namelesstavern.net

Prohibition doesn't work.

WASTING money on enforcing prohibition is exactly that, wasting.

free for all on all sorts of crazy mind altering drugs doesn't really seem like a great idea either tho

Tikker wrote:so yes, you're in favour of legalizing cocaine, heroine, hash, etc etc etc?

Yes.

Criminalization of drugs makes the average citizen a criminal AND empowers the black market and makes drugs worth killing over. Legalize the substance and tax it and you take away all the power of the gangsters that make millions of dollars from it's distribution.

Hash is just pot resin, basically. It's no more dangerous than pot is.

As for the others... Well, study after study has shown that money spent on education, awareness to prevent addiction, and treatment of addiction is vastly more efficiently spent than money on enforcement and incarceration, if your goal is truly to get less people to use it. Plus, we proved back in the 20s and 30s that prohibition simply does NOT WORK. Why we are doing the same thing with the expectation of different results, I have no idea.

So yes, legalize it, but tax it sufficiently that the govt makes significant money off of it, but not so much that it remains economically viable for black market suppliers to flourish. I mean, if you can get something illegally for half the price of legitimate items, you might do it. But if it's 10% difference, and the choice is between pharmaceutical product guaranteed to be good by the government and who knows what from the black market, then no sane person goes to the black market, and the criminal element goes away.

I've posted the numbers before, the amount spent on the "war on drugs" is staggering. That goes away, plus add in the taxes, and you're talking upwards of 500 billion a year.

-Arlos

It's unfortunate that the pharmaceuticals have a stranglehold on lawmakers.

Fucking Hippies

I have absolutely no desire, whatsoever, to see an form of socialized medicine in this country. But, something has to be done about Big Drug… I fully believe they create conditions just to push more drugs. “Twitching penis syndrome,” “I sleep on my right side too much” syndrome, so on and so on. Of course if Americans didn’t have a collective IQ of 3 and didn’t run to their doctor every time they saw a new commercial for the latest and greatest concocted syndrome – maybe this wouldn’t be so much of a problem. /shrug

Socialized Medical Care and Pharmacuetical issues are distinct, in my opinion.

We need health care reform, but the methods presented are different. I personally detest the idea of any sort of Federal programs, but right now I'm firmly against anything Federal that isn't related to national defense, immigration, or absolutely needed central services.

The problems with drug companies relate to our idiotic patent process and the corporate welfare and over regulation our government currently does. Remove the FDA's powers and allow real open borders for medicinal products and other health needs and suddenly these problems would lessen and we'd get real competition. That's good enough for the American worker, but not for the corporations which is a bullshit double standard.

Get rid of the FDA? Are you insane?

I have 1 word for those that know their history that proves WHY we need the FDA: Thalidomide.




For those that DON'T know their history, Thalidomide was a drug introduced first in Europe in the late 50s, that was used as an anti-nausea drug for pregnant women. The FDA hadn't approved it for the US, and came under immense pressure to allow its sale here, but they categorically refused. Correctly, as it turns out.

You see, there's one tiny little problem with thalidomide when given to pregnant women. It gives a significant chance that the baby will be born with oh, you know, a minor birth defect, really: No limbs whatsoever. No legs, no arms, just a torso, period. Over 10,000 babies were born limbless and all directly were traced to Thalidomide. Thanks to the FDA, the only ones that happened in the US were with women that had obtained the drug illegally. Who knows how many more children would have been born that way if US doctors had been free to prescribe thalidomide.

And THAT is why the FDA is absolutely utterly essential.

-Arlos

hrm, and yet other drugs are known to have harmful effects, but you're ok with those being legal cause you find it fun in some way

good call

You're missing the difference: 1 case (the one I approve of), you have legal adults knowingly ingesting substances which they have the opportunity to be completely informed on, including risks, side effects, etc. What that adult takes effects no one else whatsoever, any negative impact is born by him or her alone.

In the other, you have 1 person's actions effecting someone else, in the case of Thalidomide a fetus, which is incapable in any way of providing or withholding consent. Obviously, pregnant women shouldn't be using heroin, cocaine, etc. either, just like they shouldn't be drinking alcohol or tobacco, both of which are currently legal, yet strongly discouraged in that case.

So, yeah, there are *HUGE* differences between those two cases. I support legalization for use by consenting adults, and not in a way that could impact other people. I do NOT, obviously, support people forcing it on anyone else, period. Using while pregnant is forcing it on your fetus, and I wouldn't support someone smoking pot when pregnant any more than I would support them chugging down a fifth of tequila.

-Arlos

do you honestly think that taking drugs only affects the person ingesting them?

what I'm trying to get at, is that at some point, you have to draw a line that says this is allowed, this is not

OK, how does ME smoking a pot nowhere near you, or even snorting coke, shooting heroin etc. effect you one iota? The only possible way it could effect you is medical costs related to getting me UN-addicted, if I get so and choose to stop, but that's what the taxes on the drugs themselves are to pay for.

-Arlos

Arlos wrote:OK, how does ME smoking a pot nowhere near you, or even snorting coke, shooting heroin etc. effect you one iota? The only possible way it could effect you is medical costs related to getting me UN-addicted, if I get so and choose to stop, but that's what the taxes on the drugs themselves are to pay for.

-Arlos

Do you have children?
Do you make the decision to buy drugs or buy groceries?
Some people have children and make poor decisions.

Adam wins

that's exactly what I'm talking about. look at how having an alcoholic in the family fucks with every else's life. I'm not even going to get into how having impaired drivers and shit fucks with random people

it still comes down to the fact that some stuff is worse for people, and has enough a potential negative impact that it needs to be regulated

the fact that your narcotic of choice is on the banned list isn't an injustice, it's just a dumb fucking choice on your part

I don't need the government to tell me what plants I can smoke, eat, snort or inject.

Tikker wrote:Adam wins

that's exactly what I'm talking about. look at how having an alcoholic in the family fucks with every else's life. I'm not even going to get into how having impaired drivers and shit fucks with random people

it still comes down to the fact that some stuff is worse for people, and has enough a potential negative impact that it needs to be regulated

the fact that your narcotic of choice is on the banned list isn't an injustice, it's just a dumb fucking choice on your part

I used to think like that.

Then I got older and thought for myself...

I see you're still behind.

ah yes, not being a rebel must = lack of personal insight


brilliant

How does questioning why a body of people have ANY right to tell me what substances I can eat, drink, or otherwise put into my body, make me a rebel?

It makes no sense whatsoever, and I don't even do drugs. I haven't drank in over a month.

I loathe addicts as much as the next person, which is why I don't talk to half of my old group of friends anymore.

BUT I still don't see why in the fuck I shouldn't be able to eat whatever fucking plant on this planet I want to because some old fucks in another city who I will never encounter if I am lucky, say I can't.

Actually, as far as the State of California is concerned, my pot smoking is 100% legal, since I have a prescription for it. I've mentioned my knee that I destroyed playing soccer before, that hurts 24x7. That's why I have the prescription: because it helps with the pain, and most importantly works FAST.

-Arlos

Plus, if you like being a fucking sheep being herded by strangers hundreds or more miles away, so be it.

I don't need people telling me what I can, and can not do, that affects no one but myself.

If I go outside and eat some plant in my garden, because it makes me shit bright blue, I shouldn't have to worry if it's "legal" or not.

The costs to the government has been covered and it is well documented. We're talking ethics now, which I am not sure you're ready to do so since you accept people telling you what to do blindly.

BRIGHT BLUE SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHA!





Thanks for the laughs..I am going back to EQ.

The constitution of the United States besides outlining the organization of the Federal Government includes a list of enumerated liberties (The Bill of Rights). Forgive me for stating the obvious there, but notice that no where in that document is a list of powers government has over the people. For civilized society people submit to being governed and in doing so surrender absolute freedom, but that is a far cry different then surrendering all freedom.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people

Lincoln said so much with so little (I should take notes). The very idea of US government is not to have the power in the hands of government but in the hands of the people, the average citizen. Taxx made a statement earlier along the lines of it being nutsy to have the average citizen judging the validity of the law, but that was exactly the intent of the founding fathers, and the very idea is spread throughout our legal system.

One case in point is the idea of a jury of your peers. It's not commonly thought about, but a jurors first duty is not to determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant, but to first determine if the law they are accused of breaking is constitutional. If the law violates the liberties of the individual it is an invalid law, and hence no guilt or innocence need be determined.

There was a lot of concern regarding the inclusion of an enumerated list of liberties in the US Constitution, the primary fear being that it would be seen as all inclusive, which is why we have tenth amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

This is not to say that because and individual decides they want absolute freedom to do anything anywhere any time they want that they are free to do so, but the primary delineation between what is and is not a personal protect freedom is if it would infringe on the rights and liberties of others.
People are not free to murder each other because that infringes on someone else rights.

Use of illegal drugs by an individual do not innately violate anyone else's rights, and everything pointed out here that would seem contradict this are actions attributed to their use for which we already have laws. The line of thought that substances must be made illegal because someone using them might take a particular action infringing on someone else's rights, is really an attempt to hand over the right of personal choice and make government not the individual responsible for making wise choices for the individual. It's bad for you therefore illegal... think Demolition Man.

holy shit, this isn't always about the Self centered states of america

Holy shit, no one cares about your socialist bullshit country up there in this thread.

You are the only non-American in it.