touchy subject.......

[Lazarus The Resurected]

zz1000zz

freelance lover

However, I am, in general, a big proponent of legalization and I'm against the war on drugs because well... it doesn't work.

Eh, the reason the war on drugs doesn't work is nobody really wants it to work. Drugs prohibition could work pretty well if there was actually the proper support for it.

Nah, prohibition never works. Look what happened when they made alcohol illegal. people are going to do whatever they want whenever they want. The government might as well make some money taxing it.  

[freelance lover]

Lazarus The Resurected

zz1000zz

freelance lover

However, I am, in general, a big proponent of legalization and I'm against the war on drugs because well... it doesn't work.

Eh, the reason the war on drugs doesn't work is nobody really wants it to work. Drugs prohibition could work pretty well if there was actually the proper support for it.

Nah, prohibition never works. Look what happened when they made alcohol illegal. people are going to do whatever they want whenever they want. The government might as well make some money taxing it.

Truth. During prohibition, people made moonshine that made them go blind or killed them gonk There's a lot of suggest that if drugs (specifically pot, right now) were to be ushered in like alcohol was after prohibition, it would probably be a pretty painless process.

Besides, so many gangs and organized crime groups make tons of money from drugs. By legalizing it, you'd cut off a major source of income for them.

I also just realized how off topic this whole thing is... sorry. sweatdrop  

[The Amazing Ryuu]

zz1000zz

Honestly, I don't support the legalization of any drug. Mind you, the Bible doesn't condemn things like marijuana. It is just me.

I won't tell people it is "wrong" to smoke pot. I can't. However, I will say I hate what it does to people. I've known plenty of people who use marijuana, both regularly and casually. In every case, I've found them intolerable while they were using marijuana.

I have never seen marijuana, or any other drug, used in a way which didn't make the person less pleasant to be around. Given they have only contributed negatively, I am glad they are illegal.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who can't be around people while they're high. I suppose that being high with them might have lowered the irritation factor, but I don't like the idea of chemically altering my mind, and I don't need drugs to "enhance" anything I'm doing.  

[zz1000zz]

freelance lover

Lazarus The Resurected

zz1000zz

freelance lover

However, I am, in general, a big proponent of legalization and I'm against the war on drugs because well... it doesn't work.

Eh, the reason the war on drugs doesn't work is nobody really wants it to work. Drugs prohibition could work pretty well if there was actually the proper support for it.

Nah, prohibition never works. Look what happened when they made alcohol illegal. people are going to do whatever they want whenever they want. The government might as well make some money taxing it.

Truth. During prohibition, people made moonshine that made them go blind or killed them gonk There's a lot of suggest that if drugs (specifically pot, right now) were to be ushered in like alcohol was after prohibition, it would probably be a pretty painless process.

Besides, so many gangs and organized crime groups make tons of money from drugs. By legalizing it, you'd cut off a major source of income for them.

I also just realized how off topic this whole thing is... sorry. sweatdrop

These two responses don't really make sense. I said drug prohibition could work pretty well if there was proper support for it. Obviously, there wasn't proper support for Prohibition, so offering it as an example of how I am wrong makes no sense.

Prohibition failed because of a lack of support for it, not because it was inherently doomed. The same is true of drug bans.  

[zz1000zz]

freelance lover

zz1000zz

freelance lover

However, I am, in general, a big proponent of legalization and I'm against the war on drugs because well... it doesn't work.

Eh, the reason the war on drugs doesn't work is nobody really wants it to work. Drugs prohibition could work pretty well if there was actually the proper support for it.

I just prefer legalization of most drugs because then they can be regulated, which will make them safer. People are going to do drugs regardless, but by regulating them, people will be able to better educate themselves on what they're putting in their bodies. They'll know the dosage for sure, so there will be less guess work, and they'll be fully assured that the substance they're putting in their body is what they claim it is. I think it'll help remove the taboo that comes with drug use as well.

I just think it's a safer alternative. That's how I feel about most things though- banning only leads to making it more alluring.

There is some value in legalizing drugs, especially less directly dangerous drugs such as marijuana. However, there is value in keeping them banned as well. There is rarely a clear and obvious answer for large issues like this.

Incidentally, I never understood why people say drugs being illegal makes them more alluring. Even if one doesn't think the effect is massively overstated, what about all the people who don't use drugs because they are illegal? How do we say which effect is larger?  

[serketcity]

Legally speaking, the reason why Marijuana is illegal is the same reason while drinking and driving is illegal- the effects of the drug are of an unpredictable nature and may present a clear and present danger to others. As such, it must be controlled under law, because otherwise we may have people running around baked all the time. It's considered unpredictable because of how it is not controlled- street dealers mix up new materials into a joint, including proven dangerous chemicals such as cocaine, paint, and PCP. In addition, the effects are different on each person and much more difficult to control in the event of an overdose- when a person "ODs" on alcohol or pills they are given an IV and have their stomach pumped, while and overdose of smoke is commonly referred to as suffocation. It is much more difficult to treat something that is taken into the lungs than it is to treat something taken into the stomach.

That being said, I advocate the legalization of Marijuana. For starters, if it is legalized the government can tax it in a similar manner to the "sin tax" on alcohol and tobacco. The tax jacks up the price, plus makes it easier to prosecute those found selling it under federal law (more laws that they're breaking). In addition, once it is legalized laws could be passed that control the substance like alcohol- don't smoke and drive, operate machinery, etc. It would no longer be an illegal substance but it would remain a controlled substance not to be given to minors. That sort of thing. It will remain a conscious choice to consume or use, but the choice would no longer involve breaking the law or endangering others.

So, in conclusion, I see no religious issue here, only one of laws and facts. If you want to get technical, the law's stance is that you can do nearly anything you feel like so long as no one else is affected, while religion takes the stance that some things are inherently wrong. Typically the two overlap, so if you find drinking and smoking morally and religiously wrong you probably wouldn't like Marijuana even if it is being used responsibly. Otherwise the only objection should be the fact that you're disobeying your government and the law by using it under the current system.  

[serketcity]

zz1000zz

Incidentally, I never understood why people say drugs being illegal makes them more alluring. Even if one doesn't think the effect is massively overstated, what about all the people who don't use drugs because they are illegal? How do we say which effect is larger?

About this little bit... didn't both the Bible and Ben Franklin mention something about forbidden fruit being sweeter? Wanting is much better than having, and if something is forbidden than you can do no more than want. It makes the want grow, until it either overcomes you or you overcome it. That is the struggle involved in terms of willpower and addiction.  

[zz1000zz]

Thhartokk

zz1000zz

Incidentally, I never understood why people say drugs being illegal makes them more alluring. Even if one doesn't think the effect is massively overstated, what about all the people who don't use drugs because they are illegal? How do we say which effect is larger?

About this little bit... didn't both the Bible and Ben Franklin mention something about forbidden fruit being sweeter?

I am fairly certain the Bible doesn't say that, but I don't know about what Benjamin Franklin may have said. That guys said a lot of things, and I wouldn't take his quips as anything more than witty saying.

Thhartokk

Wanting is much better than having, and if something is forbidden than you can do no more than want. It makes the want grow, until it either overcomes you or you overcome it. That is the struggle involved in terms of willpower and addiction.

Say what? The first sentence here has two clauses which are wrong, the second sentence makes gross assumptions and the third sentence seems to be discussing a different subject entirely (addiction, what?).

Perhaps it is just a failure of understanding on my part, but this just seems like nonsensical rambling.  

[freelance lover]

zz1000zz

freelance lover

Lazarus The Resurected

zz1000zz

freelance lover

However, I am, in general, a big proponent of legalization and I'm against the war on drugs because well... it doesn't work.

Eh, the reason the war on drugs doesn't work is nobody really wants it to work. Drugs prohibition could work pretty well if there was actually the proper support for it.

Nah, prohibition never works. Look what happened when they made alcohol illegal. people are going to do whatever they want whenever they want. The government might as well make some money taxing it.

Truth. During prohibition, people made moonshine that made them go blind or killed them gonk There's a lot of suggest that if drugs (specifically pot, right now) were to be ushered in like alcohol was after prohibition, it would probably be a pretty painless process.

Besides, so many gangs and organized crime groups make tons of money from drugs. By legalizing it, you'd cut off a major source of income for them.

I also just realized how off topic this whole thing is... sorry. sweatdrop

These two responses don't really make sense. I said drug prohibition could work pretty well if there was proper support for it. Obviously, there wasn't proper support for Prohibition, so offering it as an example of how I am wrong makes no sense.

Prohibition failed because of a lack of support for it, not because it was inherently doomed. The same is true of drug bans.

I guess (in my head) they're related in that I don't see much support for drugs being illegal either. There are a lot of instances of drugs being made illegal based on economic and political factors rather than them being dangerous. LSD was made illegal largely to repress the counter culture that was building in California and weed mas made illegal partially because tobacco growers were afraid of the competition. I guess I also believe in giving people the choice to do what they will with their bodies.

I've only ever been around drunk people or people high on marijuana, and nine out of ten times they're usually pretty mellow and don't bother me. I have been around some crazy ones though, and that's much less fun.  

[zz1000zz]

freelance lover

I guess (in my head) they're related in that I don't see much support for drugs being illegal either. There are a lot of instances of drugs being made illegal based on economic and political factors rather than them being dangerous. LSD was made illegal largely to repress the counter culture that was building in California and weed mas made illegal partially because tobacco growers were afraid of the competition. I guess I also believe in giving people the choice to do what they will with their bodies.

I've only ever been around drunk people or people high on marijuana, and nine out of ten times they're usually pretty mellow and don't bother me. I have been around some crazy ones though, and that's much less fun.

There is actually quite a bit of support for the criminalization of most drugs. Marijuana is one of the only drugs where bans are not widely supported. Just look at crystal meth, PCP or crack cocaine to see how little support there is for legalizing drugs in general.

Here's a thought. In the United States, one in 35 children live with at least one parent who abuses illegal drugs. One in nine children live with a parent who abuses alcohol. Does anyone really believe legalizing drugs would make these statistics better?  

[freelance lover]

zz1000zz

freelance lover

I guess (in my head) they're related in that I don't see much support for drugs being illegal either. There are a lot of instances of drugs being made illegal based on economic and political factors rather than them being dangerous. LSD was made illegal largely to repress the counter culture that was building in California and weed mas made illegal partially because tobacco growers were afraid of the competition. I guess I also believe in giving people the choice to do what they will with their bodies.

I've only ever been around drunk people or people high on marijuana, and nine out of ten times they're usually pretty mellow and don't bother me. I have been around some crazy ones though, and that's much less fun.

There is actually quite a bit of support for the criminalization of most drugs. Marijuana is one of the only drugs where bans are not widely supported. Just look at crystal meth, PCP or crack cocaine to see how little support there is for legalizing drugs in general.

Here's a thought. In the United States, one in 35 children live with at least one parent who abuses illegal drugs. One in nine children live with a parent who abuses alcohol. Does anyone really believe legalizing drugs would make these statistics better?

I don't support legalization of drugs like crack, PCP, meth and heroin. Generally anything addictive or with proven negative side effects is something I'm not in favor of legalizing.

It's a difficult topic because it's such a fine line to walk. I mean, this past summer when I was working with inner city kids, one of the other sites had a kid show up high on stuff he picked up at home, which was awful. On the other hand, some people do use drugs responsibly. It's always the question of should we restrict all people because some people screw it up by being irresponsible.  

[Matt Pniewski]

zz1000zz

Here's a thought. In the United States, one in 35 children live with at least one parent who abuses illegal drugs. One in nine children live with a parent who abuses alcohol. Does anyone really believe legalizing drugs would make these statistics better?

Do you really believe they will make statistics worse?

Also, you forget why Prohibition fell apart- The crime that happened as a direct result of it. Who has nothing to gain from the legalization of illicit drugs? The criminals, the crooks, the pushers. No more gang members shooting the hell out of eachother of sales.

If we legalize Marijuana, but not harder substances, that's still a massive blow to crime in Chicago.

I have no interest in preserving the lifeblood of these criminal enterprises that even our Police Force is afraid of. But then again, the Chicago Police force IS a bunch of Cowards. Can beat a hippie to the ground, but won't even patrol in a high crime area.....  

[zz1000zz]

Matt Pniewski

zz1000zz

Here's a thought. In the United States, one in 35 children live with at least one parent who abuses illegal drugs. One in nine children live with a parent who abuses alcohol. Does anyone really believe legalizing drugs would make these statistics better?

Do you really believe they will make statistics worse?

I can't see any reasons to believe legalizing drugs would lead to a decrease in the abuse of them, but it seems obvious it would lead to an increase in use. An increase in use would seem likely to lead to an increase in abuse, as evidenced by alcohol being more popular and thus more abused.

So would making drugs more accessible increase the amount of drug use? I'd say yes.

Matt Pniewski

Also, you forget why Prohibition fell apart- The crime that happened as a direct result of it. Who has nothing to gain from the legalization of illicit drugs? The criminals, the crooks, the pushers. No more gang members shooting the hell out of eachother of sales.

I haven't forgotten anything. The crime was a direct result of the lack of support for Prohibition. When people, including those running the government and police force, fail to support a legal policy, that legal policy tends to get broken. When the legal system stops being applied, the protections which come with it go away.

Matt Pniewski

If we legalize Marijuana, but not harder substances, that's still a massive blow to crime in Chicago.

I have no interest in preserving the lifeblood of these criminal enterprises that even our Police Force is afraid of. But then again, the Chicago Police force IS a bunch of Cowards. Can beat a hippie to the ground, but won't even patrol in a high crime area.....

The problem you are talking about is similar to the problem with Prohibition. There are rules about drugs, but those rules aren't really being enforced (I'd also argue they are somewhat poorly crafted, but that's different issue). The crime levels come not from the fact the drug is banned, but from the fact the ban isn't being effective.

One option when a rule doesn't work is to discard the rule. Another option is to make changes to make the rule work. Both are viable options, but you can only do one. I much prefer the latter. I think the idea of legalizing something because society has failed to control it due to corruption, laziness and incompetence is ridiculous.

By the way, you can't simply say legalizing something will stop the crime associated with it. Things are far more complicated than that.  

[zz1000zz]

freelance lover

zz1000zz

freelance lover

I guess (in my head) they're related in that I don't see much support for drugs being illegal either. There are a lot of instances of drugs being made illegal based on economic and political factors rather than them being dangerous. LSD was made illegal largely to repress the counter culture that was building in California and weed mas made illegal partially because tobacco growers were afraid of the competition. I guess I also believe in giving people the choice to do what they will with their bodies.

I've only ever been around drunk people or people high on marijuana, and nine out of ten times they're usually pretty mellow and don't bother me. I have been around some crazy ones though, and that's much less fun.

There is actually quite a bit of support for the criminalization of most drugs. Marijuana is one of the only drugs where bans are not widely supported. Just look at crystal meth, PCP or crack cocaine to see how little support there is for legalizing drugs in general.

Here's a thought. In the United States, one in 35 children live with at least one parent who abuses illegal drugs. One in nine children live with a parent who abuses alcohol. Does anyone really believe legalizing drugs would make these statistics better?

I don't support legalization of drugs like crack, PCP, meth and heroin. Generally anything addictive or with proven negative side effects is something I'm not in favor of legalizing.

It's a difficult topic because it's such a fine line to walk. I mean, this past summer when I was working with inner city kids, one of the other sites had a kid show up high on stuff he picked up at home, which was awful. On the other hand, some people do use drugs responsibly. It's always the question of should we restrict all people because some people screw it up by being irresponsible.

One problem with using the criteria of "proven negative effects" is it is difficult to prove negative effects in something which is illegal. This is especially true when most of the research on it is from advocacy groups. For example, the current status of research on marijuana is in no way conclusive about anything. People supporting it tend to say it is "healthy," yet how many of them can tell you what marijuana's impact on the immune system is?

By the way, I assume when you say "addictive" you mean physically addictive.  

[freelance lover]

zz1000zz

freelance lover

zz1000zz

freelance lover

I guess (in my head) they're related in that I don't see much support for drugs being illegal either. There are a lot of instances of drugs being made illegal based on economic and political factors rather than them being dangerous. LSD was made illegal largely to repress the counter culture that was building in California and weed mas made illegal partially because tobacco growers were afraid of the competition. I guess I also believe in giving people the choice to do what they will with their bodies.

I've only ever been around drunk people or people high on marijuana, and nine out of ten times they're usually pretty mellow and don't bother me. I have been around some crazy ones though, and that's much less fun.

There is actually quite a bit of support for the criminalization of most drugs. Marijuana is one of the only drugs where bans are not widely supported. Just look at crystal meth, PCP or crack cocaine to see how little support there is for legalizing drugs in general.

Here's a thought. In the United States, one in 35 children live with at least one parent who abuses illegal drugs. One in nine children live with a parent who abuses alcohol. Does anyone really believe legalizing drugs would make these statistics better?

I don't support legalization of drugs like crack, PCP, meth and heroin. Generally anything addictive or with proven negative side effects is something I'm not in favor of legalizing.

It's a difficult topic because it's such a fine line to walk. I mean, this past summer when I was working with inner city kids, one of the other sites had a kid show up high on stuff he picked up at home, which was awful. On the other hand, some people do use drugs responsibly. It's always the question of should we restrict all people because some people screw it up by being irresponsible.

One problem with using the criteria of "proven negative effects" is it is difficult to prove negative effects in something which is illegal. This is especially true when most of the research on it is from advocacy groups. For example, the current status of research on marijuana is in no way conclusive about anything. People supporting it tend to say it is "healthy," yet how many of them can tell you what marijuana's impact on the immune system is?

By the way, I assume when you say "addictive" you mean physically addictive.

Yes, I do mean physically, since pretty much anything has the capability of becoming psychologically addictive.

I don't believe any drugs to be healthy, because messing with your body's chemistry is never ideal, but I do agree it's hard to say one way or another what the affects of different drugs are. I've heard a lot of claims that drugs like ecstasy or acid do x, y, or z in long term damage (or long term benefits for that matter) but I think it's difficult to make any claims because most of those tests are taken on people who use drugs recreationally and obtain them illegally. This means there's no guarantee that the substances their ingesting are pure or even the substances they claim. Half of all ecstasy doesn't even contain MDMA, and often contains other drugs like meth and DMX. It just makes it too difficult to make any solid claims.