quote:

---

Backers of a controversial ballot initiative want pot to be treated just like alcohol. If voters pass the measure, it would be legal to grow, smoke and sell any amount of marijuana so long as one is 21 years of age. The state would regulate the cannabis industry just like it licenses booze and cigarettes.

---

Maybe they should just to outlaw booze and cigarettes instead, if they want to make it all equal...

FG
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
This may be naive of me, but would it be impossible for Alaskans to have a crop field of marijuana in their chilly climate? So, this would put a natural barrier for the quantity an individual might grow. A business, however, could start a nice sized greenhouse.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 
I think it's a great idea. We don't have enough drug addiction, intoxication and their charming side effects in this country. Undoubtedly legalizing marijuana will ensure that less people use it and that those who do use it will do so responsibly.
 

---

Posted by screechowl (Member # 2651) on :
 
Marijuana grows very well in Alaska. John McPhee mentions this in his book Coming Into the Country .
 

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
Sadly enough, your post isn't clear enough.

quote:

---

I think it's a great idea. We don't have enough drug addiction, intoxication and their charming side effects in this country. Undoubtedly legalizing marijuana will ensure that less people use it and that those who do use it will do so responsibly.

---

quote:

---

Maybe they should just to outlaw booze and cigarettes instead, if they want to make it all equal...

---

quote:

---

Jacare, I'm not convinced that citizens don't have a right of eating/smoking/drinking what they want. For practicality's sake, there probably should be a line, but where should the line be?

---

quote:

---

Come on now, you don't really believe that, do you? Does the state have a right to mandate seatbelt use?

---

No, it doesn't have the right.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
If you lived in Alaska, you would probably need some mind-altering drugs to pass the time.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

"Come on now, you don't really believe that, do you? Does the state have a right to mandate seatbelt use?"

No, it doesn't have the right.

---

quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

quote:

---

MAIN ARGUEMENT

a) Not wearing a seat-belt isn't an action that hurts anyone else

---

quote:

---

The vast majority of all fatal and non-fatal injuries in America, including traffic injuries, are not acts of fate but are predictable and preventable. Injuries are a major health care problem and are the leading cause of death for people age 1 to 42. Fatalities, however, are only a small part of the total injury picture. For each injury-related death, there are 19 hospitalizations for injury and another 300 injuries that require medical attention. Every year, one in four Americans will have a potentially preventable injury serious enough to require medical care. These injuries account for almost 10 percent of all physician office visits and 38 percent of all hospital emergency department visits. Injury patterns vary by age group, gender, and cultural group. There are also seasonal and geographic patterns to injury. Injuries pose a significant drain on the health care system, incurring huge treatment, acute care, and rehabilitation costs.

---

from this site (which Bob_S probably wrote)

Farmgirl
 

---

Posted by Khal Drogo (Member # 6786) on :
 
Isn't amsterdam legal too? And good point Farmgirl, but I stick with mine.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
So KD - you are not saying that government shouldn't have some control over it -- you're just saying they should do it at the state level instead of the federal level? Why is that?

Farmgirl
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Amsterdam is in Holland and the part that decriminalized marijuana/hashish.

One thing real quick, before anyone gets excited and starts posting links to sites which show increased crime, etc, from legalization, let me say that there are other sites that show the exact opposite. I've looked. This is why I'm hoping for some firsthand accounts of the matter.
 

---

Posted by Khal Drogo (Member # 6786) on :
 
Because the federal government today spends most of its time and money on things that were not even assigned to them as duties within the constitution. The federal government as was said before is charged with these duties establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. All else si the duty of state. The state knows better the way in which its people behave, the mind of its people, their peoples merits and way of life then ever the federal government could. The Federal government is detached form its people, while the state government is still mainly for and from the people. The federal government also causes millions of extra dollars in cost just through paperwork and all the middle men that just end up getting it to the state anyway. That is why. The state should pass a seat belt law, they should put in place drug laws, but not the federal government. Though I respect your opinion, I do not agree with it.

[ August 20, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Khal Drogo ]
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Canada's marijuana laws are (like so many things these days) in a state of flux. There was a new bit of legislature that got killed when the last election was called and so will be tabelled again in October.

The new laws would make it legal to possess 15 grams or less of marijuana with small fines for 15-20 grams and 1 gram or less of hashish. Carrying larger amounts would carry larger fines and possible court summons as well as larger fines for carrying if there are aggrevating factors (you're driving, you held up the corner store, etc.)

Growing marijuana would fine you several thousand dollars or several years in prison depending on the number of plants with 14 years being the maximum sentance. The penalties for trafficing would not change with the maximum sentance remaining a life sentance.

So while using and growing are still illigal the penalties would be softer than they currently. At the time it looked like it was set to be passed but now that there are a slew of new players at the table it's hard to tell. There hasn't been a lot of talk about it lately.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 

quote:

---

The state should pass a seat belt law, they should put in place drug laws, but not the federal government. Though I respect your opinion, I do not agree with it.

---

quote:

---

have heard this myth so many times it burns me.

I would like to introduce you to a friend of mine whose mother now has to spoon feed him, turn him and diaper him everday due to brain injuries where he was thrown from a car (minor accident) while not wearing a seatbelt.

It isn't a choice of just "you survive it and go merrily on your way, or you die" -- it impacts those around you.

Farmgirl

---

quote:

---

Alaskans can currently possess small amounts of pot for use in their homes and medical marijuana (search) is allowed. But the state has the highest drug addiction in the country and is among the nation's leaders in unemployment, child abuse and domestic violence.

---

quote:

---

I know of no recreational drug use which leads to any good result.

---

quote:

---

I would not connect physically abusive behavior to drug abuse.

---

quote:

---

It's not enough to say that the two things exist at the same time in Alaska. Not even to say that the same people are both things.

---

quote:

---

The study by Reeves et al. (1979) provided some of the first insight into the extent of marijuana use by motor vehicle operators. Reeves et al., showed that 16% of a selected sample of arrested drivers had cannabinoids in their urine. These data were consistent with those reported by Cimbura who also tested for cannabinoids in blood and urine. The fatally injured driver study by Terhune et al. (1992) further documented the extent of marijuana use and also indicated that cocaine use by drivers might be of growing concern.

---

quote:

---

Depression leads to physical abuse of others almost always when drug use is part of the equation. When drug abuse isn't a factor, it is far less common.

---

quote:

---

In the first days of this country
When the buffalo roamed the land,
All the saddle tramps and cowboys
Used to roll their own by hand,
They'd swing up to the saddle
On their ass or on their horse,
And recite a little ditty
That went like this, of course:

When your feet are in the stirrups
And your ass is on the ground
'Cause the grass that he's been eating
Is the finest stuff around,
Well, let us not remember, boys,
And let us not forget:
Strike a match and light another
Marijuana cigarette!

Ah, you have heard of evil,
And you've heard of misery,
And you've heard of Richard Nixon,
But you haven't heard of me!
You may think they go together,
And you may think they do not,
But there ain't much you'll be thinkin'
When you've started smoking pot!

You can smoke it, you can eat it,
You can mix it with your beer,
You can hang it on your wall
And you can hang it in your ear;
And if you've got the notion,
And if he's got the class,
You can shove it in your feedbag
And feed it to your ass!

When your feet are in the stirrups
And your ass is on the ground
'Cause the grass that he's been eating
Is the finest stuff around,
Well, let us not remember, boys,
And let us not forget:
Strike a match and light another
Marijuana cigarette!
(Words and music by Jay Ungar & Cat Mother and the All Night Newsboys
From Albion Doo-Wah (Polydor 24-40-23)

---

quote:

---

I think there are way too many young people in prison for nonviolent drug offenses.

---

I don't know anything about how many people are in prison for what, but is legalizing marajuana really the best way to deal with this issue?

I side with Farmgirl in that it would be difficult if not disasterous to make cigarettes (tobacco/nicotine) and alcohol illegal because of their popularity and the lofty powers behind them. There is too much momentum to do a 180 turn.

But I think a society/culture where they had always been illegal would be a much happier, more stable society than the one in which we live. (Easy for me to say since I use neither.) I don't see legalizing marajuana as making society any better than it is. It is illegal now, and I am fine keeping it that way. Especially since, as has been said here, there is not nearly enough evidence for a strong case of it making society better.

Someone said they don't think a movement for legalizing marajuana would pass in Alaska. I hope that is the case, because it would complicate matters to have an addictive substance legal in one state while illegal in all others. IMO, it would be much more difficult to regulate drugs passing illegally between states than illegally between countries. Regulation between states would be a nightmare. The fact that Alaska does not border any other state would make it easier than if, say, Tenessee made the jump.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Regarding cannabis, alcohol and driving, I've seen a very small number of research reports. The best one was years ago by a doc out of Colorado. He was able to tease out the effects of cannabis alone, alcohol alone, and the two in combination with a fairly reliable methodology.

His results:
cannabis -- no measurable effect on driving safety.
alcohol -- large negative effect on driving safety.
both together -- worse effect than either alone.

Since then, the conventional wisdom has been to acknowledge that alcohol is probably the worse of the two drugs in terms of its effect on driving, and that, in general, those who smoke weed are also drinking so their bad driving from the alcohol is made worse by the combination with cannabis.

Ultimately, I think many states aren't going to worry much about marijuana testing because so many of the people caught with that drug in their systems are also drunk. And if you are driving really erratically, they can indeed take you in and have your blood or urine tested first for alcohol and then for any other drugs.

If you are driving "under the influence" of drugs or alcohol in most states, you will be charged with that crime if you are caught. Even if the BAC level is below the per se limit.

Ultimately, the bottom line is that no-one should drink and then drive. And no-one should use drugs and then drive.

We'll never have zero tolerance laws for adults in this country. But on a personal level, I feel that the right decision is simply to avoid driving when under the influence of ANYTHING that might adversely affect your driving performance even a little bit.

The problem is that under most circumstances, you'll be safe and no problems. But every once in awhile, something comes up that you'll need every bit of skill to deal with. If you are performing below your best level, then, to me, you are at least partially to blame for the subsequent crash. I know that I would be devastated to know that I was even partly to blame for the injury or death of another person.

And that is the risk I avoid. The feeling of guilt over not being at my best behind the wheel when something bad happens.

Sappy, I know. But after thinking about this for a long time from every angle I've been exposed to, that is the only decision that makes real sense to me. The law doesn't matter nearly as much to me as the personal responsibility angle.

- Bob
 

---

Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
 
As recently, Bob, when I was cold-stone sober in the AM, driving my family to work. I stopped at the light. The RAM behind me didn't.

There wasn't much I could do even though I was at a peak of sobriety. The kid who rear-ended us was sober as well. But not very aware.

Grrrr....
 

---

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 

quote:

---

it would complicate matters to have an addictive substance legal in one state while illegal in all others

---

quote:

---

I don't know anything about how many people are in prison for what, but is legalizing marajuana really the best way to deal with this issue?

---

quote:

---

As far as I know, no study has ever found that marijuana is physically addictive. Depending on the person in question, it can be psychologically addictive, but the same can be said about almost anything.

---

quote:

---

I just think that--assuming marijuana use is a problem--the problem is not one that will ever go away.

---

You know, I kind of feel this way about murder, rape, and child/spouse abuse, but that doesn't mean I want to legalize it.
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
Murder, rape, child abuse, theft, etc. involve others. Drug use is like homosexuality- doubtless the people who do it are horrible diseased freaks, but it only involves the willing. Of course, people will use it to make excuses for the above, but that is a lie. It is entirely possible to control one's actions while intoxicated.

Also, marijuana might replace alcohol, which would be a good thing for people's physical health if nothing else.
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
Danzig, you are kidding, right? About homosexuals?
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 

quote:

---

Also, marijuana might replace alcohol, which would be a good thing for people's physical health if nothing else.

---

quote:

---

It is inconceivable that healthy people would want a relationship with the same gender, or to alter their thought processes to more enjoyable ones.

---

Whether or not the actions of marajuana users effect others is debatable. Certainly murder, rape, and abuse are more damaging to society. My point was just that because something isn't going to go away is not reason in and of itself to legalize it. I am more concerned about whether legalizing it will be a good thing. And while there may not be enough evidence to say for sure that it is bad, there does not appear to be enough evidence to call it good for society either. Why fix somethin' if it ain't broke?

[ August 20, 2004, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 

quote:

---

As recently, Bob, when I was cold-stone sober in the AM, driving my family to work. I stopped at the light. The RAM behind me didn't.

There wasn't much I could do even though I was at a peak of sobriety. The kid who rear-ended us was sober as well. But not very aware.

Grrrr....

---

quote:

---

Someone said they don't think a movement for legalizing marajuana would pass in Alaska. I hope that is the case, because it would complicate matters to have an addictive substance legal in one state while illegal in all others.

---

It seems to me that it would simplify matters GREATLY to,you know, have actual evidence one way or the other instead of guessing. Just like gay marriage.

By the way, Bev, I'm really digging on your posts recently.

I have to say that I am kind of ambivalent about using a yardstick of whether something benefits society as to whether it should be legal. After all, you would have a tough time showing that roleplaying games, science fiction books, the color purple, comic books, The Backstreet Boys, and Mayberry RFD, or prayer, are beneficial to many in society. What is 'beneficial', ie pleasurable, to someone is not for someone else and is a complete waste of time. The issue, to me, should revolve around harm.

That drugs cause problems for some people and not others seems to me to be true.

The question, for me, isn't whether those people who have problems because of drugs shouldn't hurt other people. Obviously, they shouldn't. It should most definitely be against the law to hurt someone else.

Given this, though, society, the state, should not *assume* that someone is guilty until they do the crime. There are shades of grey to this. If you get behind the wheel of a car and you're high, I'm o.k. with you being arrested. What I"m not o.k. with is someone being arrested who possesses or is high and doesn't pose a threat to society. To arrest someone in this instance harms *them* very greviously through court costs, time in the legal system, if they are sent to jail, the fact of being in jail or prison is extremely traumatic. In this instance, the cure is most definitely to me much worse than the so-called disease.

People can get high and not become junkies. People can monitor themselves and stop themselves before they do something stupid. I'm proof of that. I used and stopped. I drink the occasional beer, or glass of wine, and don't drive when I do so and don't over indulge over time. So, the fact of usign a substance does NOT mean that the person is an addict.

Let me throw something else out there just for fun. Much of the problem with alchohol and drugs comes from getting behind the wheel of a car. I can tell you, if the public transit system didn't suck so badly in many parts of the country, you would have a lot fewer DUIs. Am I saying that our country should put more emphasis on mass transit just for the druggies? Of course not. But I think just one of the benefits of such a system would be a decreased incidence of peopel getting behind the wheel of a car when they're impaired.

So, I guess I"m saying that my solution to the whole problem would be three-fold. First, make pot legal. Second, make penalties for driving under the influence stiff. Or keep them stiff as the case might be. Third, throw some money at a good mass transit system.

If my last comment derails the thread, sorry. I would love to read a thread on what people think the pros and cons of mass transit are. It's been an issue in Florida (light rail) for some time. I'm guessing it's an issue in other communities as well. I'd be interested in hearing what other people think, though I wouldn't be able to post anything until Monday.

[ August 20, 2004, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

because a criminal record means that I would have more incentive to commit antisocial acts in revenge.

---

quote:

---

I do not believe that me taking any drug or selling any drug to an adult is an action worthy of being sent to prison, where as a young white male of small build who is unaffiliated with a gang I will most likely be raped.

---

quote:

---

You are aware that the reason marijuana was made illegal was because Mexicans smoked it and seduced white women, right? (Well, that and DuPont wanted to market their wood-based paper and needed to destroy the hemp market.) Cocaine turned the Negro into a wild animal who would rape white women. Chinese opium smokers would seduce white women. Racism and economics are the reasons drugs are illegal.

---

quote:

---

It seems to me that it would simplify matters GREATLY to,you know, have actual evidence one way or the other instead of guessing. Just like gay marriage. [Wink]

---

Didn't we already determine that other areas have tried the experiment? The evidence wasn't conclusive one way or the other. Not sufficient reason to legalize it.

Oh, and thanks, Stormy.

Edit: Let's just say that while I am not adamately against legalizing marajuana, and I have heard interesting points in it's favor, nothing I have heard so far has convinced me that it is the way to go. I guess I have reasons deep down to believe that these sorts of drugs are not a healthy thing to be involved with, and that is a difficult belief to shake. Granted that is not always a reason to make something illegal, but I have not seen sufficient reason to legalize it either.

Edit2: This actually seems to be very similar to pornography. I am a person who would enjoy living in a world where hard porn and perhaps even some soft porn were illegal. I know a lot of people here would adamately disagree with that. Particularly those who enjoy such things. But others too, because of the "freedom of speech" issue. (Though I am one who firmly believes that it was not the intention of our founding fathers where "freedom of speech" is concerned to allow people to be as crude or indecent as they wish.) Many argue that pornography harms no one. But like mind-altering drugs, some people have problems with it. But it is not a reason to make it illegal.

Let's just say the main reason I am against making porn illegal is that it is so difficult to define what is and what is not porn. I will have to be content to trying my best to keep it out of mainstream and away from my family.

It is easier to be "black and white" about marajuana than about porn.

[ August 20, 2004, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
When the evidence is inconclusive, it's often beneficial to run more tests. Try more permutations and combinations to see what's what.

In any case, if the evidence is inconclusive, I prefer to err on the side of the individual for reasons already given. That is, the legal system often 'harms' people far more than the legalizing drugs would.

By the way, I'm a little perturbed--o.k., no, a lot perturbed by this comment:

quote:

---

quote: I do not believe that me taking any drug or selling any drug to an adult is an action worthy of being sent to prison, where as a young white male of small build who is unaffiliated with a gang I will most likely be raped.

Hmmm, rather effective motivation to not break the law, eh? You know what the law is, you can keep it.

---

quote:

---

Please reconsider the argument of enforcing the law through any means necessary. Not to belabor a point, but, again, the cure in some cases really is much worse than the disease.

---

My comment was meant to be read with a twinkle of humor in my eyes, but I do think there is some truth to it. If we as a country deem there is no good reason for the law, then we must do away with it. But I for one am unconvinced. I would rather keep it illegal. And an individual can choose whether or not to break the law.

Edit: Like how I don't feel too sorry for my child when I told them over and over that if they try to put a whole roll of toilet paper into the potty, they are going to get a spank and they go ahead and do it anyway and are so shocked when they get spanked.

I will concede that perhaps the punishment in this case does not fit the crime. I really don't know what I think about it.

[ August 20, 2004, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
My point wasn't that some things shouldn't be illegal.

Are you honestly defending getting molested in prison as a useful(edit: should be ethical) deterent to crime?

[ August 20, 2004, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Storm, I don't want any prisoner to be raped. I wouldn't wish that on the vilest of sinners. I wish there were some way to prevent it.

My only point is, if you don't want to go to prison, don't break the law.

In other words, if you don't like the law, instead of choosing to break it, speak out like Danzing is doing and try to change how people think about it. Who knows? He might change my mind.

[ August 20, 2004, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
Well, I do break the law as often as I can afford to, which is usually one or more times per day. I also smoke out everyone I know, not because I really expect to be paid back, but because it may be one less year on my sentence if they become the judge.

I have more incentive to get your kids smoking pot (or using any other drug) now than I would were they legal. You see, perhaps if your kid is a drug user, you might vote for easier laws. On the other hand, I am totally cool with people who choose not to use in general, and if drugs were legal I could care less if they used or not.

Why do you want drugs (or pot specifically) kept illegal? No one is making you use it. Alcohol is legal, but I use that sparingly unless I run out of marijuana. If PCP were legalized tomorrow, I would not go out and buy some. Why do you believe people are irresponsible? What is wrong with someone who shoots up heroin as long as he can afford his habit? (Not that anyone would shoot up if heroin were legal, of course. Much more pleasant to eat it.)
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
I suppose the homosexuals in Texas before Lawrence should have just not had sex, because it was against the law. Blacks, Jews, and Irish need to get the hell out of my restaurant - the sign says whites only.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Bev, I think I appreciate what you're saying now. Gotta go to bed.
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
Bev, sorry to reply three times, but...

If there were no prison rape, I would seriously consider committing a crime and going there on purpose. Drugs are availabe in prisons, and room and board are free. I still do not feel that prison (or anything else) is an appropriate punishment, but freeloading is freeloading, and I would jump at the chance to have the government buy my drugs.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Well, I do break the law as often as I can afford to, which is usually one or more times per day.

---

I am thinking of my 3-year-old emptying whole rolls of toilet paper into a potty at least once a day. It really sucks, BTW. It uses up valued TP and it pugs up potties and makes a stinky mess.

quote:

---

I have more incentive to get your kids smoking pot (or using any other drug) now than I would were they legal.

---

quote:

---

You see, perhaps if your kid is a drug user, you might vote for easier laws.

---

quote:

---

Why do you want drugs (or pot specifically) kept illegal? No one is making you use it. Alcohol is legal, but I use that sparingly unless I run out of marijuana. If PCP were legalized tomorrow, I would not go out and buy some. Why do you believe people are irresponsible? What is wrong with someone who shoots up heroin as long as he can afford his habit? (Not that anyone would shoot up if heroin were legal, of course. Much more pleasant to eat it.)

---

quote:

---

If there were no prison rape, I would seriously consider committing a crime and going there on purpose. Drugs are availabe in prisons, and room and board are free. I still do not feel that prison (or anything else) is an appropriate punishment, but freeloading is freeloading, and I would jump at the chance to have the government buy my drugs.

---

quote:

---

some prisons charge.

---

quote:

---

No, I'm saying that the causation is already discussed at length by the medical field, and the only statements disputing that in this thread are anecdotal.

---

quote:

---

Let's say man X shoots person Y. X goes to jail. In jail, he doesn't get chocloate chip cookies. His mom feels horrible! Now she has to send him packages of chocolate chip cookies.

Ergo, X shooting Y impacts his mom.

That's the exact same relationship here, where person X screws himself over then you decide that because someone else is kind enough to take care of him, that its now a crime to not wear seatbelts.

The logic extends to this:

It's a crime to not wear seat belts because you're going to cause your friends and family to feel bad or have to take care of you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

And that is a disgusting abuse of logic to provide a specious answer to a very real issue.

SOMEONE whaled have to care for him, or he would die. It isn't HIS choice any more, because he can't choose.

I understand that she is choosing to help feed her son (I think I have all the genders mixed up here, but you know what I mean... ), but that doesn't alive the suffering his family feels, even if they choose to let him die....which would be criminal neglect in most cases...

We are all interconnected, and it is absurd to say otherwise if you have ever cared for another person. I don't think that i like the government telling me what to do in my own car, but considering all the other things they allow/disallow me to do that is a minor point.

BTW, what else would be the WELFARE of the country in this instance? Isn't it in the welfare of the country to regulate their roads in a fashion to prevent a major number of deaths?

Driving isn't mentioned in the Constitution (along with many other things... ), so it isn't a right, and the government has the right to place whatever restrictions it wants on it.

Kwea

[ August 21, 2004, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
Well, presumably he could just be left to die. The drugs I do are not nearly as damaging as most people think, but if I do cause permanent damage I do not expect anyone to take care of me.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
So move to the wilderness, where all civilivation is absent. You hate the US, remember?

You ae callous (or you want us to think so), and not half as original as you obviously think you are.

Or as cool, that is painfully obvious.

These issuse matters a lot more to people who aren't always stoned. Particularily to those of us who have lost people to the damn "recreational" drugs you boast of taking.

It isn't a joke when you find someone you love in a piss smelling pile, dead at the age of 20, because some arrogant asshole like yourself gave him E and told him no one had ever died from it.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 

quote:

---

I have more incentive to get your kids smoking pot (or using any other drug) now than I would were they legal.

---

You wouldn't be able to get near them, I would probably smell you coming.

And prison would be the least of your worries.

Actually prison probably is the least of them now...

I have always felt that drugs are their own punishment. They make you even dumber than before you take them, and that isn't something most of us can afford. I know I get stupid enough without them...

But most of your arguments are just absurd....your attitude is the best argument for keeping them illegal I have seen for a long time....

quote:

---

Drugs do not remove your inhibitions.

---

quote:

---

If there were no prison rape, I would seriously consider committing a crime and going there on purpose. Drugs are availabe in prisons, and room and board are free. I still do not feel that prison (or anything else) is an appropriate punishment, but freeloading is freeloading, and I would jump at the chance to have the government buy my drugs

---

Well, not that any of us would have considered you a role model before that...
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Who said I use (tobacco) cigarettes?

---

Not me. I was just using it as an example.

quote:

---

Your three year old is not a legal adult. Legal adults have the right to flush as much toilet paper down the drain as they wish, as long as they paid for it. Or perhaps you meant that I am doing it to rebel. I am not; hence the not using DXM (anymore) or PCP whether they are legal or not and using cannabis and MDMA regardless.

---

quote:

---

Well, perhaps you might think that voting for mandatory minimum sentencing first time users of alcohol or cannabis or cocaine to ten years in prison is a bit excessive if it was your kid. Also, the more people who use drugs, the more likely the laws will grow more lax.

---

quote:

---

What negative effect(s) do(es) intoxication intrinsically have? I have never gotten violent on any drug, including alcohol.

---

quote:

---

If it spills over into the lives of others, generally it is one of two things. Either it is the person, and not the drug, or the others are asking something they have no right to ask.

---

quote:

---

You do not want me using it. That is what it boils down to, is it not? You seem to realize that homosexuality is too prevalent to make that many laws against, but you would if you thought it would work. No marriage for gays, because you do not want them marrying. Your side has the power to oppress the drug users, and still hurt the gays, but that is not an acceptable moral reason to do so. Just admit that you hate us if you will not leave us in peace.

---

quote:

---

The thing is, they really are the two worst drugs for society.

---

quote:

---

As for seduction, do you not trust your own judgment?

---

quote:

---

That of your loved ones?

---

quote:

---

Drugs do not remove your inhibitions. That is just an excuse used by people who did something they do not want to accept responsibility for. Luckily, lots of people believe them. I will have to remember that the next time I say something hurtful.

---

quote:

---

Benefits? I am happy, what other benefit is necessary?

---

quote:

---

I refuse to enslave myself to "society", especially a society that wants me thrown in jail.

---

quote:

---

Also, some drugs (MDMA, psychedelics) arguably encourage positive personal development. I know that the only time I ever feel unconditional love for others is when I am rolling hard.

---

quote:

---

The only justification for my habits is that I enjoy them. What other reason is there to use drugs?

---

quote:

---

Apparently you place little value in happiness, but I do not.

---

quote:

---

What possible punishment would work for drug users? The only thing I can think of is execution. Fines would be treated like speeding tickets. Rehab I would just attend high. Community service might actually be fun, and I would attend it high.

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, if drugs were legal and regulated, the money made from the taxes could be used to improve the community in various ways. Most drugs are dirt cheap to produce. If they were sold for 20% of what they are now, that would still be a lot of revenue to be used for the betterment of society. Not that I care about society, but if it was not trying to hurt me I would have no reason to mind supporting it.

---

quote:

---

These issuse matters a lot more to people who aren't always stoned. Particularily to those of us who have lost people to the damn "recreational" drugs you boast of taking.

---

Oh yeah, I forgot. Those who use these sorts of drugs seem to stop caring about anything else. It's really freaky. I have seen it myself.

quote:

---

It isn't a joke when you find someone you love in a piss smelling pile, dead at the age of 20, because some arrogant asshole like yourself gave him E and told him no one had ever died from it.

---

<=== is reminded of the serpent in the Garden of Eden

"You won't *surely die* but shall be as the Gods knowing good and evil"

[ August 21, 2004, 01:29 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
Why would I tell anyone that no one had ever died from ecstacy? People have died from MDMA and the other stuff that is sold as ecstacy. Were MDMA legal, then the dosage and content of each pill would be known, and it would be treated like alcohol... which even though it is legal and the contents and dosage are known, kills lots more people than MDMA or "ecstacy" every year. (I put ecstacy in quotes because while it is supposed to be MDMA, there are lots of pills sold as ecstacy that do not contain only MDMA.) Furthermore, depending on when this death happened it might have even been true. (Probably not if it happened within the last ten years though.) Three years ago no one had ever died from 2C-T-21; now at least one person has. I will say MDMA is less damaging than alcohol, because it is true. No one is claiming it is a good idea to roll every weekend, but I am claiming that if you want to, you should be allowed to without going to prison for it.

You will just have to take my word that I do not and have never considered myself cool. Cool kids only do alcohol and maybe a little pot. I am callous in the sense that I do not expect that which is unreasonable... so I do not expect anyone to take care of me should I damage myself. I would like it if someone was nice enough to do so anyway, but I recognize they are not obligated to do so. As for boasting, not really. I do mention it quite a bit, because I feel it is important to keep in people's minds that drugs are used in all levels of society, by anyone you can imagine.

The point is that I should not have to move to the wilderness, because dropping MDMA does not hurt you.

Do not worry for your kids. I said I have more incentive, which is true, but I do have ethical problems with encouraging anyone to try an illegal drug in today's climate. None of the legal ones are drugs I would encourage anyway. If your kids were interested in trying drugs, you had better hope they come to someone like me rather than someone who tried pot once but drinks like a fish on Friday and Saturday nights.

As for the inhibitions... well, not really, but if I have managed to control myself while incredibly drunk I fail to see why it is asking so much of anyone else to do so. If one finds it absolutely impossible, perhaps they should not be doing that drug. Obviously they rearrange one's priorities while under the influence, but that is why one sets limits before they use.

I am a reason to keep drugs illegal? If you say so, but I would be much more willing to help out a society that is not trying to put me away. I suppose I should have used a smiley, but I was not serious about going to prison. I do not believe in welfare or freeloading, and even if I did regular welfare would be better. However, as I said before I am a responsible person who works full time (when not in school) and pays taxes so that other people can go to prison or on welfare.

Prison is my only worry, really. Once I cross of every drug (and experience) on my list, I doubt I will use regularly if at all. However, it is easier to find other drugs when one smokes pot every day. Certainly I am slower than when I was not an everyday user, but oh well. I have gained more than I lost, especially as most of what I have lost will come back should I decide to quit. Not that I expect that day to come for another year or two, but unless I meet a girl who likes all the same drugs I do it will have to come eventually. On the other hand, if I get sent to prison then I would probably have to use drugs for the rest of my life to deal with the emotional pain.
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
And now beverly... this will not be as long as the other post, because some things I put in my response to Kwea.

It sounds rebellious, but if the drugs were legal I would not break the law. Actually, I probably follow more traffic laws now than I did before I started using illegal drugs.

Alcohol prohibition was ugly. Are you saying the prohibition of other drugs is not? It would be one thing if these drugs were actually stopped, but they are not stopped at all or slowed much. The choice is not between making drugs disappear and having kids shoot up in class; it is between having marijuana easier to get in high school than alcohol and all drugs being availabe only to adults.

Drug use is innate. There are many who believe that all humans have the desire to intoxicate themselves. Some people do not use chemicals, but television, gambling, sex, and the internet all release the same neurotransmitters than drugs do. As long as there is prison rape, then either you hate me or you might as well. And really, why should I have to pay a fine or go to a prison where rape does not exist? So I guess I believe you when you say that you do not hate me, but if anything I would rather you did than claim it is for my own good. Me quitting drugs is not an option until I complete my list.

Well, perhaps no one is above seduction, but drugs are not all bad. Like it or not, drugs are fun, and while I can think of better things to do than using them all the time for the rest of my life, I can think of worse things as well.

I have blacked out once. It was not enjoyable, so I did not repeat the experience. Reconstructing what happened; nothing that I wish had not did. I always remember what I did when I was smoking marijuana, or for that matter using any other drug. It does fade with time, of course, but so do activities that did not involve drugs.

As for the benefit, were you asking about to the user or to others? If it is to the user, then hedonism is good. If the negatives of a drug outweigh the positives; I either quit entirely or cut back extensively. I would probably be an alcoholic if it were not for marijuana, so right there that is a huge positive.

I am close to an anarchist at times, or at least a hard-core libertarian, although neither of those really fits exactly. I do not believe in obeying laws that are wrong. Should Rosa Parks have sat on the back of the bus? Should gay men in Texas not had sex? If murder became legal tomorrow, would you start killing people? I would argue that the policeman would let you go if you knew for an absolute fact that you were endangering only yourself.

As for the improvements... they are more intense while on the drug, but they persist after it is gone. Back to the whole being responsible for what you do on drugs, your actions come from within you, both the good and the evil. At least now I have proof that under some circumstances, I can love unconditionally. Perhaps not everyone in the entire world, but the really important ones. If it can happen with the drug, then it can happen without it if I work hard enough. (Not that I have done so yet, but it is nice to know I could.) I should make it clear that I do not really use drugs for personal improvement. My only goal is recreation. However, if it happens anyway, I am not going to try to stop it.

This really applies only to narcotics, but if you have happiness constantly then what else is left? As near as they know, our "happiness" neurotransmitters are the endomorphins, or endogenous morphinans, which are emulated by the narcotics. If your happiness receptors are set to on, you are happy. That is not a bad thing, and I reject utterly the premise that people should have to suffer or work any harder than necessary before being happy. Assuming everyone else has all the narcotics they want, then they too are happy.

Keeping users from addictions? The only drug I know I am addicted to is caffeine, and that would be a favor. I probably qualify for a marijuana addiction, and I would miss it, but it is hardly something I worry excessively about when I know it is impossible to get. Not that I think one could keep the users from their drugs; if that actually worked I might not be against prohibition. I do not believe it is possible, however. Assuming it is not, how should you torture me for the crime of being happy?

I agree that cocaine and alcohol users are (generally) selfish, but not (generally) pot or MDMA users. I care lots about people who are not trying to fix me up with Bubba or otherwise hurt me, few as they are.

Edit: I lied; it is as long.

[ August 21, 2004, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: Danzig ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Are you saying the prohibition of other drugs is not?

---

quote:

---

Drug use is innate. There are many who believe that all humans have the desire to intoxicate themselves.

---

quote:

---

As long as there is prison rape, then either you hate me or you might as well.

---

You will just have to take my word for it. Danzig, I do not hate you.

quote:

---

Me quitting drugs is not an option until I complete my list.

---

quote:

---

but drugs are not all bad. Like it or not, drugs are fun

---

quote:

---

I can think of worse things as well.

---

quote:

---

hedonism is good

---

quote:

---

I am close to an anarchist at times, or at least a hard-core libertarian, although neither of those really fits exactly. I do not believe in obeying laws that are wrong. Should Rosa Parks have sat on the back of the bus? Should gay men in Texas not had sex? If murder became legal tomorrow, would you start killing people? I would argue that the policeman would let you go if you knew for an absolute fact that you were endangering only yourself.

---

quote:

---

At least now I have proof that under some circumstances, I can love unconditionally.

---

quote:

---

This really applies only to narcotics, but if you have happiness constantly then what else is left? As near as they know, our "happiness" neurotransmitters are the endomorphins, or endogenous morphinans, which are emulated by the narcotics. If your happiness receptors are set to on, you are happy. That is not a bad thing, and I reject utterly the premise that people should have to suffer or work any harder than necessary before being happy. Assuming everyone else has all the narcotics they want, then they too are happy.

---

quote:

---

Keeping users from addictions? The only drug I know I am addicted to is caffeine, and that would be a favor. I probably qualify for a marijuana addiction, and I would miss it, but it is hardly something I worry excessively about when I know it is impossible to get. Not that I think one could keep the users from their drugs; if that actually worked I might not be against prohibition. I do not believe it is possible, however. Assuming it is not, how should you torture me for the crime of being happy?

---

It might be impossible to keep a user from all drugs. They would seek at all costs to get *something*. I know you don't believe you are addicted to much, but imagine tomorrow never having access to a recreation drug again. Ever. How would you feel about that?

Being happy is not a crime. I think I have made several important points about this. Do you need drugs to be happy?
 

---

Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
 
I do not claim to have extensive knowledge on drugs, but from my limited experience I would have to agree with Beverly about the “happiness” caused by drug use. I see a big difference between the happiness I get from alcohol or marijuana, and the happiness from doing something I am proud of. Once you sober up you are exactly where you were before, but if you have done something worthwhile that is never taken away from you.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
IO spent years as an EMT, so pardon me if you randian concepts of freedom don't impress me compared to seeing the suffering of many, many people who were unable to control their addictions.

Any claims that it is the goverment that makes drugs dangerous if facietious at best. Regulated or not, their are miriad reasons for keeping controled substances from the populous.

Doing them, particularily to excess, harms yourself as well as others in ways that are hard to see from inside the problem but are all too obvious form the outside.

Society as a whole has the right to regulate behavior...that is it's primary duty, actually.

If individual actions cause harm to the whole society, then they place restrictions on the behavior to minimize the damage.

Kwea
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
Marijuana, opium, and cocaine were not always illegal either. MDMA was legal until the mid-80's, and nothing really bad happened except that people enjoyed it. Besides, making them illegal has not stopped their popularity. I tried a legal drug first, but there are some people who do try drugs to rebel.

Sugar is a drug. Hatrack releases dopamine just as amphetamines do. If you take anti-depressants, you are no better morally than I am. If you take any type of benzo, you are exactly the same as me. Sugar was likely the first drug I used; caffeine the second. I was using caffeine to get high since I was about eight years old. If you ever whirled around in a circle for a while, you were altering your mental state, you just did not use chemicals. If I concentrate, I can "think" myself high without drugs. Unfortunately the high is not particularly portable. I do try (and usually succeed) to get eight hours of sleep a night.

Fine, you do not hate me, but you might as well.

I do not want to try every drug out there; only the fun ones. As for why, because I am curious. Why do I want to read every book ever written by certain authors? Sure, I could not, but why? Drugs are just books written by God.

What is the point of resisting something because you can? I know I can resist alcohol and marijuana, but usually I say no to the first and yes to the second because one is not that great and one is. I think of being high as a good thing in most instances. There is nothing I can think of doing that I would rather not be high for, and for most activities there is a drug that one can be on while doing them just as well. (Or good enough. I have always believed in doing good enough long before I ever used drugs. Anything else is wasted effort.) When I say I can think of worse things, I can think of very many worse things. Drug use may not be the best thing in the entire world, but it is up there in the top ten or twenty.

I am certainly one of those people, at least if you count the internet as a drug. Is that a reason to put me in jail? Well, I guess books are interesting, although I would not be surprised to learn they release dopamine as well. Still, books and the internet are not portable; a chemical high is. Life is not more boring since I started drugs, however. Of course, I tend to actually get up and do things when I am high, or read books. I do see the people who think of using drugs as an activity in itself and wonder sometimes...

My moral code says that I have the right to think as I please, ingest what I please, and sell what I please to adults, and that incorrect laws are morally irrelevant. I do plan to try to change the drug laws if at all possible, even if I quit using drugs myself.

I do have proof. There is nothing any drug brings out in you that was not already there. Perhaps alcohol lets out violent tendencies of those who have them, but those tendencies were already there. It did not create them. The same for MDMA and loving everyone.

Temporary bliss? First of all, if you have never tried narcotics you have no idea how good it is, which is very. Second, I was talking about permanent bliss. And happiness is happiness. The only thing that matters is how much for how long. I can agree that a lower but still fairly high level of happiness for forty years is better than intense happiness for five years, but forty years of intense happiness is better still.

I cannot imagine never having access to any recreational drug, because it will never happen. If all the ones I enjoy were to disappear, it would suck, but life would go on. Occasionally I run out of marijuana for a few days even now. First I will make sure it is unavailable to me, and find out how long. Then I pretty much do not think about it until I have the opportunity to get more. If all drugs were gone, I would regret not trying LSD, mescaline, salvia, and a few others, but it would be pointless to worry about it. I can still treasure the experiences I have had.

What if I do need drugs to be happy? Is that so wrong? As it happens, the reason I use marijuana as often as I do is because of depression. I looked into the legal antidepressants, and they scare me. Marijuana has no withdrawal symptoms. Paxil withdrawal will make you suicidal. MAOIs are even worse. I have read too many stories about people on various SSRIs to even think about trying them. If I was lucky, one of them would work, but some people are not. No one I know who is on an antidepressant looks happier than I am on marijuana. I think I will stick with something that has been used for thousands of years if I use anything at all. Well, opioids really would make me happy, but unfortunately I cannot afford to use them daily.

Actually, I can be happy without drugs, but in any given situation (AFAIK) I would be happier with drugs. Laser tag is fun sober. Sunsets are beautiful sober. Music sounds good sober. Laser tag and sunsets are more fun and beautiful on hallucinogens, and music sounds better on cannabis or MDMA. If I am sad, drugs will not make me happy, but they will make me less sad, and possibly (depending on the drug, not all are useful for this) might help me deal with the sadness even after the drug wears off.
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
If the happiness is temporary, then the accomplishment probably is better. However, the sense of accomplishment is nothing like a narcotic high, and if I had to choose between accomplishing lots of things or being stoned on opioids for the rest of my life, it would be the opioids all the way. Neither alcohol nor marijuana directly affect our happiness centers, so there I would choose accomplishment over being perpetually drunk or stoned on pot. Psychedelics do not really make one "happy", but those experiences are also with me forever.

Oh yes, other people do bad things so I get in trouble. It figures.

If it was possible to keep drugs from the populace, I might actually agree that they should be illegal. However, it is not, and drugs being illegal causes more damage than drugs being legal.

How do they harm me or others? I would like a few concrete examples. People who care about the user worrying about them does not count; my parents would worry about me if I was a homosexual or joined a cult. Neither do people stealing or murdering because of their habits; theft and murder are already illegal and I certainly do not believe drugs are a valid excuse.

Even if drug use harms society in a valid way, I still do not believe that making drugs illegal hurts society less. Of course, I did not choose to join society, and while you can tell me to run away there is actually nowhere to go. I have thought about it. Other countries have equally barbaric laws, so I might as well stay in this one. Drugs are not the only thing I care about; they are merely the worst problem in this country. Countries with more liberal drug laws (most of them are still illegal even there) usually have unacceptable restrictions on free speech or weapon ownership. Besides, I sincerely believe society would be a better place with more liberal drug laws, so even if I cared about it I would still be working to legalize them.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

What is the point of resisting something because you can?

---

quote:

---

What if I do need drugs to be happy? Is that so wrong?

---

I think so. But of course, my thoughts and feelings on this matter delve into my religious beliefs at this point and what I believe the purpose of life is. I believe part of the purpose of life is to make something of ourselves and master our passions and desires as one masters a powerful horse with a bridle. I look at drugs as being too intense, too addictive to allow someone to remain free and in control.

It is true that chemicals in our brain cause the sensation of "happiness". And I believe that when you are chemically altering your brain *with chemicals*, it changes the way your brain works. Natural highs don't have this effect. I have to be careful with sugar because it has a bad effect on me. It changes the way my brain works and can actually cause depression because of it. I am a happier person when I don't try to use sugar for my highs. I am willing to give up the mild high of sugar for the deeper satisfaction of independance from the substance and better control over my thoughts and emotions.

God has given me the gift of a wonderful natural high in exchange for my sacrifice of commiting my life to a spouse and family. It's called sex. I'm sure you are familiar with it. I think it is interesting how many drug users lose interest in sex because their drug highs appeal to them more.

I also think that happiness is far more complex than the chemical process. I believe very strongly in the value difference between lasting joy and stimulated bliss. The lasting joy has meaning, purpose, fulfillment, that the other can never have. Someone who has spent all their lives trying to stimulate the pleasure center of their brain as much as they can afford to will end this life not having made much of it. I think that is tragic. Becoming something incredible and meaningful is so much better than seeking fun and thrills. Life is to short to dedicate to both.

But to each his own.
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
Familiar with sex? Only through descriptions. I hold very old-fashioned morals in some areas. Sex is pleasurable because of endorphins though, and physically narcotics are as good or better and last longer. The only reason to choose it over drugs is for someone who matters. Commitment and/or marriage are one thing, but I highly believe that it is much more wrong to have meaningless sex than it is to use drugs. As far as intimacy and drugs go, I have heard many good things about taking MDMA with a lover.

If drugs are not fulfilling you then you are doing them wrongly. As for accomplishments, what good are they after I am dead? The whole "do something with your life" and "you owe something to society" routines are the same lines kings, priests, and other elites have used to justify why they get to make the rules since the beginning of time, and I do not buy them. Sorry guys, but my happiness is more important to me personally than yours is.

Happiness is happiness. The same receptors are affected whether you win first place in the race or pay $17.50 for 25 mg of hydrocodone. There is nothing that says I cannot accomplish any goals I have while constantly narced up, or using other drugs less frequently. The thing is, my goals are still not to help society or better the world. All of them are basically other ways of having fun that are not from drugs, but no better (or worse) morally. What could possibly be more important than being as happy as you possibly can on average? What do you feel is incredible and meaningful that cannot be accomplished on drugs? Why is it important? Remember, I do not particularly want kids, nor do I accept breeding a new generation to rape the earth and hurt each other as necessarily good. (Drugs have made me much more open to the idea of kids than I previously was, though. This scares me.)

I realize there are many drug users who fit the stereotype of lazy people who accomplish nothing, but there are lots who do not as well. Freud used cocaine, Halsted (a founder of Johns Hopkins) cured his cocaine addiction with morphine addiction; lots of our presidents and other officials used all sorts of legal drugs. Housewives still use lots of benzos, and now they have SSRI's as well. Our wonderful President George W. Bush probably used cocaine and certainly abused alcohol. He fits the stereotypes of those users. Anything you can name has been accomplished by a drug user. Half of classic rock was about or influenced by drugs. Kubla Khan is from an opium dream.
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
What a bunch of loser junkies.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Sex is pleasurable because of endorphins though, and physically narcotics are as good or better and last longer.

---

Then you're not doing it right.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I refuse to enslave myself to 'society.'"

It's not enslavement, Danzig. It's the price of membership.

You refuse to pay the price necessary to BELONG to society, and resent -- rightfully, IMO -- that our society criminalizes your refusal to pay that price.

However, surely you also recognize that society -- ALL societies -- have the right to criminalize behaviors that they believe are harmful to that society. When you rail against drug laws, or I fight for gay marriage, we're not really arguing that society doesn't have the RIGHT to ban these things; we're arguing that society should just NOT ban these things, because they're not as harmful as the bans themselves.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Danzig, I hope someday that you'll use this brain of yours -- which you've devoted to justifying your own self-destructive and ultimately empty pursuit of endorphins -- for something more useful.
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
Possibly not, but sex is not one of those drugs you want to rush and try the first possible time, you know? I always thought it was the emotions that made it so enjoyable.

I do not recognize society's right. In my opinion, there are certain freedoms which must (well, should) be respected, and if a society's well-being should conflict with the preserving of those freedoms, that society deserves to be altered and/or destroyed. Theft is wrong and personal freedom is good, no matter what society says. Society has no right to ban drugs, gay marriage, prostitution, consensual cannabalism, or even the vast majority of religious practices. I am sure all of those are harmful to at least some types of societies.

Edit: More useful? Useful to whom? Emptiness is in the eye of the beholder.

[ August 21, 2004, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: Danzig ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Yes, it is. But the thing is, Danzig, people have the right to behold you.
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
Point. But then again, I see lots of my peers having sex that is meaningless and likely to be ultimately hurtful to them, and I have the common human decency not to attempt to get it banned. And while I will give my opinion if asked, I do not devote my time to telling them how much they suck, or really let it enter my speech much at all.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
*nod* That's why, ultimately, I support the legalization of most recreational drugs, as well.

That said, however, I think it's worth noting that your whole "why can't society just leave me alone; they should let me kill myself if I want" is difficult to morally justify. You're actually asking people to look the other way when someone drives himself off a cliff -- which is almost exactly contrary to the definition of a "good person." A "good person" might not throw you in jail for ruining your life on drugs, but neither would they turn their head and pretend not to see you as you do it.
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
I am not asking them to look the other way; they are free to stare at the car and watch it hit the ground. Actually any decent (not good) person would try to stop the car if they thought it was an accident... but as soon as they learned it was intentional, they should back off.

Besides, I know you are honest enough to admit that not everyone ruins their life on drugs, including some people who use for most of their lives.

Most recreational drugs? Just out of curiosity, which do you think would really cause less overall damage if they were illegal? I can think of a few that I wish did not exist, but as long as they do they should be legal.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Danzig, I respect your choice to abstain from sex. So few people make this decision any more, that I am often genuinely surprised when I encounter it. Kudos to you for that. I agree with you that sex should never be meaningless, and in fact I believe God desires it only be shared between husband and wife. I wouldn't be surprised if participating in drugs makes it far easier to abstain because it provides the thrills and pleasure that sex would provide otherwise. (See my comment about drug users often not being as interested in sex as a non drug user.)

quote:

---

If drugs are not fulfilling you then you are doing them wrongly.

---

quote:

---

As for accomplishments, what good are they after I am dead?

---

quote:

---

Sorry guys, but my happiness is more important to me personally than yours is.

---

quote:

---

There is nothing that says I cannot accomplish any goals I have while constantly narced up, or using other drugs less frequently.

---

quote:

---

The thing is, my goals are still not to help society or better the world. All of them are basically other ways of having fun that are not from drugs, but no better (or worse) morally.

---

quote:

---

What could possibly be more important than being as happy as you possibly can on average? What do you feel is incredible and meaningful that cannot be accomplished on drugs? Why is it important? Remember, I do not particularly want kids, nor do I accept breeding a new generation to rape the earth and hurt each other as necessarily good. (Drugs have made me much more open to the idea of kids than I previously was, though. This scares me.)

---

quote:

---

I realize there are many drug users who fit the stereotype of lazy people who accomplish nothing, but there are lots who do not as well.

---

quote:

---

Freud used cocaine

---

quote:

---

Halsted (a founder of Johns Hopkins) cured his cocaine addiction with morphine addiction

---

quote:

---

lots of our presidents and other officials used all sorts of legal drugs.

---

quote:

---

Housewives still use lots of benzos, and now they have SSRI's as well.

---

quote:

---

Our wonderful President George W. Bush probably used cocaine and certainly abused alcohol.

---

quote:

---

Half of classic rock was about or influenced by drugs. Kubla Khan is from an opium dream.

---

quote:

---

I do have proof. There is nothing any drug brings out in you that was not already there. Perhaps alcohol lets out violent tendencies of those who have them, but those tendencies were already there. It did not create them. The same for MDMA and loving everyone

---

That isn't proof. And it isn't true at all.

You can cause a lot of damage to yourrself and others under the influence of drugs because they affect the way your brain process information. If they didn't you wouldn't want to take them.

You could hurt someone accidentally while high because you don't realize they are your friends while you are tripping. You don't mean to, and it isn't because it it "something already in you" or any such nonsense. It's because you don't know them while high....

or you think they are hurting you not helping you....

or you think you are fine to drive but aren't, and kill someone on the way home...

Inhibitions aren't always a bad thing. Often they are a good thing. We have all sorts of inhibitions presenting ourselves from fighting amongst ourselves, or hurting each other, or stealing.....

They are called morals.

Not all of us agree on what is moral and what isn't, but there are some things we pretty much do agree on, and those things become laws.

You can apply the same arguments to driving that you applied to doing drugs...that they don't affect YOU that way, (yet) so it isn't your problem. Does that mean that you are the only one who doesn't have to drive the speed limit (or close enough )? Are you the only one who can drive 200 mph, but everyone else has to drive 40?

The laws are applicable to all, not to a select few. There are people (such as yourselves) that disobey, but then bitch and moan when they got caught. Then it is SOCIETIES fault that they are in jail, not their fault, even though the penalties have been made clear to all.

There is a difference between you and people taking prescription drugs....they have a consult (at least) with a Doctor, who has a lot more knowledge that you ever will on the effect and contraindication's of drugs. They aren't "self medicating", as you seem to be, so they have societies sanction to take them. You don't.

As far as you not caring about societies views, I imagine you would have a different outlook on it if your parents, of daughter, or...well, you get the pic....were killed by someone stoned behind the wheel, or by someone looking for drug money robbing a convenience store.

Let me guess, that would be the fault of society for making illegal drugs too expensive...

If a man was breaking into your home, don't you call the police? That is society acting..

Or if your house catches on fire...if society didn't matter the firemen wouldn't have jobs, or show up at your house.

You can't have all the benifits of living in a caring society without following the rules set as conditions for belonging to it. That isn't the way it works.


Kwea
Kwea

[ August 21, 2004, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
 
Why would I hurt anyone while high? I have never been so intoxicated on anything as to not be aware of what was going on, or not recognize people. You are assigning way too much power to the drug.

I have those inhibitions about fighting, stealing, etc. Drugs do not take them away. I think I and everyone else should drive about ten miles over the posted limit, whatever that may be. I am not asking for only the drugs I use to be legalized. Meth is a horrible idea, and I have never intentionally done it, but I believe it too should be legal. (For all I know there may have been some in the ecstacy pills I took, but they did not feel particularly speedy.)

So far, I have been lucky and avoided being caught. I am bitching and moaning anyway, because drug laws are wrong. I also believe that gay marriage should be legal, and that is useless to me. It is society's fault that users are put in jail. They had the option to live and let live, or to be bullies, and they chose to be bullies. If drug use intrinsically led to jail, our prisons would be even more overcrowded.

The difference between me and someone who only does legal drugs is that they are less likely to get caught. That is it. If it is wrong to take a drug to alter your thought process, it is wrong, no matter who gives the ok. If it is not wrong, then perhaps they should have doctors and/or pharmacists who only deal with recreational drugs. Besides, half the drugs I use are legal.

If a loved one got killed by an impaired driver, I would be mad whether they were stoned, drunk, or talking on their cell phone while yelling at the brats in the back seat. It is society's fault that drugs are expensive, although that would not excuse theft or murder. Theft and murder are already illegal, however, and I have never argued that it should be otherwise. I could care less if you steal from me to feed your family or you steal to feed your habit. I am out the cash either way.

If a man is breaking into my home, I do not call the police unless by some miracle all contraband was gone, and I would use a knife, gun, or taser. When my truck stereo was stolen, the police did all of nothing for me. I would love to live in a society without police, thank you very much. I at least appreciate firemen, but one good aspect of society does not mean I am willing to accept all of it. I would easily choose a society with civilized drug laws over a society with fire departments.

Not that anyone is authorized to speak for all of society, but I would love to trade off a few of the "benefits" to get them off my back. I am not asking for all the benefits.

You cannot ask me to support a society that is trying to put me in prison for something that intrinsically harms no one (edit: besides possibly myself). That is not the way it works either. Somehow society functioned just fine when MDMA, opium, and cannabis were legal. Yes, I am well aware that what I am doing is illegal. So was gay sex and being black. Laws and morals are not all that related to one another. I am trying to change the laws, because all of the problems you list are worse when drugs are illegal than when they are legal. Not to mention the whole cognitive freedom thing... of course, that has rarely mattered to anyone.

[ August 22, 2004, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Danzig avoiding landmarks ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

The difference between me and someone who only does legal drugs is that they are less likely to get caught.

---

quote:

---

I've lived in Anchorage, Alaska my entire life.

---

Hey, me too! I didn't know I had any fellow Alaskan Hatrackers.

quote:

---

There are so many people here against legalizing it that I don't think it will happen any time soon.

---

quote:

---

Driving isn't mentioned in the Constitution (along with many other things... ), so it isn't a right, and the government has the right to place whatever restrictions it wants on it.

---

quote:

---

Amendment IX of the US Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

---

The point of the US Constitution was not the granting of rights but the limiting of the powers of a federal government. The Bill of Rights was an explicit clarification of a few rights thought to be especially worthy of noting, but it was not intended to exhaustively list those rights properly held. At least, as I understand it.

Certainly the government places restrictions on things all the time, but I don't think it's a good idea to think of the Constitution as limiting the extent of our rights, that's all.

[ August 22, 2004, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Thomas Paus ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Thanks, Danzig, that was more along the lines of what I was looking for.

I can see that there may be benefits to legalizing drugs. But I still need to decide within myself how they weigh against the negatives.

Example: Because alcohol and cigarettes are legal, they are fairly mainstream and accepted by society. Illegal drugs are not mainstream or accepted by society. Because they are illegal, they remain on the fringes of society. I would prefer to keep it that way.

Youth may be carded for buying alcohol and cigarettes, but they still seem to have no trouble getting their hands on them if they really want them.

Alcohol and cigarettes provide a great deal of money in taxes to the government because they are addictive and they are widely accepted by society. I would rather less people use addictive substances even if it means less money goes to the government. I am assuming, of course, that legalizing drugs would mean more people using them more often, and I think that is a pretty sound assumption.

I would rather trust in my abilities to teach my children not to use any of these addictive substances (alcohol and cigarettes included) than trust to the whole carding issue. I don't think the age limits on cigarettes and alcohol have nearly so good an effect of keeping these substances out of the hands of youngsters as a good parent does.

As for the health of the users, they have their choice. I will not be one to say they deserve it any more than I think a prisoner deserves to be raped. I am saying that a wise person will avoid harming themselves as much as is in their power. Improving the quality of drugs used is not worth the cost of legalization to our society, not nearly.

As for people using anti-depressants (I have no knowledge of housewives using them any more or less than any other person) society has decided that depression is a medical condition and prescribes drugs accordingly. Sometimes it may be, but I think that depression and a host of other mental illnesses get over-diagnosed. I do not agree with that. I feel it is often an attempt to treat the symptom rather than the disease. But sometimes the disease can't be treated by society. But these are big issues that I don't understand well enough to know what I think of them.

If "the powers that be" thought marajuana or MDMX treated depression just as well without more serious side effects, they might prescribe decide to prescribe those too. I could see it happening. And if it worked well, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But when something is prescribed, it is controlled. It is not just being used "for fun", it is being used with a purpose.

I and others feel that "getting high" for recreation is damaging behavior, enough so to justify control. How that control happens depends on the substance and its benefits to mankind. Substances that have no other benefit than just "getting high" tend to be illegal. (Note, alcohol and tobacco are two major exceptions, alas.)

[ August 22, 2004, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 

quote:

---

If "the powers that be" thought marajuana or MDMX treated depression just as well without more serious side effects, they might prescribe decide to prescribe those too. I could see it happening. And if it worked well, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But when something is prescribed, it is controlled. It is not just being used "for fun", it is being used with a purpose.

---

quote:

---

What about until then? If it's going to improve the quality of life for someone who is chronically depressed or chemically imbalanced and improve the quality of life for those people around said person, why should they all be penalized while government takes their own sweet time getting it done?

---

quote:

---

breaking laws was pretty much how civil rights for minorities were instituted.

---

quote:

---

There were an estimated 6,356,000 car accidents in the US in 2000. There were about 3.2 million injuries and 41,821 people were killed in auto accidents in 2000 based on data collected by the Federal Highway Administration.

---

quote:

---

More than 100,000 deaths are caused by excessive alcohol consumption each year in the U.S.
Direct and indirect causes of death include drunk driving, cirrhosis of the liver, falls, cancer, and stroke.

---

quote:

---

Illegal Drug Use (All figures are for U.S.) There Were 19,102 Deaths From Drug-Induced Causes in 1999 (legal and illegal drugs) Source: [http://www.cdc.gov/nchswww/fastats/druguse.htm] Statistical Rolodex - Illegal Drug Use. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 8. [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_08.pdf] CDC September 21, 2001

---

quote:

---

"There are no confirmed cases of human deaths from cannabis poisoning in the world medical literature." A "lethal dose in humans could not be very easily achieved by smoking or ingesting the drug." Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995, Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (1998, March). [http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/who-index.htm] World Health Organization - Health Implications of Cannabis

---

quote:

---

Cigarette smoking has been the most popular method of taking nicotine since the beginning of the 20th century. In 1989, the U.S. Surgeon General issued a report that concluded that cigarettes and other forms of tobacco, such as cigars, pipe tobacco, and chewing tobacco, are addictive and that nicotine is the drug in tobacco that causes addiction. The report also determined that smoking was a major cause of stroke and the third leading cause of death in the United States. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing more than 440,000 deaths each year and resulting in an annual cost of more than $75 billion in direct medical costs. (See www.cdc.gov/tobacco/issue.htm).

---

quote:

---

It's a double-standard that should be rectified.

---

quote:

---

I am all for alcohol and tobacco being banned, trust me. And cars usefulness justify their existance, IMO.

---

Well, therein lies the problem. I don't support banning alcohol -- and who are you to declare whether or not I may drink?

I'm kinda sorta playing Devil's Advocate here, since drug regulation is one of the very few areas which I renounce my vaguely libertarian consistency on (proper grammar's another), but that's a key argument behind the argument for legalizing marijuana. If it lacks the addictive qualities of hard-line drugs like cocaine or heroine, is relatively difficult to create long-term damage with (believe me, I know more than my share of burnouts, but I'm fairly sure marijuana doesn't hold a higher percentage for long-term damage than most other drugs, legal or otherwise), and is something I'd like to partake in, what determines your competence or right to decide whether or not I do so?

I don't take drugs beyond responsible drinking, if only because I know enough users to know real life is crappy enough without having to compare twenty-three hours of sobriety to one hour of bliss, and if a measure to legalize marijuana came up on the ballot tomorrow I probably wouldn't vote for it (though possibly not against it, either), but the argument that we need to ban marijuana because it's tradition and if we don't society will collapse smacks too strongly of the truly idiotic arguments against homosexual marriage. I can respect research that can show marijuana's truly dangerous, either as a drug or as a gateway to harder drugs, but I've yet to see convincing substantiation of either argument. And if marijuana doesn't handicap my ability to choose to use it (i.e. addictive), I'm not sure you have the right or the credence to deny me my freedom.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Well, we disagree, but at least we agree about medical marijuana. Hopefully it can be an acceptable alternative for the antidepressive drugs that are really harmful to your body. I know it's effective, I just hope it's accepted.

By the way, I felt this way BEFORE I had any experience with the drug and _I_ don't have any medical reason for it and I wouldn't care a bit if I never had it again. But it sure does make life happier for me and those I love. I think it should be legal all around, but at the very least, I hope it's made legal everywhere for medicine.

When you understand what adverse effects other legal drugs have on people who have mental diseases and what good effect pot has without the awful side effects, you can't help but believe it's better.

-Katarain
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
You ask me what right I have and who am I to decide. I am certainly not Queen of the US of A. I don't have the right to decide. But I *do* have the right to opinion and I have a vote which counts.

A more appropriate question would be why do I feel as I do. If you have read my previous posts, that should be more clear.
 

---

Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
 
Tom, absolutely. Humans have the right to self-determination. I am not saying I would not try to stop someone I saw getting ready to jump, but if someone feels life is not worth living then it is wrong to force them to stay. Hurting themselves is even less an excuse as long as they know what they are doing.

Beverly, It is true that youth can get the drugs they want, but the legal drugs are harder to get. That is all I am saying. You cannot keep drugs from anyone who wants them badly enough, or for that matter is mildly curious enough, but you can make the barrier to entry higher for minors.

I firmly believe that alcohol use would drop if other drugs were legal. Lots of people have a drug of choice and then substitute others when their first choice is unavailable- look at the coffee machines and cigarette smokers at AA meetings.

You cannot keep your kids from trying drugs if they want to. My parents were no worse than any, and better than some. I still tried alcohol my senior year, and then read about all sorts of drugs for months before deciding to try them. It is like sex. I have used caffeine to get high ever since I can remember, because I wanted to get high. Abstinence is best, but realistically it will not happen, so educate them to make safe choices.

How is getting high damaging behaviour? The best narcotic high of my life was an IV of fentanyl at the dentist's office. How did that hurt me? How did that hurt anyone else? How did my taking my Percocets in greater numbers than prescribed hurt me or anyone else? (Well, the acetaminophen was probably not great for my liver, but that does not need to be put in the drugs.) I downright looked forward to getting my wisdom teeth out, and I was not disappointed.

You might as well say being gay or non-Mormon is damaging behavior. I am sure you believe it, but that does not give you the right to force your beliefs on me. I happen to sincerely believe that everyone would benefit from taking MDMA at least once. Somehow, that is not enough of a reason for me to attempt to force you to try it.

Why do you believe in obeying wrong laws? That is an entirely foreign concept to my mind, and I believe it to be a dangerous one.

Racism was worse than drug stigma until recently, but for the last decade or so it has been a lot worse to be a user than to be a minority. Minorities may have suffered more (they do not now), but just because drug stigma is not quite as bad does not make it acceptable in any way.

If you do not think it is worth breaking the law to get high, you probably have never done any drug worth doing. All I can say to that is do not knock it until you try it. Furthermore, it is a question of what we are allowed to think and what we may put into our bodies. I believe that individual sovereignty is a very precious thing, and it is worth ignoring the law for.

[ August 22, 2004, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Danzig avoiding landmarks ]
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Yes, Beverly, nobody's debating your right to an opinion or a vote -- but what right do you have to vote for a law which limits another's freedom? As an extreme example, if the majority voted to limit the rights of black people (or those of homosexuals, a limitation which, as I recall, you support), would that be allowable since, after all, you're entitled to your opinion and your vote, even if you aren't the Queen of the US of A?

I understand why you feel all drugs should be illegal, and the position isn't without a certain amount of sympathy from me. However, I realize no matter how opposed I am to recreational drug use, I've no right to force others to behave as I do beyond persuasion tactics -- no matter how opposed I am to, say, voting Republican, and no matter how self-destructive and willfully ignorant I may believe the act to be, do I have any right to prohibit people from voting as such? Even if I have an opinion and a vote?

It's not a matter of why, it's a matter of if you have the legal right to declare your personal preferences everyone else's, so long as those personal preferences you're attempting to suppress aren't inherently self-handicapping or self-destructive. I've yet to see evidence of marijuana being either. And thus I question your, our right to prohibit recreational marijuana use, not our right to speak against it or persuade others not to use it. There's a fairly distinct line between the two, isn't there?
 

---

Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
 
Lalo, do you realize that alcohol is significantly worse for your brain and liver than the "hard" drug heroin? Heroin is slightly more addictive, but not by much, and with a constant supply the user is very functional. Alcohol withdrawal can easily kill you; heroin withdrawal is unpleasant but almost always non-fatal. Or if it is the word heroin that gets you, substitute hydrocodone or morphine.

Hard and soft drugs are poor metaphors. From soft to hard, they would go in approximately this order: Indole psychedelics, cannabis, nitrous, MDMA, phenethylamine psychedelics, narcotics, oral amphetamines, cocaine/alcohol, non-oral amphetamines, and nicotine. Some may need to be switched depending on how you weight actual overdose chances, ease of addiction, and death from long term use. However, alcohol and nicotine are quite a bit worse for you than the vast majority of currently illegal drugs.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Well, as with all behavior, we have to weigh for ourselves which we think is more valuable, the priviledge or the negative effect to society. For example, there are people who would like to ban cars. They cause so many deaths and injuries, and they create so much polution and waste. While I might support a gradual change to another form of transportation, I would not like to see cars suddenly banned. It would cause more problems than it helps.

I do have the right to decide if I think a behavior or priviledge falls under the category of "too destructive to society". If the powers that be tell me it is a right, then no, I don't have a right to try and prohibit it. But if it is only a priviledge, then I do.

So as with homosexual marriage, we must ask ourselves, is it a right or a priviledge? Others have brought this up and it is a very good and important point. I am not on the board of those who decide what is a right and what is a priviledge. Those far above me make such decisions. I can have an opinion on what is a right and what is a priviledge, but that doesn't have any efficacy on the laws of our country.

So long as the country says drug use is a priviledge and not a right (and that must be the case if most recreational drugs are illegal) than I am in my rights moving to oppose it, even if you personally believe it is a right rather than a priviledge.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
I've heard that before. I've also heard that alcohol, if discovered today, would be a class-one drug and banned from public use. I asked Hatrack for verification on it, as the information came from a decidedly biased friend of mine, but I've yet to hear anything about it.

As far as alcohol being more addictive than heroine, dude, I'm going to doubt your word on that one. Perhaps when undiluted. Perhaps to certain gene types. But I've no dependency whatsoever on alcohol, and I've also no problem with weekend indulgence -- from what I hear of heroine, I couldn't use it regularly and quit whenever I like.

I'm not very sympathetic to drug legalization, dude, but if marijuana's as harmless as I've been led to understand, I won't stand in the way of its legalization. That doesn't mean I'll spearhead or support the movement to legalize it, however, and I certainly won't advocate the legalization of addictive drugs. If alcohol's already spilled milk (or whatever), so be it, but just because alcohol's legal doesn't mean I'll support the legalization of heroine or opium or crack. I know users on each of the above, and I know them too well to pretend they aren't addictive, destructive drugs. My current half-support for marijuana rests on my understanding that it's safe to use -- no drug that isn't, except perhaps alcohol, will get my support for legalization.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
I hear Alaska is such a pretty state and in the southern part you have more sun. Sounds awesome to me. I'd love to live there. If it's legalized there, that's just another reason to move.

Having it legal in California, however, is NOT a good enough reason to move there. Too many liberals!

Maybe Amsterdam, instead.

-Katarain
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Not used in moderation, alcohol isn't.

There's lots of things that if you used to excess would be worse than heroin.
 

---

Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
 
I did not say that. Heroin will addict you a bit faster than alcohol, but heroin addiction is a lot more fun. If you consider the opiates to be more or less interchangeable, I have chipped ever since I started. People try to tell themselves that oxycodone is different than heroin, but they are kidding themselves. I challenge you to go without drinking another drink for the rest of your life. You probably could, but why would you?

Alcohol probably would be banned if it were introduced today, because fun is wrong and alcohol is poison.

Why are you not more sympathetic to legalization? Do you think that homosexuality does not cause real problems? It destroys the institution of marriage, man! It is a sin! If there is one thing my parents would take worse than learning I use, it would be if I was gay. More seriously, who are you to judge what is best for someone else? Addiction would not be such a problem if drugs were legal- look at all the functional alcohol, benzo, stimulant, and even narcotic addicts in our society. Narcotics impair one less than cannabis or alcohol. Stimulants actually improve performance. People will self-destruct on anything, but that is no reason not to make it as easy to climb back out of the hole as possible.
 

---

Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
 
You can use heroin (or any other narcotic; generally one is as good as another when adjusted for dosage) in moderation as well. You never hear about those people because they do not make very good scare stories.

Edit: and yes, pretty much any amount of alcohol will take a larger toll on your brain and liver than heroin. It takes very little; about two drinks is the safe stopping point.

[ August 22, 2004, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Danzig avoiding landmarks ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Beverly, It is true that youth can get the drugs they want, but the legal drugs are harder to get. That is all I am saying. You cannot keep drugs from anyone who wants them badly enough, or for that matter is mildly curious enough, but you can make the barrier to entry higher for minors.

---

quote:

---

I firmly believe that alcohol use would drop if other drugs were legal.

---

quote:

---

You cannot keep your kids from trying drugs if they want to.

---

quote:

---

How is getting high damaging behaviour? The best narcotic high of my life was an IV of fentanyl at the dentist's office. How did that hurt me? How did that hurt anyone else? How did my taking my Percocets in greater numbers than prescribed hurt me or anyone else? (Well, the acetaminophen was probably not great for my liver, but that does not need to be put in the drugs.) I downright looked forward to getting my wisdom teeth out, and I was not disappointed.

---

quote:

---

You might as well say being gay or non-Mormon is damaging behavior.

---

quote:

---

Why do you believe in obeying wrong laws?

---

quote:

---

If you do not think it is worth breaking the law to get high, you probably have never done any drug worth doing.

---

quote:

---

You can use heroin (or any other narcotic; generally one is as good as another when adjusted for dosage) in moderation as well. You never hear about those people because they do not make very good scare stories.

---

quote:

---

Why is DMT illegal? It is not addictive, and it is found in your brain.

---

quote:

---

Jutsa, you are wrong. Nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man. Heroin (or other narcotics) is only a little more addictive than alcohol, not because it is not that addictive but because alcohol is.

---

quote:

---

Alcohol probably would be banned if it were introduced today, because fun is wrong and alcohol is poison.

---

quote:

---

Edit: One last thing, why on earth is physical dependence a bad thing if one has a constant supply? If withdrawal symptoms never occur while the enjoyable parts do, then the "addiction" (really physical dependence; read the propaganda they give to people in pain- they are not addicts, because addicts are those bad people, they are merely physically dependent) is worth it.

---

quote:

---

I said fun is wrong because that is what the DEA does to determine how to schedule drugs.

---

Can you show a link to the DEA "fun-rating" used to schedule drugs? Because right now your rapidly slipping from "thoughtful person I disagree with but who's made some good points" to "zealot with a major chip on his shoulder."

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
You know, both of those links are conjecture. Do you have anything actually tested, repeated, and documented? If not, I shall ask my medical friends if they know of any sources online. I don't feel like transcribing pages of written text.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Although, it sure costs a lot in health care measures later on, Dag, and it could be argued that that is a significant harm to others - supporting the cost of all the disease that comes along with smoking.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Well, I do not view being high as being disconnected from reality. You might pay less attention, but you interact just the same.

---

quote:

---

Impaired driving endangers others.

---

quote:

---

beverly, you supporting regulations already in place is close enough to you telling me what to do as to be lumped in with it.

---

quote:

---

I am not fond of people who want me raped for all intents and purposes.

---

Come now, be reasonable.

Just because that might be a consequence of their actions does not mean that they desire that consequence.

I could just as easily say that you want to be raped for all intents and purposes.

But I know that's not true.

And so do you.

[ August 23, 2004, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
 
You be reasonable. If your policies will lead to lots more prison rape, change your policies or change the prisons. Rape is a lot more likely in prison than it is from drug use in general, and you know that.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
You misunderstood me.

You say that bev wants, for all intents and purposes, for you to be raped. I presume that you say this because she supports drugs being illegal, making you in danger of prison, and possible rape.

Because B (you could go to prison) is a consequence of A (drugs are illegal), and she supports A (drugs should be illegal), you are saying that she desires B (she wants you raped).

But I could say the same thing about you. You take drugs, which you know could put you in prison, and the possibility of rape.

Let's use the same logic here:

Because B (you could go to prison) is a consequence of A (taking illegal drugs), and you spport A (you take illegal drugs), I am saying that you desire B (you want to be raped).

Now, I know that you probably don't want to be raped in prison.

You should also know that bev probably doesn't want you raped in prison. It's pretty unfair for you to say that she does.

[ August 23, 2004, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
 
I got it the first time. I am saying that she is supporting something that is quite a bit more likely to end up in me being raped than merely my using drugs. I will end up raped if I go to prison, but lots of people use drugs without ever getting raped. Not quite the same. I would have nothing to worry about if it were not for people who want me in prison, and could continue using drugs. Their very desire pretty much implies rape, and cannot be separated from it.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

I would have nothing to worry about if it were not for people who want me in prison

---