trip forever said:

Regardless, shouldn't people have the freedom to ingest whatever substance they choose?

Being legal doesn't have to mean they are sold in stores so that can delete the possibility of them bring more available.

---

Enlil said:

trip forever said:

They regulate it allowing it to be sold. They could easily stop production.

I don't mean sell it in the literal sense. But they do allow lethal items to be sold on the market.

---

Well, yeah...but there's a big difference between selling a lethal item and not stopping someone else from doing it...

I don't think drug prohibition is really tied to any theory that they are lethal anyway...It is more about the societal harms caused by addiction...

In the case of weed, it's probably illegal because mainstream america thinks that all weed users look like this:

---

Enlil said:

wildchild68 said:

floatingwater said:

Actually there is potentially money saved on the resources in law enforcement that would have otherwise gone to busting small time offenders.

---

yeah, but you also have to factor in the huge sums of money they make from busting those small time offenders. i had to pay over a grand for simply possessing a piece of resin covered glass.

---

They don't profit from that...the cost to arrest, charge, and process you through the system is far more than what you paid in a fine...

---

DeadHearts said:

What is this drone and eyes in they sky bullshit all about?

---

Enlil said:

trip forever said:

Regardless, shouldn't people have the freedom to ingest whatever substance they choose?

Being legal doesn't have to mean they are sold in stores so that can delete the possibility of them bring more available.

---

And we come back full circle...

In theory, I agree with you, but drug addiction doesn't only harm the drug user...That's a fiction that we tell ourselves...It isn't true.

---

Celestial Traveler said:

Enlil said:

trip forever said:

Regardless, shouldn't people have the freedom to ingest whatever substance they choose?

Being legal doesn't have to mean they are sold in stores so that can delete the possibility of them bring more available.

---

And we come back full circle...

In theory, I agree with you, but drug addiction doesn't only harm the drug user...That's a fiction that we tell ourselves...It isn't true.

---

Enlil is right.  Instead of looking at it from a "treatment" perspective, why not look at it for what it is - an issue of freedom and civil liberties?

What if there is a drug user that doesn't want to be "treated"? Should we force "sick" people to go to the doctor when they have no desire to, especially when it is paid for on the taxpayers dime?  There is also the mistaken assumption that anyone who possesses drugs is an addict.

The whole idea behind drug prohibition is that we are going to focus on prevention by 'setting an example' out of the unfortunate few who are caught, in hopes of convincing others not to go down the same path.  Treating people as necessary collateral like that is disgustingly immoral and unjust on so many levels.

And the argument that "drug addiction doesn't just hurt the user" is no more of an excuse for tyrannical laws than it is when someone says "freedom isn't free" to justify invading foreign countries and killing brown people just to acquire political leverage, land, and resources.

---

Enlil said:

Celestial Traveler said:

Enlil said:

trip forever said:

Regardless, shouldn't people have the freedom to ingest whatever substance they choose?

Being legal doesn't have to mean they are sold in stores so that can delete the possibility of them bring more available.

---

And we come back full circle...

In theory, I agree with you, but drug addiction doesn't only harm the drug user...That's a fiction that we tell ourselves...It isn't true.

---

Enlil is right.  Instead of looking at it from a "treatment" perspective, why not look at it for what it is - an issue of freedom and civil liberties?

What if there is a drug user that doesn't want to be "treated"? Should we force "sick" people to go to the doctor when they have no desire to, especially when it is paid for on the taxpayers dime?  There is also the mistaken assumption that anyone who possesses drugs is an addict.

The whole idea behind drug prohibition is that we are going to focus on prevention by 'setting an example' out of the unfortunate few who are caught, in hopes of convincing others not to go down the same path.  Treating people as necessary collateral like that is disgustingly immoral and unjust on so many levels.

And the argument that "drug addiction doesn't just hurt the user" is no more of an excuse for tyrannical laws than it is when someone says "freedom isn't free" to justify invading foreign countries and killing brown people just to acquire political leverage, land, and resources.

---

If you think a few drug laws equal tyranny, I can assume that you've never lived under real tyranny.

And if you think that drug addiction only hurts the users, then I suggest you go work with families that deal with addiction...Every day I see the damage that drug addiction does..

Of course not all drug users are addicts...but...you can't deny that many are...you can't deny that addiction is a huge problem in the US...and you can't deny that drug addicts create a burden on the rest of society..

You can believe all you want in some ethereal right to control what goes into your body, but that right has never existed in this country...

---

Celestial Traveler said:

Your arguments are predictable.  I never said drug addiction only hurts the user, but it depends on how you define "hurt."  By "hurt", do you mean drug use projects negative externalities onto third parties (such as robbery, theft, etc)?  Or do you mean it simply offends some people?  You do not lose your right to do something just because someone else doesn't like what you are doing, whether that be family members, politicians, or just random people whom you have no connection to that have a moral objection to what you are doing.  I do not lose my right to marry outside of my race just because it "hurts" my family emotionally.

And just because the law doesn't recognize these "ethereal" rights doesn't mean they don't exist.

And that still doesn't solve the problem of injustices towards those who are arrested for drugs and AREN'T addicts.  What if someone possesses nonaddictive substances such as mushrooms or LSD, for instance?  What is your justification for prosecuting them for their own good then?

And the biggest question of all - let's say you only have the best, benevolent intentions in mind and you only want to help addicts.  How in hell is throwing them in jail and putting a felony on their record going to help them in any way?  Please tell me that.

---

trip forever said:

Celestialtraveler that was my point......I think you got your posters mixed up.

He's saying drug users(addicts) should have mandatory treatment and I objected.

---

Enlil said:

You can believe all you want in some ethereal right to control what goes into your body, but that right has never existed in this country...

---

trip forever said:

I don't know, I'd assume treatment.

And what? We're arguing?

I'm pretty sure you're getting me and him mixed up in a couple of posts

---

Nooooo I mean't to say YOU were right, but accidentally put his name (Enlil) instead of yours

Enlil said:

akira_akuma said:

Enlil said:

akira_akuma said:

umm... but then they won't be making money. they'd be spending it.

---

Who is the "they" of which you speak?  Who is making money, exactly?  The government is already spending the money...they would just be spending it on other things...The government doesn't make money from the war on drugs...it costs money...

---

"they" being the stockholders of firms owning certain prisons, police departments ect...

---

Lol..prisons aren't owned by corporations...nor are police departments...

---

Celestial Traveler said:

trip forever said:

Celestialtraveler that was my point......I think you got your posters mixed up.

He's saying drug users(addicts) should have mandatory treatment and I objected.

---

Ok...well what does Enlil think about giving criminal records to addicts who get caught?

The question of how to deal with manafacture and sale of drugs is a bit stickier but if we're strictly talking personal use, I don't know why we're arguing if we both believe personal possession should be legalized/decriminalized.

---

wildchild68 said:

so you want people using impure street drugs? makes sense.

---

Enlil said:

wildchild68 said:

so you want people using impure street drugs? makes sense.

---

lol..yeah...that's EXACTLY what I said.

---