YOUR opinion on (Soft/Hard-) Drugs

[jackattack]

i think hard drugs should be illegal with a worse penalty but thizzin and smoking weed isnt that bad it should still be illegal though just not as big a penalty.

[mad4u689]

Hey Blue! Tell that to the drug and alcohol counselors who's #1 client right now for life-damaging addictions are marijuana addicts and alcoholics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey, maybe that's because they are also the most common drugs!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd be interested for you to respond to the points I raised in a previous post :)

[Notorious_Ice]

So you're basically saying that I can smoke pot and nothing will happen. My life will be perfectly fine and I'll continue making six figures?

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

The only way weed can be harmful is if you either do it too much and it affects your brain, or if you get immune to it and decide to try harder drugs.

 

 

 

If pot is smoked by younger kids, then it affects their brain more as it isnt fully developed. It stunts growth a little, but im not worried about that as i have stopped growing in height and am filling out fine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have done weed for a couple years, sensibly and I still am fine mentally (straight A's and B's), emotionally, and Physically - How many others here 15 or over can run 100m in 11.6, low 23's for 200m and 400m in 54 flat?

[Futurama]

afaik the only reason weeds illegal is because its a relaxant and not a stimulant, and that can cause accidents....

 

 

 

it should be legal but there should be laws regarding the use, eg not in public places, no driving under the influence, age restrictions etc...

 

 

 

believe it or not aswell most people die of ecstacy because their parents find out they've took it and make them drink so much water that their bodies cant take it. i know loads of people that have done it and they've all been fine and said it was one of the best experiences of their life.

 

 

 

heroin and crack and stuff though, that stuffs bad...

 

 

 

smoking should be cracked down on. apparently theres something like 4 chemicals in tobacco, and 1000 chemicals in a cigarette...thats what kills people fast, not the roll up stuff.

 

 

 

of course if drugs were made legal, we'd have a lot more homeless people but a lot less rough estates in Britain

[apinagez]

The truth is: if the marijuana lobby were as strong as the tobacco lobby, it would be sold in every store, and nobody would be shocked about it.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Marijuana is illegal in the United States because in the 1920s, marijuana was associated with "reefer madness" - that is, it was thought to be used by the lower classes, the jazz musicians. Alcohol was far more mainstream, and when it was prohibited, there was huge uproar among all classes, including the ones on top that are actually listened to - hence the end of Prohibition. Marijuana illegality, however, stood. And so it stands to this day, because still no one in government is willing to risk their career to legalized marijuana, which still has a terrible reputation among many of the more upper classes, despite scientific evidence all pointing to alcohol being more dangerous to the body (and society) than marijuana.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That said, I think marijuana should be legal, and alcohol should be legal. These are victimless crimes. I find it ridiculous that you can get a FELONY CONVICTION based purely on dealing marijuana - a felony means you can never vote in this country again. This is institutionalized racism and classism, a way for the government to silence voices it doesn't want to hear. Marijuana is a victimless crime. I don't do pot (though I have tried it), but I think it needs to be legal, for the above mentioned reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I even think, for somewhat different reasons, that hard drugs should legalized as well. These are MOSTLY victimless crimes - and in the sense they they do have victims, it should be up to the individual to have the freedom and then not abuse that freedom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Marijuana impairs you no matter what. Drinking a glass of wine or a can of beer does not impair you. You can drink responsibly, but you can smoke pot responsibly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. I think you are taking it WAY to far to say it is institutionalized racism and classism. The majority of the kids in my school arrested for possesion were white middle-upper class citizens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I think you were very intellectually dishonest with your post because getting arrested for posession does not mean you're never going to get to vote again. Is it possible? Yes. But you make it sound like that is what's going to happen no matter what - and that's dishonest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. It is sometimes a victimless crime. But besides that, I support making victimless crimes criminal because I'm a pretty strong ancient ethicist. Modern ethicists focus almost entirely on "right and wrong" (as it pertains to "should be legal" and "should not be legal") based on whether or not the "crime" affects others. I, however, subscribe much more to the more ancient ethicists who believed that crimes against yourself are still immoral - and therefore, able to be criminalized.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As always Mad, we disagree on how much freedom people should have. You suggest people should have the freedom to use hard drugs and then decide whether or not to abuse that freedom. But what happens when a crackhead has a kid? That kid either lives a terrible life or becomes a ward of the state and those of us who are responsible start paying for the irresponsibility of others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These victimless crimes are usually not victimless. Coke addicts destroy families and cause kids to grow up under terribly harsh circumstances because their mom, who is addicted to coke, is spending her mother on hard drugs rather than food for her kid. The child is then more likely to become a drug addict and the cycle continues. I don't see this kind of impact on society as "victimless" as you do.

[apinagez]

It is sometimes a victimless crime. But besides that, I support making victimless crimes criminal because I'm a pretty strong ancient ethicist. Modern ethicists focus almost entirely on "right and wrong" (as it pertains to "should be legal" and "should not be legal") based on whether or not the "crime" affects others. I, however, subscribe much more to the more ancient ethicists who believed that crimes against yourself are still immoral - and therefore, able to be criminalized.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a random thought that has just crossed my mind: wouldn't it be a crime against yourself to live a life in which you can't do all the things you want and satisfy all your wishes?

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

It is sometimes a victimless crime. But besides that, I support making victimless crimes criminal because I'm a pretty strong ancient ethicist. Modern ethicists focus almost entirely on "right and wrong" (as it pertains to "should be legal" and "should not be legal") based on whether or not the "crime" affects others. I, however, subscribe much more to the more ancient ethicists who believed that crimes against yourself are still immoral - and therefore, able to be criminalized.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a random thought that has just crossed my mind: wouldn't it be a crime against yourself to live a life in which you can't do all the things you want and satisfy all your wishes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not if you believe that things you want/wish can be bad for you.

[bull912000]

I think our government needs to get rid of em. Every single drop. There's no telling how many innocent men, women, and children were killed because of them.

[supermonk]

Soft, yes. Then they could be controlled like alcohol and be taxed. It is also impossible to take a lethal dose of marijuana.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hard, no. For obvious enough reasons.

[apinagez]

 

Just a random thought that has just crossed my mind: wouldn't it be a crime against yourself to live a life in which you can't do all the things you want and satisfy all your wishes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not if you believe that things you want/wish can be bad for you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if the government believes that for you?

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

Just a random thought that has just crossed my mind: wouldn't it be a crime against yourself to live a life in which you can't do all the things you want and satisfy all your wishes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not if you believe that things you want/wish can be bad for you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if the government believes that for you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well when I say bad for you - I mean like, I want to eat chocolate all the time and I really have no desire to eat healthy food (true statement about myself) but that is bad for me. It IS bad for me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But, you have to remember my perspective - I'm a moral absolutist. It's not a matter of who believes something is bad for you - it is. If it is, then you have to consider the moral value of the badness and whether it should be made criminal. You and I view morality differently so we're not going to agree on this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe I made the point very clear in my first post that victimless crimes are hardly victimless anyway.

[apinagez]

Yeah, I get it.

 

 

 

I just don't believe statal interference is necessary on the illegalization/legalization of drugs, just as it isn't for chocolate.

 

 

 

People could argue that drugs cost the state more healthcare investment and therefore should be illegalized. However, obesity is a much worse problem and the decision of being fat or not is pretty much left in people's hands.

[yantzee666]

I think that everyone who says that they all should be illegal is fighting a pointles battle, because people will still do drugs, and possibly more if they are/stay illegal.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Yeah, I get it.

 

 

 

I just don't believe statal interference is necessary on the illegalization/legalization of drugs, just as it isn't for chocolate.

 

 

 

People could argue that drugs cost the state more healthcare investment and therefore should be illegalized. However, obesity is a much worse problem and the decision of being fat or not is pretty much left in people's hands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hard drugs like cocaine are not even close to being comparable to things that make you fat though. Cocaine addicts become so addicted they lose control of everything - spending all their money on their next fix, neglecting their children, and most likely driving their children into the same problem. It is far more problematic than being fat.

[apinagez]

It is far more problematic individually, yeah. However, statistically it's a much smaller problem.

 

 

 

And the government uses statistics to base it's decisions on.

[Guest GhostRanger]

It is far more problematic individually, yeah. However, statistically it's a much smaller problem.

 

 

 

And the government uses statistics to base it's decisions on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's a smaller problem, statistically, for two reasons. First, it's illegal, whereas fatty food isn't. Second, it is much more dangerous so less people are apt to do it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that its a smaller problem is no reason to legalize it.

[mad4u689]

 

Marijuana is illegal in the United States because in the 1920s, marijuana was associated with "reefer madness" - that is, it was thought to be used by the lower classes, the jazz musicians. Alcohol was far more mainstream, and when it was prohibited, there was huge uproar among all classes, including the ones on top that are actually listened to - hence the end of Prohibition. Marijuana illegality, however, stood. And so it stands to this day, because still no one in government is willing to risk their career to legalized marijuana, which still has a terrible reputation among many of the more upper classes, despite scientific evidence all pointing to alcohol being more dangerous to the body (and society) than marijuana.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That said, I think marijuana should be legal, and alcohol should be legal. These are victimless crimes. I find it ridiculous that you can get a FELONY CONVICTION based purely on dealing marijuana - a felony means you can never vote in this country again. This is institutionalized racism and classism, a way for the government to silence voices it doesn't want to hear. Marijuana is a victimless crime. I don't do pot (though I have tried it), but I think it needs to be legal, for the above mentioned reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I even think, for somewhat different reasons, that hard drugs should legalized as well. These are MOSTLY victimless crimes - and in the sense they they do have victims, it should be up to the individual to have the freedom and then not abuse that freedom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Marijuana impairs you no matter what. Drinking a glass of wine or a can of beer does not impair you. You can drink responsibly, but you can smoke pot responsibly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. I think you are taking it WAY to far to say it is institutionalized racism and classism. The majority of the kids in my school arrested for possesion were white middle-upper class citizens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I think you were very intellectually dishonest with your post because getting arrested for posession does not mean you're never going to get to vote again. Is it possible? Yes. But you make it sound like that is what's going to happen no matter what - and that's dishonest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. It is sometimes a victimless crime. But besides that, I support making victimless crimes criminal because I'm a pretty strong ancient ethicist. Modern ethicists focus almost entirely on "right and wrong" (as it pertains to "should be legal" and "should not be legal") based on whether or not the "crime" affects others. I, however, subscribe much more to the more ancient ethicists who believed that crimes against yourself are still immoral - and therefore, able to be criminalized.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As always Mad, we disagree on how much freedom people should have. You suggest people should have the freedom to use hard drugs and then decide whether or not to abuse that freedom. But what happens when a crackhead has a kid? That kid either lives a terrible life or becomes a ward of the state and those of us who are responsible start paying for the irresponsibility of others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These victimless crimes are usually not victimless. Coke addicts destroy families and cause kids to grow up under terribly harsh circumstances because their mom, who is addicted to coke, is spending her mother on hard drugs rather than food for her kid. The child is then more likely to become a drug addict and the cycle continues. I don't see this kind of impact on society as "victimless" as you do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am glad you made some diffentiation between "right" and "wrong" versus "should be legal" and "should not be legal," which IMO are fairly different concepts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose you are looking at drug use from a collective and utilitarian perspective, whereas I am looking at it from an individualistic perspective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A friend recently explained to me his philosophy of the self, which was a collection of mental states, a swirling mass of chemicals. The concept of a core of "selfness" is a construction designed to make us feel more real, whereas we should accept our realness for what it is (which is still beautiful). In thise sense, drugs alter your current mental state, change the mix of swirling chemicals, but does not make your self any less real. if you find this altered mental state better or interesting or an improvement over other mental states, there is nothing wrong with that. If you become addicted and don't buy food for your children and spend your money on coke instead, that is a problem. However, it is not the fault of the drug itself, but rather the individual hirself who is abusing such drugs, and in addition abusing the child. This, then, BECOMES a crime with victims, and the individual should get in trouble - not for using drugs, however, but for child abuse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would argue that I have many friends who use marijuana responsibly. I do not, however, think that there is much evidence we can use to prove this either way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am sorry if my post was misleading. However, I reread what I originally wrote, and I think I made it fairly clear that you CAN GET a felony conviction based only on drug laws, and I think that's ridiculous. Of course, I have a huge problem with the concept of not being able to vote after being convicted of a felony in the first place, but that's another issue entirely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also do not think I am taking it too far to say that it is institutionalized racism and classism. This link (from an admittedly obviously biased source, but a source with whom I agree) explains and gives statistics based on drug laws in New York: http://www.droptherock.org/racial_discrimination.htm