Allow Mind altering substances?

[Drakim]

Rather than making another topic about "should drugs be allowed", I'm more interested in the whole idea of mind altering substances. This includes alcohol along with drugs. It's anything that clearly affects your state of mind (getting drunk, high, etc).

Should these be allowed? Most people have an opinion that substance X should be allowed because it's not so strong but substance Y should not because it's too powerful, etc.

But what are your logical justifications?

I could see both extreme sides of the arguments, saying either that:

a) The government has nothing to do with you getting drunk or high, it's your private recreational thing.
b) Any substance that strongly affects the mind is a potential harm causer (drink driving anyone?) and such substances should therefore not be allowed.

What I do however have some problems understanding, is the moderate position. It's okay to drink your brains out, but it's not okay to get high? Can't your judgment be just as clouded by being drunk as it can when you are high?

So, what are your arguments for drawing the line? I'm especially interested in those with moderate positions, as stated above.

[Helicopterz]

Everything alters your mind.

Live in a city? Congrats you are more likely to get cancer.

Live in the country? More likely to be shut off.

You can't escape the fact that all outside variables completely alter your mind and perception.

So based on that, on the fact that everything alters your mind, labeling some things that do so, based on the fact that they are more controlled, is ridiculous.

I say more controlled, yes, because you can choose not to have a drink, you can't really choose to not live in the city. You can, but it's much more hassle.

So, basically. If you're going to make one substance illegal, I say, you have to make everything illegal then, because everything effects you.

[Helicopterz]

So, of course, we must first define.

What is a substance?

What is an altered mind?

[Drakim]

At 10/20/08 11:57 AM, Helicopterz wrote: Everything alters your mind.

Live in a city? Congrats you are more likely to get cancer.

Live in the country? More likely to be shut off.

You can't escape the fact that all outside variables completely alter your mind and perception.

So based on that, on the fact that everything alters your mind, labeling some things that do so, based on the fact that they are more controlled, is ridiculous.

I say more controlled, yes, because you can choose not to have a drink, you can't really choose to not live in the city. You can, but it's much more hassle.

So, basically. If you're going to make one substance illegal, I say, you have to make everything illegal then, because everything effects you.

A good point. However, mind altering substances affects your mind in a particular way, which we often see as negative. Have you ever encounted somebody who lost his balance and sense of good judgment because he lived in the city?

At 10/20/08 11:58 AM, Helicopterz wrote: So, of course, we must first define.

What is a substance?

What is an altered mind?

DX
Aw, come on, just play by the rules. This is not a philosophical thread. I'm not going to define substance for you.

[Helicopterz]

At 10/20/08 12:09 PM, Drakim wrote:
A good point. However, mind altering substances affects your mind in a particular way, which we often see as negative. Have you ever encounted somebody who lost his balance and sense of good judgment because he lived in the city?

Me. I tripped over the sidewalk at least100 times now since I've been in this new city. Since my tolerance isn't strong enough yet to handle it.

DX
Aw, come on, just play by the rules. This is not a philosophical thread. I'm not going to define substance for you.

Fair enough. I will continue to view substance as every piece of matter in existence then.

Now, socially, you are of course talking about substances that we directly consume, i.e. food and drink.

Well then I would say that fast food would be the same as alcohol.

[Helicopterz]

So basically, anything you can consume would be a substance, would it not?

I am definitely interested in the affects of ALL substances. That you consume, say, to narrow it down, with your digestive system.

[ForkRobotik]

Most people's arguments against drugs usually revolve around the fact that drugs aren't productive to society, so therefore you should not do them. It's an interesting line of thinking in that it insinuates a "greater good," and implies that your duty as a human is to submit yourself to this particular brand of living. It's actually quite offensive when you really think about it.

[Drakim]

At 10/20/08 01:47 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: Most people's arguments against drugs usually revolve around the fact that drugs aren't productive to society, so therefore you should not do them. It's an interesting line of thinking in that it insinuates a "greater good," and implies that your duty as a human is to submit yourself to this particular brand of living. It's actually quite offensive when you really think about it.

I see.

But what if it's not for being productive, but not being a harm? I mean, we already forbid driving while drunk, because you might kill people. Should we stop doing that?

If not, should we also forbid people from being in public placed while drunk/high, as you might harm people in other ways?

[ForkRobotik]

At 10/20/08 01:51 PM, Drakim wrote: But what if it's not for being productive, but not being a harm? I mean, we already forbid driving while drunk, because you might kill people. Should we stop doing that?

why would we stop that? It's one thing to be drunk in your house, it's another to be driving, which, as has been shown, seriously affects your ability to drive, and puts others at risk of being hurt or killed.

If not, should we also forbid people from being in public placed while drunk/high, as you might harm people in other ways?

In my country it is illegal to be in public intoxicated. Infact it's illegal to be on your front yard intoxicated(canada). It's generally not enforced unless you're causing a disturbance though.

It's one thing to put others at risk for your behaviour, and it's another to do something you (obviously) enjoy doing, and is a private affair. While i'm not a drug user, i see no reason why any drug should be illegal. If it was regulated we'd probably all be a little bit safer.

[Elfer]

Community and family was doing a pretty good job of keeping the drug problem under control before we made it legal, and they were doing it for free.

[Helicopterz]

I reiterate again.

Fast food is bad for society. It promotes unhealthy eating.

hell, everything is bad for you in excess. even using the computer.

[poxpower]

Arresting someone for making,selling, promoting, possessing or using any said substances is stupid.

However, penalties for crimes committed using said substances should be harsh.

[fahrenheit]

The only reason alcohol isn't banned is because it doesn't work and it creates more problems then it fixes. The same could be said against other drugs that are banned, but I don't think any politician is willing to stick out their nuts on a platter and suggest that legalizing drugs would potentially stop gang related drug deals, unsafe needles/aids infection, and other things that the illegal drug trade brings.

[RedSkunk]

I've written about this before....

...the intelligent use of drugs can also be an impetus for exploration, for creativity and introspection. The chief danger, then, is that the mind-altering substance allows us to think and perceive the world differently. And to reinterpret the world is to change it.

[Drakim]

At 10/20/08 06:28 PM, RedSkunk wrote: I've written about this before....

...the intelligent use of drugs can also be an impetus for exploration, for creativity and introspection. The chief danger, then, is that the mind-altering substance allows us to think and perceive the world differently. And to reinterpret the world is to change it.

I'm not asking about if drugs are good or not on such a personal level. I'm more thinking of society as a whole.

If you have a society in a bouble, and you drop down lots of pots to them, does that help or hurt that society, you think? : D

[Kazuhiro]

When I read "mind altering substances," I immediately thought of ritalin.

But what of ritalin and antidepressants and such? These substances are allowed. Are they less harmful somehow despite being equally mind-altering?

[Al6200]

I completely oppose the war on drugs, not because I think drugs are safe, because I've seen good, hard-working people treated like criminals because they have a drug habit. I used to work at a fast food restaurant, and one of my coworkers worked very hard, and did a lot of overtime. I heard one of the managers say that he was "Rough around the edges", just because he smoked pot.

It's fundamentally wrong that people who have a personal bad habit, like using drugs, are treated like criminals and second class citizens.

The government needs to reach out to the disadvantaged people who are likely to turn to drugs and drug dealing, not label them as second class citizens and push them farther away from mainstream society.

That said, drugs are definitely not a good habit. One day before I took a calculus test I drunk all these espressos, and then I felt like I had to pee during the test!

[kraor024]

Mind altering substances. Hmmm

I would say that you should be allowed to do what you want to with YOUR MIND as well as body, &life
If you are an adult then you should be able to take heroin if you so choose, I personally think it would be idiotic to but it is your life,your body,& your mind I see no reason why I or the government should stop you,After all you are hurting yourself but you are choosing to hurt yourself of your own accord. So I see no reason why it should not be allowed.

[SadisticMonkey]

If mind-altering substances are banned, does that mean government controls what we can do with our own minds?

[Earfetish]

The confused logic for why some drugs are bad and others are fine was something that always puzzled me as a young child.

I suppose society doesn't particularly want us to have a wide variety of recreational drugs to choose from at our leisure. It's easier to control us when we're experiencing the same things. I suppose maybe a lot of other drugs promote contemplation whereas alcohol promotes dumbness, disinterest and stupidity. Although maybe a drunk is prone to arguing, I dunno.

The only rationalisation I can think of is that the state would like to limit the experiences you can have. Maybe we need loads of criminals who aren't actually criminals, too, otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to have a sprawling bureaucracy controlling crime and justice. Drug laws kinda feed the system.

[Earfetish]

I also kinda think, if the people were REALLY ALLOWED to consider their choices, they'd want drugs. And after a few generations, they'd be pleased they had drugs. No-one wants the state mandating what they can do with their lives; in almost all other areas EVERYONE is passionate about less state interference.

[Drakim]

At 11/4/08 06:18 AM, Earfetish wrote: The confused logic for why some drugs are bad and others are fine was something that always puzzled me as a young child.

I'd say it's the compromise between two unchanging sides. And it's pretty random what got allowed and what got illegal. I mean, being drunk is a lot stronger and more shaping effect on the mind than some of the weaker illegal substances.

Ultimately, the argument comes down to that if you aren't sound of mind, you are more likely to do harmful things (which I don't think anybody would dispute, least they approve of drunken driving). The question is if it's the government's job to regulate this or not.