| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
| |||||||
 hunterthompson I climb rocks  Registered: 11/15/00 Posts: 189 Last seen: 15 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
were in the constition does is say the goverment can enforce a way of life or protect non-violent poeple from themselves
| |||||||
 Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
they're protecting society because drug addiction has external costs and drug use poses dangers.
| |||||||
|
Syngenor member  Registered: 09/16/00 Posts: 31 Last seen: 22 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
i hope you dont actually believe that. the external costs you speak of would fall on the elite classes; as such, drug use interferes with polarization of wealth. and protecting economic inequality actually harms the community at large.
it can also be easily shown that the actual dollar cost of drug prohibtion far exceeds those of drug use. but the cost of prohibition falls not on elite corporations but on we the people. The Syngenor
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son   Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
For those not attuned to sarcasm, I will point out that the esteemed Doctor's question is of course is rhetorical.
The War on Drugs is clearly unconstitutional. It is not even open to debate. Sadly, unconstitutional laws get passed all the time. Politicians don't give a rat's ass mainly because the majority of their constituents don't, either because said constituents are unaware that these laws and regulations violate the constitution, or they are aware but feel that it is okay to make an exception "just this once". Sheep. -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
Drug overdose deaths have costs to society.
I didn't specify the amount in dollars, but drug use does have an external cost. > it can also be easily shown that the actual dollar cost of drug prohibtion far exceeds those of drug use. That does not mean that drugs don't have consequences
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Kid writes:
"That does not mean that drugs don't have consequences" That also does not mean that anti-drug laws aren't unconstitutional. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> That also does not mean that anti-drug laws aren't unconstitutional.
Put it this way, I think you'll always find *something* that can make a law both constitutional and unconstitutional. For example in Canada you have certain freedoms to the point that they can be 'reasonably demonstrated in a free and democratic society' (nevermind the "notwithstanding" clause). That gives a helluva lot of leeway as to what freedoms a person can or cannot have under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the matter really only comes down to the lawyers and the judges in each case. Anyway, I would love it if you could show me where in the constitution of the USA it says that all people have the right to intoxicate themselves.
| |||||||
|
Phyl old hand Registered: 01/17/00 Posts: 597 Loc: United Kingdom Last seen: 15 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
|
Regardless of what the constitution says, then war on (some) drugs is against human rights.
How can a government possibly have the right to dictate to you what substances you can put into your body? They say it is in the name of safety and for the benefit of society, but anyone who cares to do even a small ammount of research into the war on drugs can see that it is causing more social problems and is responsible for far more deaths than the drugs themselves. There has never been a more blatant case of 'cutting off you nose to spite your face'. Take care Phil
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> How can a government possibly have the right to dictate to you what substances you can put into your body?
The rationale is that if you can't control yourself and therefor make yourself a dangerous (and/or expensive) person from using drugs then you loose that freedom.
| |||||||
|
Phyl old hand Registered: 01/17/00 Posts: 597 Loc: United Kingdom Last seen: 15 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
|
The rationale is that if you can't control yourself and therefor make yourself a dangerous (and/or expensive) person from using drugs then you loose that freedom.
I know the rationale, but it is totally fucked up an hypocritical. I thought part of being a person involved taking respoonsibility for your own actions. If someone acts irresponsibly, then that should be addressed regardless of whether they are on drugs. What about the people who use drugs in an informed responsible manner, or as part odf their religions? Prohibition laws ammount to nothing more than sanctioned discrimination against these people. How does using (Illegal) drugs make you any more dangerous/expensive than someone who chooses to skateboard? Skateboarding causes far more injuries than illegal drugs. More peope die from car accidents every day than do from taking drugs in an entire year. Should these also be banned in the name of safety? or would that be taking things too far? Surley if banning cars is carzy, then banning drugs is also crazy when you compare the evidence of the dangers of both. It is totally hypocritical that we are allowed (And somewhat encouraged) to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol, whilst other drugs are illegal. Why? Because the government makes huge ammounts of money from the tobacco and alcohol companies, that's... Smoking tobacco is one of the most dangerous ways there is of taking a drug, and the drug it's self, nicotine, is more addictive than heroin and Crack. In this country MANY people die every year as a result of alcohol use. Alcohol is particularly dangerous as it is one of the few drugs that is dangerous in both the short and long term. It is also addictive and causes dementia. The huge social problems caused by drugs are a direct result of prohibition. Before prohibition there was no drugs 'Problem' to speak of. Yes, some people used drugs (Far fewer than under prohibition) but there was no problem with that. Fortunately Europe are beginning to relise the futility of the war on drugs, and things are beginning to change. Portugal has now decriminalised all drugs, Many have decriminalised cannabis (Britain has decriminalised in part of london - Woo Hoo), and I don't think it will be long until full legalisation is considered. Take care Phil
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> I know the rationale, but it is totally fucked up an hypocritical.
I agree. I was just bringing up the point that from the gov't's view, they've justified it to themselves, so, it's kinda like, "what the fuck you gonna do?" We already know it's total BS to put people in jail for drugs. I don't know when the majority of lawmakers are going to see that and actually do something about it. > I thought part of being a person involved taking respoonsibility for your own actions. Drugs influence behaviour. Addictions seriously fuck up your behaviour. Psychotic episodes can cause you to kill people. How much of this behaviour is your fault? Some might say you're 100% responsible, but could you've really predicted you'd have a psychotic episode? > If someone acts irresponsibly, then that should be addressed regardless of whether they are on drugs. Thankfully this has changed esp. with regard to alcohol. Men used to get off rape charges b/c they were drunk (and that was a valid excuse). > What about the people who use drugs in an informed responsible manner, or as part odf their religions? What about the people who use drugs in an informed responsible manner? Unfortunately, it's a risk. Many responsible adults take that risk. Many have their lives fucked up because of it. It sucks. > How does using (Illegal) drugs make you any more dangerous/expensive than someone who chooses to skateboard? When you skateboard you are in control of you're behaviour. It's not like, say, someone getting high and driving a car, or possessing a gun in the street. It's not the same thing as an addict stealing or robbing to fuel his addiction. > Should these also be banned in the name of safety? The problem is that in the case of cars, cars have a function for our society. Sports are glorified. Drugs are seen as hedonistic pursuits. > It is totally hypocritical that we are allowed (And somewhat encouraged) to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol Yes, it's fucked up. AFAIK, it's because those are the white man's drugs. > It is also addictive and causes dementia Not to mention Korsakov's syndrome, which is probably one of the most frightening types of brain damage I've ever heard of. Funny how LSD and mushrooms don't cause brain damage. They might cause perceptual changes, but they're no real threat. I agree, it's stupid. > The huge social problems caused by drugs are a direct result of prohibition. I'll agree with some aspects of that. We wouldn't have as many rip-offs, roberies, or possibly homicides. But alcohol has a relation with crime too and it is legal. Therefor it's reasonable to believe that though legalizing drugs would reduce some social problems, it would cause a rise in other problems. Anyway, in the end, I hope it should be obvious I was just raising the point, not supporting the WoD in any way.
| |||||||
|
hunterthompson I climb rocks Registered: 11/15/00 Posts: 189 Last seen: 15 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Take the alcohol and tobacco thing a bit farther. What is the only threat to their cornered market? If drugs became legal there would be so many other and safer ways to get fucked up. But the tobacco and alcohol lobbies are so big. Kid I think you are alone on this topic with you opinions.
| |||||||
|
hunterthompson I climb rocks Registered: 11/15/00 Posts: 189 Last seen: 15 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
people don't get all routy when they are shroomin or stoned, but you sure as hell do when you are drunk. Who is not in control of themselves when they are on drugs let alone that the fact that you chose to take them shows you are in charge of yourself. Kid you sound like an ignorant bible banger. Get you facts straight and give us at least 2 reasons for prohibition. So let me get this straight a 44 year old father of 2 with no violent record and a war vet, is not responsible to decided weather or not he should eat 3 grams of something that grows from the earth.
against proibition 1. quality control 2. loosing tax money 3. robberies because of black market prices 4. no treatment because of Manditory minimums 5. caters to lower class citizens and keeps them down 6. people die in no knock raids ...........If you want more tell me.
| |||||||
|
Phyl old hand Registered: 01/17/00 Posts: 597 Loc: United Kingdom Last seen: 15 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
|
I don't know when the majority of lawmakers are going to see that and actually do something about it
They have in Britain. The police force have introduced a system of warnings for cannabis posession in Brixton, which if sucesfull will be expanded to the whole country. This means you get no criminal record for posession of cannabis. There is also one major paper which supports full legalisation of all drugs, and recently a number of high profile people have come out in support of this. Addictions seriously fuck up your behaviour. That's not true. Addictions under prohibition fuck up your behaviour. The only thing about the addiction that fucks up your behaviour is the need to get your drugs, and actually being high. If drugs were legal there would be no need to steal to support your habbit, as a regulated supply will be enormously cheapr than the current illegal market. People would also be able to regulate the ammount of the drug they took, as they would know the strength of the drugs they purchased, and could avoid being high when the situation required it eg work. Psychotic episodes can cause you to kill people The evidence for drug induced psychotic episodes is flimsy at most. If some drugs did bring out psychotic episodes, these would have come out on their own eventually. The issue here is more about dealing with psychotic episodes rather than controling when they happen. Some might say you're 100% responsible, but could you've really predicted you'd have a psychotic episode? No, but could you have predicted the big pile up on the way to work as you got in your car? Could you have predicted dropping the boiling water down your chest when you filled up the kettle? To ban taking a substance because of it's dangers when our lives are filled with far more dangerous activities every day is just hypocritical. Many have their lives fucked up because of it. It sucks. Again this is because they are then forced into dealing with criminals, and being forced to pay extortionate sums of money for an uncontrolled, unregulated product. When you skateboard you are in control of you're behaviour. Yes, but if you compare the act of going skateboarding against the act of taking a drug, you'll find that there is a much greater risk involved with skateboarding. It's not like, say, someone getting high and driving a car, or possessing a gun in the street These things are not connected to the legality of the drugs, and should be dealt with separately. It's not the same thing as an addict stealing or robbing to fuel his addiction. Which again wouldn't be nescesarry if a legal supply was available. Drugs are seen as hedonistic pursuits No, only ILLEGAL drugs. Alcohol and tobacco are an accepted part of our society. One of the aim of legalisation is to remove the social stigma that surrounds drugs and drug users. But alcohol has a relation with crime too and it is legal. Therefor it's reasonable to believe that though legalizing drugs would reduce some social problems, it would cause a rise in other problems. I think overall it would reduce social problems. Alcohol is one of the few drugs that promotes violence in some people, and this is the cause of most social problems. By legalising drugs people would be able to choose which drug they used, and wouldn't be forced to use alcohol for their relaxation. This would result in far fewer alcohol users as IMHO it's not a particularly plesant drug, and therefore fewer alcohol related problems. Take care Phil Edited by Phyl on 07/17/01 02:29 PM.
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> people don't get all routy when they are shroomin or stoned, but you sure as hell do when you are drunk.
Not everyone gets rowdy when drunk. Actually in my experience most people don't tend to cause any disturbances when drunk. They act a little silly. Just like people who are stoned or shrooming. > Get you facts straight and give us at least 2 reasons for prohibition. So what facts did I get wrong? And if you actually read what I had to say I wasn't supporting the WoD. I think it's entirely unfair. > So let me get this straight a 44 year old father of 2 with no violent record and a war vet, is not responsible to decided weather or not he should eat 3 grams of something that grows from the earth. Irrelevant points: 44 years old (call this an adult). Father of two. War vet. 3 grams of something from the earth. I'll remake the question: So let me get this straight an adult (with no *violent* [?] record) is not responsible enough to take drugs? In some cases yes, in some cases no. > 3. robberies because of black market prices So, you can be a responsible drug user, responsible for your actions under the influence of a drug, but if you rob someone, then it's the underground economy's fault? > 4. no treatment because of Manditory minimums You don't have to walk in to a treatment centre in possession of drugs to be treated for a drug problem.
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> Addictions seriously fuck up your behaviour.
That's not true. Addictions under prohibition fuck up your behaviour. Nononono. Being addicted to something affects your mood and the way you think. This has nothing to do with the legal status of a drug. Alcoholics behave in inappropriate manners. DXM abusers are a fucked up bunch (trust me). Prohibition adds to some of the problems of addiction, but even so, if someone's addicted to a legal drug, they still might steal to support their habit. There have been cases of alcoholics breaking into liquor stores at night just to get drunk. That has nothing to do with prohibition. > People would also be able to regulate the ammount of the drug they took, as they would know the strength of the drugs they purchased, and could avoid being high when the situation required it eg work. I don't think you understand the word addiction. When you're addicted you have serious problems regulating the amount of the drug you're taking and are at risk of taking it in dangerous situations (eg// driving -- in my province if you're an addict of drugs or alcohol they'll probably suspend your drivers license to hopefully keep you from driving under the influence). > The issue here is more about dealing with psychotic episodes rather than controling when they happen. A person cannot control him/herself while having a psychotic episode. They're unpredictable; rare; but they do happen, and when they do happen you're left with the problem of a psychotic person on the loose. > To ban taking a substance because of it's dangers when our lives are filled with far more dangerous activities every day is just hypocritical. People would argue that economic functionality is more important that personal freedom. I'm not saying it's right, but that's why vehicles are in existence. > It's not the same thing as an addict stealing or robbing to fuel his addiction. Which again wouldn't be nescesarry if a legal supply was available. That doesn't make sense. If you're an alcoholic you still have to pay for your alcohol. What if you run out of money? > Alcohol is one of the few drugs that promotes violence in some people, and this is the cause of most social problems. Alcohol does not directly cause someone to become violent. It can release violence through behavioural disinhibition in people with anger issues or violent tendencies. Marijuana can do the same thing; just because you only see people getting stoned and not harming people doesn't mean it doesn't happen; just as I know that because I've never seen anyone get in a fight when drinking doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Any chemical that alters your behaviour can potentially motivate you towards violence.
| |||||||
|
Phyl old hand Registered: 01/17/00 Posts: 597 Loc: United Kingdom Last seen: 15 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
|
Being addicted to something affects your mood and the way you think. This has nothing to do with the legal status of a drug.
Having an uncontrolled addiction can cause you to behaviour to be affected, but a controlled addiction does not. For a program of legalisation to be succesful it would also have to offer support programmes for people who may get into this situation. Prohibition makes it impossible to control your addiction. All addictions can be managed if the person who is addicted is willing to accept help. Maintenance doses of drugs can be taken by addicts which do not have a noticable effect on the user, but hold off withdrawal symptoms. Cigarettes are a good example of this, as they supply addicts with a maintenance dose of nicotine. There have been cases of alcoholics breaking into liquor stores at night just to get drunk. That has nothing to do with prohibition. Yes, people with uncontrolled addictions may let the addictions run their lives, however most (Virtually all) addicts will have their addictions under control if it is within their power to do so (Again, look at smokers). If someone acts inapropriately then they should be dealt with accordingly, and their actions should be a totally separate issue to the drugs they have taken. Trials in a clinic in Liverpool in the 1980's showed that by supplying the local population of heroin addicts with maintenance doses of heroin, crime rates in the local area fell by 15 times, not one single person on the programe died or became ill as a result of their drug use, and nobody on the program contracted HIV. The subjects of this trial were able to rebuild thier lives and become fully functioning members of society. Unfortunately once this trial started to show it's success, the government withdrew all support without any explanation. I don't think you understand the word addiction Being an addict myself, I think I do. When you're addicted you have serious problems regulating the amount of the drug you're taking and are at risk of taking it in dangerous situations No that is not true. Addiction simply means that you have a need to introduce a specific substance into your blood stream or you will experience withdrawal symptoms. There is no problem regulating the ammount of the drug that you take, so long as a regulated supply is available. If you have maintenance doses available, these have no discernable effect on your ability to perform, and thus there is not a 'dangerous situation' to take then in. Again look at nicotine addicts. A person cannot control him/herself while having a psychotic episode. They're unpredictable; rare; but they do happen, and when they do happen you're left with the problem of a psychotic person on the loose. Yes, but the issue isn't about drugs, it's about psychotic episodes. With or without drugs the psychotic episode is likely to happen at some point. There is a lot of contradicting evidence linking drugs to psychotic episodes, and until a link has been properly established, this is not a valid argument for prohibition. People would argue that economic functionality is more important that personal freedom What about the economic implication of the war on (some) drugs? Think about the huge ammounts of money that are spent on this every year (Including the crime which is a direct result of this). Then add this to the ammount of revenue that would be gained through taxation. We are talking about billions and billions of pounds each year, which is essentially being thrown away. That doesn't make sense. If you're an alcoholic you still have to pay for your alcohol. What if you run out of money? Prices under legalisation would be so much lower that financing a controleld drug habbit would not be a problem with a legitimate income. A gram of pharmacutical heroin currently costs only 4 pounds from the legal suppliers. I also believe that doctors should be able to prescribe maintenance doses of drugs to people who cannot afford their addictions. This would totally eliminate the need to steal, and would encourage addicts to break their addictions if they became out of control. Marijuana can do the same thing; just because you only see people getting stoned and not harming people doesn't mean it doesn't happen It may happen, but not to anywhere near the same extent that it does with alcohol. A few years ago the british football team played in Holland. British football supporters have a big reputation from drinking large ammounts of alcohol and rioting. This did not happen in holland because the majority of supporters chose to smoke some weed instead of drinking alcohol. I personally have 3 good friends who have problems controlling their anger when drunk. I know of no-one who has the same problems when stoned. I don't think I'm alone in this. For violence to be used as an excuse for prohibition, it woul dhave to be proven that the prohibited drugs cause violence on a greater scale than alcohol, and this simply is not true. Take care Phil
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> Having an uncontrolled addiction can cause you to behaviour to be affected, but a controlled addiction does not.
A controlled addiction. That's an oxymoron. > Maintenance doses of drugs can be taken by addicts which do not have a noticable effect on the user, but hold off withdrawal symptoms. Heroin addicts can be given methodone. There are a lot of methodone clinics. Heroin addicts do not require "maintenance doses" of heroin. > Yes, people with uncontrolled addictions may let the addictions run their lives, however most (Virtually all) addicts will have their addictions under control if it is within their power to do so (Again, look at smokers). What do you mean look at smokers? Some people smoke two or three packs a day! You can't say that an addiction is controlled just because a person has not committed a crime and call it uncontrolled when they have committed a crime due to addiction. The whole paradox of addiction is "where is the locus of control"? It's arbitrary to define controlled/uncontrolled based on the legality of one's actions. > Being an addict myself, I think I do. I meet a lot of people who call themselves addicts and have considered myself an addict in the past too. A lot of addicts have very fuzzy and conflicting ideas about what exactly addiction does to them. > Addiction simply means that you have a need to introduce a specific substance into your blood stream or you will experience withdrawal symptoms. There is no problem regulating the ammount of the drug that you take... so you have to take the drug? > If you have maintenance doses available, these have no discernable effect on your ability to perform, and thus there is not a 'dangerous situation' to take then in. The maintenance doses get higher and higher as tolerance builds, leading to increased danger of physical (and other) side effects. > Yes, but the issue isn't about drugs, it's about psychotic episodes. With or without drugs the psychotic episode is likely to happen at some point. No. Depends on the drug. A completely normal person can have a psychotic episode under the influence. It's not likely to happen with alcohol or LSD (as the media's made it out to be). But drugs like PCP, or DXM (esp. at sigma doses) make psychotic episodes a real concern, no matter how healthy a person may be going into the experience. > There is a lot of contradicting evidence linking drugs to psychotic episodes, and until a link has been properly established, this is not a valid argument for prohibition. Actually it's very straightforward. When you're psychotic you've lost any meaningful grasp of consensus reality. Psychotic episodes probably happen pretty often, it's just that most of them don't turn out violent (and so, don't get anyone's attention). > This would totally eliminate the need to steal, and would encourage addicts to break their addictions if they became out of control. No it wouldn't, because most people are ashamed to admit that they're an addict and are reluctant to get help (until they're caught). > This did not happen in holland because the majority of supporters chose to smoke some weed instead of drinking alcohol. Proove it. Maybe it's just part of Holland's culture not to get angry. That's simply not enough evidence to say that alcohol has any direct effect on violence and that marijuana diminishes it.
| |||||||
|
holographic mind veteran  Registered: 11/21/00 Posts: 387 Last seen: 22 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
kid spends all day polishing his imaginary nobel prizes. what a comedian.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Kid writes:
"Anyway, I would love it if you could show me where in the constitution of the USA it says that all people have the right to intoxicate themselves". It is clear that you misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution. The intent of the Constitution is clear. INDIVIDUALS are allowed to act in any manner not specifically PROHIBITED by the Constitution. If we were allowed to do ONLY what is specifically mentioned, the Constitution would have been longer than a telephone book: "You are allowed to use a telephone" "You are allowed to dress funny" "You are allowed to dance in a disco" "You are allowed to mutilate yourself with piercings" "You are allowed.... (fill in the blank)" Conversely, the STATE is allowed to do ONLY what is specifically PERMITTED it by the Constitution. The purpose of the Constitution was to limit the actions of GOVERNMENT, not of private citizens. The government of the United States is a constitutionally delimited republic (not a Democracy) because the founding fathers saw that the biggest threat to its citizens was government. It is abundantly clear that their intent was to restrict the government to its sole legitimate function: that of protecting its citizens. To prohibit people from intoxicating themselves on the grounds that they MIGHT be so affected by the specific intoxicant that they may harm another individual is as specious as prohibiting people from driving a car because they MIGHT harm a pedestrian or other driver, or segregating males between the age of fourteen to forty from females because their raging hormones MIGHT cause them to rape. Prohibiting people from intoxicating themselves on these grounds amounts to prior restraint. Edited by pinksharkmark on 07/19/01 02:59 AM. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Kid writes:
"Anyway, I would love it if you could show me where in the constitution of the USA it says that all people have the right to intoxicate themselves". It is clear that you misunderstand the purpose of the Constituion. The intent of the Constitution is clear. INDIVIDUALS are allowed to act in any manner not specifically PROHIBITED by the Constitution. If we were allowed to do ONLY what is specifically mentioned, the Constitution would have been longer than a telephone book: "You are allowed to use a telephone" "You are allowed to dress funny" "You are allowed to dance in a disco" "You are allowed to mutilate yourself with piercings" "You are allowed.... (fill in the blank)" Conversely, the STATE is allowed to do ONLY what is specifically PERMITTED it by the Constituion. The purpose of the Constitution was to limit the actions of GOVERNMENT, not of private citizens. The government of the United States is a constitutionally delimited republic (not a Democracy) because the founding fathers saw that the biggest threat to its citizens was government. It is abundantly clear that their intent was to restrict the government to its sole legitimate function: that of protecting its citizens. To prohibit people from intoxicating themselves on the grounds that they MIGHT be so affected by the specific intoxicant that they may harm another individual is as specious as prohibiting people from driving a car because they MIGHT harm a pedestrian or other driver, or segregating males between the age of fourteen to forty from females because their raging hormones MIGHT cause them to rape. Prohibiting people from intoxicating themselves on these grounds amounts to prior restraint. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> The intent of the Constitution is clear. INDIVIDUALS are allowed to act in any manner not specifically PROHIBITED by the Constitution.
Where does it say in the constitution, specifically, that you may not drive on a highway more than 100 miles per hour?
| |||||||
|
fuzzysquirelnuts veteran Registered: 06/22/01 Posts: 1,150 Loc: souhwest us |
| ||||||
|
i dont agree with kid but everybodies entitled to there own opinion.....ive actually had psychotic episodes quite a few times while i was sober which is more than when ive been under the influence unless you count uncontrollable laughing fits once on dxm i cried for close to an hour until my frind came in and calmed me down...i know people who turn into real dicks when they get stoned but they do it just cause everybody else around is not wanting to do anything about it but these are how these people act most of the time it is either more noticable or it is brought out a little more....but i know people who ide rather be around when they are all huffed out than when they are sober just because they are more predictable
i can believe its not butter but why would you do that -------------------- were all retarded sometimes
| |||||||
|
hunterthompson I climb rocks Registered: 11/15/00 Posts: 189 Last seen: 15 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
the argument here is not on the WOD itself, what I was bringing up is that is goes against all the principals this country was founded on
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> ive actually had psychotic episodes quite a few times while i was sober which is more than when ive been under the influence unless you count uncontrollable laughing fits once on dxm i cried for close to an hour until my frind came in and calmed me down
Simply laughing is NOTHING NEAR A PSYCHOTIC EPISODE A psychotic episode is loosing touch with reality. It's marked by clear delusions in the face of evidence that is otherwise.
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
Look never mind; I'm not arguing that the WoD is a good thing. I think it's an attrocious waste of human life. I was simply trying to bring up the point that's it's not as clear cut an issue as the gov't simply stepping on people because they don't like stoners.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Kid writes:
"Where does it say in the constitution, specifically, that you may not drive on a highway more than 100 miles per hour?" Clearly the Constitution was never meant to be a complete criminal code, listing in excruciating detail every single example of punishable behaviour. Rather, it was meant to be the FOUNDATION on which an objective criminal code is built. The Constitution supplies the principles, the criminal code supplies the specifics. Over time the details of those specifics may change, (as new technology such as the automobile are invented) yet still remain constitutional as long as those details do not violate the fundamental principle involved. Let's dissect your example conceptually. You were careful to specify "highway" in your example. This indicates that you are aware of the difference between PUBLIC behaviour and PRIVATE behaviour. I presume, then, that you recognize that the state has no right to prohibit someone from driving his car as fast as he pleases on his own property? Or as fast as the owner of a privately-owned racetrack will allow, should our hypothetical driver be permitted access to that racetrack by the owner? The basic concept involved in this specific example is not "Does the state have a constitutional right to criminalize behaviour occurring on private property that is not IN AND OF ITSELF injurious to other individuals (in this case piloting a vehicle in excess of an arbitrarily determined velocity)?" It is clear that the state does not have this right. Whether it conceptually has the right to criminalize similar behaviour on PUBLICLY-OWNED property is what must be determined in the case of highway speed limits. Similarly, the basic CONCEPT involved in Hunter's original post is not whether the state has the right to criminalize PUBLIC intoxication. That is something for legal and constitutional scholars to hammer out, and is irrelevant to the War on Drugs. The reason that the current drug laws are unconstitutional is that they criminalize PRIVATE behaviour occuring on PRIVATE property. Even if you are a hermit living miles from other humans on your own land, if you pick a psilocybe azurescens and eat it and lie on your bed until your intoxication passes, you are a criminal. Clearly you are one who enjoys debate. Your arguments will carry more force and gain more respect if they can be defended conceptually. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> This indicates that you are aware of the difference between PUBLIC behaviour and PRIVATE behaviour.
Yes, but I'm certain that our ideas of what is private and what is public would vastly differ. > "Does the state have a constitutional right to criminalize behaviour occurring on private property that is not IN AND OF ITSELF injurious to others?" What about activities that are not "in and of {themselves}" injurious (or dangerous) to others, but that are, as a matter of consequence injurious or dangerous to others? > The reason that the current drug laws are unconstitutional is that they criminalize PRIVATE behaviour occuring on PRIVATE property. Just as the same way authorities are (and in a much greater extent in the past, have been) reluctant to intervene in cases of domestic/child assault because such matters are "private"?
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Kid writes:
"I'm certain that our ideas of what is private and what is public would vastly differ." Even if our definitions of private and public differ, please explain how YOUR definitions of public and private (feel free to supply them at any time) give the government the Constitutional right to criminalize an individual's non-violent actions (i.e. taking drugs) that take place on private property without the knowledge of any other individual. Feel free to modify my example of a hermit eating a mushroom to fit your definitions of private and public if you can't come up with one on your own. "What about activities that are not "in and of {themselves}" injurious (or dangerous) to others, but that are, as a matter of consequence injurious or dangerous to others?" Give us an example. I can't think of one. "Just as the same way authorities are (and in a much greater extent in the past, have been) reluctant to intervene in cases of domestic/child assault because such matters are "private"?" Clearly the State has not only the right to interfere in such cases, but the OBLIGATION to do so. First, by definition if a behaviour involves force against other individuals it quite clearly IS "injurious in and of itself" and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the justice system. It is irrelevant whether the victims are relatives or strangers. Secondly, even though the violence may take place behind closed doors (as does virtually ALL criminal activity) it does not qualify as "private behaviour", since more than one individual is involved: the perpetrator and the unwilling victim. Burning oneself with a lit cigar is a private matter, burning a VICTIM with a lit cigar is not. Piercing your girlfriend's nipples with her consent is a private matter, piercing the nipples of a woman against her will is not, regardless of WHERE the act took place. You have a penchant for sidetracking serious debate when you can't answer the question at hand. As a reminder, here is Hunter's question again: "Where in the constitution does is say the government can enforce a way of life or protect non-violent people from themselves?" Note the use of the word "non-violent". So far your sole justification for the government's war on drugs is: "they're protecting society because drug addiction has external costs and drug use poses dangers." No explanation of "external costs". When pressed, the best you could come up with was: "Drug overdose deaths have costs to society." So do deaths caused by overeating and by walking blindly into traffic and by diving into shallow water and... (place your favorite here). No explanation of what "dangers" drug users "pose", other than "The rationale is that if you can't control yourself and therefor make yourself a dangerous (and/or expensive) person from using drugs then you loose that freedom." What about fundamentalist religious fanatics who can't control themselves and blow up people? I guess the government has the right to criminalize religion to protect its citizens, too. And, by the way, what is this "expensive" angle anyway? What has THAT got to do with the Constitution? Your point about "uncontrolled psychotic episodes" is exactly why I introduced the concepts of PUBLIC vs. PRIVATE behaviour. If you have a bad reaction to drugs in your own basement and lurch around uncontrollably nobody is affected. If you do so in a crowded theater, different story. On the other hand, if you huddle in a corner whispering dementedly in that same theater, who is harmed? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> Even if our definitions of private and public differ, please explain how YOUR definitions of public and private (feel free to supply them at any time) give the government the Constitutional right to criminalize an individual's non-violent actions (i.e. taking drugs) that take place on private property without the knowledge of any other individual. Feel free to modify my example of a hermit eating a mushroom to fit your definitions of private and public if you can't come up with one on your own.
I'm just debating. Please don't say that these are my beliefs, as they are not. Theft. Theft is a non-violent action. Theft may occur on private property. The consequence of that act may not be noticed by the victim. The gov't therefor has no right to criminalize theft? Creulty to animals. A person owns a pet. Keeps it on private property. Tortures the animal, in private. This is not criminal behaviour? You would be happy if there were no laws to prohibit this kind of behaviour? Nuclear weapons. You build a dangerous, twenty megaton nuclear weapon, without intent of using it in your basement. Nobody knows about it. Still, it could go off. People should be allowed to have nuclear weapons? >> "What about activities that are not "in and of {themselves}" injurious (or dangerous) to others, but that are, as a matter of consequence injurious or dangerous to others?" > Give us an example. I can't think of one. I think I just did. However. I cut myself on purpose. I call an ambulance and rely on your tax dollars (not always applicable in the USA) to come and fix me up. I do this on a regular basis. Would you be happy to pay taxes to support my stupid behaviour? > "Where in the constitution does is say the government can enforce a way of life or protect non-violent people from themselves?" Again. You are not necessarily only being protected from yourself. Society is being protected from a hazard. You may be a responsible adult. Fine. People, normal people, still become addicts sometimes. This costs money. It's that simple. By the way, I am not familiar with your constitution. I was more or less concerned with answering why governments deem restricting drug use ethical. If you don't want further input, don't reply. > What about fundamentalist religious fanatics who can't control themselves and blow up people? Fanatics can control themselves. Addicts and people under the influece cannot control some aspects of their behaviour. It's silly to assume that homicide is a sign of psychopathology. > What has THAT got to do with the Constitution? It's a matter of practicality. You pay taxes do you not? Society pays taxes for things that are demanded. > If you have a bad reaction to drugs in your own basement and lurch around uncontrollably nobody is affected. Yeah, but if you're having a psychotic episode what's to stop you from going out and killing people?
| |||||||
|
svoboda Stranger Registered: 07/21/01 Posts: 17 |
| ||||||
|
"Theft. Theft is a non-violent action. Theft may occur on private property. The consequence of that act may not be noticed by the victim. The gov't therefor has no right to criminalize theft?"
Does government have a "right" to criminalize anything? Is criminalization the best way of dealing with undesirable behaviour? Of course theft is a violent action irrespective of whether or not the proprietor notices the disappearance of his property. Another question is whether or not ownership itself is a violent action... "Creulty to animals. A person owns a pet. Keeps it on private property. Tortures the animal, in private. This is not criminal behaviour?" Not it isn't. At least it shouldn't be. It's cruel and some would say immoral behaviour but should be no more than that. "You would be happy if there were no laws to prohibit this kind of behaviour?" I would be happy to abolish all criminal law and let people decide for themselves what is right and wrong. "Nuclear weapons. You build a dangerous, twenty megaton nuclear weapon, without intent of using it in your basement. Nobody knows about it. Still, it could go off. People should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?" They should be neither allowed nor prohibited. The question we should ask is why people might want to have weapons, not whether it should be prohibited or allowed. > "Where in the constitution does is say the government can enforce a way of life or protect non-violent people from themselves?" "Again. You are not necessarily only being protected from yourself. Society is being protected from a hazard. You may be a responsible adult. Fine. People, normal people, still become addicts sometimes. This costs money. It's that simple". So, Kid, would you be happy if someone comes to "protect" you, thus stopping you doing what you want to do? Do you think you are incapable to decide for yourself? Is criminalising anything the best way to "protect society from a hazard"? "Society pays taxes for things that are demanded". Demanded by whom?
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> Does government have a "right" to criminalize anything?
If you're asking *me* this, I have no answer > Is criminalization the best way of dealing with undesirable behaviour Some form of punishment, for simple deterrant effect and corrective effect, should suffice. > Of course theft is a violent action ??? theft brings bodily harm to no one. > Another question is whether or not ownership itself is a violent action ??? Ownership isn't even an action. It is also definately not violent. > Not it isn't. At least it shouldn't be. It's cruel and some would say immoral behaviour but should be no more than that. You're starting to sound like me. [ Except for "Not" should be "no" and I would've probably discluded "shouldn't" ] > I would be happy to abolish all criminal law and let people decide for themselves what is right and wrong. So would as, as I'd like to try killing some people just to see what it's like. > They should be neither allowed nor prohibited. The question we should ask is why people might want to have weapons, not whether it should be prohibited or allowed. Then we may want to ask people, why they want to have drugs. Or money. Or cars. Or houses. Etc. Etc. > So, Kid, would you be happy if someone comes to "protect" you, thus stopping you doing what you want to do? See, dude that's not what I'm saying. The people that don't use drugs, are at risk of being victims of random drug related occurence (DUI), and taxpayers are being protected. The drug users are clearly being prevented from doing something. What you're asking would be similar to asking me if I was happy that I was being "protected" from committing murder. That's not the case. Society is being protected from me committing murder. > Is criminalising anything the best way to "protect society from a hazard"? What would you suggest in the case of sadists deciding they wanted to monopolize violence in the USA? would you happily yield your "right" to violence to the group of sadists? or would you ask for a group (eg// the military) to keep some semblance of order?
| |||||||
|
svoboda Stranger Registered: 07/21/01 Posts: 17 |
| ||||||
|
Svo: Is criminalization the best way of dealing with undesirable behaviour?
Kid: Some form of punishment, for simple deterrant effect and corrective effect, should suffice. Svo: Why necessarily punishment? Do you think fear is the only way to motivate people? Besides, in what way can you 'correct' people by punishing them? Svo: Of course theft is a violent action Kid: ??? theft brings bodily harm to no one. Svo: Theft involves an exercise of physical force, therefore is a form of violence. Violence need not necessarily involve bodily harm. Svo: Another question is whether or not ownership itself is a violent action Kid: ??? Ownership isn't even an action. It is also definately not violent. Svo: By claiming your rights of ownership you exclude others from a piece of property. Rights to property are enforceable, and enforcement/force is violence. Svo: I would be happy to abolish all criminal law and let people decide for themselves what is right and wrong. Kid: So would as, as I'd like to try killing some people just to see what it's like. Svo: Do people resist from killing each other simply because murder is crime? Svo: They should be neither allowed nor prohibited. The question we should ask is why people might want to have weapons, not whether it should be prohibited or allowed. Kid: Then we may want to ask people, why they want to have drugs. Or money. Or cars. Or houses. Etc. Etc. Svo: I am not sure what you meant by 'etc. etc.', but it seems to me that houses do not belong to the same category as weapons and drugs. Money is a complicated thing. Kid: What you're asking would be similar to asking me if I was happy that I was being "protected" from committing murder. That's not the case. Society is being protected from me committing murder. Svo: So, criminalising murder protects society, then? Suppose, murder was decriminalised tomorrow. Would you go and kill someone? Svo: Is criminalising anything the best way to "protect society from a hazard"? Kid: What would you suggest in the case of sadists deciding they wanted to monopolize violence in the USA? Svo: I'll talk with them and ask them why they want it. By the way, is violence in the USA not already monopolised by the government? Kid: would you happily yield your "right" to violence to the group of sadists? or would you ask for a group (eg// the military) to keep some semblance of order? Svo: I'll engage in a peacemaking process with all involved, so that there is not need for violence.
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> Svo: Theft involves an exercise of physical force, therefore is a form of violence. Violence need not necessarily involve bodily harm.
Walking, eating, shitting, pissing, sleeping and breathing require excercises of physical force! Do you also consider these violent actions? I will also have you know the the definition of violence is that it is "physical force intended to cause injury or destruction" > Svo: Do people resist from killing each other simply because murder is crime? No, not usually. Most people consider murder terrible. Most people wouldn't enjoy harming another human being. I would be one of those people who would do it just for the fuck of it. > Svo: I am not sure what you meant by 'etc. etc.', Etc. Etc. As in: carry that list on for every object. > but it seems to me that houses do not belong to the same category as weapons and drugs. Why? Why is it in a different class ? By what rights should the question be "why" (do you want drugs) instead of 'why do you want (food/money/cars,etc.)? Why question people on one aspect of what they desire and not another? And to what end will asking them "why" accomplish? What's the point of even asking "why" about something that's dangerous if you're not going to use the answers for any purpose? > Svo: So, criminalising murder protects society, then? Suppose, murder was decriminalised tomorrow. Would you go and kill someone? Yes it does protect people! If someone kills one person, then they've learned how to kill and they are dangerous and can do it again. That's why we put violent, dangerous murderers behind bars! and yes, if homicide were decriminalized tommorow, I would kill someone. Perhaps you haven't been around the shroomery long enough to have read my posts in the past about being curious about killing people? > Svo: I'll talk with them and ask them why they want it. And you would expect a group of sadists to just co-operate. They'd answer your questions simply because you came up and asked, "Why do you want to hurt people?" That's pretty naive. That's about equivalent to a Jew in NAZI Germany walking upto the SS and asking them why they want to kill Jews. > By the way, is violence in the USA not already monopolised by the government? YES OF COURSE IT IS! ARE YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION? THAT WAS MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT! Who would you rather have in control of violence? Your government or a group of fucking crazies like the right-wing religious zealots in the mid-northwest? Either way one group or another is going to attempt to monopolize violence. Be happy that at least a somewhat trustworthy system has control. > Svo: I'll engage in a peacemaking process with all involved, so that there is not need for violence. You totally overestimate your peacemaking abilities. You think you could've reasoned with the NAZI party? the Kmher Rouge? huh? what would you just walk up to them, "Time out guys, this murdering isn't nice. Let's talk it over." You would be dead. okay, other people reading this thread, I know you haven't agreed with me this far, but you've got to be seeing the idiocy in this guy's arguments?
| |||||||
|
svoboda Stranger Registered: 07/21/01 Posts: 17 |
| ||||||
|
Svo: Do people resist from killing each other simply because murder is crime?
Kid: No, not usually. Most people consider murder terrible. Most people wouldn't enjoy harming another human being. I would be one of those people who would do it just for the fuck of it. Svo: Something inside me is telling me that you are kidding. Svo: So, criminalising murder protects society, then? Suppose, murder was decriminalised tomorrow. Would you go and kill someone? Kid: Yes it does protect people! If someone kills one person, then they've learned how to kill and they are dangerous and can do it again. That's why we put violent, dangerous murderers behind bars! Svo: You seem to wrongly believe that killing is a skill which has to be learnt. It isn't. Not every killer is more dangerous than you or I. Everybody is a potential killer. Putting "violent, dangerous murderers behind bars" is immoral and seriously mistaken. Kid: and yes, if homicide were decriminalized tommorow, I would kill someone. Perhaps you haven't been around the shroomery long enough to have read my posts in the past about being curious about killing people? Svo: No, I didn't have pleasure to read your posts and don't want to read you sick fantacies. Don't you find it problematic that your resistance from doing something that you want to do (i.e. to kill someone) is motivated by fear of punishment and not by moral reason and choice? Kid, you are a sad and confused creature.
| |||||||
|
~`Tursiops truncatus`~ enthusiast  Registered: 11/01/00 Posts: 105 Loc: CO... UsA Last seen: 22 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
Using force only causes resistance...
90+% of the human race has a mental disease. What are we doing about it?
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> Svo: Something inside me is telling me that you are kidding.
Incorrect. You don't me. I'm not your average specimen. > Svo: You seem to wrongly believe that killing is a skill which has to be learnt. It isn't. Not every killer is more dangerous than you or I. Everybody is a potential killer. Putting "violent, dangerous murderers behind bars" is immoral and seriously mistaken. What would you suggest we do with murderers? Let them walk the street. Killing is a learned behaviour, like anything that isn't a physiological reflex. It's possible to "get a taste for it." That's when you become dangerous. > Svo: No, I didn't have pleasure to read your posts and don't want to read you sick fantacies. Don't you find it problematic that your resistance from doing something that you want to do (i.e. to kill someone) is motivated by fear of punishment and not by moral reason and choice? I've tried moral reasoning. I can't find anything that can be used as a solid foundation. I'm a moral nihilist. I don't follow morality. I follow my emotions. It's not the law that tells me not to kill people. It's my emotions. Hurting people physically isn't fun. I know that. Killing people is just something I'm curious about doing. As for claiming ownership being violent, if it is, then you're prooving that some violence is necessary. How can you have a piece of food without claiming it's ownership?
| |||||||
|
lichen Stranger Registered: 07/20/01 Posts: 19 Loc: Rocky Mountains Last seen: 22 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
The constitution says we have the right to pursue happiness...if taking a drink makes you happy, you have a right to do so, at a stretch, right? There's probably some high-powered lawyer somewhere who could pull that off.
But of course, the constitution also says that we should not be overtaxed. You saw what the war did to that. Blew it right out of the window. So for the sake of expediency, at our master's whim, we can have all our rights taken away. Political expediency is what caused the prohibition on marijuana, right?
| |||||||
|
lichen Stranger Registered: 07/20/01 Posts: 19 Loc: Rocky Mountains Last seen: 22 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
Sorry, that post I just put in there is a response to a previous part of the thread.
I'll tell you what, this type of debate can be never-ending because neither of you has more than an opinion, and as a rule opinions are indefensible. My opinion is always better than yours, to me, because I deal with me every day but you're a cyber-entity or because I don't have to deal with you all the time.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Kid writes:
"I've tried moral reasoning. I can't find anything that can be used as a solid foundation. I'm a moral nihilist. I don't follow morality. I follow my emotions." Ah! I thought I was having a debate with someone for whom reason was valid. Instead I find that you follow your emotions. This explains everything. Emotions are not tools of cognition. To say that something is so because "I feel it is so" is a deal-breaker as far as debate goes. There is no point in continuing. But, just to recap: Your sole argument for declaring the War on Drugs constitutionally sound is that since the State is charged with protecting its citizens from violence, and SOME drugs SOMEtimes cause SOME people to lose control of themselves to the point where they might damage other people or other people's property, the State has the right to make the use of ALL such drugs illegal for ALL people ALL the time and imprison them for using such drugs and kill them if they try to resist being arrested. Let's leave it to other readers to decide if this reasoning is bogus or sound. I vote no. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> Kid writes:
"I've tried moral reasoning. I can't find anything that can be used as a solid foundation. I'm a moral nihilist. I don't follow morality. I follow my emotions." Ah! I thought I was having a debate with someone for whom reason was valid. Instead I find that you follow your emotions. This explains everything. Reasoning still operates within me. I'm still adept at logical thought. What I don't have is a moral basis. There's nothing that I morally stand on that I say, "This is Right and this is Wrong." > Emotions are not tools of cognition. To say that something is so because "I feel it is so" is a deal-breaker as far as debate goes. That is exactly why I'm a moral nihilist. Most people base their morality on their emotions ("what their heart/gut tells them"). I question even that. > Your sole argument for declaring the War on Drugs constitutionally sound is that since the State is charged with protecting its citizens from violence NOT just violence. The state has to protect people from health hazards. Violence is a small part of that.
| |||||||
|
Phyl old hand Registered: 01/17/00 Posts: 597 Loc: United Kingdom Last seen: 15 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
|
A controlled addiction. That's an oxymoron.
Not at all. Smokers have a controlled addiction. They are addicted to nicotine, but have integrated the need for nicotine into their daily routines. They are no less productive than non-smokers, and the addiction has no influence over their achievements or potential. The same is true for all addictions, they can be controlled and integrated. Once this is done, they have no influence over your life and are then a controlled addiction. Heroin addicts can be given methodone. There are a lot of methodone clinics. Heroin addicts do not require "maintenance doses" of heroin. Methadone is product of prohibition. It is more addictive than heroin, more toxic than heroin, has more side effects than heroin, and does not give the users the euphoria they recieve from heroin. Because of this most users simply sell their supplies of methodone to kids and buy more illegal black market heroin. The ony thing in Methodones favour is that it's legal and therefore regulated and controlled. If heroin were treated in the same way, everyone would be better off. What do you mean look at smokers? Some people smoke two or three packs a day! You can't say that an addiction is controlled just because a person has not committed a crime and call it uncontrolled when they have committed a crime due to addiction. The whole paradox of addiction is "where is the locus of control"? It's arbitrary to define controlled/uncontrolled based on the legality of one's actions. I'm not. I'm defining controlled/uncontrolled by the effect that the addiction has over the potential of the addict. My point is that smokers have exactly the same human potential that non-smokers have. Heroin addicts on the other hand do not, simply because of their addiction to a black market substance, and therefore integration of their addiction is impossible. If smoking were prohibited, you'd see many of the same things amongst smokers that you do amongst heroin addicts today. Before prohibition there were many opium addicts, but there was no opium 'problem'. As soon as it was prohibited the 'problems' started to appear. I meet a lot of people who call themselves addicts and have considered myself an addict in the past too. A lot of addicts have very fuzzy and conflicting ideas about what exactly addiction does to them. What are you implying? My addiction doesn't have any impact upon my life, as I have integrated it into my daily routine. The maintenance doses get higher and higher as tolerance builds, leading to increased danger of physical (and other) side effects. I think you misunderstand what a maintenance dose is. By definitian, a maintenance dose does not increase in strength, if anything it will decrease over time, as you body becomes accustomed to operating with lower doses of the drug. Cigarettes offer maintenance doses of nicotine, and you don't tend to see smokers smoking more and more each day, or moving from light to regular cigarettes to get a bigger hit of nicotine. No. Depends on the drug. A completely normal person can have a psychotic episode under the influence. It's not likely to happen with alcohol or LSD (as the media's made it out to be). But drugs like PCP, or DXM (esp. at sigma doses) make psychotic episodes a real concern, no matter how healthy a person may be going into the experience. So what you're essentially saying is that these drugs can change your perception of reality. That's the whole reason people take them in the first place, and can't really be used as an argument for prohibition. Nobody would be advised to take a large dose of a psychedelic without a sitter present (Especially a sigma dose of DXM), but because of the 'information ban' associated with prohibition, unfortunately not many people are aware of this. In fact I doubt many people who use DXM even know how much syrup to drink to obtain a sigma level trip If you're implying that these drugs can induce psychotic episodes (Rather than just the effects of the drugs) in people who do not have an underlying psychiatric conditions, then there is absoloutly no evidence of this which has not been proved to be flawed. Actually it's very straightforward. When you're psychotic you've lost any meaningful grasp of consensus reality. Psychotic episodes probably happen pretty often, it's just that most of them don't turn out violent (and so, don't get anyone's attention). So the problem is? I still say that the issue of psychotic episodes has nothing to do with the legality of drugs. No it wouldn't, because most people are ashamed to admit that they're an addict and are reluctant to get help (until they're caught). People addicted to Illegal drugs are reluctant to admit it and seek help. Smokers on the other hand are not. Just look at the number of nicotine replacement products (patches, inhalers, gum etc). If anything smokers are activly encouraged to seek help. Legalising drugs would remove the social stigma that's attached to addiction to illegal drugs, and all addicts would then be able to seek help much in the same way as smokers. Maybe it's just part of Holland's culture not to get angry. That's simply not enough evidence to say that alcohol has any direct effect on violence and that marijuana diminishes it. What proof do you want? Our country has a huge problem with binge drinking and the violence which accompanies this. It is obvious to me at least that marijuhana doesn't have anywhere near the same connection with violence that alcohol does. I don't drink alcohol myself because of the way alcohol makes you lose control of yourself. Cannabis doesn't do this. I can look for proof if you like, but I really don't think it is nescesarry. This is a widely known and accepted property of marijuhana. Take care Phil Edited by Phyl on 07/24/01 09:21 AM.
| |||||||
|
svoboda Stranger Registered: 07/21/01 Posts: 17 |
| ||||||
|
Svo: You seem to wrongly believe that killing is a skill which has to be learnt. It isn't. Not every killer is more dangerous than you or I. Everybody is a potential killer. Putting "violent, dangerous murderers behind bars" is immoral and seriously mistaken.
Kid: What would you suggest we do with murderers? Let them walk the street. Svo: Yes, this is exactly what I am advocating. Most 'murderers' need help, rather than punishment. By punishing them we only add to the total amount of harm in the world. Kid: Killing is a learned behaviour, like anything that isn't a physiological reflex. It's possible to "get a taste for it." That's when you become dangerous. Svo: Any learnt behaviour can be unlearnt, Kid. What we have to do is to help the 'murderers' to unlearn the killing behaviour. But this cannot be done through punishment. Kid: I've tried moral reasoning. I can't find anything that can be used as a solid ! foundation. Svo: You don't need a 'solid foundation'. It doesn't exist. Just like morality doesn't objectively exist. Morality need not be something solid and rigid. My understanding of morality is that it is a mental construct which is flexible and constantly evolving. Kid: I'm a moral nihilist. I don't follow morality. I follow my emotions. Svo: The problem with this is that you don't always control and choose your emotions. If you follow your emotions you are effectively their slave - you are out of control, you are powerless. In contrast, reasoning empowers you and allows you to choose how you act. Kid: It's not the law that tells me not to kill people. It's my emotions. Hurting people physically isn't fun. I know that. Svo: Is it emotions or is it reasoning??? 'Hurting people is not fun' clearly indicates that you apply your knowledge and experience, not just being a slave you your emotions! Kid: Killing people is just something I'm curious about doing. Svo: Why? Kid: As for claiming ownership being violent, if it is, then you're prooving that some violence is necessary. How can you have a piece of food without claiming it's ownership? Svo: Very easily. Just like you are, I am a 'nihilist' in some respect. I deny the concept of property and the concept of rights. If you start reasoning with a premise that no one owns anything, and if no one is eating the food at the moment, there is noting which could stop you eating it.
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> They are no less productive than non-smokers, and the addiction has no influence over their achievements or potential.
Except for the lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory problems, and heightened blood pressure. > My point is that smokers have exactly the same human potential that non-smokers have. Then you're incorrect, as smokers have decreased cardiovascular functioning, as well as typically higher anxiety levels. > What are you implying? Addiction seems to be a kind of paradox. It's a release of control to gain control over something. > So what you're essentially saying is that these drugs can change your perception of reality. That's the whole reason people take them in the first place, and can't really be used as an argument for prohibition. It can if it reliably caused psychotic episodes. I don't anyone would argue that a human being has a right to make him/herself dangerous by self-inducing psychosis. > but because of the 'information ban' associated with prohibition, What are you talking about? > If you're implying that these drugs can induce psychotic episodes (Rather than just the effects of the drugs) in people who do not have an underlying psychiatric conditions, then there is absoloutly no evidence of this which has not been proved to be flawed. I'd like to see some more info. about that. That's simply not true. If you intoxicate yourself enough you can loose contact with reality enough to have a psychotic episode. It's a very basic principle. > So the problem is? It CAN happen. > Legalising drugs would remove the social stigma that's attached to addiction to illegal drugs, and all addicts would then be able to seek help much in the same way as smokers. Ask an alcoholic if they are ashamed of their addiction or not. Ask them if they feel stigmatized for being an alcoholic. It goes far beyond legality. The issue is that the person feels dependent on a substance (that the "can't handle their own shit without a crutch").
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> Svo: Yes, this is exactly what I am advocating. Most 'murderers' need help, rather than punishment. By punishing them we only add to the total amount of harm in the world.
Yes, they do. Part of making sure a person doesn't kill again is by making them feel guilty. Punishment is a part of this. Also, letting murderers walk the street while undergoing treatment would be a very very bad idea. It would take more than one therapy session to ensure that a violent criminal would not become a recidivist. > But this cannot be done through punishment. Why not? Certainly corporal punishment wouldn't work. Moral punishment though? Social punishment? Do you suggest we reward and cuddle murderers? > Svo: You don't need a 'solid foundation'. It doesn't exist. Just like morality doesn't objectively exist. Morality need not be something solid and rigid. My understanding of morality is that it is a mental construct which is flexible and constantly evolving. And it just so happens that my form of morality is flexible enough to be self-contradictory and to deny it's own existence. > Svo: The problem with this is that you don't always control and choose your emotions. If you follow your emotions you are effectively their slave - you are out of control, you are powerless. In contrast, reasoning empowers you and allows you to choose how you act. You cannot act without emotion! Tell me how you would evaluate your own behaviour without any emotions whatsoever? You would have no motivation to do anything. Why would you choose one act over another? Why would having sex not appeal more than jumping off a building or crawling around for hours on end? Don't give bullshit. Emotions might be arbitrarily programmed, but they still provide the motives for our behaviour and goals. It's reasoning that effictively allows us to acheive those goals. > 'Hurting people is not fun' clearly indicates that you apply your knowledge and experience, not just being a slave you your emotions! I can say "hurting people is not fun" without feeling repulsed by the idea of murder; this wouldn't effictively prevent me from killing someone. It's just like an addiction. You know that indulging in the substance isn't helpful; it wouldn't be a good idea; but you do it anyway. Your emotion defies your reason. You underestimate the power of emotion. Your rationality is not 100% in control. Your emotions are the far more powerful entity, as much as you dislike admitting this "feminized" aspect of yourself. > Svo: Why [are you curious about killing people]? Oh are you going to psychoanalyse me now? > Svo: Very easily. Just like you are, I am a 'nihilist' in some respect. I deny the concept of property and the concept of rights. If you start reasoning with a premise that no one owns anything, and if no one is eating the food at the moment, there is noting which could stop you eating it. And what if someone else comes along and claims the food for themselves? In prehistoric times your type of reasoning would rended you dead. "That's my food." "You cannot own food. Food is for all to share." [Rock smashed over head.] "Food is mine now. I am alive for another day. You are dead." All of your "conceptual engineering" about property doesn't have much practicality.
| |||||||
|
CACA veteran Registered: 07/12/01 Posts: 1,122 Last seen: 22 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
WOO watch the battling egos
-------------------- "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5
| |||||||
|
Phyl old hand Registered: 01/17/00 Posts: 597 Loc: United Kingdom Last seen: 15 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
|
Except for the lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory problems, and heightened blood pressure.
There are risks with some drugs, yes, but there are risks with everything. Have you seen the number of obese people around recently? They have all the problems you've listed above, and more. Does this mean we should outlaw fatty foods? Maybe we should implement some kind of compulsory rationing scheme? Ultimately this comes down to an issue of freedom. If someone wants to do something that may harm them, then what business is this of the government? They don't seem to care if I go to the supermarket, buy a bottle of beach and drink the whole thing. Surely the aim should be to reduce the harm caused by drugs, and the only way to do this is to legalise, regulate and control them. Most problems are caused by contaminates in the drugs, and not the actual drugs themselves, and these are only there because of prohibition and lack of quality control. Then you're incorrect, as smokers have decreased cardiovascular functioning, as well as typically higher anxiety levels. What needs to be measured is the impact of this upon their lives. It's all well and good saying they have decreased cardiovascular functioning, but what does this mean in real terms? I don't see smokers leading generally less productive or satisfying lives compared to non-smokers, although some of them die earlier. This is their choice. If someone chooses to smokes, they know the risks and have decided to take their chances. It can if it reliably caused psychotic episodes One thing they don't do is 'reliably' cause psychotic episodes. Psychedelics can induce a state of altered consciousness, as you know, but this is the reason people take them in the first place, and far more people find this beneficial rather than a problem. These psycotic episodes as you call them are the reason for taking the drug in the first place. Non-psychedelics very rarely induce psychosis of any form. My main problem with the war on some drugs is with Heroin and cocaine, which do not cause psychosis. I don't anyone would argue that a human being has a right to make him/herself dangerous by self-inducing psychosis. I would not argue that because taking a drug does not automatically make a person dangerous, as your statement implies. All people have the capacity to be dangerous to others regardless of whether they have taken any drugs or not. A huge majority of attacks and homicides are not related to drug psychosis in any way what so ever. What are you talking about? Just say NO... Drugs are bad m'kay.... If you intoxicate yourself enough you can loose contact with reality enough to have a psychotic episode. It's a very basic principle. This is true of a few psychedelics, but not most drugs targetted by the war on some drugs. If taken to levels where you lose contact with reality, most drugs leave you incapable of harming others as you are incapacitated. It CAN happen. Everything has a risk involved with at. Let's all live in padded cells, then we'll all be a lot safer. The issue is that the person feels dependent on a substance (that the "can't handle their own shit without a crutch"). So essentially it's is social/psychological problem, and banning the substance will not have any effect except that the addict will be forced to use more dangerous illegal supplies for their fix, and will be forced into a viscious circle of crime. Take care Phil
| |||||||
|
Syngenor member Registered: 09/16/00 Posts: 31 Last seen: 22 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
The WOD is based on the iron law of human nature, which no constitution can ever overturn: sadistic gratification is an end in and of itself.
The Syngenor
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> If someone wants to do something that may harm them, then what business is this of the government?
Their business in it should be minimal if you want to emphasize individual rights, which the USA clearly strives to acheive. It's the society (and culture) around it that wants to suppress drugs. > This is true of a few psychedelics, but not most drugs targetted by the war on some drugs. Amphetamines can induce psychosis. Same with steroids.
| |||||||
|
hunterthompson I climb rocks Registered: 11/15/00 Posts: 189 Last seen: 15 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
you just don't trust huimans to police themselves, and that fact that you have little faith in human nature is very very sad.
-=LaTeS+_
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> you just don't trust huimans to police themselves, and that fact that you have little faith in human nature is very very sad.
I like how you just assume that because I'm arguing against the popular viewpoint of this board that I really believe what I'm saying. Also, take a look at a number of my past posts on this board: whenever anyone comes up with somekind of analysis of who am I or where I stand politically I always make sure to protest their assesment, reminding them: this isn't what I really think. I don't trust humans to follow a state's law, and I shouldn't. I'm sure the majority of peopel on this board have broken the law, at least once. I don't believe that there is any such thing as a universal Right or Wrong. Moral valuess change. People don't always agree on morals. People don't always follow morals. I'm not even sure what sense you mean "police" themselves? Individually, I thnk most people do a damn fine job of policing themselves. Most people are not violent criminals. If you mean "police themselves" in terms of enforcing social rules; I think we do a pretty damn fine job of that. Some might argue that we do it too well. Now on to human nature. It seems to me to be a simply matter of information processing that human beings will never understand the totality of human nature. Period. My experiences with "human nature" are only a small mixture on the wide spectrum of human experience. I know that people can be kind. I know that people can be creul. Don't start telling me what I do or don't trust, because you can't tell from what I post. I argue for the sake of arguing. I don't argue for what I "believe" or against what I "disbelieve." The same applies for my areas of "faith." And just consider for a second: if I had little faith in human nature would I really decide to live in a big city? to go out, unarmed, at night, walking around some of this city's worst neighborhoods without fear of being harmed? No. I know that most people won't fuck with you for no reason. So don't start telling me what I do or don't believe. This post isn't a personal issue, for me. It's a discussion. I'm practicing something I enjoy very much: arguing, debating. Another thing I'm starting to get sick of, is that people do start to make personal comments based on what I argue. My arguments are born on a whim. Don't look at my arguments and criticize me as a person, or my character, or my personality, based on my defiant, argumentative style of posts. This thread is not about me. My posts are rarely about me. Don't start making everything I post to be an indication of my identity.
| |||||||
|
~`Tursiops truncatus`~ enthusiast Registered: 11/01/00 Posts: 105 Loc: CO... UsA Last seen: 22 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
The war-like mentallity is a sad sad state of mind...
| |||||||
|
Phyl old hand Registered: 01/17/00 Posts: 597 Loc: United Kingdom Last seen: 15 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
|
The war-like mentallity is a sad sad state of mind
That depends on a persons motivation. Don't always assume the worst, as that too is a sad state of mind. Right back at the beginning of this thread Kid stated that he didn't support the war on drugs. Why do you think he continued to post? Because he just wanted an argument? What would he stand to gain from that? By adopting the role of prohibitionist he has encouraged debate which would otherwise have gone unspoken, and others can now read this thread, taking note of both sides arguments, and then make their own opinions on the subject. Without Kids oposition this would not have been possible.
| |||||||
| |||||||
Edit 
Reply 
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
supreme court strikes down anti-sodomy laws |  Anonymous |
946 | 11 | 06/27/03 04:12 PM by Anonymous |
|
 |
William F. Buckley Jr. on Marijuana Prohibition |  Divided_Sky |
459 | 0 | 08/23/04 05:29 PM by Divided_Sky |
|
|
The Libertarian implications of traffic laws (  1 2 all ) |
 Phred |
1,785 | 32 | 08/22/04 02:34 PM by Phred |
|
 |
What the hell are we going to do about this prohibition??? ( 1 2 all ) |
 DirtMcgirt |
938 | 23 | 12/12/04 07:12 PM by kadakuda |
|
|
Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america |  mabus |
1,431 | 13 | 03/15/04 07:25 PM by Phred |
|
|
The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law |  Evolving |
3,498 | 17 | 02/10/04 01:28 PM by silversoul7 |
|
|
Possible legal challenge of psylocybe laws? ( 1 2 all ) |
 Randolph_Carter |
2,693 | 31 | 12/05/03 03:24 PM by Annapurna1 |
|
 |
Changing drug laws ( 1 2 all ) |
stan |
4,334 | 22 | 07/31/02 05:31 AM by toxick |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 6,482 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 23 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
