|
TryptaVision
The Visionary Scholar


Registered: 01/23/14
Posts: 86
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
Legalization debate, everyone chime in!
#19547910 - 02/10/14 01:40 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I would like to start a thread which will be an open discussion debate about the legalization of psychedelics in the United States, and really encourage all to get involved. While I would like if we can stay on topic, alcohol and marijuana may be used to support claims for or against legalization. I am well aware that most on this forum support legalization for personal reasons, but this debate is not over what is best for the fraction of the population that uses these substances, but what is best for the entire nation. I hope that while many of us may disagree at first, we will find some common ground in the end, leaving us all with a better understanding. I'll start off with my initial opinion, which through the course of this debate may be changed entirely.
I am for the legalization of medical marijuana, but am not an advocate of legalizing mind altering drugs. However, I feel that most of these substances should not be listed as schedule I drugs, because this scheduling makes it impossible for scientist to explore the potential of these substances. I feel it is important to be able to study these compounds, because with these studies comes not only valuable pharmaceutical drugs, but more extensive safety profiles that will allow for greater harm reduction.
While I do wholeheartedly feel that I as an informed individual should be able to safely experiment with whatever chemical I so choose, I don't think this is a reason to justify making these substances available to all. Complete legalization will allow for mass production, and with mass production comes mass availability. The problem with mass availability in my opinion, is that these substances are very powerful and with misuse can change ones outlook on life. This problem in my opinion does not apply to alcohol and marijuana, because the accidental misuse of these substances is not nearly as likely to effect ones mental state or at least with equal intensity. My argument here is essentially that the decision to make something legal or illegal, should be based on the likelihood and/or intensity of the potential negative effects of said substance. For instance in the United States, we have the right to bear arms and can all obtain firearms, but this does not mean that we can all obtain explosives and nuclear warheads. Why can we justify owning a pistol, but can't justify all having a nuclear warhead? Well because following my argument, we can justify owning a pistol, because the likelihood and/or intensity of potential negative effects seems or in the past seemed to outweigh the negative potential effects of not being able to legally possess a firearm. Yet, we cannot all obtain a nuclear warhead, why? Because the irresponsible use of these by a few, leads to dire consequences. With this being said I feel the potential for negative effects can be justified with marijuana and alcohol, but not so with the much more powerful mind altering substances.
Lastly, by keeping these substances illegal, it will more often than not require an informed or passionate individual to acquire them. However, as I personally feel these substances can be very beneficial in certain circumstances, I support legislation that would keep informed individuals from being irrationally crushed by the justice system if caught experimenting. While I do not support the sale of these substances for purely monetary purposes, I think those who chose to experiment should be left alone and if anything a slap on the wrist. With the more tolerant view of these substances, hence not being controlled I, it would allow for people to experiment at home in terms of personal use/experimentation without much of a road block and/or legal consequence waiting to drop the hammer.
I guess a good phrase to go along with my argument is that I support academic and personal exploration, as it should be viewed much more tolerantly, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't support complete legalization for the consideration of the greater good.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,507
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: TryptaVision]
#19547950 - 02/10/14 01:48 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
legalize them all legitimize them all this means ensure training, guidance, access, and quality eg. if you fail your (H) exam you don't get to shoot up by yourself
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,886
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: TryptaVision]
#19548208 - 02/10/14 02:54 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I'm with RGV, I say legalize everything. Prohibition doesn't work. Anyone, at virtually any age anymore, who knows at least half a dozen people will have access to something, and anything can lead to everything one could want. There are billions of dollars worth of product in this country on a daily basis. Finding it and buying it isn't that hard. So why not decriminalize it, set up medicinal centers/clinics (or whatever you want to call them) for the harder substances -- to educate and administer.
However, as I personally feel these substances can be very beneficial in certain circumstances, I support legislation that would keep informed individuals from being irrationally crushed by the justice system if caught experimenting. While I do not support the sale of these substances for purely monetary purposes, I think those who chose to experiment should be left alone and if anything a slap on the wrist.
You're suggesting we legislate shades of gray here, which is impossible and inadvisable. Laws should be fair and enforced to the letter -- in reality they are neither. But you can't start out with shades of gray. How do you say drugs are illegal but certain types of experimentation are okay? If it's illegal, it's illegal. Marijuana possession has already been downgraded to slaps on wrists in our system, for the most part. That doesn't make it okay. Legalize it!
Prohibition has never worked. Time to be honest and give up on this bogus war on 'some' drugs.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: DividedQuantum] 1
#19548376 - 02/10/14 03:33 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Next up: Legalize ALL murder; not just war, executions, drone strikes and other state sanctioned killing.
--------------------
|
TheGreenArrow
Goodbye, Mr. Chops.



Registered: 06/22/12
Posts: 15,270
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: DividedQuantum]
#19548508 - 02/10/14 04:04 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I'm with RGV, I say legalize everything. Prohibition doesn't work. Anyone, at virtually any age anymore, who knows at least half a dozen people will have access to something, and anything can lead to everything one could want. There are billions of dollars worth of product in this country on a daily basis. Finding it and buying it isn't that hard. So why not decriminalize it, set up medicinal centers/clinics (or whatever you want to call them) for the harder substances -- to educate and administer.
However, as I personally feel these substances can be very beneficial in certain circumstances, I support legislation that would keep informed individuals from being irrationally crushed by the justice system if caught experimenting. While I do not support the sale of these substances for purely monetary purposes, I think those who chose to experiment should be left alone and if anything a slap on the wrist.
You're suggesting we legislate shades of gray here, which is impossible and inadvisable. Laws should be fair and enforced to the letter -- in reality they are neither. But you can't start out with shades of gray. How do you say drugs are illegal but certain types of experimentation are okay? If it's illegal, it's illegal. Marijuana possession has already been downgraded to slaps on wrists in our system, for the most part. That doesn't make it okay. Legalize it!
Prohibition has never worked. Time to be honest and give up on this bogus war on 'some' drugs.
I wholly agree with the "legalize it all" approach. I mean when you could buy your heroin from the sears catalogue I'm sure not as many people even knew others were users. Prohibition is a horribly failed experiment, that does nothing but make a select few more rich. While imprisoning non-violent addicts and dealers. When people look back 300 years from now, will they look on this time as the dark ages of consciousness. I'm not sure I'd agree with your sentiments on whether or not the law should be written with 'grey' areas in it. In fact I'd argue that the founding fathers had that grey area in mind when they wrote the constitution. But the grey has been absolutely torn apart by people who've learned to abuse the system in place.
-------------------- A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, conn a ship, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve an equation, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.- Robert A. Heinlein Saint RedBow of the Shroomey Loomey-Patron Saint of Sandbaggin Sumbitchs
|
Shroomism
Space Travellin



Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: TryptaVision]
#19548620 - 02/10/14 04:26 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Legalize everything.
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Next up: Legalize ALL murder; not just war, executions, drone strikes and other state sanctioned killing.
Yes... because choosing to alter one's consciousness is on the same level as murder of other human beings
--------------------
|
quinn
some kinda love


Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: Shroomism]
#19548661 - 02/10/14 04:38 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
OC brings up an interesting point imo
Question to OP & pro legal folk: on what basis do we decide if something should or shouldnt be legal?
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,521
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: TryptaVision]
#19548707 - 02/10/14 04:52 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I think the "legalize it all" crowd haven't thought it through enough. Still, I would be all for decriminalization of drug possession for all drugs.
As far as the specific topic of this thread, psychedelics, that's a bit trickier in my book. These drugs are generally safe, but they also have very powerful and somewhat unpredictable effects. I wouldn't want full legalization unless it was accompanied by some regulation requiring warning labels disclosing important information about the drugs and their effects.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
i like cow poo
Nature Lover


Registered: 10/20/09
Posts: 4,041
Loc: Mother Nature's Vagina
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: TryptaVision]
#19548721 - 02/10/14 04:55 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I say legalize all drugs. Make meth and heroin very hard to get. Have more regulations on all drugs. You get a licence to possess that certain type of drug. If you are charged with drugged driving, your licence is taken away from you. Hard drugs should have a waiting period and taxed heavily. I doubt we'll last another 300 years as a society or even a species.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,507
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: quinn]
#19548729 - 02/10/14 04:56 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
orgone you are playing name the fallacy
isn't there a blow it out of proportion fallacy in which you can compare anything to something utterly outlandish and then disqualify all thought in the room?!? it's like brawling in the bathroom. that's mental as anything what's that fallacy? hmm. maybe if I weren't on so many drugs....
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,521
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: redgreenvines]
#19548741 - 02/10/14 04:59 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It's called an appeal to extremes.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,507
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: Enlil]
#19548748 - 02/10/14 05:01 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: I think the "legalize it all" crowd haven't thought it through enough. Still, I would be all for decriminalization of drug possession for all drugs.
As far as the specific topic of this thread, psychedelics, that's a bit trickier in my book. These drugs are generally safe, but they also have very powerful and somewhat unpredictable effects. I wouldn't want full legalization unless it was accompanied by some regulation requiring warning labels disclosing important information about the drugs and their effects.
I did think it through you basically need a license to shoot yourself in your own vein or go to a clinic and have it done for you if you need it or think you need it which is the same
to get the license you need to be certified by a course annually recertified that's to do it alone so you don't leave yourself on the washroom floor for other to trip over later. like Philip Seymour Hoffman, and I'm mad at everybody else not him!
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
Echro
Psychedelic Nihilist



Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 390
Loc: SoCal
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: quinn]
#19548787 - 02/10/14 05:09 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
quinn said: on what basis do we decide if something should or shouldnt be legal?
The basis that "we" has some moral authority over the actions of individuals. Once "we" is given the power to decide what's good for your health, it's a slippery slope before "we" starts to find more things to penalize, criminalize, & institutionalize people over. Good intentions make bad policy. (Il)Legality doesn't prevent chemical suicide. And a guaranteed life of squalor & exclusion from productive activity is the surest way to prevent even the most entrenched addicts from climbing out of dependance.
& the idea that licensing schemes, heavy taxation & regulation will make hard drugs harder to get is laughable. It'll just leave the doors open for more black market activity & guarantee more addicts still get caged. Pharmaceuticals require regulatory permission to gain access to & there's plenty of black market activity & addicts involved in that. The "legalize it but regulate it" crowd are far from legalization, they're for quasi-legalization, which would entail just as much fines, red tape, & involuntary incarceration whether correctional, institutional, or rehabilitational. The only difference being a shift in the legal language. It's none of society's business what I slam into my veins until it directly affects them. If I'm rotting because of shitty decisions don't pay for it, don't assume responsibility, let me dry out in a ditch. I didn't ask for your moral paternalism. I'm an adult. If I make shitty decisions that's on me. Don't prevent me from getting a job for it, don't expect me to have to buy the rights to my own body, & don't assume some abstract responsibility to take care of my health. You don't own me.
-------------------- "People who take Life seriously are going to find it slipping through their fingers in a very maddening fashion." ~ Terence McKenna "You still want to go on living on your knees. But I have understood life. And anyone who understands life cannot live on his knees." ~ Renzo Novatore
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,886
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: TryptaVision]
#19548865 - 02/10/14 05:26 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
There seems to be some debate as to whether all drugs should be legalized, or just some of them. Or, if made legal, certain strong drugs should be "hard to get" although officially legal (but heavily regulated). And that's good -- that's a good discussion.
I look at it this way:
The primary legal drug is alcohol. Is it not one of the most dangerous of all? It is addictive, highly toxic, can cause overdose, lead to violent aggression, and impairs severely one's ability to operate an automobile, thus making drunk driving a violent crime and one that is, sadly, appreciable statistically.
Alcohol is legal with virtually no regulation on purchase except presenting an ID.
And yet the world turns.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
TryptaVision
The Visionary Scholar


Registered: 01/23/14
Posts: 86
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: DividedQuantum]
#19549273 - 02/10/14 06:49 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
quinn said: Question to OP & pro legal folk: on what basis do we decide if something should or shouldnt be legal?
I answered this in my original post, "My argument here is essentially that the decision to make something legal or illegal, should be based on the likelihood and/or intensity of the potential negative effects of said substance. For instance in the United States, we have the right to bear arms and can all obtain firearms, but this does not mean that we can all obtain explosives and nuclear warheads."
Quote:
Enlil said: I think the "legalize it all" crowd haven't thought it through enough. Still, I would be all for decriminalization of drug possession for all drugs.
As far as the specific topic of this thread, psychedelics, that's a bit trickier in my book. These drugs are generally safe, but they also have very powerful and somewhat unpredictable effects. I wouldn't want full legalization unless it was accompanied by some regulation requiring warning labels disclosing important information about the drugs and their effects.
I completely agree with Enlil that the completely legalize it crowd are not properly thinking through all of the implications of this within our society and culture.
Quote:
Echro said: It's none of society's business what I slam into my veins until it directly affects them. If I'm rotting because of shitty decisions don't pay for it, don't assume responsibility, let me dry out in a ditch. I didn't ask for your moral paternalism. I'm an adult. If I make shitty decisions that's on me. Don't prevent me from getting a job for it, don't expect me to have to buy the rights to my own body, & don't assume some abstract responsibility to take care of my health. You don't own me.
Well this argument is nice and I do agree with you, but it is extremely flawed in that it is not realistic within the parameters of today's society. It is nearly impossible for you to slam substances into your veins without affecting society nowadays. IMO, if you are slamming substances into your veins, in some way shape or form, it is a high probability that you are a liability for employers and insurance companies. It's not about buying the rights to your own body, it's the laws attempt to keep you from affecting others through the degradation of yourself.
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I look at it this way:
The primary legal drug is alcohol. Is it not one of the most dangerous of all? It is addictive, highly toxic, can cause overdose, lead to violent aggression, and impairs severely one's ability to operate an automobile, thus making drunk driving a violent crime and one that is, sadly, appreciable statistically.
Alcohol is legal with virtually no regulation on purchase except presenting an ID.
And yet the world turns.
You see this is the problem. How exactly would you define a substance dangerous? I think the physical side effects along with the psychological effects of alcohol within normal use are temporary and negligible in terms of severity. However, I would not consider the psychological effects of persistent psychedelic use negligible by any means. I think this is why you can justify alcohol being legal, but not psychedelics. In my original post, I made this clear. "The problem with mass availability in my opinion, is that these substances are very powerful and with misuse can change ones outlook on life. This problem in my opinion does not apply to alcohol and marijuana, because the accidental misuse of these substances is not nearly as likely to effect ones mental state or at least with equal intensity."
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,886
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: TryptaVision]
#19549385 - 02/10/14 07:14 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TryptaVision said:
Quote:
Echro said: It's none of society's business what I slam into my veins until it directly affects them. If I'm rotting because of shitty decisions don't pay for it, don't assume responsibility, let me dry out in a ditch. I didn't ask for your moral paternalism. I'm an adult. If I make shitty decisions that's on me. Don't prevent me from getting a job for it, don't expect me to have to buy the rights to my own body, & don't assume some abstract responsibility to take care of my health. You don't own me.
Well this argument is nice and I do agree with you, but it is extremely flawed in that it is not realistic within the parameters of today's society. It is nearly impossible for you to slam substances into your veins without affecting society nowadays. IMO, if you are slamming substances into your veins, in some way shape or form, it is a high probability that you are a liability for employers and insurance companies. It's not about buying the rights to your own body, it's the laws attempt to keep you from affecting others through the degradation of yourself.
Yeah but what Echro is saying -- and he's right -- is that, as long as one doesn't physically harm other individuals in your actions, one should, under the law, be allowed to do to oneself whatever one wishes, and to place constraint upon this elementary right is actually contrary to the principles of the U.S. Constitution, if you want to get technical. That is how I interpret Echro's point. I understand there won't be any Supreme Court cases on this, but I think the Bill of Rights, read objectively, ensures that a person ought to be able to do what they wish as long as it doesn't encumber anyone else.
Citing problems for employers and insurance companies is very abstract in the context of your original question, and these are really tangential suggestions. To argue that one is legally responsible for one's employer or insurance company is not even partially correct.
Quote:
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I look at it this way:
The primary legal drug is alcohol. Is it not one of the most dangerous of all? It is addictive, highly toxic, can cause overdose, lead to violent aggression, and impairs severely one's ability to operate an automobile, thus making drunk driving a violent crime and one that is, sadly, appreciable statistically.
Alcohol is legal with virtually no regulation on purchase except presenting an ID.
And yet the world turns.
You see this is the problem. How exactly would you define a substance dangerous? I think the physical side effects along with the psychological effects of alcohol within normal use are temporary and negligible in terms of severity. However, I would not consider the psychological effects of persistent psychedelic use negligible by any means. I think this is why you can justify alcohol being legal, but not psychedelics. In my original post, I made this clear. "The problem with mass availability in my opinion, is that these substances are very powerful and with misuse can change ones outlook on life. This problem in my opinion does not apply to alcohol and marijuana, because the accidental misuse of these substances is not nearly as likely to effect ones mental state or at least with equal intensity."
I don't agree that the effects of alcohol are negligible at all. You seem to be saying that we can't define the level of danger, and yet you go ahead and do that for alcohol, cannabis, and the rest of the psychedelics. I don't follow that. Using your logic, how can you quantify the dangers of psychedelics over alcohol? Or amphetamines? Why do you feel psychedelics are so psychologically dangerous?
And then we could start getting into how different substances affect different people differently, what kind of effect education and preparation (safety) could have on it, etc.
You ask how to define a substance as dangerous, and then you go ahead and term psychedelics dangerous.
Perhaps this is why it would behoove us, as a society, to allow research on psychedelic effects and benefits to resume in the United States. I think we can all agree that would at least be a baby step in the right direction.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,521
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: DividedQuantum]
#19549429 - 02/10/14 07:23 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I think the Bill of Rights, read objectively, ensures that a person ought to be able to do what they wish as long as it doesn't encumber anyone else.
I'm not trying to get in a big discussion about this, but I'm curious what part of the bill of rights gives you this notion?
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
TryptaVision
The Visionary Scholar


Registered: 01/23/14
Posts: 86
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: DividedQuantum]
#19549633 - 02/10/14 08:00 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Yeah but what Echro is saying -- and he's right -- is that, as long as one doesn't physically harm other individuals in your actions, one should, under the law, be allowed to do to oneself whatever one wishes, and to place constraint upon this elementary right is actually contrary to the principles of the U.S. Constitution, if you want to get technical. That is how I interpret Echro's point. I understand there won't be any Supreme Court cases on this, but I think the Bill of Rights, read objectively, ensures that a person ought to be able to do what they wish as long as it doesn't encumber anyone else.
Citing problems for employers and insurance companies is very abstract in the context of your original question, and these are really tangential suggestions. To argue that one is legally responsible for one's employer or insurance company is not even partially correct.
I would find it very hard to believe that someone is capable of slamming substances into their veins without affecting anyone else in today's society. While I do agree that you should be able to do anything you so choose as long as it doesn't affect others, I am not so sure this is possible within the scope of this. And being a liability to the rest of society, is in my opinion very on topic with this argument. This argument however is not about one person being able to take drugs without affecting others, its debating whether the idea of legalization as a whole is good for the nation or not.
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I don't agree that the effects of alcohol are negligible at all. You seem to be saying that we can't define the level of danger, and yet you go ahead and do that for alcohol, cannabis, and the rest of the psychedelics. I don't follow that. Using your logic, how can you quantify the dangers of psychedelics over alcohol? Or amphetamines? Why do you feel psychedelics are so psychologically dangerous?
And then we could start getting into how different substances affect different people differently, what kind of effect education and preparation (safety) could have on it, etc.
You ask how to define a substance as dangerous, and then you go ahead and term psychedelics dangerous.
Perhaps this is why it would behoove us, as a society, to allow research on psychedelic effects and benefits to resume in the United States. I think we can all agree that would at least be a baby step in the right direction.
I never said we can't define the level of danger, I specifically said how we can define the level of danger of a substance. You see, I never mentioned anything about amphetamines for a specific reason, because they have experimentally been shown to treat certain illnesses. I am not so sure how I feel about amphetamines, but let's leave them out of this, as they are a medicine and not a recreational substance like alcohol or marijuana. Yes I do understand that an overly excessive consumption of alcohol can rot the body as it is a toxin, but a human can die from or suffer consequences from the over consumption of any substance. From my understanding you feel as if substances should be banned by what happens upon over consumption, and if this is not the case, please convey to me how you define the dangers of a substance. While I do agree with you that alcohol is a nasty substance and is not good for you, I think its legal status can be justified based on its affects on an individual upon moderate consumption. With that being said, I think psychedelics pose more of a risk to an individual with the same moderate consumption. I want to stress this as well, I do not feel that psychedelics are so psychologically dangerous, my point is they have the potential to be, a greater potential than say alcohol or marijuana in the grand scheme of things with regards to mass production, mass availability and widespread use. This is just my opinion however, I am not stating facts, and more importantly this discussion is for me and others to learn, not to offend anyone.
Edited by TryptaVision (02/10/14 08:09 PM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,886
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: Enlil]
#19549677 - 02/10/14 08:07 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: I'm not trying to get in a big discussion about this, but I'm curious what part of the bill of rights gives you this notion?
Amendment 1 (in part):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
One could very easily declare a psychedelic substance a sacrament, which is guaranteed no reprisal by the first amendment.
Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
A protection of any right not specifically enumerated by the Constitution (which, presumably, is allowed because it causes no harm to other persons or property).
Amendment 10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the states, are reserved to the states, or the people.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,886
|
Re: Legalization debate, everyone chime in! [Re: TryptaVision]
#19549722 - 02/10/14 08:16 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Frankly I have no idea how to define the dangerousness of a substance. I was using the example of alcohol to suggest that, in a certain light, it may be as bad a substance as one can find. I'm sure there are a lot of alcoholics who would readily assert that. But that is neither here nor there.
I thought it was strange that you said you didn't know how to define the danger associated with a given substance, but then you went to pretty polemical lengths in your description of the psychological harm of psychedelics. As there is no scientific evidence to back this up one way or another, I was trying to suggest that perhaps this was an ironic mistake.
But in the end I think we merely disagree, so so what. I think it would be better for society economically and socially to decriminalize drugs, and to nullify the need for smuggling (and hundreds of billions of dollars to drug lords and their network of thugs). The only way to do that is to legalize everything. I think it would work out.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
|