This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Good.
I've never understood prohibition against drugs as a working solution to the problem of addiction. It didn't work with alcohol -- why are we carrying on the facade with this?
Religious support (Just like with alcohol prohibition),
government denial of science that conflicts with the law
, and conservatism*, in my opinion.
Why can't it be because we don't like people who are stoned / out of control? I'd make being intoxicated a crime as well, if I could (noting that's just my personal view, and that there's a big difference between a couple of drinks, and being intoxicated).
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
What people do in private that doesn't affect anyone but themselves ≠ Any of your damned business
Until it becomes public and BECOMES your business.
Post by
MyTie
What people do in private that doesn't affect anyone but themselves ≠ Any of your damned business
I'm all for personal freedom as long as what someone does doesn't affect me. This is not the case with drug use. Come on man. Even you can see the effects of drug users on crime rates. That said, I don't think all drugs that are illegal should be illegal.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I'm all for personal freedom as long as what someone does doesn't affect me. This is not the case with drug use. Come on man. Even you can see the effects of drug users on crime rates. That said, I don't think all drugs that are illegal should be illegal.
I have. However those crime rates are almost wholly taken from places where drugs are illegal, if drugs were legal but regulated, then drug business would go from being at the control of the criminal underworld to more like the pharmaceutical or Medical Marijuana Dispensary business, because the gangs and cartels and mobs would not be able to compete with legal, large scale production costs and be priced out of the market. Without
those
sort of people the violence is almost guaranteed to reduce.
I understand the concept you are explaining, and agree to with you, to a degree. What I think you are leaving out is the amount of crime and violence that comes from the effects of drugs on a drug user's mind, and bank account, and family relations, etc etc etc. The drugs themselves, not just the way they are sold, degrade a person to violence.
Post by
Monday
You may not like people who use drugs or alcohol and want to ban it because of that, and fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But I don't like your opinion, and even if I could I wouldn't make that opinion illegal just because I don't like it. But hey, I'm just that kinda freedom-loving guy.
You're misunderstanding me. I may dislike them, but I don't dislike people who use them for the mere fact that they use them, and I'm fine with people using them in their homes.
Once again, however, I do become annoyed when it becomes public. In your little world, people can just do drugs or whatever in their houses and never affect anyone else, but if you look at people who do hard drugs, you'll find that the story is different. I've had too many friends and family fall to hard drugs to support their legalization.
However, that doesn't mean that I feel the same about alcohol, marijuana and the like which are (relatively) harmless.
Post by
Orranis
What people do in private that doesn't affect anyone but themselves ≠ Any of your damned business
I'm all for personal freedom as long as what someone does doesn't affect me. This is not the case with drug use. Come on man. Even you can see the effects of drug users on crime rates. That said, I don't think all drugs that are illegal should be illegal.
Drug usage being linked to crime is overwhelmingly:
1. Due to the legality of the drug in question.
2. Is correlation but not necessarily causation. (Many examples can be made here, i.e. drug usage among lower financial classes and crime rates among lower financial classes, is someone is already breaking a law is much more likely to break more serious laws as well, etc.)
It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.
I do support marijuana legalization, (though it would probably make it harder for me to get my hands on, if I still used it), though I still believe that the majority of hard-drugs do not need to be decriminalized.
Meanwhile
, back in reality, I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to pay for gas in my car for the next week. /sigh
If I didn't know you better I'd almost think you were making a statement about the disparity of wealth in our country.
Both conservatives and liberals see the poor, and want the poor to not be poor anymore. We all, both sides, genuinely want everyone to live a complete life of leisure, with healthcare, food, education, transportation, and as much freedoms as possible. The difference is that conservatives do not feel that more government intervention will help the poor. Further, I don't see a "wealth disparity". It isn't as if I see people that have something, and someone that doesn't have something, and see this as wrong and unfair. If someone has a 2 million dollar car, fine, let them. It's theirs and no one else can have it. Very few can even have anything like it. My problem is the people who don't have what they need. I wish I could help them more. Some people don't want to help those around them. It's a moral problem, not a governmental problem. There is a problem when people cannot afford health care, or food, and as a society we are very rich. It makes me sad.
I don't see the difference between our views than. I don't want people not to be rich, but I am ready to make the rich less rich if it means making the poor less poor, or poverty less destructive (i.e., universal healthcare could go a long way).
Post by
MyTie
But hey, I'm just that kinda freedom-loving guy.
I dislike your inferrance that Funden doesn't love freedom just because Funden doesn't want drugs to be legal.
Post by
MyTie
I don't see the difference between our views than. I don't want people not to be rich, but I am ready to make the rich less rich if it means making the poor less poor, or poverty less destructive (i.e., universal healthcare could go a long way).
Then our opinions differ greatly. I find it immoral to "make people less rich" in order to help the poor. It is a person's choice what to do with their own money. If they choose not to help the poor, that is their choice. I find that selfish and horrible, but a freedom that should be an option. The reasoning behind it is that government intervention, historically, has caused harm to the economy, and caused more poverty than it prevented (in the majority of cases). Universal healthcare, is your example. Healthcare has gotten exponentially more expensive the more government intervention and regulation there has been. The reason it is so expensive and unaffordable, in my opinion, is government oversight.
Post by
Orranis
I don't see the difference between our views than. I don't want people not to be rich, but I am ready to make the rich less rich if it means making the poor less poor, or poverty less destructive (i.e., universal healthcare could go a long way).
Then our opinions differ greatly. I find it immoral to "make people less rich" in order to help the poor. It is a person's choice what to do with their own money. If they choose not to help the poor, that is their choice. I find that selfish and horrible, but a freedom that should be an option.
I think I'm more of a lesser of two evils about it here. I think they ideally shouldn't have to do that, however, realistically I'd like to end world, or at least national, hunger before they do that. I really don't care if they're losing even 9/10's of the ridiculous and unnecessary amount of money they have if it means there are no people who have to live in the streets.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Which, of course, is completely false.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
I believe that everybody should be free to do anything that neither harms nor involves anybody who doesn't consent to the action if conducted in private.
I do not see how anyone can claim to love freedom but argue for the criminalisation of acts which fall into the above category but I welcome any justification you can give.
Does self-mutilation count?
And I'm not getting into suicide here, but should I be allowed to shoot myself in the foot if it gets me hot?
Post by
Monday
The liability of said acts becoming public.
Let me get this straight, are you merely supporting things like marijuana and alcohol? If so, I can agree.
Are you supporting things like crack? Because if you are, we're done.
Post by
MyTie
I dislike your inferrance that Funden doesn't love freedom just because Funden doesn't want drugs to be legal.
You inferred, I implied ;)
Implication. Dang. I was looking for that word. I dislike your implication. If you think it is a fair implication, then one might equally imply that you like doing drugs and just want to make them legal so you can inject crank in your arm. Logical? No. But, hey, if you wanna misrepresent people, expect it yourself.
Post by
MyTie
I believe that everybody should be free to do anything that neither harms nor involves anybody who doesn't consent to the action if conducted in private.
I do not see how anyone can claim to love freedom but argue for the criminalisation of acts which fall into the above category but I welcome any justification you can give.
I do not see how anyone can claim to love freedom but argue for the criminlisation of acts which fall inot the above category (acts that neither harms nor involves anybody who doesn't conent to the action, and conduct it in private). However, we are talking about the use of drugs, which affects us all. One doesn't go home, do meth every day, and keep that completely to themselves. Thinking that is naive.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
I love how you continually ignore my posts.
I'd like some clarification on what your opinion is.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.