When recreational drugs are legal...

[granfire]

I think most of us have said we don't care what you ingest, if you are peaceful and don't harm anyone, there's no problem, BUT what of those who aren't peaceful and do harm others?
So, exactly what are we supposed to legalise? All drugs? Who do we allow to use, everyone or just adults? As shown by what is happening here, if people can't handle, and btw it's a lot of people not just a few, alcohol how are we to believe that by legalising all drugs we won't end up with an even worse situation? Tell us how legalising everything makes things better oh superior one.

Well, if you drink and become belligerent you go to jail. Same as when you cause a ruckus stone somber.

 

[zDom]

I think most of us have said we don't care what you ingest, if you are peaceful and don't harm anyone, there's no problem, BUT what of those who aren't peaceful and do harm others?

I think any reasonable person agrees those people should be put in jail/prison to preserve the safety of others — regardless of what (sugar, Cheetos, Heavy Metal Music, oxycontin, tequila) they ingested beforehand.

So, exactly what are we supposed to legalise? All drugs? Who do we allow to use, everyone or just adults?

These are indeed some great questions that are worth discussing by people willing to discuss them.

As shown by what is happening here, if people can't handle ... alcohol how are we to believe that by legalising all drugs we won't end up with an even worse situation?

Better, worse ... I dunno. Depends on your views. But those who FOUNDED the country I live believed certain "truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..."

So whether or not it makes it better or worse, it would certainly be consistent with the principles upon which this country was founded.

Currently the pursuit of happiness in the U.S. of A is curtailed by other factors: money, nanny state, whatever.

Tell us how legalising everything makes things better oh superior one.

Whether or not I am actually superior or not is certainly open to debate But I certainly feel superior in that I can, and have been, persuaded by reasonable argument on more than one occasion to amend beliefs rather than clinging to things that I have heard or read on the Internet, remembered and cited or repeated when pressed to justify my belief.

 

[Tgace]

THE TOUGH PRACTICAL QUESTIONS REGARDING LEGALIZATION

In their 1993 report the INCB asked these tough practical questions regarding implementation of drug legalization:

17(a) What drugs would be legalized (cannabis, cocaine, crack (the free-base form of cocaine), heroin, hallucinogens, ecstasy? According to what criteria would they be legalized and who would determine those criteria?

(b) What potency levels would be permitted (5 per cent, 10 per cent or 14 per cent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of cannabis; Burmese No. 3 grade, Mexican black tar or China white heroin)?

( c) Since legalization would entail the removal of prescription requirements for psychoactive pharmaceuticals, what would be done to control the adverse consequences of their non-medical use? How would the marketing of such new drugs be dealt with? Would they be permitted without even a qualifying period and evaluation? What would happen with designer drugs?

(d) Would production and manufacture be limited? If so, how would be limits be enforced (e.g. limited to home production for personal use or to cottage industries or to major enterprises)?

(e) What market restrictions would there be? Would the private sector or the public sector or both be involved? How would price, purity and potency levels be established and regulated? Would advertising be permitted? If so, what drug would be advertised and by whom?

(f) Where would such drugs be sold (e.g. over the counter, through the mail, vending machines or restaurants)? Would the sale of such drugs be limited to dependent abusers? If so, how many and from which cities or countries? What about experimenters and those not yet granted dependent status?

(g) Would there be age limits for the use of legalized drugs and, if so, for which ones (e.g. access to cannabis at age 16, to cocaine at age 18 and to heroin at age 21)? Would there be restrictions on use because of impairment of function (e.g. restrictions on use by transport, defence, nuclear power and other workers)?

(h) For any restrictions found necessary or desirable, what agency would enforce the law, what penalties and sanctions would be established for violations and how would the risks of corruption and continued illicit traffic be dealt with? INCB Report 1993

The legalizers have yet to effectively answer these questions.

Nobody on the legalization team has touched this I see.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Makalakumu]

Nobody on the legalization team has touched this I see.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

I've seen answers to those questions from organizations that are really into it, but overall, I favor very few government regulations. I think the free market would eventually arrive at the safest, most profitable product if the government doesn't protect the industry from liability or lie about the products. I can see fear of private litigation preventing any wide distribution of hard drugs. You can go after any producer now that it's legal. Strong pot and other hallucinogens probably wouldn't be sold widely at all...except maybe for religious ceremony. Perhaps best of all would be that without regulation or protection people could go after Big Pharma for their dangerous products.

Anyway, that's the best I can do while waiting for the pasta for dinner to finish.

 

[Tez3]

I think wanting to legalise drugs sounds like one of those things you 'discuss' at middle class dinner parties where everyone has had a few glasses of wine and is feeling nostalgic for their student days, the realities of legalising drugs doesn't come into play just the bit about playing at being rebels, 'oh look at us we are so down with it'....

We have legal alcohol and we as a society are paying dearly for that, the government taxes it to the tune of £15Billion a year yet it costs billions in medical care, time of work, policing, cleaning the streets and court time not to mention the ruined lives of those touched by it. I don't think anyone not from here can imagine what our streets are like in the towns and cities, you think that people will behave 'nicely' if they take legal drugs, they don't, it's hell frankly.

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/teenage-drinking-culture-full.pdf

I think you may be on the way to having the same problem with alcohol according to some who are replying to this http://brett-tesol.hubpages.com/hub/Why-are-we-drinking-so-much, adding legal drugs into the mix and I think you will be asking for trouble.


Your country wasn't founded in the first place by people who wanted complete freedom for everyone, the original settlers weren't exactly free thinkers were they? http://voices.yahoo.com/puritan-laws-early-america-6866776.html. When you gained independance do you think they had a drug taking culture in mind when they talked about freedom? Wasn't it true that the ideals of such things as the pursuit of happiness weren't to be considered as selfish rights but that of the good of society and that the rights given by your declaration of independance were only given to free white men? Sure the 'right's are now given to everyone but it was a long and bloody process wasn't it to get there.

The 'me' society where only the rights of the individual matter, what we call the I'm alright Jack' syndrome is something that leads to the death of decent societies -the ones that care about everyone and try to do the best for everyone, all these people see is their own selfish wants and needs. 'I want....' remind me again which of your presidents said 'ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.....'. The me mes won't have it, it's all about 'my rights', well if you want total freedom go off and live on your own, you can't have the benefits of society without paying the price.

Look at the aggressive ad campaigns for products now, the bombarding of children to get their parents to buy products, are you saying you'd like that for the hard drugs? Is it to be okay to have parents being stoned while looking after children? Yes there's parents who are now but at least with the laws now you can do something/ It's going to be fine for people to take whatever they want whenever they want? fine, you can manage it and not put people at risk but do you think everyone can?

To legalise all drugs is to open Pandora's box, you may not get it shut again with it's contents safely inside. Discussion on freedoms are fine but the truth is much uglier outside the dinner table's little bubble or indeed this thread's bubble.

This is just one part of price paid by decent people dealing with the freedom to drink http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...reaches-shocking-climax-Black-Eye-Friday.html

http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Booze-problems-strain-hospitals/story-14421345-detail/story.html

How do you balance their right to drink themselves to 'happiness' with our right not to have to deal with this?

 

[Makalakumu]

What will happen if the do-gooders prohibit booze in the UK? What would it take to actually enforce those laws? Do you want to live in that society?

The same definately applies to drugs like marijuana. No one wants to live in a society where that drug can actually be illegal.

 

[Tez3]

What will happen if the do-gooders prohibit booze in the UK? What would it take to actually enforce those laws? Do you want to live in that society?

The same definately applies to drugs like marijuana. No one wants to live in a society where that drug can actually be illegal.

What do gooders? We don't have anyone that wants to ban alcohol. You either have your head in the clouds or your head up your ****.
I want the right to walk down a street here without having vomit, faeces and urine all over the pavement, I want to walk down a street without having to avoid fights, to not have anything in the street vandalised, to not have to step over comatose bodies sprawled everwhere. I want to be able to have emergency medical care in A&E without having to wait for drunks to be treated, to not have to help nursing staff who are being assaulted. I don't want to read about anymore girls that are claiming rape because they had sex with a stranger and they don't remember.

You know what, I don't care if marijuana is ever made legal, I really don't give a stuff, I'm sick of the selfishness of people demanding their 'rights', I'm sick to death of people demanding their rights to destroy themselves while causing maximum worry, bother and danger to others, I'm fed up of people whinging and whining about 'their rights' frankly, if you can't do anything better than take drugs and binge drink I don't actually think you're worth that much to society so why should society actually care about you and your rights.

If you chose to live in society then abide by the rules, if you don't like it, sling your hook. If the people want drugs banned, then banned they should be. All this 'I have the right to take drugs if I want' yeah sure you have and we as society have the right to say 'sod you' and chuck you in prison. There is no such things as 'rights' in this world, it's a fallacy.

I don't care whether marijuana is legalised or not, I want what's best for the young, the old and the vulnerable in our society, I want people to be safe, happy and healthy. I want the best for the most people possible. I'm tired of all this greed and the 'me' generation. If you want to fill your head with drugged dreams fine but don't tell the rest of us that because we want to protect the innocent and the vulnerable that we are some sort of lower species.

I also think from the way you keep on about either legalising drugs or banning you have no ideas of any middle way such as Portugal has found, it's all very over dramatic. Compromise, compromise compromise, we all have to do it to be able to live in a decent society.

 

[celtic_crippler]

I'm thinking whether I can be bothered pointing out that alcohol is legal and the drinking of it to the point of intoxication is causing horrendous problems here. Not just the violence it's the rapes, the medical costs, the drunk driving, the anti social behavior etc.

What you can’t seem to understand is that these problems occur regardless.

Rapes occur regardless. As a matter of fact, if the police didn’t waste resources on pursing non-violent drug offenders they would have more resources to dedicate to the investigation and prosecution of rapists.

If alcohol was again illegal, people would still use it and still drive drunk. Antisocial behavior is a reflection of mental illness, as is addiction.

You keep attacking the symptoms instead of the disease. Doing so does nothing to remedy the illness. Do you think throwing diabetics in prison would curtail eating? They’d find a way to smuggle a doughnut into the prison just like they smuggle drugs into the prisons.

There is a difference between taking a popular and legal substance (Alcohol) and illegalizing it and taking a substance that has been illegal for as long as most of us remember and legalizing it.

What does that even mean?

Do I understand you correctly? You’re saying that because something has been illegal/legal for as long as you can remember that this is your justification for it remaining illegal/legal?

If that’s the case, I guess it was a good thing a lot of people didn’t feel that way about slavery.

There is a drinking culture in the UK especially in Scotland and Ireland that I don't think there is anywhere else. The idea of going out to get absolutely bladdered has been around for a very long time, Scotland has the highest rate of alcoholism in the UK and possibly the world. Hard drinking has long been the 'sign of being a man', in the military the Sgts' mess is known as a place of hard drinkers, weekend long drinking sessions are common even now. Women over the past few years are catching up with the men especially with the introduction of alcopops.
There will never be prohibition of alcohol here, the government makes far too much money out of it. Tax on alcohol is huge, it contributed nearly £15 billion to the govenment revenue. In fact the government allowed 24 hour licensing to enable more sales of alcohol and the binge drinking got worse, the streets are now full of drinkers vomiting, having sex and peeing as well as defecating, there's fights and the police end up having to sort it all out. Far from banning alcohol it's in the government's interest to encourage people to drink hence their inaction and only paying lipservice to any attempts to educate people on sensible drinking.
So you have the opposite of prohibition, it's in a government's interests to legalise harmful substances if there's money to be made from taxing them and bugger the consequences, as you can see.

Here’s another study for you published in February 2011…

According to the World Health Organization, the world drank the equivalent of 6.1 liters of pure alcohol per person in 2005. You actually aren’t far from the mark as the most consumption occurred in Europe and the states of the former Soviet Union. However, Moldovans are the most bibulous followed by the Czechs in second place.

Interestingly enough, home-brewed liquor accounts for almost 30% of the world’s drinking, so do you honestly think that making it illegal would have any real impact on the problem of alcoholism? According to history, and data available from the period known as “Prohibition” here in the US, the answer is a resounding NO.

If you’d like to actually see a pretty, color-coded map of the world’s alcohol consumption, here is a link for you: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/02/global_alcohol_consumption

Whereas there was not a moral consensus for Prohibition U.S. citizens
overwhelmingly are in favor of the the continued illegalization of illicit
drugs. [Robert E. Peterson, "Stop Legalization of Illegal Drugs;" Drug Awareness
Information Newsletter, July 1988].

Wrong.

Per history: The contemporary prohibitionist labeled their crusade as the “Noble Experiment”, and viewed the 18[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment as a victory for “public morals and health”.

And while many US citizens may have supported continued illegalization in 1988, that is no longer the case today. …most likely because they realized that “Refer Madness” was absolute nonsensical propaganda. LOL

More recent data for you: A gallop poll conducted in 2011 showed over 50% of Americans favored the legalization of marijuana and an article in US News from May of this year shows that 74% of Americans favor states legislating the use of marijuana over federal involvement.

I was going to continue addressing your post but it seems that most of your sources come from circa 1988 and pretty much all of my RECENT sources previously posted throughout this thread have disproved everything in your post all ready, so….

Perhaps the knowledge that your sources are over 20 years old and mine are more recent will give you cause to rethink your position.

I would add that during Prohibition alcohol consumption went down by about half and remained low until the 1940s… But before you begin jumping up and down in glee, I must also remind you that during that time violent crime drastically increased as a result of Prohibition.

Prohibition resulted in the growth of vast criminal organizations (including the modern American Mafia). It also generated rampant government corruption among politicians and within police forces.

So, again I point out that treating the problem as a criminal issue only leads to making things worse overall… for everyone, not only the addicts.

How about you address the facts presented?

Your turn. LOL

 

[celtic_crippler]

Here's the redux version... again. Apparently some people missed it because they claim their posts that followed it have not been addressed.

FACTS: (And these aren’t from “some doc I don’t know”… many are the result of studies conducted by our own government as well as legitimate health care professionals)

• Over $40 billion in tax payer money is spent annually yet drug use has not declined
• The availability of illicit drugs has more than doubled in the last few decades
• Illicit drugs are more potent and cheaper than they were 20 years ago
• The government receives no tax revenue from the sell of illicit drugs
• Gangs chief source of income comes from the sell of illicit drugs
• Since the inception of the “War on Drugs”, the instances of drug overdose and ER drug episodes has steadily risen
• Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug, yet has few adverse side effects. No one has ever overdosed from using marijuana and the long term health issues from its use are fewer than that of alcohol.
• Over 57% of addicts who want treatment receive none and are instead jailed.
• Each $1 invested in treatment saves $7 in societal costs
• Treatment is 10 times more effective at reducing use than imprisonment
• Over 60% of federal prisoners are incarcerated over NON-VIOLENT drug offenses. The US has more prisoners per capita than any other nation. Yet we claim to be the most “free”.
• More than 47,500 people have died in drug-related violence in Mexico over the last 5 years.
• 60% of the societal costs involved in illicit drug use are related to the associated black market crime related to the illegality of illicit drugs; only 30% of societal costs are related to the actual ingestion of illicit drugs.
• A Harvard study showed that the legalization of illicit drugs would inject over $76 billion annually into the US economy. Subtract the $40 billion spent annually on the War on Drugs and that’s a net increase of over $100 billion
• Studies show that treatment would be 23 times more effective than the current War on Drugs
• Only 10-15% of heroin and about 30% of cocaine shipments are intercepted by law enforcement. Over 75% would have to be intercepted to have any real impact on trafficker’s profits.
• According to the FBI in 2005, despite spending over $7 billion to arrest and prosecute over 800,000 people for marijuana offenses, 85% of all high school seniors reported that marijuana was “easy to obtain.”
• The Global Commission on Drug Policy recently released a report stating that the 4 decades long War on Drugs campaign has not only failed, but made the problem worse

And there’s much, much more out there… Those were just some highlights!!!

You asked for answers. The Global Commission on Drug Policy suggests the following:

• End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do not harm to others;
• Encourage the experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs (especially cannabis) to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens;
• Ensure that a variety of treatment modalities are available, including not just methadone and buprenorphine treatment, abut also the heroin-assisted treatment programs that have proven successful in many European countries and Canada;
• Apply human rights and harm reduction principles and policies both to people who use drugs as well as those involved in the lower ends of illegal drug markets such as farmers, couriers and petty sellers;
• Countries that continue to invest mostly in a law enforcement approach (despite the evidence) should focus their repression actions on violent organized crime and drug traffickers, in order to reduce the harms associated with the illicit drug market;
• Offer a wide and easily accessible range of options for treatment and care for drug dependence, including substitution and heroin-assisted treatment, with special attention to those most at risk, including those in prisons and other custodial settings;
• The United Nations system must provide leadership in the reform of global drug policy. This means promoting an effective approach based on evidence, supporting countries to develop drug policies that suit their context and meet their needs, and ensuring coherence among various UN agencies, policies and conventions.

 

[Tez3]

What you can’t seem to understand is that these problems occur regardless.

Rapes occur regardless. As a matter of fact, if the police didn’t waste resources on pursing non-violent drug offenders they would have more resources to dedicate to the investigation and prosecution of rapists.

If alcohol was again illegal, people would still use it and still drive drunk. Antisocial behavior is a reflection of mental illness, as is addiction.

You keep attacking the symptoms instead of the disease. Doing so does nothing to remedy the illness. Do you think throwing diabetics in prison would curtail eating? They’d find a way to smuggle a doughnut into the prison just like they smuggle drugs into the prisons.



What does that even mean?

Do I understand you correctly? You’re saying that because something has been illegal/legal for as long as you can remember that this is your justification for it remaining illegal/legal?

If that’s the case, I guess it was a good thing a lot of people didn’t feel that way about slavery.



Here’s another study for you published in February 2011…

According to the World Health Organization, the world drank the equivalent of 6.1 liters of pure alcohol per person in 2005. You actually aren’t far from the mark as the most consumption occurred in Europe and the states of the former Soviet Union. However, Moldovans are the most bibulous followed by the Czechs in second place.

Interestingly enough, home-brewed liquor accounts for almost 30% of the world’s drinking, so do you honestly think that making it illegal would have any real impact on the problem of alcoholism? According to history, and data available from the period known as “Prohibition” here in the US, the answer is a resounding NO.

If you’d like to actually see a pretty, color-coded map of the world’s alcohol consumption, here is a link for you: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/02/global_alcohol_consumption



Wrong.

Per history: The contemporary prohibitionist labeled their crusade as the “Noble Experiment”, and viewed the 18[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment as a victory for “public morals and health”.

And while many US citizens may have supported continued illegalization in 1988, that is no longer the case today. …most likely because they realized that “Refer Madness” was absolute nonsensical propaganda. LOL

More recent data for you: A gallop poll conducted in 2011 showed over 50% of Americans favored the legalization of marijuana and an article in US News from May of this year shows that 74% of Americans favor states legislating the use of marijuana over federal involvement.

I was going to continue addressing your post but it seems that most of your sources come from circa 1988 and pretty much all of my RECENT sources previously posted throughout this thread have disproved everything in your post all ready, so….

Perhaps the knowledge that your sources are over 20 years old and mine are more recent will give you cause to rethink your position.

I would add that during Prohibition alcohol consumption went down by about half and remained low until the 1940s… But before you begin jumping up and down in glee, I must also remind you that during that time violent crime drastically increased as a result of Prohibition.

Prohibition resulted in the growth of vast criminal organizations (including the modern American Mafia). It also generated rampant government corruption among politicians and within police forces.

So, again I point out that treating the problem as a criminal issue only leads to making things worse overall… for everyone, not only the addicts.



Your turn. LOL

Well I suppose I can't be surprised that you don't understand the situation as it pertains to alcohol here. Yes, rapes happen here with and without alcohol but what doesn't happen without alcohol (or drugs) is girls not remembering who they had sex with and whether they said yes or no to it then complaining to the police they've been raped because they found semen in their knickers.

Interesting however that you think eating is the cause of diabetes! Insulting diabetics or what. And that anti social behaviour is a symptom of mental illness.

Actually I've asked several times what people's solutions are to deal with addictions, etc etc but all anyone can say is 'legalise drugs', so no solutions there then.

 

[Makalakumu]

What do gooders? We don't have anyone that wants to ban alcohol. You either have your head in the clouds or your head up your ****.

I think you missed my point. Let me see if I can make myself clearer and pull my head out of my ****...LOL.

There is no such things as 'rights' in this world, it's a fallacy.

One of the biggest cultural differences between America and many other European countries is that our country was founded on the principle of natural rights. Our Constitution isn't the guarantor of our rights, it simply recognizes their existence. The Bill of Rights lists some of the most important aspects of Individual Freedom that our Founding Fathers wanted to highlight. They wanted to make a distinction between the society they had in their minds and the society from which they came in Europe.

As an American, I say that my rights exist and I want a government that does not infringe upon those rights.

Compromise, compromise compromise, we all have to do it to be able to live in a decent society.

The drug war cannot be won without lots of compromise. Individual rights have to give way so the State can effectively fight the use of these substances, otherwise we're simply fighting a losing battle. All across the world, police have been given increasingly more power to fight banned substances and, from an American point of view, basic civil rights have been eroded.

Imagine if society really wanted to ban marijuana. Couldn't they attach drug sensors to a swarm of millions of these things and have them swarm throughout the city? How many civil rights on our Bill of Rights would be violated by this? How many basic civil rights are you willing to give up in order to keep these substances illegal?

 

[Makalakumu]

Actually I've asked several times what people's solutions are to deal with addictions, etc etc but all anyone can say is 'legalise drugs', so no solutions there then.

I've posted at least three solutions in this thread.

1. Better education for parents.
2. Free market insurance.
3. Suing for dangerous products.

Agree or disagree, that's fine. What needs to be recognized is that the drug war is a failed solution. We need to try something new.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Well I suppose I can't be surprised that you don't understand the situation as it pertains to alcohol here. Yes, rapes happen here with and without alcohol but what doesn't happen without alcohol (or drugs) is girls not remembering who they had sex with and whether they said yes or no to it then complaining to the police they've been raped because they found semen in their knickers.

Interesting however that you think eating is the cause of diabetes! Insulting diabetics or what. And that anti social behaviour is a symptom of mental illness.

Actually I've asked several times what people's solutions are to deal with addictions, etc etc but all anyone can say is 'legalise drugs', so no solutions there then.

First off, Type 2 Diabetes Melitis results from being overweight. But this isn't the first time you've popped off without knowing what you were talking about.

Secondly, I've posted the Global Commission on Drug Policy's suggestions repeatedly and it consists of more advice than "just legalize it". I've also posted other evidence as to why addicts should be treated and not thown in a jail cell. So many of you are so blinded by how you feel about the matter that you are incapable of seeing any logic... or are just refusing to read the posts containing numerous unbiased facts. Either way, there's no reasoning with you.

Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.

What do we do if someone doubts the truth of this proposition? What if someone comes forward and says, “I’m sorry, but that’s not how I choose to think about water.”?

All we can do is appeal to scientific values.

If a person doesn’t share those values, the conversation is over. We must appeal to the value of understanding the world, value of evidence, the value of logical consistency.

If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that proves someone should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you invoke to show that they should value logic?

-Sam Harris: author, intellectual, neuroscientist and CEO of Project Reason

Thanks for the reminder Dr. Harris.

I've wasted enough time and effort on this thread.

Y'all have fun ignoring the facts. I'm out.

 

[Tez3]

First off, Type 2 Diabetes Melitis results from being overweight. But this isn't the first time you've popped off without knowing what you were talking about.

Secondly, I've posted the Global Commission on Drug Policy's suggestions repeatedly and it consists of more advice than "just legalize it". I've also posted other evidence as to why addicts should be treated and not thown in a jail cell. So many of you are so blinded by how you feel about the matter that you are incapable of seeing any logic... or are just refusing to read the posts containing numerous unbiased facts. Either way, there's no reasoning with you.



Thanks for the reminder Dr. Harris.

I've wasted enough time and effort on this thread.

Y'all have fun ignoring the facts. I'm out.

Bye, 'popped off' dear me I'm not dead yet. Diabetes you said with no qualifier, making a nice sweeping generalisation...again. When in doubt make broad strokes swiping everyone as being dumber than you. Two 'Ls' in diabetes mellitus actually if you are going to be precise.

You don't actually know how we feel about anything you just don't like it when people disagree with your superior reasoning, you then choose to attack rather than actually listen to other peoples thoughts and experiences, because they aren't yours, they have no value to you.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[pgsmith]

Nobody on the legalization team has touched this I see.

That is way beyond my pay grade. I am assuming that these issues would be dealt with by whatever committees are appointed to deal with it, except for the fact that it won't happen. However, I've yet to hear any sort of response from anyone that wants to maintain the status quo on what to do about the ever increasing spiral of violence that is directly caused by the U.S. "war on drugs". There have been all sorts of arguments about whether it is better to let people take drugs, or the effects of drugs on people or why we shoudl or shouldn't keep all currently illegal drugs as being illegal. However, nobody seems to want to even think about what to possibly do about the tremendous violence caused by the huge amounts of money in the illegal drug trade.

So, what's your answer to stemming the ever rising tide of violence if we maintain the status quo?

 

[K-man]

First off, Type 2 Diabetes Melitis results from being overweight. But this isn't the first time you've popped off without knowing what you were talking about.

First off, Type 2 Diabetes is not just from being overweight. If that was the case most Americans would suffer from type 2 diabetes. 35.7% of American adults were classed as obese in 2010. Overall, more than 60% of adults are overweight or obese. About 11% are diabetic. So I would say Tes was 100% right in what she said.

Cause of Type 2 Diabetes

While there is no single cause of type 2 diabetes, there are well-established risk factors. Some of these can be changed and some cannot.
You are at a higher risk of getting type 2 diabetes if you:

• have a family history of diabetes
• are older (over 55 years of age ) - the risk increases as we age
• are over 45 years of age and are overweight
• are over 45 years of age and have high blood pressure
• are over 35 years of age and are from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background
• are over 35 years of age and are from Pacific Island, Indian subcontinent or Chinese cultural background
• are a woman who has given birth to a child over 4.5 kgs (9 lbs), or had gestational diabetes when pregnant, or had a condition known as Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome.

Now back to the topic.

Sure there is a problem in controlling the use of illicit substances but I fail to see how legalising antisocial behaviour will cause anything but grief. Any civilised society in the world has rules which impinge on each individual's freedom. You can't just say that because the Constitution allows certain freedoms that you can do anything you want. I find it hard to comprehend that non illicit drug users would want to relax the laws relating to those substances. :asian:

 

[Tgace]

So, what's your answer to stemming the ever rising tide of violence if we maintain the status quo?

I am unconvinced that the cost to society in increased drug fueled crime/violence and death due to overdose and DWI would be better than this supposed "tide". The "lets just legalize it and see how it goes" solution is a non starter for me.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Tez3]

I am unconvinced that the cost to society in increased drug fueled crime/violence and death due to overdose and DWI would be better than this supposed "tide". The "lets just legalize it and see how it goes" solution is a non starter for me.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

And if we legalise it and it all goes just how we thought (and feared) it would, how to we get it back even to what it is now?

 

[Makalakumu]

A good experiment would be to start with marijuana and keep everything else illegal. Watch what happens with society and record the data. If the world doesn't end, perhaps other aspects of the drug war could be put to rest? I certainly don't think we should legalize everything right away. In fact, I can totally support a rational progress toward decriminalization. Ideally, it would probably take a generation to complete.

 

[Tez3]

A good experiment would be to start with marijuana and keep everything else illegal. Watch what happens with society and record the data. If the world doesn't end, perhaps other aspects of the drug war could be put to rest? I certainly don't think we should legalize everything right away. In fact, I can totally support a rational progress toward decriminalization. Ideally, it would probably take a generation to complete.

Well, as I've been pointing out, alcohol is legal here, the rules on licensing were relaxed and it's one hell of a mess. Do you honestly think it's going to be any different with drugs, make them legal and you will have aggressive advertising and marketing, the suppliers will have to do that to make money. People who become addicts will still commit crimes to get the money to buy drugs, they will still drive while intoxicated. For someone who waves your much vaunted freedom around it seems you are wanting to move more and more into Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, http://www.huxley.net/soma/somaquote.html

It may be your 'right' to take drugs but is a drugged up nation something we should encourage? Certainly get everyone on marijuana, makes the government's job easier surely! And you are the one with the conspiracy theories...you missed this one!

If you allow all recreational drugs then you have to allow steroids, blood doping and all the other drugs athletes and sports people use to cheat. Sport won't be worth watching.