Can the police do that?

[bleachit]

with your own feelings and thoughts while on the drug and you have a pretty unbiased perception of the effects of said drug

do you even know what biased/unbiased means?

edit: being at work sucks, everything changes in a thread.

[acecl22]

do you even know what biased/unbiased means?

edit: being at work sucks, everything changes in a thread.

yeah, i said 'pretty unbiased' = 'almost an impartial perspective', as in, not quite impartial, but pretty close

[skriptal]

This thread need to go back on topic and not a drug argument.

[Steelrat]

re: Ethical hedonism and legalization



Howdy.

Under this assumption; wouldn't we have to restrict alcohol due to drunk driving, liver problems, etc? Plus, plenty of people have inhibited their ability to be a productive member of society due to alcohol problems. Same arguement goes for tobacco use.

No to mention, neither of those two legal drugs contrinute much to calming the negative effects they cause.

/btw, mech engineers just took a step back IMHO

Hey, I'd restrict alcohol use if it was possible. Too many idiots ruin it for everyone. Realistically, though, that's DOA. Restricting drugs is a concept that is much more acceptable to a large part of the population.

You could carry your argument on forever, restricting cars, guns, fatty foods, etc etc. At some point you have to draw a line. Methamphetamines, Heroin, and the like have no redeeming qualities, and should never, ever be considered as acceptable. I deal with people on this crap every day, and I believe these substances are a plague upon humanity.

[Steelrat]

It is never going to be an easy sell. The strong points of the argument are there though. I do agree with a "sin" tax that should be applied to these, and should be pretty steep. Now, one could go further and say this should be applied to other things that are clearly detrimental to your health (high fat food type of things). I'm even ok with that. This creates a revenue stream to fund support services. As to the increased crime issue. Clearing space in the jails of perpetrators of victimless crimes would give us more space to actually hold those who have committed crimes against others, as well as basically destroy the illegal drug trade (who runs booze anymore for instance) and the crime that surrounds it. Its hard to compare crime statistics across cultures, but I would think Amsterdam would compare favorably to our inner cities currently. This could be a cultural issue though.

Darwinism... society should not support people who are unable / unwilling to support themselves LONG term. I understand every road has its up and down, and do not think you should hold help from people how need it, but we have a system now where people live and plan on living off the system forever. This needs to be addressed and is a seperate issue (though no doubt intertwines with many others).

Alchohol abused makes you unable to function in society. There are plenty of people who enjoy it responsibly.

There are some pretty reasonable, and logical arguments to allow legalization, at least on the federal level. To me its a moral argument and the government should not outlaw it. That being said, I am fine with the states regulations of gambling, even though I question if the moral authority exists. I would be fine with state regulations of currently illegal drugs.

You can't just legalize drugs and expect the crime to go away.

Let's take meth for example. One of the characteristics of meth use is the inability to sleep, followed by long periods of sleep during the "crash." Another characteristic is ugly, bleeding sores all over the place. Both of these, obviously, interfere with a person's ability to hold a job and provide for themselves. A natural outcome of this is people turning to crime to support themselves. And the real kicker is that meth is horribly addictive, and yet toxic as hell to your system.

In California, a large percentage of people picked up for check fraud, mail theft, forgery, and larceny are meth users. It's just a sad reality. And Heroin, coke and the like are really no better.

You really can't compare alcohol use and drug use. It's easy for me to have a beer or two and not suffer. But take meth a couple of times, and you are done. It's that addictive. How can we allow something like that into society? There is no moderating heavy drug use.

And why shouldn't the federal government have drug laws? At least it provides uniformity. And most drug offenses are actually tried in state court, anyways. Generally it's the distributors who end up being charged federally.

[Army]

I can have a beer with dinner, and NO INTENTION of getting drunk or even slightly buzzed.

The ONLY purpose of doing illegal drugs, is to get stoned. Don't even try to tell me that you can fully function while high.....because you are high, you cannot fully function.

You smoke weed to get high or buzzed, no other need or reason to smoke it.

Yes, I've been there, done that. If you think that doing illegal drugs equals legal alcohol, you're an idiot.

[Lohman446]

Let's take meth for example. One of the characteristics of meth use is the inability to sleep, followed by long periods of sleep during the "crash." Another characteristic is ugly, bleeding sores all over the place. Both of these, obviously, interfere with a person's ability to hold a job and provide for themselves. A natural outcome of this is people turning to crime to support themselves. And the real kicker is that meth is horribly addictive, and yet toxic as hell to your system.
.

Without for a moment denying the addictiveness of Meth let me ask you this. A good share of the effects that most long term users suffer is more than likely do to the very dirty nature of cooking meth outside of a lab. Abusers of cleaner, lab created, forms of the drug, while suffering some of the same effects do not seem to suffer all of them.

I don't mean for a moment to indicate there are not serious negative side effects of the cleanest form of this drug.

[Steelrat]

Without for a moment denying the addictiveness of Meth let me ask you this. A good share of the effects that most long term users suffer is more than likely do to the very dirty nature of cooking meth outside of a lab. Abusers of cleaner, lab created, forms of the drug, while suffering some of the same effects do not seem to suffer all of them.

I don't mean for a moment to indicate there are not serious negative side effects of the cleanest form of this drug.

THe difference is that a "cleaner" meth isn't good, just a little less bad. The toxic effects of meth are really the least of my concerns. If anything, it just helps make it easier to identify meth users.

[Pneumagger]

One thought that strikes me as idiodic in this thread is ways people are comparing alchohol and other drugs such as meth.

#1) alcohol is a naturally occurring substance and can be found in many concentration in man made concoctions. Many people could have a glass of wine or a beer or two every dinner for the entirety of their lives without ever becoming addicted.

With meth, there is no such thing as a casual serving like with wine or beer. meth is a man made substance whole sole purpose is to wreck you. Imagine the health and mental state of being of a person that had a bit of meth at each dinner, or smoked a few rocks every night with some friends.

Personally, I am in college right now and consume somewhere on the order of $10-$30 per week on alcoholic beverages while maintaining good grades, friends, and a fun social life. I wonder what the odds are of being a successful person and doing meth every few days might be?

#2) Saying that alcohol causes more deaths than meth therefore it's more dangerous s a retarded statement. This is an example of how many people will twist a factual statistic to suit their argument. True, more people die from alcohol then meth per year - however you cant compare a base statistic of a drug used by nearly %75 of persons over the age of 18 versus the base statistic of a drug used by just over 5% of all persons.

#3) An argument based around the statement, "I'm a druggie, therefore my argument wins" is retarded logic reasoning. Examples: Hey, I wear clothes - let me give you fashion advice.... I have money in my wallet, let me give you financial advice.... I've have 3 kids who are high school dropouts and drug dealers, let me teach you how to raise yours...


// both of these facts came from government websites and percentage charactarizes the reported usage of (n users)/(US population)

[SCpoloRicker]

It's interesting to me; a lot of people are making the argument that alcohol, in moderation of course, is not a bad thing. Why is it that recreational drugs, again in moderation, are not given the same consideration?

[Pneumagger]

It's interesting to me; a lot of people are making the argument that alcohol, in moderation of course, is not a bad thing. Why is it that recreational drugs, again in moderation, are not given the same consideration?

I personally believe that some drugs, when used in moderation are not nearly as harmful as we are told. Does this mean I think they should be legal? Eh, probably not. I don't think legalizing them would cut down on crimes significantly enough to offset their negative externalities (such as regulation control costs and influence related crimes).

Marijuana for example is one I would consider fairly harmless if done so in moderation and responsibly, much like alcohol. Like alcohol, weed can also be abused, can impair motor function, and become addictive - But if that drug were legalized and regulated much like alcohol, I don't think there would be many issues. There are a few cultures around the world that cope with marijuana's legality quite well.

A number of other drugs though are extremely addictive, cause VERY serious health problems. Methamphetamine, Cocaine, Mescaline, LSD, Heroin, etc...
Most would also agree with the fact that most "legal" and "less harmful" drugs are gateways to hard Narcotics and Drugs. Nobody wakes up one day and decides to line up an 8ball or shoot up some heroin. It's a slow sequential process that few can break free of without outside help. This is my guess as to why the US hasn't legalized any of the less harmful drugs.

Disclaimer: I am not a druggie. Yes, way back in HS I smoked a blunt or two (or three ). I haven't done anything of the such for a few years as it's just not worth it me. I was also very pleased when Ohio passed the No-Smoking Law prohibiting the use of smoke tobacco in public and all areas of commerce (including restaurants, bars, parks, sidewalks, etc.) So that's my situation for what it's worth in this discussion.

[Lohman446]

Personally, I am in college right now and consume somewhere on the order of $10-$30 per week on alcoholic beverages while maintaining good grades, friends, and a fun social life. I wonder what the odds are of being a successful person and doing meth every few days might be? )

Given a *steady* supply of clean product and responsible use it is conceivable by some people (and not by others). Coming off it though, after that long term steady use is a problem - as alchoholics have problems coming off alchohol but on an entirely different scale.

[robnix]

It's interesting to me; a lot of people are making the argument that alcohol, in moderation of course, is not a bad thing. Why is it that recreational drugs, again in moderation, are not given the same consideration?

It takes a lot longer and a lot more effort to get addicted to alcohol than it does cocaine, heroin, meth, etc...For most people the opportunity to use these types of drugs in a recreational manner simply doesn't exist.

[Pneumagger]

Given a *steady* supply of clean product and responsible use it is conceivable by some people (and not by others). Coming off it though, after that long term steady use is a problem - as alchoholics have problems coming off alchohol but on an entirely different scale.

Agreed. Look at the ecstasy situation has come to. You have Pharmaceutical grade labs overseas producing your "name brand" pills (shamrock, lightning, etc.). People, unless they OD, aren't being killed by the good ecstasy on the streets. It's the look-alike homemade crap that is sold that is causing most of the random deaths and scares you see on the news.

Nomatter how clean and safe something like meth is, it can never be "domesticated". A drug like meth, even if it doesn't kill you, wrecks your entire state of health and psyche. Causing post euphoric depression, rotted teeth, foul body oder, intense addiction, cracked out appearance, 48+ hour crashes, etc... Drugs like Meth cause you to lose your job and normality in society, even with reasonable dosages. Plus, the relative inexpensive and addictive nature really cripple its ability to stay a recreational drug. That in turn causes high crime and huge negative externalities.

Drugs like cocaine, ecstasy, marijuana, and alcohol don't have quite the negative externalities of many other drugs. Although they all have varying levels of addictiveness, between highs a person is relatively normal and can hold a job and maintain survivability while physical side effects of the drugs aren't entirely noticeable.

[Steelrat]

It's interesting to me; a lot of people are making the argument that alcohol, in moderation of course, is not a bad thing. Why is it that recreational drugs, again in moderation, are not given the same consideration?

There are significant differences in the physiological reaction to drugs and alcohol. It's possible to be a casual drinker. It's not possible to be a casual meth/heroin/crack user.