again to re-iterate, besides the flow of money. Back towards us, and out of the crime world.

It's not like the whole country will turn into a drug-crazed world either, states still have rights, they can ban it, do whatever they want, business obviously have the right to ban it.

Just like something else that comes to mind, another drug just as harmful but more accepted. They've already been mentioned, I'll mention a few more, fast food, cars (wow you know how many people die in THOSE things?), candy, and the obvious other two.

ONe could also the same thing on video games, television in general, computers, cell phones, hey they even ARE banning cell phones in some places, (like in your car, which is your property).

Why single drugs out. To what end will this wasting of resources be extended?

---

At 7/14/08 11:59 PM, Creek wrote: But almost every person in high school I know has tried / wants to try alcohol, because it has an effect. And I'm pretty sure will try it once in their life. Now if PCP and Coke and all this hard shit comes out legal, they would be getting those too, because they make you feel different.

Historically speaking, this hasn't been true. Can you show an example of a place where relaxation of drug policy has lead to increased drug abuse?

Is it so easy to grasp that idea? You can deny it and ignore it because you want drugs legal. But this will still happen.

How about you provide say, one medical study that supports what you're saying?

Oh please, give me a break!

Club Drugs Inflict Damage Similar To Traumatic Brain Injury
"We found that a lot of brain cells are being injured by these drugs. That's alarming to society now. People don't seem to take club drugs as seriously as drugs such as heroin or cocaine."

Read the story. As far as I can tell, they didn't do any trials involving ecstasy, just meth. They're conflating methamphetamine with methylenedioxymethamphetamine.

give me a break man, you don't need me to google this shit for you to know that hard drug abuse causes brain damage.

Your claim was "Ecstasy burns holes in your brain," and you still have no evidence of this.

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.

If is a demand, people will still sell it. and because we live in a capitalist economy, people would always compete to sell it for the cheapest price.

That's why I say "Combined with proper regulation." The government could peg the price, and make it only available by prescription to addicts. Black market production would become unprofitable due to the large portion of demand made up by a small group of addicts. This means that new users would ACTUALLY have a much harder time getting their hands on the drug.

but you realize what this would mean right? if there is production, there is buyers. the bigger the business is the more they are selling.

That's a preposterous claim. Demand drives supply, not the other way around. If I produce ten million units of a device that does nothing but burn eggs, it doesn't mean I'm going to sell a lot of them.

You can only sell more if people actually want to buy more.

How is getting people addicted on a drug beneficial to our economy.

How is the elimination of Schedule I getting people addicted to a drug?

those addicts will end up losing their jobs, life, and their brains. I haven't heard of a daily coke and heroin user that lives great and goes to work fine and has a happy life with family and bullshit. They care about the drug more then the family, that's how bad addiction can get. Drug first, then family / freinds / job.

Yeah, drug addiction is a terrible thing. It's also a prevalent thing, despite prohibition.

It's keeping it unacceptable by society. look at marijuana, good fun drug, safer then alcohol. But because it's illegal society sees an image of crime and bad behind it.

Not really. Among people who are actually informed about it, there's no problem. At best, dishonest propaganda has managed to instill paranoia among some segments of the population.

However, this is attributable to the propaganda, not the prohibition.

Of course, some people know the truth and know it's a safe drug. PCP and Cocaine on the other hand, aren't good, and society knows it's not good. You know it's not good. That's why many people don't even consider doing it.

You don't think that we could get this across without armed raids and gang violence? You honestly don't think that we could honestly educate people about the dangers of drugs, rather than just saying "they're bad, don't do them"?

Prohibition keeps people from thinking it's acceptable. If it was legal it would have a sense of acceptance by society.

Evidence?

Can you find any evidence that shows that prohibition has had a demonstrable effect on the drug problem?

I can tell you it makes people not even consider doing it. I know people who drink alcohol but don't smoke weed just because alcohol is legal.

Are you talking about high school students again here? You're aware that underage drinking is illegal, yeah?

Also, I asked for evidence, not your opinion. Considering that you're supporting a policy that costs fifty billion dollars per year, results in innocent casualties from both the people who are running the drug trade and law enforcement, and funnels billions upon billions of dollars into the hands of violent criminals every year, you'd think you could maybe come up with a bit of statistical evidence to support what you're saying, eh? Considering that the cost of the drug war is so very high, both in money and in human suffering, you'd think you'd have just a little non-anectodal evidence to show us that the cost is worth it.

I know many many MANY parents who don't smoke weed simply because it's illegal, and they don't want to lose their job, or get arrested. It's bullshit to think that everybody who wants to do it is doing it. I'm telling you I KNOW many people, especially parents, who smoked weed in high school and would love to smoke weed again, but don't simply because it's illegal.

According to your profile, you're sixteen. Did it ever occur to you that these parents are simply exercising discretion when they're with people they're uncertain that they can trust? My mother used to tell me not to do drugs because they're illegal. When I got older, she admitted to smoking a joint with my brother and some other relatives. Prohibition hasn't been reducing the actual use of marijuana, it just makes people less willing to talk about it.

I'll make you a deal: Provide some real, actual evidence that prohibition is successfully solving the drug problem, or even substantially mitigating it, and I'll have a discussion with you. If your next post contains more anecdotes and irrelevant babbling about the dangers of hard drugs, I'll either ignore the whole thing or large portions of it.

---

Ban sunbeds!

---

Well it's not actually cat pee, mmkay. You see when the male cat marks it's territory it sprays a concentrated urine and that can get you high.
Like really high. Like REALLY REAAAAAALLY high mmmmkay.

I.. probably shouldn't have told you that...

---

At 7/15/08 10:06 AM, poxpower wrote: Well it's not actually cat pee, mmkay. You see when the male cat marks it's territory it sprays a concentrated urine and that can get you high.
Like really high. Like REALLY REAAAAAALLY high mmmmkay.

I.. probably shouldn't have told you that...

lololololollololololollolololololollolzz

btw on cats u know that if u burn cat nip u can get high 2
lawl

---

At 7/15/08 10:06 AM, poxpower wrote:
I.. probably shouldn't have told you that...

Cats eat their own shit. Cats are basically tripping 24/7.

Why do you think they act like that.

It's fucking bullshit.

Catnip is legal.

Why are the cats allowed to get all fucked up.

---

At 7/13/08 05:35 PM, Creek wrote: 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.

I'm not certain it's so easy to write off the benefits of a lifelong education. From the age of five I've known most of what adults consider 'secret' and I can honestly tell you I've yet to make a woman pregnant and take anything dangerous or addictive. I have a mental list of what I, personally, am willing to take and addictive or drugs proven to be physically damaging in a permanent fashion are not on there.

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*).

I honestly believe that knowledge of the danger is a more powerful deterrent than legal status as actually purchasing drugs is a low-risk venture and this is from the viewpoint of a buyer afterall.

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.

Well this is what I mean by honest; when lecturing about STD's or alcohol abuse its objectuively considered. Both viewpoitns have to be put across in order to illustrate why they're not worth taking.

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."

Bugger. I did check the figure but your source is far more authoritative. Anywho, while weaker the point still stands: there is no real downward trend and it fluctuates enough to illustrate how its legal status hasn't changed at all. For that matter the Netherlands study really disproves your point as addiction is rising during a period of time in which the Netherland government has been getting increasingly draconian.

But selling / producing drugs can get you fucked.

Yes but that's regardless; we are talking about the risks of the addict not the supplier. Where there is demand there is supply.

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.

No it didn't go over my head and I worried that's what you'd think I meant. All those connections exist because it is ILLEGAL; if it wasn't they'd be reduced: addicts wouldn't need to do terrible things to get their fix and all the violence that sorrounds the selling of them would disappear.

:What I meant by 'fry' is the serious brain damage causing substances. Ecstasy, for example, burns holes through your brain.

Well I'd argue that your definition of 'fry' is irrelevant as generally people would consider any permenant negative change in mental state as 'fried' which can occur with most substances. Also that ecstacy thing is a myth. See what I mean about an honest education?

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.

If it was legalised and regulated it wouldn't be taken away; more phased out over time or not at all if they can still pay. At least it will be pure and they'll be in a safe, clinical environment.

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

But you yourself just said they're less willing to seek help because their drug will be taken away and furthermore they'll be seen as social pariahs.

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

They would if it was legal. Perhaps not a hospital but a government clinic.

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 reduces crime because they no longer have to get to the point they embrace a life of crime to get their 'fix': so no more muggings, robberies and what have you. Their life is impvoed because they can get what they need in a safe, sanitised area. Not in a crack den in the middle of a neighbourhood beset by gang warfare. Therefore not just their lives but the entire area is improved.

It's dealt with maturely today.

Oh it is not dealt with maturely; all those inane rumours about the drugs and drug takers prove this. Similarly the way in which everyone seems to look down on them.

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

My point is that it is viewed as negative despite the law therefore if it were legalised society would still frown on its usage.

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.

Well back when cocaine use was legal it's use was not frowned upon but addicts were. Do you understand my point now? I was referring to addicts: addiction is always frowned upon.

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

You support the illegalisation of drugs. Therefore you support their curtailing of personal liberty in order to protect people from themselves. Ya digg?

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

Well kindly explain why you don't mind what happens to people but do want to stop them from taking drugs?

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-medicating.

Regulations mean restrictions dear boy; age being the main one along with unfair advantages and what have you. People are already leaning towards urine screening before major exams anyway.

---

Urine tests?

Shit.

I am never going to pass an essay exam if that happens.

---

Here's where I think the hang-up is, not just in this debate and seemingly every debate that springs up about drugs on the BBS, but in America in general.

Legalizing drugs will not legitimize them.

Drugs will still be bad if they're legal. Nobody is saying that drugs aren't harmful. There are million dollar ad campaigns pointing out the harmfulness of tobacco and alcohol. Prostitution is legal in Nevada, however, it is still looked down upon, if it's your inclination to hold the moral high ground.

Just because someone is for making something legal doesn't mean that they have to endorse it. I believe that tobacco should be legal, but I think smoking is disgusting. It's not a mutually exclusive sentiment. I think prostitution should be legalized, but I think the idea of paying someone for sex is degrading to both parties. Still, if that's what people want to do, they're going to do it.

---

Doesn't matter what it does to drugs imo as long as it cripples the gangs. Like, I feel like that's more important than your son getting high, is your son getting shot by someone.

---

That is the hangup though. People are unable to separate the two. They think that if we do it automatically we'll time travel back to the 60s or some stupid shit.

---

Yeah, the main objection seems to be that there's a lot of people not doing drugs simply because they're illegal and for no other reason whatsoever.

Upon examination, it appears that almost none of these people actually exist.

---

I guess people have done worse for stupider reasons.

---

At 7/15/08 12:49 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Yo creek.

Making something legal does not = HEY KIDS TRY THIS.

To some people it does.

Fight it with information, not with force.

We're doing that nowdays anyway.

Why not, you know, spend more money telling those kids you seem to care about the dangers of drugs, why not spend more money on public schools so kids will actually have shit to do instead of drugs, maybe one less swat team and one more ceramics lab.

argue that with the state's funding for education, not me.

Just like something else that comes to mind, another drug just as harmful but more accepted. They've already been mentioned, I'll mention a few more, fast food, cars (wow you know how many people die in THOSE things?), candy, and the obvious other two.

I agree with the fast food thing. It's mental addiction. But it's not physical dependence. You don't have extreme withdrawal symptoms if you stop eating fast food. (notice i said extreme). And I'm pretty sure people don't get addicted to crashing cars.

ONe could also the same thing on video games, television in general, computers, cell phones, hey they even ARE banning cell phones in some places, (like in your car, which is your property).

but it's dangerous to use a cell in a car. alot of accidents (i heard) happen when people are text messanging while driving. and like I said it's not the same addiction. There is a difference between psychological addiction and physical dependence, which is physical addiction.

Why single drugs out. To what end will this wasting of resources be extended?

*rolls eyes*

---

At 7/15/08 09:28 AM, Elfer wrote: Historically speaking, this hasn't been true. Can you show an example of a place where relaxation of drug policy has lead to increased drug abuse?

Lol, where I live cops don't give a shit. Here we have 8th graders on ecstasy during school. I don't know what more information I could give you.

How about you provide say, one medical study that supports what you're saying?

I don't believe there are any. This is a mere assumption based on people's actions. And with the people I hang out with, which do hard drugs, illegalization doesn't stop them, but if it was legalized they would do it much more often. Considering it would be cheaper and easier to get.

Read the story. As far as I can tell, they didn't do any trials involving ecstasy, just meth. They're conflating methamphetamine with methylenedioxymethamphetamine.

I didn't even read it, I was too damn lazy to read anything. I just googled 'meth brain damage' or something similar and pasted a link. The point I was trying to make is that drugs do cause brain damage. Some more then the others.

give me a break man, you don't need me to google this shit for you to know that hard drug abuse causes brain damage.

Your claim was "Ecstasy burns holes in your brain," and you still have no evidence of this.

I already went over this. Maybe that was a bad example, but I told you the point I was trying to make.

If is a demand, people will still sell it. and because we live in a capitalist economy, people would always compete to sell it for the cheapest price.

That's why I say "Combined with proper regulation." The government could peg the price, and make it only available by prescription to addicts. Black market production would become unprofitable due to the large portion of demand made up by a small group of addicts. This means that new users would ACTUALLY have a much harder time getting their hands on the drug.

It's actually (over here) really damn easy to get drugs from other people who are prescribed it. lol and it's sold pretty damn cheaply too. 2 ritalin pills are like 3$ here.

but you realize what this would mean right? if there is production, there is buyers. the bigger the business is the more they are selling.

That's a preposterous claim. Demand drives supply, not the other way around. If I produce ten million units of a device that does nothing but burn eggs, it doesn't mean I'm going to sell a lot of them.

Lol, well you wouldn't make ten million units if you weren't going to sell a lot of them. Btw drugs sell. Well. proves with cigarettes.

You can only sell more if people actually want to buy more.

yes.

How is getting people addicted on a drug beneficial to our economy.

How is the elimination of Schedule I getting people addicted to a drug?

New people try it = addicts.

Yeah, drug addiction is a terrible thing. It's also a prevalent thing, despite prohibition.

Yeah, but we don't want an increase do we? At least I don't. As you can see my point is that people will try it and get addicted to it, simply because it's legal & easy to get. If you deny this would happen go ahead, but I don't think the same way about people as you do. Maybe it has to do with the type of people I'm around, maybe. It doesn't matter, this is just opinions and I can't prove mine and you can't prove yours. Nobody can predict the future.

Not really. Among people who are actually informed about it, there's no problem. At best, dishonest propaganda has managed to instill paranoia among some segments of the population.

True, like that one commercial. Let me get the youtube link... I'm sure you remember this commercial. At the end I thought "Yeah, I have plenty of questions"

However, this is attributable to the propaganda, not the prohibition.

Yeah but prohibition contributes to the propaganda. "Why do you think it's illegal?! because it's BAD!"
Not a supporter of bullshit propaganda either, but prohibition by itself keeps people from even considering doing it.

You don't think that we could get this across without armed raids and gang violence? You honestly don't think that we could honestly educate people about the dangers of drugs,

I don't know where you've been educated, but there are plenty of stupid teachers. T.V. commercials are obviously bullshit, i just laugh at them. Their dog is talking to them in one of them, it's ridiculous.
I learned truth, and apparently you did too despite the propaganda.

rather than just saying "they're bad, don't do them"?

I agree, that's not enough.

Prohibition keeps people from thinking it's acceptable. If it was legal it would have a sense of acceptance by society.

Evidence?

How am I supposed to prove it? Only thing I could think about is this video. Listen to what some of them say. I think it's 1 or 2. Remember, this is marijuana not crack.

Can you find any evidence that shows that prohibition has had a demonstrable effect on the drug problem?

I can tell you it makes people not even consider doing it. I know people who drink alcohol but don't smoke weed just because alcohol is legal.

Are you talking about high school students again here? You're aware that underage drinking is illegal, yeah?

So... It's still "legal" and you can get freinds to buy it easy. And some kids do give a shit about legal age. But when they get older (most of them) will try alcohol in their life. Yeah Yeah Yeah, not evidence. But is there a way I can prove this? I'm only telling you how people (i met) in general are. and I doubt people outside my area are completely different.

Also, I asked for evidence, not your opinion.

Well with some things it's hard to give anything beyond your opinion. Like how Americans would react to a legalization of all drugs.

Considering that you're supporting a policy that costs fifty billion dollars per year,

Eh, you're forgetting al ot of that money is to stop marijuana. I'm pro marijuana legalization.

results in innocent casualties from both the people who are running the drug trade and law enforcement, and funnels billions upon billions of dollars into the hands of violent criminals every year, you'd think you could maybe come up with a bit of statistical evidence to support what you're saying, eh?

The high cost of marijuana prohibition in U.S.

I'm not asking you to read a whole page, I only read the title and the first paragraph. I just googled "money spent on marijuana legalization" and gave you an article.

Considering that the cost of the drug war is so very high, both in money and in human suffering, you'd think you'd have just a little non-anectodal evidence to show us that the cost is worth it.

Oh, the cost isn't worth it, especially with marijuana. They do need to spend less on it, there needs to be a change in drug policy, because the current war on drugs is a failure.

According to your profile, you're sixteen. Did it ever occur to you that these parents are simply exercising discretion when they're with people they're uncertain that they can trust?

No, because they buy me beer and drink it with me.

My mother used to tell me not to do drugs because they're illegal. When I got older, she admitted to smoking a joint with my brother and some other relatives. Prohibition hasn't been reducing the actual use of marijuana, it just makes people less willing to talk about it.

therefore, unacceptable by society. And yes, my friend stopped smoking when he got a job. There are plenty of people who are not doing drugs because it's illegal. When I get older and would have to support a family I wouldn't risk my job for a drug. Soft or not, marijuana is still illegal. I can just get away with it now because I'm underage, so I'm having fun while I can.

I'll make you a deal: Provide some real, actual evidence that prohibition is successfully solving the drug problem

It's not. Never said it did. It keeps it where it's at, that's it.

---

At 7/15/08 11:24 AM, Pontificate wrote: I'm not certain it's so easy to write off the benefits of a lifelong education. From the age of five I've known most of what adults consider 'secret' and I can honestly tell you I've yet to make a woman pregnant and take anything dangerous or addictive. I have a mental list of what I, personally, am willing to take and addictive or drugs proven to be physically damaging in a permanent fashion are not on there.

What does that have to do with what I said? Kids aren't exposed to them that early, there's no need to bring much attention about drugs to them.

I honestly believe that knowledge of the danger is a more powerful deterrent than legal status as actually purchasing drugs is a low-risk venture and this is from the viewpoint of a buyer afterall.

Really depends. As far as getting caught, yes, it's low risk. But as far as knowing what you got, sometimes it can be risky. Also you can be risking your job.

Well this is what I mean by honest; when lecturing about STD's or alcohol abuse its objectuively considered. Both viewpoitns have to be put across in order to illustrate why they're not worth taking.

Yup, totally agree with ya. I thought marijuana was an evil drug that can kill you until I was exposed to it. But I'm not naive enough to believe that there aren't evil drugs out there that can kill you.

No it didn't go over my head and I worried that's what you'd think I meant. All those connections exist because it is ILLEGAL;

Yes, it still went over your head. It's not because it's illegal, it's the effects of the drug that make you aggressive and likely to do those things.

if it wasn't they'd be reduced: addicts wouldn't need to do terrible things to get their fix and all the violence that sorrounds the selling of them would disappear.

It had nothing to do with getting the drug. It's the drug's effects.

Well I'd argue that your definition of 'fry' is irrelevant as generally people would consider any permenant negative change in mental state as 'fried' which can occur with most substances. Also that ecstacy thing is a myth. See what I mean about an honest education?

Yeah, i agree. But I told you what I meant by saying 'fry' I meant that as saying it causes severe brain damage. I guess I don't mean it the way most people would. Marijuana and alcohol don't fry. Meth does.

If it was legalised and regulated it wouldn't be taken away; more phased out over time or not at all if they can still pay. At least it will be pure and they'll be in a safe, clinical environment.

In a scenario where heroin is legal:
Remember, hospitals can't hold people, if they can function, against their will. If the addict doesn't want to lose the drug, he won't, he'd head back out to real life. He would walk in a store and purchase it (sure as hell alot cheaper then his hospital bill will be) and inject drugs again. He wants to feel better again, not worse (going through withdrawal).

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

But you yourself just said they're less willing to seek help because their drug will be taken away and furthermore they'll be seen as social pariahs.

"even if" they do consider getting help, they still can.

They would if it was legal. Perhaps not a hospital but a government clinic.

Then why be at the hospital?

Oh it is not dealt with maturely; all those insane rumours about the drugs and drug takers prove this. Similarly the way in which everyone seems to look down on them.

I'm don't know what rumors you're talking about. If you're talking about propaganda I understand.

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

My point is that it is viewed as negative despite the law therefore if it were legalised society would still frown on its usage.

Same with marjiuana, and if it's legalized it will have increased usage. And seriously dude, I'd be smoking everyday if it became legal. Just walk into the supermarket and ask for marijuana cigarettes. Easy, safe, no trouble.

Well back when cocaine use was legal it's use was not frowned upon but addicts were. Do you understand my point now? I was referring to addicts: addiction is always frowned upon.

Of course it is, same with alcohol addicts. But we can accept drinking alcohol.

You support the illegalisation of drugs. Therefore you support their curtailing of personal liberty in order to protect people from themselves. Ya digg?

Nope! Like I said, I don't care about people who do it or are involved with drug usage. And like yit was pointed out it's a relatively low-risk to get caught. I support keeping it from expanding into people's lives who otherwise would have never been exposed to it.

Well kindly explain why you don't mind what happens to people but do want to stop them from taking drugs?

It's not that I don't care (although I don't) it's more of that there is nothing to be done to stop them from abusing drugs and ruining their lives and hopes. Drugs can really fuck people up. I don't want it from expanding into people who otherwise would have never considered of trying drugs.

Regulations mean restrictions dear boy; age being the main one along with unfair advantages and what have you. People are already leaning towards urine screening before major exams anyway.

That sounds reasonable and good. but it's because of drug addiction that we have to do urine tests. Also, who is going to pay for all those urine tests.. Our taxes.

---

At 7/15/08 08:37 PM, Creek wrote:
To some people it does.

Where are these people.

Probably already doing drugs.

Since when does the government ACTUALLY care about you. Again all the things I listed as legal. It's a market. Why not, expand.

We're doing that nowdays anyway.

Not very well. Because, oh yeah, people are doing drugs. Millions of them. Failure.

argue that with the state's funding for education, not me.

that's the concept, state funding, and where it's going down the drain, spending money on drug prosecution does fucking nothing except harden the criminals imo. We can be much more efficient.

I agree with the fast food thing. It's mental addiction. But it's not physical dependence.

Really?

You don't have extreme withdrawal symptoms if you stop eating fast food. (notice i said extreme). And I'm pretty sure people don't get addicted to crashing cars.

A lot of people crave certain foods, all the time. People are also addicted to the concept of owning a car. In case you haven't noticed, there are cars everywhere.

It's the same deal.

One could also the same thing on video games, television in general, computers, cell phones, hey they even ARE banning cell phones in some places, (like in your car, which is your property).

but it's dangerous to use a cell in a car. alot of accidents (i heard) happen when people are text messanging while driving. and like I said it's not the same addiction.

There is a difference between psychological addiction and physical dependence, which is physical addiction.

That's nice, and I agree, but people are getting physically addicted with or without prohibition. As was already said. All money could be turned towards information. Much much much more information. We need it.

*rolls eyes*

It's a real question.

That you didn't adequately answer really.

---

At 7/15/08 09:11 PM, Creek wrote: This is a mere assumption based on people's actions. And with the people I hang out with, which do hard drugs, illegalization doesn't stop them, but if it was legalized they would do it much more often. Considering it would be cheaper and easier to get.

What makes you think they'll be cheaper and easier to get? Making something legal doesn't mean you're always able to sell it at corner stores. As for prices, they can be adjusted through taxation to only modestly undercut the black market prices (thereby destroying said black market).

Also, keep in mind that with prohibition ended, we have 50 billion dollars b

I didn't even read it, I was too damn lazy to read anything. I just googled 'meth brain damage' or something similar and pasted a link.

To support the idea that ecstasy harms the human brain? Not a great search method.

Your claim was "Ecstasy burns holes in your brain," and you still have no evidence of this.

I already went over this. Maybe that was a bad example, but I told you the point I was trying to make.

Which is what? Certain drugs that aren't ecstasy are harmful to the human brain? Even if that was your point, it still doesn't support prohibition, because prohibition is, in effect, complete deregulation of these substances.

It's actually (over here) really damn easy to get drugs from other people who are prescribed it. lol and it's sold pretty damn cheaply too. 2 ritalin pills are like 3$ here.

That's why you only prescribe addicts enough to get them through a certain period, or provide it only at certain injection sites. Injection sites have worked well for Switzerland, where they've found that people will actually decrease their dose if they're allowed to use it in a safe, controlled environment.

Lol, well you wouldn't make ten million units if you weren't going to sell a lot of them.

You see how we've gone around in a circle?

You: Legalizing drugs will cause more production, which means that there will be more people buying it for some reason
Me: An increase in supply won't magically create demand for something. For example, I could make a bunch of something stupid, and people wouldn't buy it
You: Yeah, but you wouldn't create so much if you didn't have buyers
Me: ...

How is the elimination of Schedule I getting people addicted to a drug?

New people try it = addicts.

Okay, so how does the elimination of Schedule I = new people try it? (Tips: Cocaine is Schedule II)

Yeah, but we don't want an increase do we? At least I don't. As you can see my point is that people will try it and get addicted to it, simply because it's legal & easy to get.

But WHY? Would you do meth if it was legal? I wouldn't.

Not a supporter of bullshit propaganda either, but prohibition by itself keeps people from even considering doing it.

Apparently it doesn't, considering the rampant drug problem.

I don't know where you've been educated, but there are plenty of stupid teachers. T.V. commercials are obviously bullshit, i just laugh at them.

I know. What I'm asking you is, do you think it's impossible for us to start an honest campaign to educate people about the effects of drugs and their risks? Scare tactics will work for some, but many people will ignore the risks if they assume they're being lied to.

How am I supposed to prove it? Only thing I could think about is this video. Listen to what some of them say. I think it's 1 or 2. Remember, this is marijuana not crack.

What I mean is, after so much campaigning against it, and if we implemented proper drug education, do you really think that the use of heroin, cocaine and meth would suddenly become socially acceptable? In many places, marijuana use is socially acceptable (despite the legality) because people actually know about the substance and its effects.

So... It's still "legal" and you can get freinds to buy it easy. And some kids do give a shit about legal age. But when they get older (most of them) will try alcohol in their life.

And? In moderation, alcohol is a fairly soft drug, and doesn't pose the same health risks as other substances. Lots of people don't smoke cigarettes, despite the fact that they're legal.

Well with some things it's hard to give anything beyond your opinion. Like how Americans would react to a legalization of all drugs.

Well, there's countries where prohibition on certain substances ended. For example, the Netherlands legalized marijuana, and if I recall correctly, the usage rate didn't increase. There's also alcohol prohibition, where the introduction had no mitigating effect on alcohol consumption (alcoholism actually increased), and there was no rise in use when prohibition was repealed.

the current war on drugs is a failure.

And yes, my friend stopped smoking when he got a job.

Probably because he has a shitty unskilled labour job where they test for drug use, right?

There are plenty of people who are not doing drugs because it's illegal. When I get older and would have to support a family I wouldn't risk my job for a drug.

So here's a question: Is the punishment of destroying someone's livelihood and leaving their families without a provider just because they were using drugs privately in a responsible manner justified?

There's something to think about. Prohibition provides the greatest punishment to those who have the smallest problem.

I'll make you a deal: Provide some real, actual evidence that prohibition is successfully solving the drug problem

It's not. Never said it was

So then WHY MAINTAIN PROHIBITION?

---

Here's some advice for creek: Shut up.

---

At 7/15/08 09:48 PM, Creek wrote: What does that have to do with what I said? Kids aren't exposed to them that early, there's no need to bring much attention about drugs to them.

My point, dear boy, is that they were brought to my attention and explained honestly. The result: an individual who has no desire to try a great deal of drugs.

Really depends. As far as getting caught, yes, it's low risk. But as far as knowing what you got, sometimes it can be risky. Also you can be risking your job.

Surely a dubious supply source is a reason for legalisation? Controlled and reliable substances and all that. As for other ramifications that has nothing to do with legality so is not part of the discussion.

Yes, it still went over your head. It's not because it's illegal, it's the effects of the drug that make you aggressive and likely to do those things.

Well firstly that would not be it 'going over my head' but rather us disagreeing; don't get me wrong ad hominems can add that little bit of excitement to what can be utterly dry conversations but only if used intelligently. Anywho I'm afraid to say the crime industry that has spread up around drugs is because of it being illegal. While there are some incidents due to inebriation there is also such (and in far greater numbers) cases with alcohol usage so it is not a sufficient ground for continuing a system that is evidently not working.

Yeah, i agree. But I told you what I meant by saying 'fry' I meant that as saying it causes severe brain damage. I guess I don't mean it the way most people would. Marijuana and alcohol don't fry. Meth does.

Well I'm afraid with language one has to bow towards the popular consensus; which is a defintion of 'fry' that means alcohol dependancy very much does 'fry' the brain.

In a scenario where heroin is legal:
Remember, hospitals can't hold people, if they can function, against their will. If the addict doesn't want to lose the drug, he won't, he'd head back out to real life. He would walk in a store and purchase it (sure as hell alot cheaper then his hospital bill will be) and inject drugs again. He wants to feel better again, not worse (going through withdrawal).

Pray tell me, why are these drugs being sold over the counter in a store with no regulations considering the addictive nature of the product? I'm just curious.

"even if" they do consider getting help, they still can.

It is harder for them to do so and don't deny it; besides even if some people do not wish to stop at least we can sanitise the situation as I have repeatedly pointed out.

Then why be at the hospital?

I was hoping you'd enlighten me to that point; you are, after all, the one who brought up hospitals. I was just postulating safe areas in which to take drugs. Under superviison, naturally.

I'm don't know what rumors you're talking about. If you're talking about propaganda I understand.

Your 'ecstacy bores holes in the brain' rumour for one. Governmental propaganda is equally terrible but do not be mistaken as to where these rumuors come from: they stem not from officials but are constructions of society.

Same with marjiuana, and if it's legalized it will have increased usage. And seriously dude, I'd be smoking everyday if it became legal. Just walk into the supermarket and ask for marijuana cigarettes. Easy, safe, no trouble.

Perhaps you could argue that case with marijuana but as we are both, and most of the world, aware marijuana is not as crippling as other substances and so the same arguement cannot really be applied. You might freely indulge in cannabis but can you say the same for more harmful drugs?

Of course it is, same with alcohol addicts. But we can accept drinking alcohol.

Much in the same way they could accept cocaine usage as long as it was not an addiction; I fail to see how this furthers your arguement at all.

Nope! Like I said, I don't care about people who do it or are involved with drug usage. And like yit was pointed out it's a relatively low-risk to get caught. I support keeping it from expanding into people's lives who otherwise would have never been exposed to it.

Far too late for that; drugs are very much an undercurrent in our society. Something the media does very little to prevent. Anywho one could argue that the biggest rammifications of drug usage are due to the prohibition: gang violence and warfare.

It's not that I don't care (although I don't) it's more of that there is nothing to be done to stop them from abusing drugs and ruining their lives and hopes. Drugs can really fuck people up. I don't want it from expanding into people who otherwise would have never considered of trying drugs.

Well for the first part that is incredibly heartless of you and for the second rather naive. I posit, and have continuously without any real rebuttal, that the drug prohibition is quite clearly not stopping people from trying drugs if they so wish.

That sounds reasonable and good. but it's because of drug addiction that we have to do urine tests. Also, who is going to pay for all those urine tests.. Our taxes.

You'd rather pay to have them put in prison? Let us not forget the massive amounts of funding that goes in to this 'War on Drugs'.

---

Essentially drug laws are meant to increase the consequences of doing drugs in order to prevent their use. I'm sure any rational person can see the flaw in that logic.

---

It's kind of dumb to ban the growth of Marijuana. YOU"RE BANNING A PLANT?! That's just ridiculus! So, my brother (Who takes AP Biology) is planning on creating a strain of Marijuana that can grow in all enviroments. The gov would be crapping themselves trying to control Marijuana lol

---

At 7/16/08 02:07 PM, BattleFieldNoob wrote: It's kind of dumb to ban the growth of Marijuana. YOU"RE BANNING A PLANT?! That's just ridiculus! So, my brother (Who takes AP Biology) is planning on creating a strain of Marijuana that can grow in all enviroments. The gov would be crapping themselves trying to control Marijuana lol

How's he going to do that? Just breed the hardiest plants with each other?

To be honest, weed grows pretty readily anyway. If everyone just started throwing seeds in the woods or other patches of soil, it'd spread eventually.

---

When we landed in the "new world" there were wild hemp plants if I'm not mistaken.

---

Panic! Panic! "War on Drugs" but you can buy beer in gas stations.
The Myth is Real-Lets Eat

---

At 7/16/08 01:44 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 7/15/08 08:37 PM, Creek wrote:
To some people it does.

Where are these people.

In their houses? how am i supposed to know? If you're saying they don't exist then I'm not going to argue you with that. There's no way of proving something that hasn't happened yet.

We're doing that nowdays anyway.

Not very well. Because, oh yeah, people are doing drugs. Millions of them. Failure.

Yeah, the thing I'm arguing is that many people would join them if it becomes legal. And again, there is no way to prove / disprove this because it hasn't happened yet. All I am doing is assuming based on the people I've interacted with in my life. I would know they would think about trying this drug now that they don't have to deal with crime / gangs and bullshit. Also, if they can get their hands on it.

argue that with the state's funding for education, not me.

that's the concept, state funding, and where it's going down the drain, spending money on drug prosecution does fucking nothing except harden the criminals imo. We can be much more efficient.

It does harden the criminals. But go argue that with the state, I can't do anything about it.

And in my opinion I think it will increase usage. And I'm gonna point it again just because I don't want another reply with this back and forth shit. There is no way to prove what people will do if it becomes legal / illegal, therefore I can't prove my argument.

I agree with the fast food thing. It's mental addiction. But it's not physical dependence.

Really?

heh, didn't know that. Guess we learn something new everyday.

You don't have extreme withdrawal symptoms if you stop eating fast food. (notice i said extreme). And I'm pretty sure people don't get addicted to crashing cars.

A lot of people crave certain foods, all the time. People are also addicted to the concept of owning a car. In case you haven't noticed, there are cars everywhere.

I thought that was because most people need cars, you know to get around to work and places.
But I wouldn't really call that an addiction as much as a necessity.

That's nice, and I agree, but people are getting physically addicted with or without prohibition. As was already said. All money could be turned towards information. Much much much more information. We need it.

I agree, we need more information. And I know people get physically addicted with prohibition also. I was arguing that cell phones don't get you physically addicted.

It's a real question.

That you didn't adequately answer really.

I'm lost. What's the question again?

---

At 7/16/08 09:23 AM, Elfer wrote: What makes you think they'll be cheaper and easier to get? Making something legal doesn't mean you're always able to sell it at corner stores. As for prices, they can be adjusted through taxation to only modestly undercut the black market prices (thereby destroying said black market).

well yeah, legalization will destroy the black market. But I think many people will be selling it simply because there would be people buying it. ***I really don't want another repetitive back and forth replies so I just want to say this for the last time (hopefully) that it can't be proven or not that there will be an increase in people buying it until it becomes legal. It's just what I think because I see it as something likely to occur.

Also, keep in mind that with prohibition ended, we have 50 billion dollars b

I don't think we should be paying that much either. I was never supporting the current war on drugs. I think some policies should be changed. And in the case of marijuana decriminilized at LEAST. Obama supports that..

I didn't even read it, I was too damn lazy to read anything. I just googled 'meth brain damage' or something similar and pasted a link.

To support the idea that ecstasy harms the human brain? Not a great search method.

No my point was that drugs cause harm to the human brain. I searched meth not ecstacy because I've read stuff about meth before.

Your claim was "Ecstasy burns holes in your brain," and you still have no evidence of this.

I already went over this. Maybe that was a bad example, but I told you the point I was trying to make.

Which is what? Certain drugs that aren't ecstasy are harmful to the human brain? Even if that was your point, it still doesn't support prohibition, because prohibition is, in effect, complete deregulation of these substances.

it all goes back to increased usage. That more people would be damaging their brains.

It's actually (over here) really damn easy to get drugs from other people who are prescribed it. lol and it's sold pretty damn cheaply too. 2 ritalin pills are like 3$ here.

That's why you only prescribe addicts enough to get them through a certain period,

Yeah, but some kids who value money over drugs would get it subscribed just so they can sell it to the other people who want it. I know people like that. Skip their medicine to sell it.

or provide it only at certain injection sites. Injection sites have worked well for Switzerland, where they've found that people will actually decrease their dose if they're allowed to use it in a safe, controlled environment.

well maybe that's the way to heal addicts.

Lol, well you wouldn't make ten million units if you weren't going to sell a lot of them.

You see how we've gone around in a circle?

You: Legalizing drugs will cause more production, which means that there will be more people buying it for some reason

Yeah i just want to change this to: Legalizing drugs means there will be more people buying it which will cause more production. It's at that order.

Me: An increase in supply won't magically create demand for something. For example, I could make a bunch of something stupid, and people wouldn't buy it
You: Yeah, but you wouldn't create so much if you didn't have buyers
Me: ...

sorry if I confused you.

How is the elimination of Schedule I getting people addicted to a drug?

New people try it = addicts.

Okay, so how does the elimination of Schedule I = new people try it? (Tips: Cocaine is Schedule II)

No fear of arrest or crime doing. No fear of doing something wrong that will get you in trouble. Again, can't prove something that hasn't taken effect yet.

Yeah, but we don't want an increase do we? At least I don't. As you can see my point is that people will try it and get addicted to it, simply because it's legal & easy to get.

But WHY? Would you do meth if it was legal? I wouldn't.

There are stupid people out there.

Not a supporter of bullshit propaganda either, but prohibition by itself keeps people from even considering doing it.

Apparently it doesn't, considering the rampant drug problem.

by people I meant certain people. Not all people. Some people don't even consider doing it because it's illegal.

I don't know where you've been educated, but there are plenty of stupid teachers. T.V. commercials are obviously bullshit, i just laugh at them.

I know. What I'm asking you is, do you think it's impossible for us to start an honest campaign to educate people about the effects of drugs and their risks?

Yes! and I want an honest campaign to teach you about drugs too. The shit they tell you about some drugs is ridiculous. Especially how the information about marijuana is so biased.

Scare tactics will work for some, but many people will ignore the risks if they assume they're being lied to.

That's true. And a reason alot of people start doing hard drugs is because they've been told marijuana can do terrible shit to you, and actually tried it and found it's totally harmless. So they think they've been lied to so they try other hard drugs because they assume school lied about that too. That's why I support the legalization of marijuana, it does NOT belong in the category with harmful, illegal substances.

How am I supposed to prove it? Only thing I could think about is this video. Listen to what some of them say. I think it's 1 or 2. Remember, this is marijuana not crack.

What I mean is, after so much campaigning against it, and if we implemented proper drug education, do you really think that the use of heroin, cocaine and meth would suddenly become socially acceptable? In many places, marijuana use is socially acceptable (despite the legality) because people actually know about the substance and its effects.

Yeah but sadly it's not the majority. My freinds parents didn't really care when he got caught drinking. But they were shocked when they caught him high.

And? In moderation, alcohol is a fairly soft drug, and doesn't pose the same health risks as other substances.

So should we introduce harder drugs that would pose health risks? Kids are curious, I know I was.

Lots of people don't smoke cigarettes, despite the fact that they're legal.

And lots of people do.

Well with some things it's hard to give anything beyond your opinion. Like how Americans would react to a legalization of all drugs.

Well, there's countries where prohibition on certain substances ended. For example, the Netherlands legalized marijuana, and if I recall correctly, the usage rate didn't increase. There's also alcohol prohibition, where the introduction had no mitigating effect on alcohol consumption (alcoholism actually increased), and there was no rise in use when prohibition was repealed.

Oh the usage of marijuana will increase in the united states, I'm very positive about that. Considering I would be first in line to buy some.

the current war on drugs is a failure.

And yes, my friend stopped smoking when he got a job.

Probably because he has a shitty unskilled labour job where they test for drug use, right?

That's a very nice way to talk about people. A job is a job, and his job does require a drug test.

There are plenty of people who are not doing drugs because it's illegal. When I get older and would have to support a family I wouldn't risk my job for a drug.

So here's a question: Is the punishment of destroying someone's livelihood and leaving their families without a provider just because they were using drugs privately in a responsible manner justified?

Absolutely not. I don't think that it does. I think myself it's an improper punishment, It's a change in policy that I want. A fine would be a much more acceptable punishment.

So then WHY MAINTAIN PROHIBITION?

Because it's keeping it where it's at.

---

At 7/16/08 11:11 AM, Pontificate wrote: My point, dear boy,

Why do you keep saying "dear boy" ? do you think it's witty? or I'm some goody goody tooshoo or whatever?

is that they were brought to my attention and explained honestly. The result: an individual who has no desire to try a great deal of drugs.

You can still bring it to attention and explain it honestly. I think there should be more of that too.

Anywho I'm afraid to say the crime industry that has spread up around drugs is because of it being illegal.

I don't know why you're afraid to say it. It's true. Legalizing marijuana alone would take out their largest source of money.

While there are some incidents due to inebriation there is also such (and in far greater numbers) cases with alcohol usage so it is not a sufficient ground for continuing a system that is evidently not working.

So why would we want to increase the cases with the other drugs. There are far greater numbers of those cases with alcohol because more people do it. If it becomes legal, I think more people would start it too, I think that is very likely.

Well I'm afraid with language one has to bow towards the popular consensus; which is a defintion of 'fry' that means alcohol dependancy very much does 'fry' the brain.

We're not on the same page, so I'm not going to argue a definition with you. Obviously we both interpret it differently.

Pray tell me, why are these drugs being sold over the counter in a store with no regulations considering the addictive nature of the product? I'm just curious.

Because they will be legal. Drugs like opiates and adderall (amphetamines) are subscribed and legal for medical use. But if you have it in your car and you don't have a subscription, it's now narcotics.

Then why be at the hospital?

I was hoping you'd enlighten me to that point; you are, after all, the one who brought up hospitals. I was just postulating safe areas in which to take drugs. Under superviison, naturally.

Sorry, I thought that's what you were talking about when you said "clinical environment"

Your 'ecstacy bores holes in the brain' rumour for one. Governmental propaganda is equally terrible but do not be mistaken as to where these rumuors come from: they stem not from officials but are constructions of society.

Yeah you're right. I get it now.

Same with marjiuana, and if it's legalized it will have increased usage. And seriously dude, I'd be smoking everyday if it became legal. Just walk into the supermarket and ask for marijuana cigarettes. Easy, safe, no trouble.

Perhaps you could argue that case with marijuana but as we are both, and most of the world, aware marijuana is not as crippling as other substances and so the same arguement cannot really be applied. You might freely indulge in cannabis but can you say the same for more harmful drugs?

no because I haven't tried any other drugs. And can't because of my medicine.

Of course it is, same with alcohol addicts. But we can accept drinking alcohol.

Much in the same way they could accept cocaine usage as long as it was not an addiction; I fail to see how this furthers your arguement at all.

that cocaine will be accepted for recreational usage just like alcohol does. That is my argument.

Far too late for that; drugs are very much an undercurrent in our society. Something the media does very little to prevent.

I know drugs are, but it's about not increasing their usage.

Anywho one could argue that the biggest rammifications of drug usage are due to the prohibition: gang violence and warfare.

That's a problem, I agree. Legalize marijuana and gangs all of the sudden can't get guns for the kids.

Well for the first part that is incredibly heartless of you and for the second rather naive. I posit, and have continuously without any real rebuttal, that the drug prohibition is quite clearly not stopping people from trying drugs if they so wish.

But it's stopping people who don't think about wishing to try it. to want to try it.

You'd rather pay to have them put in prison? Let us not forget the massive amounts of funding that goes in to this 'War on Drugs'.

Hell no, we shouldn't be spending that much on a small nuisance.

---

At 7/17/08 01:08 AM, Creek wrote: I don't know why you're afraid to say it. It's true. Legalizing marijuana alone would take out their largest source of money.

For fucks sake, how can you be so arrogantly hypocritical? Gangs make money off of those "hard" drugs otherwise they wouldn't be selling them.

At 7/17/08 01:08 AM, Creek wrote: But it's stopping people who don't think about wishing to try it. to want to try it.

Maybe they should start thinking for themselves. People have been lulled into this false sense of security that government is supposed to do protect them from everything "evil."

At 7/17/08 01:08 AM, Creek wrote: that cocaine will be accepted for recreational usage just like alcohol does. That is my argument.

Huh? Alcohol and cocaine are not the same, thus you want ban the latter. So then cocaine will not be treated in society as the same as alcohol. The Netherlands has half as many marijuana users than that of America and that is because it is legal and it takes away the mystique of it. Doing nothing but sitting in a cafe being too numb to move doesn't seem like a recreation anyone wants to do.

At 7/17/08 01:08 AM, Creek wrote: That's a problem, I agree. Legalize marijuana and gangs all of the sudden can't get guns for the kids.

Gangs still make money off of cocaine, ecstasy, heroine, etc. Do you think they sell it out of the goodness of their hearts?

At 7/17/08 01:08 AM, Creek wrote: Because they will be legal. Drugs like opiates and adderall (amphetamines) are subscribed and legal for medical use. But if you have it in your car and you don't have a subscription, it's now narcotics.

Because of people like you they ban Tylenol PM just because someone might abuse it and make cocaine out of it. A doctor knows a vaccine can cure or an overdose can kill. Heroin makes for a more powerful sedative than morphine.