Dwalin2010 Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 (edited) Heroin being 'disallowed' didn't prevent that tragedy from happening so what good did its illegality exactly do in that case? I'm all for the legalization of drugs but the government should have a 100% monopoly of the business. If we put it that way, it did no good, but then you can the same about a successfully carried out premeditated murder as well. Murder being illegal hasn't prevented the individual from killing another individual, but nobody says we should legalize murder. Also another thing about a potential legalization of the "heaviest" and deadliest drugs: if they are legalized, there will probably be an initial massive buying "boom", and the consequent enormous growing number of addictions and therefore, of lethal overdoses. Some time later, the situation will probably become more stabilized, but will it be really worth it, considering the quantity of dead bodies left during the "initial wave"? Edited December 4, 2016 by Dwalin2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 I would be more worried about crystal meth than heroin. Hey rezzy what do you think of social Darwinism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Heroin being 'disallowed' didn't prevent that tragedy from happening so what good did its illegality exactly do in that case? I'm all for the legalization of drugs but the government should have a 100% monopoly of the business. I would just have private enterprise produce the drugs and have the government have a sin tax on it. If we put it that way, it did no good, but then you can the same about a successfully carried out premeditated murder as well. Murder being illegal hasn't prevented the individual from killing another individual, but nobody says we should legalize murder. Also another thing about a potential legalization of the "heaviest" and deadliest drugs: if they are legalized, there will probably be an initial massive buying "boom", and the consequent enormous growing number of addictions and therefore, of lethal overdoses. Some time later, the situation will probably become more stabilized, but will it be really worth it, considering the quantity of dead bodies left during the "initial wave"? Portugal hasn't seen a long term increase in drug deaths after they pretty much made everything legal, or at least as legal as jaywalking. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-hardly-anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/?utm_term=.e53492a6446b Murder is illegal because it does harm to another. Even if there was 0% prevention in murder laws, it would still be illegal, because it violates another citizen's right to life. Using drugs by itself only harms the user. If they commit other crimes, that should be punished according to that law. Mi sincere condolences for all the deaths and I hope your cousin gets better... But especially considering these tragedies, it's even harder for me to understand that your are saying that even heroin should be allowed. Life is more important that freedom imo, because the word "freedom" can be used as a very extensive concept. Theoretically, somebody could say that complete anarchy and chaos is freedom too, even more, it's the epitome of complete freedom if we interpret it literally. I think the concept of resposibility is more important that those kinds of freedom that are based on temporary impulsve decisions. On the other hand, you have mentioned depression; I don't know what was the case exactly, I don't want to invade anybody's privacy, but cases involving depression or worse are completely different: if people are depressed and tired of life, and in some other cases even take drugs and drink themselves to death on purpose, because they actually WANT to die, or at least the REALIZE they will die and still continue with this because they don't care, not being able to bear with the hard life, depression, tragedies etc, this is completely different in my view. I don't "condemn" such people in any way and feel genuinely sorry for them. I myself suffer from depression (not to this point yet, but still) and can imagine how it can hurt. What I was talking about in the previous post, weren't cases like these, but cases when people become heroin addicts for fun or for being curious without realizing what they are doing, later they would be happy to get off the drug themselves, but it's too late in the advanced stages of addiction. It's not just about "morality" because if we talk about that, somebody will surely start to derail the discussion about the non-existance of such thing or about it being different from person to person. I am talking about the concept of "responsibility" and respect for the feelings of family members and friends first of all. But again. it's very important to me that you understand that I draw a clear line between people who sink into alcohol and drugs or kill themselves because of depression, hardships of life, or psychological problems, I don't know etc, and it's a competely different thing when somebody does it just for fun or curiosity or to "make a point" that they want to spend their money on whatever they like, just because they think this will show their alleged "independence". But in reality, what's worse, being dependent on strict parents (for example) or being dependent on heroin? Strict parents at least don't kill you quickly.... I don't think the government should dictate what adults are able to do with their own bodies. Drugs should still be illegal for those under 18, but once you are an adult in the eyes of the law, you need to take responsibility for your own life decisions. And for the depression, yes both me and my family history have depression, but that's for another topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augestein Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 I can agree on the war on drugs needing to be less of a thing, I'm of the opinion that people would feel less inclined to try it if it was less "out there an wild." I've never drugs, and I've seen how self-destructive it can be from people in my family as well. In the end, these lousy decisions are ours and ours alone to make, not the government's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 (edited) Even heroin? I understand about "light" things like marijuana etc, but heroin is deadly, lethal; just because people inject it into themselves without being physically forced by the dealers, it doesn't mean they actually want to die. They might be simply naive, overconfident, in some cases stupid, they might think "I will try what it feels like just to have more knowledge", whatever, but once they understand it's time to get off, it's too late, they can't and die. I know a person who is a former heroin addict and managed to get off it (as far as I know, these are are exceptions, people can get off cocaine, maybe ecstasy, I am not really sure, but heroin is one of the deadliest and quickest to kill). Is there even one person in the world who, after going through the state of nearly dying from heroin, but managing to get off and saving themselves and is still thinking it was worth it and willing to try again? Last but not least, I think the feelings of the relatives and friends who don't want to see their dear ones die of drugs, they should also be considered and respected. I once said this on another forum and was simply told "it's not their choice to make" or "it's not their business", something like that. If people dismiss the concern of their family members, where will the world be going? Apart from the fact they are wasting great sums of money on heroin, stealing from the family too.... i mean, alcohol is a curse. i found the effects of lsd (1-1.5 tabs) to be more manageable than being drunk/really drunk on alcohol. i am not sure if that's typical though. i guess this will be one of those times where i open up, but anyways my mom was a crystal meth addict and my dad alcohol (and he unfortunately od'd on heroin around 12 years ago). these drugs being illegal didn't stop them. it won't stop most potential users. drug use of things that aren't weed or alcohol are pretty low, anyway. but the point is, these drugs being criminalized just makes it worse: there's no regulation for safety, users are criminals and don't get the help they need, drug lords have huge profits, jails fill up, etc etc. it is time we move past our failure that is known as the war on drugs. it only furthers the hurt on people. Yellowstone is what I'm talking about. No man-made pollution or climate change can equal out to the amount of ozone this single volcano can spew. It usually erupts every 600,000 years, but the last eruption was 675,000 years ago, so that means Earth is 75,000 years overdue. As for research, Wind Turbines are actually fairly fragile, solar panels require too many rare earth metals to build (as of right now, subject to change), and only a few places are able to harness geothermal without considerable difficulty and/or risk, not to mention hydroelectric power tends to permanently disrupt ecosystems. Nuclear seems great on paper, but there's really no good way to store the waste, and I personally don't feel it's worth the risk there either. I heard a town in Australia is using a Tesla coil, but the overhaul needed to use them worldwide would reach into the trillions of dollars, meaning no money would be saved short term. In short, energy is a crapshoot. it doesn't spew ozone. what are you talking about? volcanoes spew mostly water, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. you, yet again, display your ignorance. i would not be surprised if the last time you "read up" on this was several years ago. assuming you're aware coal, gas, peat, and natural gas are harmful to the environment, they're all additionally: expensive to find, expensive to mine, and dangerous to local ecosystems as well. you're inconsistent. if the argument is that these things aren't worth it for x, y, z reasons, then what makes the above better when they have w, x, y, and z reasons to not use them??? your understanding of nuclear power waste management is poor, your understanding of solar cells is poor, and your conclusions on this as a whole are poor. Edited December 4, 2016 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuvarkz Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Regarding drugs, to be honest I see the fight against them potentially being much more effective if the sentences on the consumers were reduced but those to the manifacturers and distributers made much worse. Ultimately, the consumer is a victim as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwalin2010 Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 (edited) i mean, alcohol is a curse. i found the effects of lsd (1-1.5 tabs) to be more manageable than being drunk/really drunk on alcohol. i am not sure if that's typical though. i guess this will be one of those times where i open up, but anyways my mom was a crystal meth addict and my dad alcohol (and he unfortunately od'd on heroin around 12 years ago). these drugs being illegal didn't stop them. it won't stop most potential users. drug use of things that aren't weed or alcohol are pretty low, anyway. but the point is, these drugs being criminalized just makes it worse: there's no regulation for safety, users are criminals and don't get the help they need, drug lords have huge profits, jails fill up, etc etc. it is time we move past our failure that is known as the war on drugs. it only furthers the hurt on people. I am really sorry about your mom and dad.... About the war on drugs, I agree it isn't having much success, and imo other approaches are needed, not just police arrests, but maybe different cultural education, making it in such a way that people start perceiving drugs as something they wouldn't even want to try, then helping the users to get off and not consider then criminals (unless they get completely "bonkers", like when in advanced stages of addiction, if an addict doesn't have enough money for a dose, they would steal or rob, even kill to get it, unfortunately, that's another reason I think "hard" drugs are dangerous). Something like that, I don't really know..... About alcohol: indeed it does more harm than "light" drugs like marijuana, so does smoking, yet both are, legal, it's ironic somehow. And, while making alcohol illegal didn't work and only made organized crime rich during the Prohibition years, even though it became legal again, today there isn't such a desperate national alcohol problem in the USA as there was in the pre-Prohibition years. If people were as relatively moderate in drinking back then, prohibition would likely never have been suggested to be introduced as a law. I mean, this shows that people can be stopped from mass drinking themselves to uncosciousness or death without resorting to law pressure, but with cultural education instead, imo it would be good if the same could be done with drugs (at least with "hard" ones). Portugal hasn't seen a long term increase in drug deaths after they pretty much made everything legal, or at least as legal as jaywalking. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-hardly-anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/?utm_term=.e53492a6446b Well, it says "Portugal decided to treat possession and use of small quantities of these drugs as a public health issue, not a criminal one. The drugs were still illegal, of course. But now getting caught with them meant a small fine and maybe a referral to a treatment program -- not jail time and a criminal record.". That makes sense, meaning that it helps the user treatment program; if they treated these people as criminals, it wouldn't certainly harm the big drug trade, it would be punishment for the sake of it. So it's not like they declared everything legal and buyable in whatever quantity people want, but separated the cases when it's obvious rehabilitation is a better solution. If a person is an addict who has not yet turned violent, it makes no sense putting him/her in jail. If it's a dealer, theoretically they could go to prison, but serious organized crime figures don't get caught with small doses in their pocket, they are smarter than that. So, if they try this another approach and if it has worked, it's good then. If they legalized the big capitals made by the top drug lords, almost all of whom are murderers too (not meaning overdoses, but contract killings) then THAT would be a bitter irony, but it's not like anyone is doing that yet. Edited December 5, 2016 by Dwalin2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Petitt Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 (edited) my stance on drugs is the same as guns, tanks, and anything else really, it is a product, don't limit it's sale (yes this included me being able to buy a tank to roll into DC for example, and remind congress who they are meant to serve, not that I would do it, just a hypothetical. besides I'm too fucking poor to be able to do that anyway.) Edited December 5, 2016 by Emperor Petitt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 my stance on drugs is the same as guns, tanks, and anything else really, it is a product, don't limit it's sale (yes this included me being able to buy a tank to roll into DC for example, and remind congress who they are meant to serve, not that I would do it, just a hypothetical. besides I'm too fucking poor to be able to do that anyway.) An armed march on the capital might be construed as treason. That would likely be a disservice to those who support the Second Amendment, as it would likely backfire and cause a crackdown on gun ownership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Petitt Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 An armed march on the capital might be construed as treason. That would likely be a disservice to those who support the Second Amendment, as it would likely backfire and cause a crackdown on gun ownership.I wasn't being literal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 I am really sorry about your mom and dad.... About the war on drugs, I agree it isn't having much success, and imo other approaches are needed, not just police arrests, but maybe different cultural education, making it in such a way that people start perceiving drugs as something they wouldn't even want to try, then helping the users to get off and not consider then criminals (unless they get completely "bonkers", like when in advanced stages of addiction, if an addict doesn't have enough money for a dose, they would steal or rob, even kill to get it, unfortunately, that's another reason I think "hard" drugs are dangerous). Something like that, I don't really know..... About alcohol: indeed it does more harm than "light" drugs like marijuana, so does smoking, yet both are, legal, it's ironic somehow. And, while making alcohol illegal didn't work and only made organized crime rich during the Prohibition years, even though it became legal again, today there isn't such a desperate national alcohol problem in the USA as there was in the pre-Prohibition years. If people were as relatively moderate in drinking back then, prohibition would likely never have been suggested to be introduced as a law. I mean, this shows that people can be stopped from mass drinking themselves to uncosciousness or death without resorting to law pressure, but with cultural education instead, imo it would be good if the same could be done with drugs (at least with "hard" ones). it's alright. at least i still got my momma. :) it's not really a bad thing to try drugs. it's about educating people on the dangers of doing them in excess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Well I agree with Tuvarkz for once. Drug dealers need to be cracked down upon, while addicts shouldn't be made afraid to seek help. As for smoking, I would, all things being equal, like smoking banned, but in practice I would like to see massive regulations on the tobacco industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Punishment for dealing drugs is already extremely harsh in the US. And even the europeans will generally give you several years of forced vacation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yojinbo Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 i mean, alcohol is a curse. i found the effects of lsd (1-1.5 tabs) to be more manageable than being drunk/really drunk on alcohol. i am not sure if that's typical though. Depends on how well you can handle alcohol and how you define 'manageable'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alertcircuit Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 With Biden hinting at a 2020 run, looks like Booker, Gilibrand, and Biden are positioning themselves to be the front-runners. I think Gilibrand will fall off quickly but I wonder how Biden would fare against Booker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 I doubt Biden will make a serious run. He'll be 78 in 4 years, and he was already pushing it this election cycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuvarkz Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 Punishment for dealing drugs is already extremely harsh in the US. And even the europeans will generally give you several years of forced vacation. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/crimes-punishable-death-penalty#BJS Unless this site is wrong, I see only two states having death penalty for it, and according to http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/drug-trafficking-distribution.html the sentence can go as low as 3 years. I do not find this 'extremely harsh' by any means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/crimes-punishable-death-penalty#BJS Unless this site is wrong, I see only two states having death penalty for it, and according to http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/drug-trafficking-distribution.html the sentence can go as low as 3 years. I do not find this 'extremely harsh' by any means. There's more to the law than the jail sentence. Drug distribution is a felony, which makes finding a job a LOT harder. Certain states don't let felons vote, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Light Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 Going back a ways to the electoral college discussion, what's everyone's take on implementing a third possible outcome for individual states where their electoral votes are split proportionately (or 50/50 if possible) if the winner's margin of victory is smaller than, say, 5% or so? Or even just a system where the electoral votes are always given proportionately to the distribution of voters in the state, while still retaining a system that somewhat magnifies the votes of less populous areas so they don't get completely drowned out and have their issues ignored? It's my understanding that some states already do this (or something akin to it), but I think it might be a good way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 I would just scrap the presidency, and remove the electoral college in the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time the Crestfallen Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 Going back a ways to the electoral college discussion, what's everyone's take on implementing a third possible outcome for individual states where their electoral votes are split proportionately (or 50/50 if possible) if the winner's margin of victory is smaller than, say, 5% or so? Or even just a system where the electoral votes are always given proportionately to the distribution of voters in the state, while still retaining a system that somewhat magnifies the votes of less populous areas so they don't get completely drowned out and have their issues ignored? It's my understanding that some states already do this (or something akin to it), but I think it might be a good way to go. That's probably the best solution for keeping the electoral college; gives smaller states a say while preventing huge numbers of votes from being worthless. I would just scrap the presidency, and remove the electoral college in the process. Fuck yeah, parliamentary system! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moblin Major General Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 I would just scrap the presidency, and remove the electoral college in the process. How about no? America would need to get out of its two party funk in order to do that, and believe me, that's not going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 How about no? America would need to get out of its two party funk in order to do that, and believe me, that's not going to happen. The British parliamentary system worked just fine with only two parties, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moblin Major General Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 The British parliamentary system worked just fine with only two parties, lol. There are more than Labor and Torries in both houses. There is only one politician who isn't from a main party(Joe Lieberman), and even he's long in the tooth for his job. Under a parliamentary system, the failings of the Federal government would be even worse than they are now, not to mention a parliamentary system isn't compatible with a Federal System, and given states' rights, that's a very big problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 Not really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.