So apparently in a classic world wide fail, the Global Commission on Drug Policy has suggested that the world experiments on the idea of legalising drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy and perhaps even harder stuff.
The 'benefits' of such are often hounded by Ultraliberals and Libertarians as an end to the black market, all violent crimes including murder rape and domestic violence; and end to human trafficking, anti social behaviour and even 'the theft of electricity'.
The argument is made funnier however when they claim that legalisation will prevent children from taking it. The UK only just raised the age limit from 16 to 18 for the purchase of tobacco products a few years ago because this was a load of bull, and thought that raising the age would prevent shops getting away with younger looking customers buying cigarettes. Alcohol is somewhat similar, with Scotland having horror stories of 8 year old alcoholics. The suggestion that legalisation prevents minors from getting access is therefore madness, there are far more 8 year olds smoking tobacco and drinking alochol due to exposure than harder drugs. Where there is this exposure due to parents taking these forms, the percentage chance of the child also being addicted also raise.
Drug money almost always benefits some dodgy group, if your European and your smoking something you shouldn't be, chances are your either funding some Central/Eastern European mafia gang which guns down people in the streets, or (more likely) your funding the Taliban/Al Qaeda in Afghanistan killing our Soldiers.
The very reason these things are even called drugs is because they effect the body in a way more extreme than things normally do, many prescription drugs are actually things that pull your body to one extreme which when your ill actually stabilises it, taking it when your not ill simply makes you go the opposite way.
There is also this thing called addiction, the body starts to rely on this stuff, but gets immune at the same time, producing the dip effect where the more you use anything the lower down you'll feel without it and the less high you'll feel when you do, giving you a net downward trend regardless of what you do.
But that's ok they have a counter for that, because alcohol and tobacco are apparently more destructive and addictive and because they are legal everything under the sun should be too. This mentality is also wrong, rather than claiming that something that is legal is far more dangerous and therefore justifies switching the classification of something thats illegal, we should be banning those products as well.
Alochol related incidents take up the most time, energy and money in the National Health Service, because even though its taxed to death, has known and accepted health threats and legal; people still drink it to the extreme. We are led to believe that people who would be able to legally buy cannabis would not fry their brains till they can't anymore when people can't even control the use of current legalised drugs.
Rather than decriminalising drug use, as the international org suggests doing, we should be clamping it down more. Anyone who is buying these drugs are funding criminal elements, and should be no different to directly funding groups such as the IRA or Al-Qaeda and bring back the death penalty for dealers. Instead, we are heading towards a dangerous road of accepting the things that destroy us.
Jun 2 2011, 3:58 pm
|
|
Kozuma3
 |
Dumb-asses throwing away there life & money.
|
I think it's all stupid. I was just watching Jail like 2 hours ago. I watched as they brought in drunk after drunk for things like DUI, public intoxication, assault on a police officer. Then I thought to myself "Why do they even allow stores to sell beer when they know thousands of people everyday will be arrested for being under the influence of it?" Whats even more stupid is that they DON'T legalize weed - as if there is a difference between alcohol high and smoking high. Under the influence is under the influence. Beer isn't more holy than an herb people smoke, they both serve the same purpose. Yet you can freely buy one and not the other. Ban them all or ban none of them at all.
Instead, we are heading towards a dangerous road of accepting the things that destroy us. Drugs aren't the only dangerous thing this world is beginning to accept. | |
Yeah lets clamp down even more on drug users. Lets send people to jail for abusing THEIR OWN BODY. They go in a drug user and come out a hardened criminal, ready to move on to violent crimes.
Come on, the war on drugs is a failure, look at how it has tore mexico apart. Once the softer drugs are legalized, these cartels will have little reason to exist. It will also lose the "cool factor" that it has now, because forbidden fruit is always more tempting. Not to mention all the money we miss out on by letting drug dealers take all the profit from sells. Thats another multi million dollar industry out the door. And the death penalty for simply dealing drugs? Thats just ridiculous. You've been watching too much Faux news. | |
Yeah, I don't believe alcohol being bad justifies weed being legal, its particularly harmful for young people even in their 20's and damages the brain, it clearly isn't acceptable for it to be legalised when children so easily get hold of current legalised drugs which they aren't suppose to have access to.
| |
I know a-lot of people who can't survive without a cigarette, even people who lay down these rules cannot; 2nd hand smoking also kills. :D
Don't do any of them, there all unhealthy; But um, that ecstasy looking delicious. | |
"Yeah lets clamp down even more on drug users. Lets send people to jail for abusing THEIR OWN BODY. They go in a drug user and come out a hardened criminal, ready to move on to violent crimes."
Sure, they are doing it to their own body, and in the ideal world where they are the only person in it this argument of freedom stands, but many get into drugs by someone else, or even pushed into it. These people have families, parents, siblings, children, friends and colleagues, they don't just effect themselves. Also, if they are leaving jail in a worse state than they went in, it obviously isn't doing the job and needs reform. Where a drug user has been forced into it then they should get help, where they did it of free will and supplied it to others, they should be punished for it. "Come on, the war on drugs is a failure, look at how it has tore mexico apart. Once the softer drugs are legalized, these cartels will have little reason to exist. It will also lose the "cool factor" that it has now, because forbidden fruit is always more tempting." Bull. Legalisation does not stamp out black market. Legalisation takes time, government resources and money and taxation to lighten the load. In many countries there is black markets for tobacco and alcohol even though they are legalised. These things are still considered "cool" to youngsters and that is why there is so many kids smoking and drinking, this will only get worse with more drugs on the open market. "Not to mention all the money we miss out on by letting drug dealers take all the profit from sells. Thats another multi million dollar industry out the door." If we bothered to catch them, then that money found can be redirected to catching more and other programs. " And the death penalty for simply dealing drugs? Thats just ridiculous. You've been watching too much Faux news." Why not? Many drugs can lead to fatality, including legal ones, illegal ones are usually illegal because of the potential damage addiction causes. Murder is considered serious, rape is considered serious, but killing someone slowly (or quickly, as even one use of some is enough to kill outright a person) is acceptable and profitable? If dealers started getting hanged, there would be less dealers, and less people willing to be dealers. | |
Of course, one major counter-argument to this is that, in places where drugs have been decriminalized (viz. Portugal), it has resulted in a higher standard of living for drug users, as it destigmatizes seeking help, and results in a healthier population. Criminalizing drug use also results in a greatly-increased prison population, as the United States prison system shows.
And, of course, there are very clear historical examples of why things like alcohol should not be banned. The Prohibition era in the United States only resulted in one of the strongest examples of the prosperity of organized crime in US history, and it is doubtful the Italian mafia would ever have gained such a strong foothold. If there is regulation of the drug system, some may go to 'shady dealings', but most would not. Most money from alcohol sales, for example, is very clearly going back into legal dealings, and the same with tobacco sales. Legalization and regulation would simply result in profitable business ventures forming. A law-abiding corporation that mass-produces marijuana will be immensely more profitable than any illegal drug cartel, and therefore has significant reasons to remain clean and legal. Additionally, you are simply buying into propaganda about marijuana. It's effectively impossible to do anything along the lines of 'frying your brain' using it. Any brain damage it does is trivial, certainly far less than alcohol. Hell, far less than cigarettes, and cigarettes only result in cancer, rather than actual direct damage to intellectual ability. I do not use drugs, other than prescription antidepressants, but the propaganda produced by governments and gobbled up by you (presumably because you're Muslim and you follow the beliefs of a ~thousand-and-a-half year old man who heard voices and knew nothing of science) is not backed up either in theory or practice. Legalization, or at least decriminalization, is a far more preferable situation to the current status quo. | |
Weed isn't too bad, other than how it messes with your short term memory (which is why I'll never use it). Also, it would be pretty cool if they legalized hallucinogens with low potential for addiction, like LSD and things. However, they should never legalize anything like meth, speed, cocaine, or bath salts (not sure about other areas, but every day you'd see a story or two in our newspaper about how someone did something really damn stupid because they were high on them).
| |
I'm not saying weed should be legal. I'm saying its stupid to legalize one ( alcohol ) and throw you in jail for trying to obtain the other ( weed ) when they're basically the same thing.
Also, those "weed damages brain" rumors are pretty weird anyway. You've got one lot saying its terrible, then another group of researches saying the effects are trivial. http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20030701/ heavy-marijuana-use-doesnt-damage-brain Also, the "their own body" excuse is very weak. Most of the time, people who abuse themselves end up abusing or having a negative effect on everyone around them. I.E. my Dad used to smoke, and even though he was doing it to HIS OWN BODY, I began developing lung problems and I was put on a breathing machine for a few months to clear my lungs back out. Once he stopped smoking, I stopped having the bronchitis flare ups. | |
You've just fallen straight into the Libertarian trap:
"Alcohol is worse so cannabis should be legal" No, it shouldn't, of course Alcohol is worse; but it doesn't set a bar for anything else. As for "propaganda by Governments" its actually quite the opposite here, government sponsored groups regularly chant the legalisation route but refuse to get into a debate about it. And for the record I was anti-drugs well into my Atheist years. | |
Should we throw people in jail for failing roles in their lives like being a good parent or co-worker? We should only punish them for violating legitimate laws like stealing, which would be used to fuel a drug addiction.
Yeah new legislation takes time and money, but so does fueling a failing campaign against drugs. If you take away the harsh punishment and hush hush policy on drugs, its will lose its cool factor. If the effects are explained to kids, and we explain it so its no longer mysterious, we've killed half the fun right there. Any kid who still does it would've gone down that path regardless. In regards to the death penalty for drug users, lets look at america. We are one of the few industrialized countries to still use the death penalty, but still have one of the highest crime rates. Doesn't seem to be working huh? | |
"Should we throw people in jail for failing roles in their lives like being a good parent or co-worker? We should only punish them for violating legitimate laws like stealing, which would be used to fuel a drug addiction."
These drugs are illegal, so isn't that a crime? Knowingly handling stolen goods is a crime in this country, knowingly funding banned groups is a crime in this country so why should buying something illegal not constitute a "legitimate" crime? Again, alcohol and tobacco products are widespread in the under-age community, being legal and pat on the head punishment is clearly NOT working for legal drugs, it won't work for drugs that are illegal crossing the gap. "In regards to the death penalty for drug users, lets look at america. We are one of the few industrialized countries to still use the death penalty, but still have one of the highest crime rates. Doesn't seem to be working huh?" Well, that could be an entirely different topic of its own, the two are hardly linked especially when the death penalty is used very sparingly. In most countries drug dealing is one of the smallest jail terms, making it low risk and high profit. | |
Acebloke wrote:
Bull. Legalisation does not stamp out black market. Legalisation takes time, government resources and money and taxation to lighten the load. In many countries there is black markets for tobacco and alcohol even though they are legalised. These things are still considered "cool" to youngsters and that is why there is so many kids smoking and drinking, this will only get worse with more drugs on the open market. This is known as the perfect solution fallacy, and it's trivial to point out an exactly-analogous example that is equally wrong: 1) Crime happens. 2) The criminal justice system exists to stop crime. 3) Not all crime is stopped. 4) Therefore, the criminal justice system is useless. And yet, the criminal justice system greatly reduces the instances of crime, and removes many, if not most, criminals from the streets to where they can do no harm. And, thus the issue with yours is that you're saying, because legalization will not stop the black market entirely, it is worthless. This is fallacious, though, because it will clearly transfer a large portion of the black market trade to the "white market", greatly curtailing the criminal elements of the black market, and a net decrease in crime. Murder is considered serious, rape is considered serious, but killing someone slowly (or quickly, as even one use of some is enough to kill outright a person) is acceptable and profitable? And thus, the slippery slope begins. What drugs are, therefore, allowed? What's the difference between morphine for therapeutical use, and morphine to get high? What about marijuana for the same reasons? What about antidepressants? Why are some drugs better than others? Is the line so easily drawn? | |
boxcar youre an ignorant idiot. i have dozens of friends that do it because of the actual high, "not because its cool". itll be cool to druggies because of its effect.
| |
If you take away the harsh punishment and hush hush policy on drugs, its will lose its cool factor. If the effects are explained to kids, and we explain it so its no longer mysterious, we've killed half the fun right their. Any kid who still does it would've gone down that path regardless. No, this doesn't work. People said the same about sex and tried a more lenient approach with that ( the whole 'practice safe sex' BS ), and look at us now. The age for a person's first intercourse is lower than it's ever been. When I was a Freshman, there were only 2 girls I knew of at my school that were pregnant. Here in my senior year, there were more girls pregnant than I could count on both my hands. | |
Nice personal attack. By they way I have many friends who smoke weed, but would've never gotten into it in the first place if it wasn't considered "cool" by others.
| |
nope, sorry mr. stereotype. all the friends ive had did it because their life was empty nd needed to forget about it.
idiot. | |
Obviously if they were practicing safe sex, they wouldn't be pregnant would they?
| |
Acebloke wrote:
You've just fallen straight into the Libertarian trap: I said nothing of the sort. I pointed out that alcohol, a much-more widely-used substance is legal, and because of the failures of its banning, can not be practically illegalized again. Yet, marijuana, a substance whose documented effects are clearly much less dangerous than alcohol, is illegal. Why? There is no good reason: It is entirely arbitrary. government sponsored groups regularly chant the legalisation route but refuse to get into a debate about it. I've not heard of this, and in fact I remember hearing instances of a WHO report on cocaine use being suppressed due to pressure from the US, and a report by the UK's Ministry of Health being suppressed because it disagreed with their propaganda. | |