I hate drugs I will never use them, not even a cigerette. I will only do the natural and pasterous Mary Jane.
Thank you. Care to elaborate on that first statement though? And whether you like it or not, part of the government's duty is to protect the people from themselves. Sorry to burst your bubble, but we're not going to see OTC heroin anytime soon. At least not in our life times.
Everyone who disagrees, should be taking notes from Ulysses. I like this especially ^. I'm glad I didn't have to type all that you've said, so far.
Ok, dude, this thread is about "What if all drugs were legal?" It's not about how likely any of our ideas will be implemented. As for elaboration, the situation you described was much closer to decriminalization than legalization. Also, I'm an anarchist. Almost anything the government does that restricts my freedom I will be against. Oh and what's this? They already had OTC Heroin:
facepalm.jpg I guess you also don't drink coffee, use aspirin, or go under anesthesia while undergoing an operation.
First of all, cannabis is definitely a drug. Second of all, you don't drink alcohol? You don't take OTC medicines like Tylenol? You don't drink coffee/energy drinks? Come on man, we all know you do drugs. Just admit it.
Bullshit. BULLSHIT! That statement, in bold, is what has caused more deaths in history of humankind than any other. It is this ideology, that a group of people, whether elected or unelected, has the right to dictate what is good and moral and right for you, that has caused countless genocides, wars, murders and injustices. The list of offenses goes for miles, so I'll be brief with my examples. Slavery, in the minds of those who implemented it, was morally justifiable due to the fact that those who were under the system were "barbarians," who, without the help of the ruling powers that be, would continue to live in their ignorance of "civilization." So they were forced to become Christians against their will (of course, this applies only to those in the Common Era; I use it since it is the most commonly used excuse. Substitute whatever religion of the conqueror is as you will [Remember, everyone society in the ancient world practiced slavery of one form or another, and nearly every society until the past couple hundred years did as well; some countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia, still do]), perform hard labor for hours on end every day of their lives, and were beaten or killed for any sort of insubordination. Stalin saw the Siberian peasants as being nothing more than workhorses, so, since they might haughtily try and run their own lives, he put them to work in the gulags for the benefit of the communist state, and any rebellion, even if expressed as a thought, got you shot. Millions upon millions were killed in the USSR - the exact number can never be known, due to the fact that a dictatorship like that would never disclose such information - but it has been estimated that approximately upwards of sixty million alone were murdered under the rule of Stalin, all of them native Russians or those under the rule of the Russian state. This does not include those killed by Lenin, or the subsequent leaders of the Party. Feudalism, the practice of having the majority of the population (90 percent and above) under the rule of lords, who answered to a king, was thought of as the natural order of things. You were not allowed to rise above your position afforded to you at birth, since anything otherwise would be a disruption of the Great Chain of Being, set down by God at the beginning of time. Thus, keeping the vast preponderance of society as de facto slaves wasn't just natural, it was the greatest and most perfect morality. Governments are not natural phenomenon. They do not exist in nature. They exist out of the minds of men, created as a way to keep those with the most muscle and the biggest gun in power over the weak. Whether it be monarchy or democracy - which, by the way, the ancients saw as nothing more than just a step next to tyranny - it was all a method of keeping those in power with the power. By continuing to fall for the lies of statism - the State is here to protect you! The State cares about you! The State wants to help you! - you are convinced that you have freedom, when in reality, you're the worst and most pitiful kind of slave. If you want to live as a servant, kissing the boot of your master whilst working, living and dying at his whim, then go ahead. I'll be crushing the king's head.
i'm going to pretend like this post was a joke; i don't feel like ranting right now. haha funny dood.
the bbc did a docu-drama portraying a reality where all drugs except coke and heroin were legalised and controlled sold inside clubs and stuff. it was hard to follow but pretty good, ill try dig up the name but something tells me it was called "if drugs were legal".
There comes a point where what other people with their bodies does effect me. Like when a heroin addicted neighbor robs my house to pay for their habit. At some point people's bad habits start to spill over onto others, whether through crime or destructive behavior. Having a world filled with meth addicts is a scary thought. And it's hard to believe that use would not go up if hard drugs were legalized. This is not weed we are talking about. The number of hard drug users is much lower than the amount of tokers out there. Anyone can easily get weed as it is which is why legalization wouldn't lead to an increase in users. But hard drugs are not so widely available and legalizing them would make them widely available. And imagine having commercialized meth and heroin. There would be advertisements glorifying stuff that destroys people. After all, it would be a business like any other filled with people trying to make money. As I've said before, I don't think that people should be prosecuted for possession. But dealers should be prosecuted because they profit on other's weakness and addiction. Legalizing it would just couple this with the greed of corporations.
Then you punish them for the crime they commited. I believe in Switzerland? They're prescribing addicts with heroin. Use and robberys dropped dramatically. Google it. Would it be safe to assume, this has to do with why these addicts have an incentive to rob people? If it becomes easier to get, and probably cheaper. What do they need to rob you for? The difference between that and alchohol is? Seriously?
Best post I've ever read on these boards. Drugs are just something for people to blame their problems on. Not the problem.
Prescribing heroin to addicts is extremely different than selling it on the open market for the purpose of making a profit, which is what would happen with full legalization. Alcohol is nowhere near as destructive as heroin or meth. I assumed this was common sense. Just look at the addiction rate and the effects of the substances. And yes, drug dealers do profit off of the weakness of others. There are tons of people that only continue to buy the drugs because they are addicted. I'm not talking weed dealers but dealers of hard drugs. If that is not what they are doing, could you please enlighten me? Are they doing it for charity? Last time I checked they are in it for the money which they make by selling destructive substances.
It would still accomplish letting addicts have an easier, cheaper way to fullfil their addiction. Even if it was, so what? The exact thing can be said for alchohol and tobacco. Whether it's illegal or not. Someone providing a service, no matter what the product or service is, warrants a profit. I thought this was common sense?
Footnote: Alcohol linked to 75,000 U.S. deaths a year - Addictions- msnbc.com More Drug Overdose Deaths From Prescription Pain Killers Than Cocaine Or Heroin In The US (OK, how far "over"?-goes looking for better stats...)
If someone robs you that's against the law. What does this have to do with the legalization of drugs? I think this has been addressed numerous times in the thread, but I'll reiterate. Yes, use may increase in the short-term, but I believe that over time use will decrease due to the influx of education on these new, legal drugs. As for your initial two statements, they aren't related to the legalization of drugs. Meth addicts are going to exist whether it's legal or not and everyone is not going to turn to meth if it's legal. I think willisvillis had a poll earlier in the thread that illustrates this. Just because you don't know where they're widely available doesn't mean they aren't. Who would want to advertise for meth and heroin? Which corporations? Do you really think that you'd be seeing commercials for meth on TV? What kind of network would have an advertisement for meth? Advertising meth/heroin definitely wouldn't look good on a legitimate business.