Changing the World...

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



D-Wag
What are some ways we can change the world to this day or near future? It can be anything...from something as simple as recycling, or something as advance and sophisticated as redesigning the way we live completely.

Anything applies as long as its realistic. Think about the positives mostly though.

Bardock42
Legalize drugs

RE: Blaxican
He said "positives", Bardock. 313

I'd legalize prostitution in all the states. 131

dadudemon
Legalize drugs and prostitution. Get rid of the infrastructure used to enforce laws against those two categories and repurpose a small portion of those saved funds for regulation of them both.

Require that 99% of all energy comes from renewable, clean, sources by 2025. **** the fallout that would ensure: humans will get over it.

Lord Shadow Z
Better punishment for criminals. Make people think twice before breaking the law and ruining peoples lives.

Make politicians legally accountable for what they say in their political campaigns (unrealistic I know).

inimalist
de-comodify basic nutritional needs and use technology to essentially eliminate the overhead in doing so (self-sufficent, automated, skyscraper farms). Change the market from the enforced artifical scarcity into one of effectively distributed surpluss

also, drugs and hookers

ADarksideJedi
It is hard to think of the positives stuff I would like to make abortions againist the law and for people to get good jobs and for the smoke laws to not exist anymore.

inimalist
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
for people to get good jobs

commie

D-Wag
Originally posted by inimalist
de-comodify basic nutritional needs and use technology to essentially eliminate the overhead in doing so (self-sufficent, automated, skyscraper farms). Change the market from the enforced artifical scarcity into one of effectively distributed surpluss

also, drugs and hookers


Skyscraper Farms are a great way to condense and safe space. It could also give land back to wildlife. We would need a heck of a lot of buildings though.

Now when you guys say the legalization of drugs what do you mean. All drugs in general, or just the not so harmful ones and non-addicting.

A little something, we could redesign the roads and vehicles so that no one would ever drive off course or crash again. Drunk driving accidents would but eliminated. There already cars kind of like that but not that advance and slow in the making. I mean if there are cars that can self parallel park then w.t.f...

inimalist
Originally posted by D-Wag
Skyscraper Farms are a great way to condense and safe space. It could also give land back to wildlife. We would need a heck of a lot of buildings though.

so? it's not nearly as much of an investment as changing all the roads in a nation would be, and it essentially eliminates hunger, rather than being a band-aide for drunk driving.

Originally posted by D-Wag
Now when you guys say the legalization of drugs what do you mean. All drugs in general, or just the not so harmful ones and non-addicting.

all

Originally posted by D-Wag
A little something, we could redesign the roads and vehicles so that no one would ever drive off course or crash again. Drunk driving accidents would but eliminated. There already cars kind of like that but not that advance and slow in the making. I mean if there are cars that can self parallel park then w.t.f...

I actually don't really see this as having a major impact in people's lives. it would make life convenient, but I hardly see it as world changing

D-Wag
Absolutely true, but that's why I said its a little something that could be changed. But that little something would open the eyes of the world and be like wow...people use to drive there cars from A to B without any safety precautions to eliminate death. Its like using a 1000 ton press that takes both hands to operate rather than pushing a single button and leaving room for error like it use too.

Something big and convenient would be mass international travel. Underground railroads that use magnets force to guide and move the "train." It would be frictionless and would not have wear an tear. Not only that, magnets moving along each other create energy, in which we could harness for other uses. Clean and efficient.

inimalist
Originally posted by D-Wag
Absolutely true, but that's why I said its a little something that could be changed. But that little something would open the eyes of the world and be like wow...people use to drive there cars from A to B without any safety precautions to eliminate death. Its like using a 1000 ton press that takes both hands to operate rather than pushing a single button and leaving room for error like it use too.

Something big and convenient would be mass international travel. Underground railroads that use magnets force to guide and move the "train." It would be frictionless and would not have wear an tear. Not only that, magnets moving along each other create energy, in which we could harness for other uses. Clean and efficient.

why do you think transportation is the most pressing issue that the world has to face? especially considering a huge portion of people (and the majority outside of the west) would have no way of affording it?

EDIT: for instance, improving public tranportation, using already existing technology, would cost far less and have an exponentially greater effect on people's lives.

Bardock42
Originally posted by inimalist

all

RE: Blaxican
I don't agree with legalizing all drugs. I don't trust people to handle that kind of responsibility.

Bardock42
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't agree with legalizing all drugs. I don't trust people to handle that kind of responsibility.

Yeah, well, you good thing you are not in charge uhuh

inimalist
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't agree with legalizing all drugs. I don't trust people to handle that kind of responsibility.

the legal status has no effect on how many people use drugs, and if it does, studies would show that harsher enforcement leads to increased use.

there are no actual benefits to making them illegal. we could argue about over-the-counter access being a good idea, but there is no viable argument for prohibition that I am aware of.

that people can't handle them is rather moot. they will do them anyways, and the burden of fighting a losing war on drugs is tremendous.

RE: Blaxican
Do you think that if all drugs were legalized and unregulated, use of drugs that were formerly illegal would increase?

Bardock42
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Do you think that if all drugs were legalized and unregulated, use of drugs that were formerly illegal would increase?

I don't think so actually, but that's just a hunch, not based on anything I know as fact.

Robtard
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Do you think that if all drugs were legalized and unregulated, use of drugs that were formerly illegal would increase?

Obviously yes, the question is by how much? I personally don't think it would be large; though the younger crowd would likely see the largest increase overall due to easier access of legal substances.

EG I've only smoked/ate marijuana, if heroine, cocaine and LSD became legal tomorrow I wouldn't go out and try them, just cos I could legally now.

As inimilist implied, people who want drugs already get them, people who don't won't, legal or no.

inimalist
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Do you think that if all drugs were legalized and unregulated, use of drugs that were formerly illegal would increase?

I can't say no, but I suspect they wouldn't

the first reason is access. if you are 16, it is easier to get coke than it is to get booze, you just need to know the person to ask, if you want it.

the second reason is the "forbidden fruit" aspect. Ive had several people tell me it is the illegal part of drugs they like (like, when I was 16/17), and the only person I've met who abstains because of the law is ddm.

you might see some differences in use, but imho, you would see the greatest decline in use by teens. 1) with a legal market, the black market dies, so kids now don't deal with unscrupulous dealers, but a store where they will have their ID checked and 2) it isn't "cool" to get high anymore, as in, you aren't some badass because you break a law (I think a lot of people use drugs for the first time for this reason, and thus, less kids would try them, as opposed to people stopping once they become legal).

Its going to depend on the drug of course. I don't see people lining up to buy heroin, but pot is already ubiquitous in culture, so use of it might rise, but I don't think it would be to any significant degree.

EDIT: to rant a bit more, there were studies done on the use of pot during the 70s(?, might have been 60s) in the states that showed lower numbers of people using pot for the first time in states that had the most lenient laws on pot, and ones that consistently show the use of pot is considerably less by Dutch people than other European nations, the US or Canada (who leads the first world in use smile). Basically, and I don't find these studies conclusive to say prohibition causes use, but the trend seems to be that the less you police drugs, the less people do them.

D-Wag
Originally posted by inimalist
why do you think transportation is the most pressing issue that the world has to face? especially considering a huge portion of people (and the majority outside of the west) would have no way of affording it?

EDIT: for instance, improving public tranportation, using already existing technology, would cost far less and have an exponentially greater effect on people's lives.

If the price of oil raises...the price of food raises if I am correct. So either way it would affect the cost of people in their lives.

inimalist
Originally posted by D-Wag
If the price of oil raises...the price of food raises if I am correct. So either way it would affect the cost of people in their lives.

why not focus on local things that don't require intercontenental rail lines?

Like, I'm with you as far as mass transit is concerned, but most people really don't go over seas. An argument for tram, light rail or monorail systems in small communities to reduce oil use during daily commutes would be infinitely more effective than these international ideas. Most people don't work or travel far enough from home to make such a cumbersome system worthwhile. Sure, it might cut down on some polution, but how much of a problem, when compared to infrastructure and industry use, do you think gas consumption by planes is?

D-Wag
This is true. People tend to stick close in most cases depending upon where they were raised. There is plenty more to talk about, that's why I started this thread. I'm not trying to write a book about every little thing right now, but rather just trying to have a talk and share ideas on whatever comes to mind.

Now airlines are a huge waste of gas consumption. Right now that consumption is cheaper then building intercontinental rail lines or even local rail lines and even new roads, etc. In the other hand though, we know its not going to be like that forever. So why continue to use a system that will eventually fail?

The machines that are ran to produce and harvest our food source is all done using fossil fuels. Well eventually were going to have to turn to the use of another energy to wield our machines into action. Energy as of right now is the main reason we are what we are today. With out the discovery of oil we would have never reached the growth and population we have today as I'm sure you know.

inimalist
Originally posted by D-Wag
Now airlines are a huge waste of gas consumption. Right now that consumption is cheaper then building intercontinental rail lines or even local rail lines and even new roads, etc.

ok, so all info is from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Current_consumption

broken down by sector, we see transportation takes up 28% of total consumption of oil. Air travel takes up 12% of this, or 3.36% total.

space heating in residential homes is 6.72% of total. Basically, you would be TWICE as effective by attempting to change the way people use their own electricity for heat than you would by changing air travel.

Broken down by supply/demand, we see over 40% of all oil consumption goes to electricity.

EDIT: i will leave this up for all to see, my post is entirely BS, I totally just realized it... please ignore this energy break down, I messed it up, and really don't want to do the math necessary to fix it... look, everyone can see how terrible my basic reading skills are

Originally posted by D-Wag
In the other hand though, we know its not going to be like that forever. So why continue to use a system that will eventually fail?

1) the technologies you are talking about are in their infant stages, are inefficent and are clearly going to become much more affordable and effective in 10-20 years. Even if we suppose that the rail system you propose is a) possible and b) practical, there is no reason to do it now, rather invest into technology research for 15 years, and then use the mature and more effective technology to replace air travel

2) I can't imagine rail travel being anywhere near as effective as air travel. ware and tare of the tracks being the biggest obstacle I see. the most likely, and probably most desireable future, is one where air travel has been made green. (I am also just going to a priori assume air travel is safer than rail...)

Originally posted by D-Wag
The machines that are ran to produce and harvest our food source is all done using fossil fuels. Well eventually were going to have to turn to the use of another energy to wield our machines into action.

you are thinking of the wrong machines though. Its not your car, its your computer, refrigerator, air-conditioning, lights... etc. While transportation, as a whole, does take up a significant amount of oil, it is not the majority or even the largest sector/demand.

Originally posted by D-Wag
Energy as of right now is the main reason we are what we are today. With out the discovery of oil we would have never reached the growth and population we have today as I'm sure you know.

counter-factual history

oil companies have been at least somewhat detrimental to the progress of human technology. There is no way to know what might have been if there were no oil companies to kill public transportation and electric cars (if we are only looking at transportation, of course. Oil companies are also pretty anti-any-green-solution).

D-Wag
Haha its all good math isn't my best criteria either. Ok so I understand that the technology I'm speaking of is just starting to get their feet off the ground. So does this mean all we can do is wait for it to slowly improve over time?

Are all efforts to change anything technology wise that we could use to benefit us at a complete stand still until we create efficient energy usage through these other ways?

A few good films I recommend watching. (Unless you already have)
Collapse -Michael Ruppert
Zeitgeist (Part 1)
Zeitgeist Addendum (Part 2)

inimalist
ugh

ya, I'm not going to be watching zeitgeist at any point in the near future, but thanks

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Robtard
people who want drugs already get them, people who don't won't, legal or no. I don't think allowing drug addicts open access to crack/heroine/meth etc. is a safe road. Personally I don't want to see a society that promotes the acceptance of highly addictive chemicals that fry brains and ruin lives.

RE: Blaxican
That's, kind of how I lean, as well.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't think allowing drug addicts open access to crack/heroine/meth etc. is a safe road. Personally I don't want to see a society that promotes the acceptance of highly addictive chemicals that fry brains and ruin lives.

The counter argument to this would be that while an outright ban symbolically frowns at drug use it causes a lot of other damage, not just in the direct form of making safety information hard to come by but also results in a dangerous black market. To me it is more important that the money people spend on drugs feeds cartels than it is that they might kill themselves.

A ban also results in sweeping problems under the rug rather than addressing the issues that cause it. That's the main reason I'm sort of de facto opposed to bans. Wouldn't it be better if we used tax money to find out why there is such a drug problem in this country and work toward fixing that?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The counter argument to this would be that while an outright ban symbolically frowns at drug use it causes a lot of other damage, not just in the direct form of making safety information hard to come by but also results in a dangerous black market. To me it is more important that the money people spend on drugs feeds cartels than it is that they might kill themselves.

A ban also results in sweeping problems under the rug rather than addressing the issues that cause it. That's the main reason I'm sort of de facto opposed to bans. Wouldn't it be better if we used tax money to find out why there is such a drug problem in this country and work toward fixing that?

That's good logic, to me.

There are some bans that should remain in place, though, and that usually involves abuses against children.

King Kandy
In general, base legislature on fact-based analysis alone. Trying to legislate based on tradition or moral values has caused way too many problems.

inimalist
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't think allowing drug addicts open access to crack/heroine/meth etc. is a safe road. Personally I don't want to see a society that promotes the acceptance of highly addictive chemicals that fry brains and ruin lives.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That's, kind of how I lean, as well.

that strategy has been tried, in various ways, since the begining of the 20th century

drugs are more widely available, cheeper, and of a higher quality

I guess the question becomes do you actually want to address the issues surrounding drugs, or do you just want to posture and look tough?

RE: Blaxican
What strategy?

Lord Lucien
Outlawing dangerous narcotics isn't going to make them disappear. Nothing will do that short of unconditional understanding and cooperation amongst the entire populace. It's like saying that outlawing murder hasn't made homicide disappear, so the alternative is to go the opposite road and legalize it. That makes no sense.


It doesn't need to black and white. Keeping such heavy drugs illegal will keep them inaccessible to many who want them, and to those too naive/young/stupid to know not to want them (they are many). And there's absolutely no reason why money and time can't also be put in to discovering and rooting out the underlying social causes of drug use (but again, that won't eliminate it entirely). All or nothing is the lazy route, but understanding that the problem won't go away simply by ignoring it/throwing money at is the shrewd route.

King Kandy
Anyone who really wants drugs can find them, even while illegal. There are always channels out there.

RE: Blaxican
Sure, that applies to just about everything. But there's a world of difference between "I'm going to stroll down to Walgreens/Starbucks/random drug store and buy some cocaine, then light up outside that daycare center across the street", and "I'm going to risk my job and my freedom and meet some shady guy outside his house, buy some cocaine, then run back to my house, dodging police officers along the way, and light up in my basement where no one can see me break the law."

The latter involves a lot of work, and a lot of risk, which is a deritive to a lot of people.

King Kandy
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Sure, that applies to just about everything. But there's a world of difference between "I'm going to stroll down to Walgreens/Starbucks/random drug store and buy some cocaine, then light up outside that daycare center across the street", and "I'm going to risk my job and my freedom and meet some shady guy outside his house, buy some cocaine, then run back to my house, dodging police officers along the way, and light up in my basement where no one can see me break the law."

The latter involves a lot of work, and a lot of risk, which is a deritive to a lot of people.
And it also costs the state a shit ton of money when they imprison him for it. Option one isn't sounding so bad, actually.

In the 1800s/1900s heroin/cocaine/everything else were legal, and there were a lot of abusers but I think the idea that legalization is going to turn the whole world into some drug den is dead wrong. We didn't see that then and we wouldn't see it now.

Lord Lucien
I've known a good few people whose brains would be mush by now if they could get their hands so easily on that stuff. There's a helluva difference between a junkie who begs their dealer for the next hit, and some dumbass 20-something who doesn't know when to say no at a house party. If that person then gets easy and legal access to to meth, supplied by hundreds of legal street/shop/online vendors, they're f*cked. If making drugs illegal prevents only a certain kind of person from ruining their life, then it's worth it. Where's the sense and the decency in opening up addictive and dangerous substances to the public for the sake of, judging from what I've read here so far, "convenience"?

D-Wag
Drugs have been used for hundreds of years. With the knowledge about drugs today education should be better equipped to teaching our young ones about these drugs. I agree with the legalization of some drugs, but not all of them.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I've known a good few people whose brains would be mush by now if they could get their hands so easily on that stuff. There's a helluva difference between a junkie who begs their dealer for the next hit, and some dumbass 20-something who doesn't know when to say no at a house party. If that person then gets easy and legal access to to meth, supplied by hundreds of legal street/shop/online vendors, they're f*cked. If making drugs illegal prevents only a certain kind of person from ruining their life, then it's worth it. Where's the sense and the decency in opening up addictive and dangerous substances to the public for the sake of, judging from what I've read here so far, "convenience"?
No, we are not going to break our prison's budget because you think it will help "a certain kind of person". If you can show that this is really going to lead to a significant number of people not using drugs, prove it. Because i've never seen statistics to show outlawing drugs does squat to reduce use. Right now I could dial a number and get a 1/8th bag of pot so easy and safely that it might as well not be banned at all. We are wasting so much damn resources busting people for that when it doesn't change a thing.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, we are not going to break our prison's budget because you think it will help "a certain kind of person". If you can show that this is really going to lead to a significant number of people not using drugs, prove it. Because i've never seen statistics to show outlawing drugs does squat to reduce use. Right now I could dial a number and get a 1/8th bag of pot so easy and safely that it might as well not be banned at all. We are wasting so much damn resources busting people for that when it doesn't change a thing. I'm not talking about pot. Legalizing marijuana would be a progressive move. It's the alcohol of the smoke-world, and it can be regulated and taxed. It's also not in the same field of addiction like crack or crystal meth.

It's those ones (and heroine, LSD etc) that should remain illegal.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'm not talking about pot. Legalizing marijuana would be a progressive move. It's the alcohol of the smoke-world, and it can be regulated and taxed. It's also not in the same field of addiction like crack or crystal meth.

It's those ones (and heroine, LSD etc) that should remain illegal.
That's funny because LSD is even less addictive and harmful than marijuana. I'd like to hear if you have any good reasons for banning it.

I don't use hard drugs, but i'm confident that I could get them with only somewhat more difficulty than the pot. Mushrooms are even easier. They grow wild, and if I was willing to risk it, I could just go pick some.

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by King Kandy
And it also costs the state a shit ton of money when they imprison him for it. Option one isn't sounding so bad, actually.
It also costs a shit ton of money to pay for drug addiction rehabilitation programs and funerals for people who overdose. It also costs a lot of money to imprison people who can't afford the drugs that they're addicted to and as a result turn to criminal acts to get them. It also costs a shit ton of money to mail checks and food stamps to people because they're so high all the time thy can't hold a job. I can go on, and on, and on. mmm

There is also more to it than monetary incentives. The money really isn't even an issue. America wastes so much money on other things that if we stopped wasting them on those things, and doubled the amount we spend on the war on drugs, we wouldn't even notice it.



I think the idea that legalizing all drugs is going to save us billions of dollars and there will be no negative backlash and everyone will use them responsibly is naive. no expression

Darth Jello
What we can do to make change (and quickly): General strike tied in a with a large, organized military desertion. As in the biggest one we can possibly organize. You do like banksters, corporations, and corrupt billionaires running the world? Slam on the breaks and watch what happens when they fly through the ****ing windshield. If you put a stop to as many financial transactions as possible for as long as possible while maintaining essential services for people who need them, you hold the most powerful class of people in the history of the world helpless and hostage. Then you start dictating terms.

Now how about long term change? Easiest thing to save the planet and make people more comfortable is to weatherize every home and install high-tech restrictors (low-flow, high pressure) on all sinks and showerheads and change out every toilet to a self-cleaning, high pressure stealth model. Then you xeriscape every lawn and put additional fuse on every circuit. Right there you cut global energy and water usage by over half and extend the life of every single electronic appliance, not to mention prevent every single carbon monoxide and asbestosis/mesotheleoma death.

The energy problem is simple. As long as we keep the big oil on a leash we can have nanophotovoltaics painted onto every wall and building and woven into every shirt, sweater, and jacket, not to mention painted on and in every car within 15 years. You power every electronic device with sunlight, ambient infrared heat, and ultraviolet rays. You could listen to your ipod and power it simultaneously with your own body heat.

Jobs? How about going back to the formula that worked. America's military is completely ****ed because all of our "strategic industries" have been shipped overseas and we are completely unprepared for an attack. That's the argument. The method? Invest in your business domestically or have your income taxed at 90%. Outsourcing? Ok, that's fine too. That'll be an additional 70% tax on every dollar. Make all your money via investment? 40% luxury tax. Cheat on your taxes? How does life and seizure of all assets sound? Corporate crime or election fraud or corruption? You get one trial, two appeals, then we line you up against a wall and shoot you until you're dead.
Here's an old gem from Teddy Roosevelt. We enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. If your business controls over 55% of a market it's seized, broken up, and auctioned off. Or how about going back to dividing investment and savings banks and nationalizing all the savings banks?
Illegal immigration a problem? How about unionizing the workers and fining offending businesses massive fines with a three strikes, you're out policy? On the third strike, the union is incorporated and takes full ownership of the business and all its assets.

Nuclear threats? How about developing a satellite-mounted EM pulse based defense that would render any launched ICBM inoperable? After all, even a slight deviation in the detonation timing screws up the implosion necessary to create a controlled reaction.

There ya go, a few problems solved.

King Kandy
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
It also costs a shit ton of money to pay for drug addiction rehabilitation programs and funerals for people who overdose. It also costs a lot of money to imprison people who can't afford the drugs that they're addicted to and as a result turn to criminal acts to get them. It also costs a shit ton of money to mail checks and food stamps to people because they're so high all the time thy can't hold a job. I can go on, and on, and on. mmm
Those are all problems that exist NOW. So how the hell does banning them fix these problems? I see no evidence of that at all.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I think the idea that legalizing all drugs is going to save us billions of dollars and there will be no negative backlash and everyone will use them responsibly is naive. no expression
Did I say there would be absolutely no problems? No. There would probably be loads. And it would still be better than what we're currently doing.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by King Kandy
That's funny because LSD is even less addictive and harmful than marijuana. I'd like to hear if you have any good reasons for banning it. The psychological/physiological effects. I've seen the phrase "unable to recognize reality" a few times in description of LSD-induced psychosis, as well as hallucinations, depression, lack of communicative abilities. Last time I checked, alcohol and marijuana don't do that.

I don't why you consider those symptoms to be "good" or "harmless".

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by King Kandy
Those are all problems that exist NOW. So how the hell does banning them fix these problems? I see no evidence of that at all.

You want me to prove that if all drugs were banned the world would be a better place? Or do you want me to prove a negative, that the world would not be a better place if all drugs were legalized? Both of those requests don't make any sense.



I disagree. Derp.

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by Lord Lucien


I don't why you consider those symptoms to be "good" or "harmless".

I think it has to do with the fact that he doesn't really know a whole lot about drugs. From what I know he's mostly just smoked pot.

Of course, that begs the question, why would you argue for the legalization and unregulated use of all drugs if you haven't personally used or experienced the culture involved in 99% of them?

King Kandy
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
LSD-induced psychosis,
Oh? I haven't seen that in the literature.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
as well as hallucinations,
That's because that's what it does. Next up on list of news flashes: "marijuana makes people feel good".

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
depression,
Oh? I haven't seen that in the literature.

lOriginally posted by Lord Lucien
ack of communicative abilities.
Yes, its probably hard to communicate while you're tripping the **** out. But if you meant on the long term, then

Oh? I haven't seen that in the literature.

Bottom line: studies or gtfo.

King Kandy
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You want me to prove that if all drugs were banned the world would be a better place? Or do you want me to prove a negative, that the world would not be a better place if all drugs were legalized? Both of those requests don't make any sense.
If you're arguing we should spend money imprisoning people, I would think you'd have actual evidence this would provide a benefit.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I think it has to do with the fact that he doesn't really know a whole lot about drugs. From what I know he's mostly just smoked pot.

Of course, that begs the question, why would you argue for the legalization and unregulated use of all drugs if you haven't personally used or experienced the culture involved in 99% of them? *gasp* Blax! For shame.


I'll admit to having never tried most of this stuff either, but that doesn't mean I suddenly think that if we all try really really hard, we can create a society of utterly responsible drug users.

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by King Kandy
If you're arguing we should spend money imprisoning people, I would think you'd have actual evidence this would provide a benefit. I don't drink alcohol and then drive to Disneyland because I know that if I was pulled over I would lose my job and possibly end up in butt raping prison. No family will die in a car accident caused by me driving under the influence of a substance.

An undeniable example of our awesome legal system at work, benefit right there. GG.

But that aside, you totally jumped the gun here and knee jerked in typical ultra liberal drug user fashion. 313 I never said that people should be imprisoned for doing drugs. I said that I don't think all drugs should be legalized. Something can be illegal, and still not net you jail time if you're caught doing it. Do you go to prison for parking your car in a red zone?

inimalist
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
*gasp* Blax! For shame.


I'll admit to having never tried most of this stuff either, but that doesn't mean I suddenly think that if we all try really really hard, we can create a society of utterly responsible drug users.

so, you really take "drug legalization" to be akin to handing out needles to school children don't you?

you don't see how the government controlling, say, heroin, may make it 7000 times easier to deal with heroin addiction, prevent people from getting into it, and get addicts in to see doctors?

Like, I know for sure I'm not arguing for "the heroin store", but shit dude, look at the Swiss example. You legalize and set up doctors to administer it.

creativity wink zowwie!

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh? I haven't seen that in the literature.I have. I think it was in East of Eden, or Hamlet, or something.


Originally posted by King Kandy
That's because that's what it does. Next up on list of news flashes: "marijuana makes people feel good".I think I once heard a crackhead say he does crack because it makes him feel awesome! Obviously that makes it harmless. roll eyes (sarcastic)


Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh? I haven't seen that in the literature.I may have seen that fact quoted in the script for a Lucy episode.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes, its probably hard to communicate while you're tripping the **** out. But if you meant on the long term, then Translation: tripping balls=good for your health/life/society at large. Yay!

Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh? I haven't seen that in the literature. Translation: "LSD has absolutely no harmful side effects, and thus should be legal."

Originally posted by King Kandy
Bottom line: studies or gtfo. Bottom line: Grow up.

inimalist
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Translation: "LSD has absolutely no harmful side effects, and thus should be legal."

have you provided any evidence of serious negative consequences?

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by inimalist
have you provided any evidence of serious negative consequences? I knew a guy who was tripping out to some LSD and he fell down a flight of stairs and broke his neck.

"Altering your brain so that your senses are ****ed up" is a negative side affect if it results in you falling down a flight of stairs and breaking your neck. Sure, it's a positive side affect if you stay on your couch the whole time and find religion, but that negative side effect is still absolutely potentially viable.

Anything that alters your state of mind is a potential health risk to you or other people. Hardly a reason to make everything illegal, sure, but you can't act as if it's not a potential risk. Not saying you were, more throwing that out there then anything else.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by inimalist
so, you really take "drug legalization" to be akin to handing out needles to school children don't you?Nope.

Originally posted by inimalist
you don't see how the government controlling, say, heroin, may make it 7000 times easier to deal with heroin addiction, prevent people from getting into it, and get addicts in to see doctors? If the government controlled it, it would awesome, no doubt about it. But believing that just because the government controls it and regulates its own price (silly capitalism!) will magically make every pusher, hustler, dealer, and underground manufacturer disappear, is nothing short of naivety. Like you said, people who want and nowhere to get it will. And everybody responds to the market.

Originally posted by inimalist
Like, I know for sure I'm not arguing for "the heroin store", but shit dude, look at the Swiss example. You legalize and set up doctors to administer it.

creativity wink zowwie! Those silly Swiss said no to marijuana though. Can't trust those shifty neutrals or their wacky experiments.

But seriously, that's good. If they can set up an effective method of control and regulation, with zero tolerance for illegal product, we may have an example to work with. One down, cocaine, crack, meth, LSD, etc. to go.

Originally posted by inimalist
have you provided any evidence of serious negative consequences? Would you like me to conduct my own study, or do you just want me to quote websites and forum posters?

inimalist
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I knew a guy who was tripping out to some LSD and he fell down a flight of stairs and broke his neck.

"Altering your brain so that your senses are ****ed up" is a negative side affect if it results in you falling down a flight of stairs and breaking your neck. Sure, it's a positive side affect if you stay on your couch the whole time and find religion, but that negative side effect is still absolutely potentially viable.

Anything that alters your state of mind is a potential health risk to you or other people. Hardly a reason to make everything illegal, sure, but you can't act as if it's not a potential risk. Not saying you were, more throwing that out there then anything else.

ok....

there are people who have eaten morning glory seeds and chopped their balls off with garden sheers

there are people who have asphyxiated themselves with a belt trying to get high

etc

there are risks associated with everything, but, since the point of prohibition was to lower the use of drugs, and there is no evidence for that happening, and there is a mountain of evidence that prohibition actually undermines many of its own goals, maybe it isn't the way forward. Any system that puts distribution in the hands of criminals is not going to work.

Obviously things like coke and heroin wont be available over the counter, unless in really specific circumstances, if for no other reason than the product would be stolen constantly, but saying "you can't have it" really hasn't had any positive consequences, and certainly not the ones it was originally designed for.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by inimalist
ok....

there are people who have eaten morning glory seeds and chopped their balls off with garden sheers

there are people who have asphyxiated themselves with a belt trying to get high

etc

there are risks associated with everything, but, since the point of prohibition was to lower the use of drugs, and there is no evidence for that happening, and there is a mountain of evidence that prohibition actually undermines many of its own goals, maybe it isn't the way forward. Any system that puts distribution in the hands of criminals is not going to work.

Obviously things like coke and heroin wont be available over the counter, unless in really specific circumstances, if for no other reason than the product would be stolen constantly, but saying "you can't have it" really hasn't had any positive consequences, and certainly not the ones it was originally designed for. So is the solution to say "You can have it"?

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by inimalist
ok....

there are people who have eaten morning glory seeds and chopped their balls off with garden sheers

there are people who have asphyxiated themselves with a belt trying to get high

etc

there are risks associated with everything, but, since the point of prohibition was to lower the use of drugs, and there is no evidence for that happening, and there is a mountain of evidence that prohibition actually undermines many of its own goals, maybe it isn't the way forward. Any system that puts distribution in the hands of criminals is not going to work.

Obviously things like coke and heroin wont be available over the counter, unless in really specific circumstances, if for no other reason than the product would be stolen constantly, but saying "you can't have it" really hasn't had any positive consequences, and certainly not the ones it was originally designed for. How many proven cases have there been where abuse of an addictive substance has gone down, by a wide margin, as a direct result of the substance being legalized and more accessible to the public?

inimalist
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But seriously, that's good. If they can set up an effective method of control and regulation, with zero tolerance for illegal product, we may have an example to work with. One down, cocaine, crack, meth, LSD, etc. to go.

that is sort of my point though. We need a new approach to the issue, and frankly, I think whatever we do, prohibition plays no part in it.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Would you like me to conduct my own study, or do you just want me to quote websites and forum posters?

i'd take a wiki if you have it

pub med is good too

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So is the solution to say "You can have it?"

actually, no, that isn't it either

you are missing my point. We don't have any power to control this. Whether we say yes or no, people are going to do it, the same people, legal or not.

its about dealing with that reality, rather than trying to make reality how we wish it were. nobody likes crackheads

RE: Blaxican
Your point is that drug use should be legalized and heavily regulated. I don't think anyone is missing that.

inimalist
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
How many proven cases have there been where abuse of a substance has gone down, by a wide margin, as a direct result of the substance being legalized and more accessible to the public?

I've heard it said that alcohol use dropped after prohibition in some states, /shrug

but my point from the beginning has been that the legal status of drugs has little if anything to do with use rates, so in my hypothesis here, we wouldn't be predicting that rates would drop, rather that the negative consequences that are associated with that use are mitigated if not eliminated entirely.

inimalist
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Your point is that drug use should be legalized and heavily regulated. I don't think anyone is missing that.

lol, geez, to quote Churchill:

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by inimalist
but my point from the beginning has been that the legal status of drugs has little if anything to do with use rates, so in my hypothesis here, we wouldn't be predicting that rates would drop, rather that the negative consequences that are associated with that use are mitigated if not eliminated entirely.

What do you consider to be a negative consequence?

edit- By the way, I see this leading to the real root of the dicussion. Let's see if your answer takes it in that direcrion or not. shifty

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by inimalist
that is sort of my point though. We need a new approach to the issue, and frankly, I think whatever we do, prohibition plays no part in it.I'll agree with this only when we have a solution that will work. The cynical bastard in me says that won't happen.



Originally posted by inimalist
i'd take a wiki if you have it

pub med is good tooI could Google "effects of X drug" for you, I guess. I'm not savvy enough to hunt down personal tales.



Originally posted by inimalist
actually, no, that isn't it either

you are missing my point. We don't have any power to control this. Whether we say yes or no, people are going to do it, the same people, legal or not.

its about dealing with that reality, rather than trying to make reality how we wish it were. nobody likes crackheads Thank you, this is what I wanted to here. Butting our heads harder and harder with what we can't solve won't get us anywhere. Similarly, I don't think declaring every narcotic to be on open season will do any good either. Again, until we find that happy middle ground (I for one doubt it), I prefer keeping that shit illegal, hang the tax dollars.

I prefer cops to be raiding drug dens rather than have them enforce anti-spanking.

inimalist
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What do you consider to be a negative consequence?

thats the million dollar question

since it is impossible to stop irresponsible people from doing irresponsible things, the negative consequences would be things like crackheads and junkies robbing people, the unattractiveness of seeing people on the streets, the spread of aids, funding of criminal organizations, etc.

look, I'm not saying that it would make the world a utopia, nor do I really think it is something that is of pressing importance (though I think it could have very positive consequences were it attempted in a rational manner).

The real problems I see with ending prohibition come from international affairs. If only one nation were to do it, they would become the hub or international drug crime (to some degree at least), and there would be serious diplomatic and maybe trade issues.

That drugs might hurt people is moot to me. in fact, that line of argument, imho, if extended to its conclusion, would argue against cigarettes, alcohol, caffeene, etc. Appealing to the potential of something to harm people doesn't really fly with me, the line of where we accept risk is so arbitrary.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't think allowing drug addicts open access to crack/heroine/meth etc. is a safe road. Personally I don't want to see a society that promotes the acceptance of highly addictive chemicals that fry brains and ruin lives. Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That's, kind of how I lean, as well.

To be fair, no one is talking about promoting it.

RE: Blaxican
Wow. Illegal to spank kids?

-sighs-

One good thing about the world. We can sit here and bitterly discuss drug use, but all of the animosity between debaters will go away when we unanimously face palm at the blatant stupidity of ideas such as "make spankings completely illegal".

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Bardock42
To be fair, no one is talking about promoting it. Not officially no. But the unspoken, unintended implications are there, nonetheless.

inimalist
i think it should be completely illegal to hit your kids....

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Wow. Illegal to spank kids?

-sighs-

One good thing about the world. We can sit here and bitterly discuss drug use, but all of the animosity between debaters will go away when we unanimously face palm at the blatant stupidity of ideas such as "make spankings completely illegal". The article says a Swedish couple were sentenced to 9 months for it.


facepalm

EDIT: ""It is not the responsibility of government to act as a parent. Responsible parents know the difference between spanking as discipline and abuse,” Mrozek said. "Research does not show that spanking, done appropriately, harms children."

Hey look, research!

inimalist
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The article says a Swedish couple were sentenced to 9 months for it.


facepalm

oh, ya, that is kinda facepalm

the state shouldn't be promoting it though!

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by inimalist
oh, ya, that is kinda facepalm

the state shouldn't be promoting it though! Not officially, no. Shouldn't be condemning it either. What was it Trudeau said about the state and the bedroom? Same should be said for the state and child rearing.

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by inimalist
thats the million dollar question

'zactly. thumb up




That line of thinking is what makes rape illegal, too, as well as murder and virtually every other violent crime. Like you said it comes down to personal perspective. Personally, I think that when deciding what should and should not be legal, how harmful it can be should be taken into account.

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by inimalist
i think it should be completely illegal to hit your kids.... youre gay

inimalist
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Not officially, no. Shouldn't be condemning it either. What was it Trudeau said about the state and the bedroom? Same should be said for the state and child rearing.

up until what point?

also, I don't think we have to show that there is any long term damage from spanking for it to be a violation of the child's rights

I could punch you in the face. It probably wouldn't hurt, and you would almost certainly have no long term damage from it. Should I be allowed to administer this to you when I feel you have violated some rule I created?

Bardock42
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You want me to prove that if all drugs were banned the world would be a better place? Or do you want me to prove a negative, that the world would not be a better place if all drugs were legalized? Both of those requests don't make any sense.

Why in the world would you not be able to potentially prove that if you were potentially able to prove the opposite. Putting the word "not" in front of something does not make it immune to logic.

This nonsense "you can't prove a negative" as an excuse to not support ones claims annoys me, I wonder where it comes from, probably some fundamental misunderstanding ... or malice.

inimalist
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That line of thinking is what makes rape illegal, too, as well as murder and virtually every other violent crime. Like you said it comes down to personal perspective. Personally, I think that when deciding what should and should not be legal, how harmful it can be should be taken into account.

not entirely. violent crime has a victim

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why in the world would you not be able to potentially prove that if you were potentially able to prove the opposite. Putting the word "not" in front of something does not make it immune to logic.

This nonsense "you can't prove a negative" as an excuse to not support ones claims annoys me, I wonder where it comes from, probably some fundamental misunderstanding ... or malice.

I agree with you that the "cant prove a negative" shtick is nonsense. That wasn't why I was saying that it doesn't make sense.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by inimalist
up until what point?Up until you've caused serious pain and/or damage.

Originally posted by inimalist
also, I don't think we have to show that there is any long term damage from spanking for it to be a violation of the child's rights"Child's privileges" (subjectivity, yay!). Conversely, I do.

Originally posted by inimalist
I could punch you in the face. It probably wouldn't hurt, and you would almost certainly have no long term damage from it. Should I be allowed to administer this to you when I feel you have violated some rule I created? Nope, but the first defence shouldn't be "Police! Battery! Charter violation!" It should be reciprocated punch.

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by inimalist
not entirely. violent crime has a victim There is no victim in drug abuse?

Conspiracy to commit murder is also a crime, by the by.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
There is no victim in drug abuse? The victim's family and friends aren't themselves "victims", dummy. They're witnesses.

inimalist
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
There is no victim in drug abuse?

not in the same way

i dont feel the state has any obligation to protect you from your own idiocy

inimalist
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The victim's family and friends aren't themselves "victims", dummy. They're witnesses.

in what other case would these people be considered victims?

even in suicides, the tendency is to feel that the person is now at peace, not that they have victimized those around them

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by inimalist
not in the same way

i dont feel the state has any obligation to protect you from your own idiocy

What about others from your idiocy?

inimalist
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What about others from your idiocy?

sure, and it does that. If i rob someone, i get arrested, if I murder someone, i get arrested.

That I am doing it because I need a fix or because I don't like your shoes, doesn't matter

Bardock42
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Not officially no. But the unspoken, unintended implications are there, nonetheless.

No, there aren't. The implications are that "wars on drugs" cost money and lives and should therefore be avoided.

Drug education would be easier, too, as it could be illuminated in a more comprehensive light rather than "just say no" which obviously doesn't work at all.

No one is saying there should be unrestricted access and unrestricted usage. Much like tobacco and alcohol, perhaps consuming drugs in confined spaces or in public in general should be banned. Of course no one should be driving under the influence of drugs. Children should be restricted from getting them to a certain degree. And perhaps registration should be asked for, not unlike certain gun laws.

But on the whole you'd get better product, that can be actively tested, and people responsible for dangerous mixes can be held accountable, not unlike food is handled now.

Additionally prisons would be emptier and we'd have to spend less on law enforcement.

All in all, the thing is the way it is atm is shit. Would the same problems we have now be a bit worse if drugs would be legal maybe, probably not, there's no evidence to suggest it, if anything indications go in the opposite way, but even if, there is a multitude of benefits derived from it that it is well worth it.

And then there's the international consequences, it would easily weaken a lot of South American crime, and in turn help their economies.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by inimalist
in what other case would these people be considered victims?

even in suicides, the tendency is to feel that the person is now at peace, not that they have victimized those around them Really? I've never felt that or known anyone who has felt that. The suicides I've been privy to in my life have all focused around the emotional trauma the deceased's family and friends must now go through. Same with the junkies.

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by inimalist
sure, and it does that. If i rob someone, i get arrested, if I murder someone, i get arrested.

That I am doing it because I need a fix or because I don't like your shoes, doesn't matter Aye, but there's a victim there. If you kill someone because you're drunk, when normally you would have never done such, the alcohol is the catylist for you commiting the murder.

inimalist
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Really? I've never felt that or known anyone who has felt that. The suicides I've been privy to in my life have all focused around the emotional trauma the deceased's family and friends must now go through. Same with the junkies.

well, yes, exactly. are you saying this is the same type of victimization that comes from, say, rape or theft? what right is being violated?

inimalist
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Aye, but there's a victim there. If you kill someone because you're drunk, when normally you would have never done such, the alcohol is the catylist for you commiting the murder.

clearly alcohol should be illegal

RE: Blaxican
This is getting convoluted.

inimalist
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I think it should be.

oh, well, fair enough then

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, there aren't. The implications are that "wars on drugs" cost money and lives and should therefore be avoided.

Drug education would be easier, too, as it could be illuminated in a more comprehensive light rather than "just say no" which obviously doesn't work at all. Just like how MADD, anti-smoking campaigns, sexual education etc. have virtually eliminated drunk driving, smoking, STD and teenage pregnancies.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No one is saying there should be unrestricted access and unrestricted usage. Much like tobacco and alcohol, perhaps consuming drugs in confined spaces or in public in general should be banned. Of course no one should be driving under the influence of drugs. Children should be restricted from getting them to a certain degree. And perhaps registration should be asked for, not unlike certain gun laws. That sounds dangerously close to becoming a bureaucratic nightmare. Talk about saving money.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But on the whole you'd get better product, that can be actively tested, and people responsible for dangerous mixes can be held accountable, not unlike food is handled now. All true, every word. But this in no way destroys the existence of drug cartels. Same way that the long-time legalization of cigarettes has not stopped a multi-billion dollar underground industry of cheap cigarettes (much of it tied to Native reserves).

Originally posted by Bardock42
Additionally prisons would be emptier and we'd have to spend less on law enforcement.A welcome positive.

Originally posted by Bardock42
All in all, the thing is the way it is atm is shit. Would the same problems we have now be a bit worse if drugs would be legal maybe, probably not, there's no evidence to suggest it, if anything indications go in the opposite way, but even if, there is a multitude of benefits derived from it that it is well worth it. You say you hate the "(dis)prove a non-factor" gimmick. Well I hate the "We should do it because it's never been proven that it won't work" gimmick.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And then there's the international consequences, it would easily weaken a lot of South American crime, and in turn help their economies. Maybe, maybe not.


And I don't know about you, and maybe I've been living in a fantasy land, but... I've never before heard or read of crack, heroin, or meth (and co.) compared to tobacco or alcohol. It's like people hear the word "drugs" and immediately lump all the "main ones" in to a single category of effect, treatment, and legality. "It works for alcohol, it will work for crack cocaine too."

I honestly can't comprehend those people.

inimalist
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And I don't know about you, and maybe I've been living in a fantasy land, but... I've never before heard or read of crack, heroin, or meth (and co.) compared to tobacco or alcohol. It's like people hear the word "drugs" and immediately lump all the "main ones" in to a single category of effect, treatment, and legality. "It works for alcohol, it will work for crack cocaine too."

I honestly can't comprehend those people.

you did the same thing with LSD

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by inimalist
well, yes, exactly. are you saying this is the same type of victimization that comes from, say, rape or theft? what right is being violated? None. But last I checked (Wikipedia), callous disregard for the feelings (shut up, it's not that wussiesh) of the victims isn't a good way to go about running society.


Neither is disregarding the financial turmoil, the rights of the children of junkies, or the collateral damage a drug fiend can cause. The movie Gone Baby Gone comes to mind.

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by inimalist
oh, well, fair enough then

That edit wasn't necessary, then. Oh well.

For the record, there is a difference between what I think should happen in a perfect world, and what I think should happen in the real world. Realistically, alcohol can't be outlawed for the reasons that you've stated several times here, and the same is true for most other popular drugs. I just don't think legalizing them and then regualting them will create change in the amount of positives vs. negatives.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by inimalist
you did the same thing with LSD Honestly I was just using that as an example. It was the one Kandy picked up on, so I went with it. From what I know, crack, heroine, and meth are more vicious, and I would pick them for criminalization before LSD.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Just like how MADD, anti-smoking campaigns, sexual education etc. have virtually eliminated drunk driving, smoking, STD and teenage pregnancies.

...are you supporting my side now? Exactly, forbidding someone from doing something fails to a large degree with people who want to do it...

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That sounds dangerously close to becoming a bureaucratic nightmare. Talk about saving money.

That's hardly close to being more bureaucratic than it is now, but the upside is that no one gets shot.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
All true, every word. But this in no way destroys the existence of drug cartels. Same way that the long-time legalization of cigarettes has not stopped a multi-billion dollar underground industry of cheap cigarettes (much of it tied to Native reserves).

It weakens them immensely, much like the end of prohibition marked the end of the glory years of the mafia, just that this time perhaps they wouldn't have something else to fall back. Crime won't go away, but it will diminish or turn legal as that becomes cheaper and easier.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
A welcome positive.

Indeed.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You say you hate the "(dis)prove a non-factor" gimmick. Well I hate the "We should do it because it's never been proven that it won't work" gimmick.

It's not a gimmick though. Like I said, indications in studies (like inimalist quoted) and previous experience (like prohibition and legalization in the Netherlands) suggest very much that there will be positive consequences. That there might be negative ones, is for the opposite to prove, since that's not happened, as the opposites' arguments are solely "my guts tell me", I think we should try it. Hey, lets compromise, lets start with Marijuana and LSD...maybe cocaine and see what happens, if we were right (as seems most likely judging from the evidence, atm) lets get the rest.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Maybe, maybe not.

Indeed, but since it is shit now, and there's all those other likely (scientifically likely) positive consequences, lets do it!

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And I don't know about you, and maybe I've been living in a fantasy land, but... I've never before heard or read of crack, heroin, or meth (and co.) compared to tobacco or alcohol. It's like people hear the word "drugs" and immediately lump all the "main ones" in to a single category of effect, treatment, and legality. "It works for alcohol, it will work for crack cocaine too."

I honestly can't comprehend those people.

Well, why wouldn't it, alcohol and tobacco are known to be more harmful and addictive than Marijuana and LSD...

Bardock42
On a different note, one thing Blax said I don't really am opposed to. He said he wants certain drugs to be illegal, but at most have a fine for it, that I guess would be an ok solution for harder drugs. It would not stop the problems with suppliers, but it would be better than nothing, and maybe Blax can sleep better at night then, and that's also worth something (although from my perspective not the billions of dollars and thousands of lives saved)

Originally posted by Lord Lucien

I prefer cops to be raiding drug dens rather than have them enforce anti-spanking.

I prefer cops to have time to enforce anti-spanking, cause drug dens are not an issue.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
In general, base legislature on fact-based analysis alone. Trying to legislate based on tradition or moral values has caused way too many problems.

Very good point. So many of the things I complain about would be solved if we did it this way.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It's like saying that outlawing murder hasn't made homicide disappear, so the alternative is to go the opposite road and legalize it. That makes no sense.

Non-sequitur fallacy.

One is always a crime against another person and one is almost always a crime against what a person does to themselves.


Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It doesn't need to black and white. Keeping such heavy drugs illegal will keep them inaccessible to many who want them, and to those too naive/young/stupid to know not to want them (they are many). And there's absolutely no reason why money and time can't also be put in to discovering and rooting out the underlying social causes of drug use (but again, that won't eliminate it entirely). All or nothing is the lazy route, but understanding that the problem won't go away simply by ignoring it/throwing money at is the shrewd route.

I'm of the opinion that drugs that are really bad for you, should remain illegal, but the only penalty for violation should ALWAYS be a fine. I do not know where this arbitrary line should be drawn because I think that line should be a factual line, not an arbitrary one. However, I do think that most drugs should be legalized. Here's a list off the top of my head:

MJ
Shrooms
Steroids
Salvia
Cocaine
Heroin

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/roe1.htm

"The widespread propaganda that illegal drugs are "deadly poisons" is a hoax. There is little or no medical evidence of long term ill effects from sustained, moderate consumption of uncontaminated marijuana, cocaine or heroin. If these substances - most of them have been consumed in large quantities for centuries - were responsible for any chronic, progressive or disabling diseases, they certainly would have shown up in clinical practice and/or on the autopsy table. But they simply have not!"

But, there are drugs that are very toxic, even with the first dose. Some of those would be oral steroids, some hallucenogens, and a bunch of others that I cannot think of at the moment.


But the question is: why can we tell people what they can and cannot do to their own bodies? DWIs would still apply to drug users as well as alcohol users, so why are there baseless positions against drugs? There are certianly no valid or scientific reasons to oppose them based on how we handle Alcohol, currently. If alcohol is legal, then just about every illegal drug should be legal, if we want to approach this medically.

Seems the laws are based on tradition and arbitrary morals instead of science. (It doesn't seem that way: that's how they are.)

Originally posted by King Kandy
Because i've never seen statistics to show outlawing drugs does squat to reduce use.

Correct. In fact, and this should piss anyone off, DRUG USE IS GETTING WORSE.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Bardock42
...are you supporting my side now? Exactly, forbidding someone from doing something fails to a large degree with people who want to do it...No I'm supporting the side that says that education alone doesn't equal abstinence. Abolishing drug laws based on the belief that we can "educate the world" to the the dangers they possess is silly.



Originally posted by Bardock42
That's hardly close to being more bureaucratic than it is now, but the upside is that no one gets shot.And that's wishful thinking.



Originally posted by Bardock42
It weakens them immensely, much like the end of prohibition marked the end of the glory years of the mafia, just that this time perhaps they wouldn't have something else to fall back. Crime won't go away, but it will diminish or turn legal as that becomes cheaper and easier. Again, wishful thinking. But I agree that they'll take a beating. But as inimalist pointed out, this would require nothing short of total global cooperation. One country (such as the States) legalizing drugs could become a hub for every syndicate and operation in the world.



Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not a gimmick though. Like I said, indications in studies (like inimalist quoted) and previous experience (like prohibition and legalization in the Netherlands) suggest very much that there will be positive consequences. That there might be negative ones, is for the opposite to prove, since that's not happened, as the opposites' arguments are solely "my guts tell me", I think we should try it. Hey, lets compromise, lets start with Marijuana and LSD...maybe cocaine and see what happens, if we were right (as seems most likely judging from the evidence, atm) lets get the rest.And that's where we differ. Marijuana, definitely. LSD, let's see how pot turned out (I'd still rather not, though). But the hard ones, the kind that can really f*ck a person up (and their family and friends) I will always say no to based on purely preferential reasons (cynicism, yay!)




Originally posted by Bardock42
Indeed, but since it is shit now, and there's all those other likely (scientifically likely) positive consequences, lets do it!Let's hope it works, cuz if it doesn't, we've just opened some serious floodgates!




Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, why wouldn't it, alcohol and tobacco are known to be more harmful and addictive than Marijuana and LSD... Exactly why I dislike the stance on marijuana. But marijuana =/=crystal meth/heroine.


Originally posted by Bardock42
I prefer cops to have time to enforce anti-spanking, cause drug dens are not an issue.Yeah, well you smell funny!

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm of the opinion that drugs that are really bad for you, should remain illegal, but the only penalty for violation should ALWAYS be a fine. I do not know where this arbitrary line should be drawn because I think that line should be a factual line, not an arbitrary one. I can agree with this. Just because you possess an illegal substance doesn't mean you should be rotting in a cell.

dadudemon
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Of course, that begs the question, why would you argue for the legalization and unregulated use of all drugs if you haven't personally used or experienced the culture involved in 99% of them?

"Of course, that begs the question, why would you argue for the continued criminalzation and regulation use of drugs if you haven't personally used or experienced the culture involved in 99% of them?"


Knowing that the culture would experience a nice shift from dark and seedy to regulated and public would automatically null you question (for them ost part); however, the contents of the "reverse" question I posed are still valid.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I can agree with this. Just because you possess an illegal substance doesn't mean you should be rotting in a cell.

Sounds logical to me. So I think you have at least one avenue of compromise with those that are you debating this topic on. Surely this would be a suitable concession: make some drugs that are proven to be as harmful or less harmful than alcohol, legal; keep the others illegal, but remove all legal crap associated with the remaining illegal drugs and only impose fines for drug use, nothing else.

I like that solution.



That system could be the "hold me over" system until we have "Matrix"-like technology that completely nulls the idea of drugs.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by dadudemon
Sounds logical to me. So I think you have at least one avenue of compromise with those that are you debating this topic on. Surely this would be a suitable concession: make some drugs that are proven to be as harmful or less harmful than alchohol, legel; keep the others illegal, but remove all legel crap associated with the remaining illegal drugs and only impose fines for drug use, nothing else.

I like that solution. Bingo.

Shall we write our congressmen/MPs?



Originally posted by dadudemon
That system could be the "hold me over" system until we have "Matrix"-like technology that makes Duracells out of people. Fixed.

dadudemon
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Do you go to prison for parking your car in a red zone?

Yes: if done enough times, you could serve some time in county jail.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Bingo.

Shall we write our congressmen/MPs?



Fixed.

Sure.

And, lol, well played sir. You win this round.

Lord Lucien
*tips hat*

Bardock42
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No I'm supporting the side that says that education alone doesn't equal abstinence. Abolishing drug laws based on the belief that we can "educate the world" to the the dangers they possess is silly.

Agreed. No one is saying that. And your examples are of illegal or "forbidden" things that don't work with education...there's no reason to think education would work less, if that wasn't the case.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And that's wishful thinking.

How? What exactly would have to be done more if the government did what I said? Honestly, it seems like less bureaucracy.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Again, wishful thinking. But I agree that they'll take a beating. But as inimalist pointed out, this would require nothing short of total global cooperation. One country (such as the States) legalizing drugs could become a hub for every syndicate and operation in the world.

Not quite, in fact the states having it outlawed is at the root of the problems that many international countries have, as they are obliged to follow the US' demands

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And that's where we differ. Marijuana, definitely. LSD, let's see how pot turned out (I'd still rather not, though). But the hard ones, the kind that can really f*ck a person up (and their family and friends) I will always say no to based on purely preferential reasons (cynicism, yay!)

That's the great thing about my system...you can say no and don't have to take them, and others still have the choice. Really though if you really believed that you'd also want to outlaw alcohol.


Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Let's hope it works, cuz if it doesn't, we've just opened some serious floodgates!

Not really. Even the worst case scenario is pretty mild, and like I said, unlikely based on previous experience.



Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Exactly why I dislike the stance on marijuana. But marijuana =/=crystal meth/heroine.

Yeah, Marijuana is the mildest thing out there. Alcohol and tobacco though ooh-wee!

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yeah, well you smell funny!

I'm going cold turkey off my heroin and crack addiction, it's probably sweat, urine and feces.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Bardock42
How? What exactly would have to be done more if the government did what I said? Honestly, it seems like less bureaucracy.
No, the uh, "less people getting shot" thing is wishful thinking. I just... can't, for the life of me, see a quantifiable impact in that field being made either way.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Not quite, in fact the states having it outlawed is at the root of the problems that many international countries have, as they are obliged to follow the US' demandsAnd if they all followed the States into what would become a global effort to stem the use of heavy-weight drugs, then thumb up

But unfortunately the States play things by... state, so before we start dreaming for the world(!), we'd need to tackle the effort of convincing every state in the Union to sign up. I hear that's harder than it sounds.



Originally posted by Bardock42
That's the great thing about my system...you can say no and don't have to take them, and others still have the choice. Really though if you really believed that you'd also want to outlaw alcohol. Taken to the extreme, my line of thought can be twisted in to prohibition of literally any substance that causes a chemical reaction. Which is nonsense.

Crack/heroine/crystal meth (I'm getting sick of typing those--they're CHM from now on) are substantially more dangerous/addictive than alcohol and tobacco. If somehow humans could develop a biological tolerance for CHM, then casual indulgence would be fine. As we haven't (not en masse, at least), I say ban 'em.




Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. Even the worst case scenario is pretty mild, and like I said, unlikely based on previous experience.I really can't see how opening up the international market for illegal chems, and having the whole plan explode in our face, is going to result in a "mild" worst case scenario.




Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm going cold turkey off my heroin and crack addiction, it's probably sweat, urine and feces. Do I detect a hint of lavender?

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
I could punch you in the face. It probably wouldn't hurt, and you would almost certainly have no long term damage from it. Should I be allowed to administer this to you when I feel you have violated some rule I created?

That's not very logical: one is a child and the other is an adult (or close to it.) Rules such as, "Do not walk into the street." "Share your toys." "Speak respectfully to others." Are definitely great rules to setup for your children. However, settting up those same rules for non-children around you would be socially awkard and silly.

I feel that your point could be better made with another example.

However, I think spanking can be used, sparingly. It should never ever be done in anger. Additionally, it should be used only if it is effective (tying back to the last point.)

"Similarly, after reviewing 38 studies of spanking, Robert Larzelere, a psychologist at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, concluded that in children under 7, nonabusive spanking reduced misbehavior without harmful effects. Not only does spanking work, Larzelere says, but it also reinforces milder forms of discipline, so that children are more apt to respond without spanking the next time.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191825-2,00.html"


Really, though, the children just need to be disciplined. Controlled, unabusive spanking is fine and it works wonders with some children. Time-out is good for others, as well. A parent has to be educated and in control about disciplining their children. Consistnantly yelling at your children, IMO, is almost as bad as physically abusing your children.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No, the uh, "less people getting shot" thing is wishful thinking. I just... can't, for the life of me, see a quantifiable impact in that field being made either way.


Are you kidding me? Drug related gang violence would pretty much vanish.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And if they all followed the States into what would become a global effort to stem the use of heavy-weight drugs, then thumb up

But unfortunately the States play things by... state, so before we start dreaming for the world(!), we'd need to tackle the effort of convincing every state in the Union to sign up. I hear that's harder than it sounds.


Oh sure, it's hard, but if you are already convinced we are one person closer now. Say, you convince two people it should happen and I convince another two and those do the same, we'll be through in no time. It's a pyramid scheme to change the world. There should be a movie about it, Kevin Spacey and a current child star can star in it.


Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Taken to the extreme, my line of thought can be twisted in to prohibition of literally any substance that causes a chemical reaction. Which is nonsense.

Crack/heroine/crystal meth (I'm getting sick of typing those--they're CHM from now on) are substantially more dangerous/addictive than alcohol and tobacco. If somehow humans could develop a biological tolerance for CHM, then casual indulgence would be fine. As we haven't (not en masse, at least), I say ban 'em.


I'd agree, if there weren't those multiple other bad things that come from banning them.


Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I really can't see how opening up the international market for illegal chems, and having the whole plan explode in our face, is going to result in a "mild" worst case scenario.


What exactly do you think is the worst case scenario? How many more people do you think would like to use heroin if it was legal? How fast could it be made illegal again if it didn't work?

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you kidding me? Drug related gang violence would pretty much vanish. If the world took a zero tolerance stance against it. One... two countries? Nah. Take a hit, yes. But vanish? They won't go that easy.




Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh sure, it's hard, but if you are already convinced we are one person closer now. Say, you convince two people it should happen and I convince another two and those do the same, we'll be through in no time. It's a pyramid scheme to change the world. There should be a movie about it, Kevin Spacey and a current child star can star in it.But little will the audience realize that Kevin Spacey is also controlling all the people who inhibit it, because he's secretly in control of the world's largest drug cartel. I think there was a movie about that, with Kevin Pollack, and a Baldwin.




Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd agree, if there weren't those multiple other bad things that come from banning them.The bad things never end, eh?





Originally posted by Bardock42
What exactly do you think is the worst case scenario? How many more people do you think would like to use heroin if it was legal? How fast could it be made illegal again if it didn't work? Would like to? Probably very few. Would be able to? Everyone. And everyone whoever started a CHM made a conscious decision to do so. So those people exist (pimps 'n hos excepted). I don't want to make it easier for them or more tempting for everyone else, because I believe it is fully within the realm of human stupidity to do so. And given that this venture would take... years, probably, before a conclusive decision can be made, that'd be years of temptation and opportunities for every dumbass and/or teenager to get their retarded little mitts on a whiff of sweet sweet addiction.

ADarksideJedi
Originally posted by inimalist
commie

What does that mean? cool

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not very logical: one is a child and the other is an adult (or close to it.) Rules such as, "Do not walk into the street." "Share your toys." "Speak respectfully to others." Are definitely great rules to setup for your children. However, settting up those same rules for non-children around you would be socially awkard and silly.

I feel that your point could be better made with another example.

However, I think spanking can be used, sparingly. It should never ever be done in anger. Additionally, it should be used only if it is effective (tying back to the last point.)

you missed the point of my argument

the fact is, children, even those unborn, have rights. Do they have the exact same rights you or I might have? probably not, for instance, Chomsky uses the example of physically stopping a child running into the street as a justified use of authority, circumventing what might be the child's right of mobility, whereas this would be "assault" if I physically prevented you from walking into the street.

hitting a child because they have broken one of your arbitrarily created rules, at an age where breaking rules is an expected and normal behaviour does not have that similar justification. Similarily, I can't punch you, because there is no justification for it. I would be violating your rights in the same way you would be violating the rights of the child

the authority and power a parent exerts over a child needs to be justified in the same way any authoritarian relationship does.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"Similarly, after reviewing 38 studies of spanking, Robert Larzelere, a psychologist at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, concluded that in children under 7, nonabusive spanking reduced misbehavior without harmful effects. Not only does spanking work, Larzelere says, but it also reinforces milder forms of discipline, so that children are more apt to respond without spanking the next time.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191825-2,00.html"


Really, though, the children just need to be disciplined. Controlled, unabusive spanking is fine and it works wonders with some children. Time-out is good for others, as well. A parent has to be educated and in control about disciplining their children. Consistnantly yelling at your children, IMO, is almost as bad as physically abusing your children.

its efficacy is moot. would you support torture if it was found to work?

the fact is, hitting a child is not only a clear violation of their rights, it shows an obvious lack of creativity on the part of the parent. You say it might help reinforce other methods, but the fact is, those methods can be effective without spanking, but again, efficacy doesn't remove the fact that you are violating a child's right with no sufficent justification.

inimalist
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
What does that mean? cool

wink

if you support jobs for all, you are falling right in line with Marx

actually, it was more of a joke, I'm pretty sure you aren't a communist, but in this single issue, conservatives and communists seem to have similar ideas (at least, conservatives since the economic collapse, when they essentially co-opted radical leftist criticisms of corporations)

inimalist
Originally posted by Bardock42
at most have a fine for it.

so, not that I am totally opposed to the idea, but to me, it has always been hillarious to hear the government talk in this way.

It is, literally, the talk of organized crime. "you want to sell and use that stuff on our turf, we get a piece of the action."

the mafia always gets its cut, so to speak

oh ya, tripple post FTW

Nephthys
Originally posted by D-Wag
What are some ways we can change the world to this day or near future?

I will merge with the Helios AI and rule the world benevolently and logically. For it is the dawning of a new day.

borg

D-Wag
Lets not get off topic now. Drugs are just something you physically induce into your body...that isn't going to change anything going on in the world. Your either going to do it or your not...that simple.

inimalist
Originally posted by D-Wag
Lets not get off topic now. Drugs are just something you physically induce into your body...that isn't going to change anything going on in the world. Your either going to do it or your not...that simple.

yes, that is true, but the effects come from where and who provides and profits from these drugs. Currently, the only people who profit are international criminal organizations (mexican cartels, taliban, eastern european cartels, Nigerian importers... etc), the prison industry, draconian police organizations (I forget the number, but there are many innocent people killed each year in raids on drug houses where it turned out the police had the wrong address, further, agencies for the longest time were funded based on the number of arrests they made, meaning poor black people got arrested for possession rather than trying to bust dealers) and politicians who need a scape goat. oh, and I forgot Oliver North... I hate that man soooooooooooooooooo much. He is cartoonishly evil.

There are problems in inner cities with gangs, the racialization of the drug war, fammine in nations where people grow drugs as a "cash crop" instead of food, and the list goes on.

I suppose there is an argument that these things wont go away (I assume one can still buy black market liquor), but legalizing things even as simple as marijuana would have a huge impact on society, in some of the hardest to reach and most ignored places.

or, you know, we could let criminal organizations continue to profit from a multi billion dollar industry.

Pot makes up 5% of the GDP of British Columbia wink

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by inimalist
it shows an obvious lack of creativity on the part of the parent. A most dangerous deficiency.

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes: if done enough times, you could serve some time in county jail.



Also, to some people's perception of reality, the sky is blue.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
you missed the point of my argument

No I did not miss your point. However, you did miss my point.

No I did not miss your point. However, you did miss my point.

You implied that the rights and obligations of a parent are the same for their child as they are for a random stranger. This is why I called the comparison "socially akward and silly."

The parent has a moral, legal-and for some theists-a spiritual obligation to discipline their children. One of those humane, effective, and mostly legal methods is spanking.

The socially awkward and silly comparison comes in when you equated the rights and social situation of punching a "misbehaving" adult in the face with spanking a misbehaving child.

In other words:

Rights !=
Moral Obligations !=
Social Obligations !=


Originally posted by inimalist
the fact is, children, even those unborn, have rights. Do they have the exact same rights you or I might have? probably not, for instance, Chomsky uses the example of physically stopping a child running into the street as a justified use of authority, circumventing what might be the child's right of mobility, whereas this would be "assault" if I physically prevented you from walking into the street.

Indeed.

But take it one step further: an very effective method for preventing your child from running into the street again is a spanking. In fact, my "parental" observation has lead me to believe that this is the most effective method for anything less than absurd interrogation/brainwashing of the child in a dark room like you'd see on the show 24. Data shows that doing this 2-3 times nets a behavioral turn-around. Contrast this with other common parental control methods:

Time-out
Yelling
Verbal Abuse
Privilege deprivation
Bribery


Time-out would be difficult to enforce in any sort of immediate fashion, losing it's efficacy for younger children (the longer you wait to enforce the consequence, the harder it is for the child to understand and correct their actions, especially if they are young). The yelling option, IMO, is one of the worst discipline options a parent can do in any situation: it shows a loss of control or lack of ability as a parent. Verbal abuse, which I see quite commonly used by parents to obtain compliance, is a really bad option: the worst one there. Privilege deprivation also falls into the category of "time-sensitive" failure: not very effective for younger children. Bribery can be effective but can be difficult to use with negative behaviors: it can serve as a reminder such as a three-strike rule (three strikes and the ice-cream store trip gets cancelled or something similar.) This one is effective for some children and it represents, not immediately, but real consequences. I do not think this method is appropriate for some actions such as a child endangering his or her life.

Spanking seems like the best choice in that situation because it is immediate. However, just spanking alone is not sufficient: the child MUST understand what the spanking is for or else it is just like an alpha-male snapping at a younger male in a wild-dog pack, IMO.

Originally posted by inimalist
hitting a child because they have broken one of your arbitrarily created rules, at an age where breaking rules is an expected and normal behaviour does not have that similar justification. Similarily, I can't punch you, because there is no justification for it. I would be violating your rights in the same way you would be violating the rights of the child

Incorrect: spanking my child is legal. You punching me in the face is not legal. Not disciplining my children is illegal (and can result in them being taken away, depending on the circumstances). Not disciplining poor behavior of an adult is not illegal.

Additionally, disciplining your children BECAUSE misbehavior is a common occurrence for young children, is exactly the reason you should do it. This can include spanking your child.

Originally posted by inimalist
the authority and power a parent exerts over a child needs to be justified in the same way any authoritarian relationship does.

I agree: a parent should discipline their child and that should include spanking if it works for that child.*


Originally posted by inimalist
its efficacy is moot.

Incorrect: that's exactly what this is about. If it were not effective, I would not want it illegal. Keep in mind that when I refer to spanking, I refer to swatting a child on the bottom with your open hand which ALWAYS accompanies an explanation* (before or after, doesn't matter). Other types of spanking I consider a bit too harsh such as with a belt, some paddles, no explanation, and so forth.

Originally posted by inimalist
would you support torture if it was found to work?

Privilege deprivation is a form of torture. So is time out. Torture is in the eye of the beholder. You definitely support torture if you think that privilege deprivation and things such as time-out are one of the few methods of discipline.

Unless you're referring to the Geneva Convention defined torture. In which case I would argue that that is a very faulty comparison because torture causes psychological damage, especially to young children. Obviously, it WOULD work, but cause other problems. This is why those tortures are illegal and spanking your child is not.

Originally posted by inimalist
the fact is, hitting a child is not only a clear violation of their rights,

Let's make this clear:

You actually mean to say: " hitting a child is not only a clear violation of what I believe should be heir rights."

Because it is NOT a violation of their rights (from where I come from.)

Originally posted by inimalist
it shows an obvious lack of creativity on the part of the parent.

That's a very difficult point to back up considering the other options also require little creativity. Placing a child in time out, against their will, seems to be less creative than spanking your child and explaining the object lesson.

I would prefer that both methods contain an explanation and reason. However, a child that is literally spazing out because they do not want to go to their room can hurt themselves as they flail about. Have you ever tried to place a freaked out child into time out? Both you and the child can get hurt: it's not a good idea. Privilege deprivation? That often makes the situation worse. It also depends on the child.

Additionally, you should not be getting creative when you discipline a younger child: confusing the child will cause the object lesson to be lost on the child.

Originally posted by inimalist
You say it might help reinforce other methods, but the fact is, those methods can be effective without spanking, but again, efficacy doesn't remove the fact that you are violating a child's right with no sufficent justification.

I can also say that other methods reinforce the spanking. I can also say that spanking with explanations is it's own method. I can also say that certain situations call for a spanking and other situations call for alternative methods. I can also say that spanking can be effective without those other methods.

Again, it is not a violation of that child's rights. The justification is creating a socially acceptable child and teaching your children what society deems as right and wrong behaviors. That's a REALLY big justification and is quite sufficient...because...that's...like...the reason for disciplining your children to begin with.



*If spanking your child does not result in a positive behavioral change, then spanking (which includes an explanation) is not what should be used. This also applies, in the same way, to time-outs and privilege deprivations: discontinue that mode of discipline and try something else if it is not working. Most of all, don't forget to consult a child-psychologist and/or reading materials.

Mindship
Originally posted by inimalist
i think it should be completely illegal to hit your kids.... You're not a parent, are ya?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Time-out
Yelling
Verbal Abuse
Privilege deprivation
Bribery
Just some observations...

-- Time-out: can be astoundingly effective, depending on the child/situation.
-- Yelling / verbal abuse: I agree with your summation...though there is the 'Rubinfeld Effect'.
-- Privilege deprivation: again, depends on the child/situation, but generally not one of the better methods. Kids can be very 'adaptive'.
-- Bribery: counterproductive long-term; teaches the wrong reason for doing the right thing, ie, there's no internalization.
-- Spanking: can also be very effective, but IMO should be a last resort, done with as minimal force/frequency as possible.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's make this clear:

You actually mean to say: " hitting a child is not only a clear violation of what I believe should be heir rights."

Because it is NOT a violation of their rights (from where I come from.)

And thus we have reached the core flaw of all rights based systems of ethics.

siriuswriter
One of the main problems is overpopulation, which leads to over-agriculture... There's this book that everyone should read on this subject.

"Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. It was written in the 70's, so is a lot about the problems then, but everything sort of applies.

En Sabah Nur X
The key to change is a fundamental symbol, a mere idea, an infinity of meaning within a single line of text, learn of inception and you need not make sense to bring about untold order.

citations: alice in wonderland, plato, zeno, leonardo dicaprio, romeo and juliet, crest of the stars, there's an infinity of citations and some prefer citations even to the comments themselves

The red queen dilemma progress in a static world, ultimate change within the sea of information, where thought itself is warfare of the final kind, and a single bit can decide the outcome of a battle.

Critic comments: recommended works shiki,braid, nausicaa

infinite relevance without rewarrd is rewarding in an of itself

Ones mistakes may be used by others to learn the meaning s of the rules, and the rules of meaning. See Noam Chomsky, literal and abstract interpretation seem valid

En Sabah Nur X
Question (s)of the week doe s the internet hat e noobs? Is there ultimate noobism? And in this day and age can a rookie still beat an expert without experience?

Moon walking may yet again be mastered and take the world for a spin.

Bardock42
What the **** are you talking about?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Mindship
You're not a parent, are ya?

Just some observations...

-- Time-out: can be astoundingly effective, depending on the child/situation.
-- Yelling / verbal abuse: I agree with your summation...though there is the 'Rubinfeld Effect'.
-- Privilege deprivation: again, depends on the child/situation, but generally not one of the better methods. Kids can be very 'adaptive'.
-- Bribery: counterproductive long-term; teaches the wrong reason for doing the right thing, ie, there's no internalization.
-- Spanking: can also be very effective, but IMO should be a last resort, done with as minimal force/frequency as possible.

I agree, pretty much, with your assessments.

Time-out is usually what I use for all discipline.

Privilege deprivation works very well only if the child was/is aware of the loss of those privileges before you take them away. I think you have to give a warning first so they are aware of why they lost that privilege. However, many parents are just mean-spirited and illogical about this particular form of discipline...just the same as they are with spanking.

I think spanking should be used rarely and usually as a last resort. I don't remember the last time I spanked any of my children.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And thus we have reached the core flaw of all rights based systems of ethics.

While I agree that the lack of rights or the posession of "bad" rights can be a flaw, what inimalist was doing was passing off non-existant rights as rights.

I feel it is my right and obligation to discipline my children which can and should include spanking. He doesn't believe I should have that right. That's really what our discussion was about.


The next time I see someone's kid in the supermarket throwing a fit by screaming and lashing like a rabid animal at the last stages of their life, I will wonder why the parent does not resolve the problem with a spanking and an explanation for the spanking (as a spanking, in my observation, is the absolute best form of discipline for that particular form of behavior...for most chidlren.)

Symmetric Chaos
How about beating a kid with an extension cord?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How about beating a kid with an extension cord?

I addressed that, already.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How about beating a kid with an extension cord?

It's alright if the extension cord is no more than 4 feet and it is a single.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
While I agree that the lack of rights or the posession of "bad" rights can be a flaw, what inimalist was doing was passing off non-existant rights as rights.

no I'm not. You child has the right not to be hit. Nothing you postedd addressed that, you simply rambled about your rights, never talking about the child

Originally posted by dadudemon
I feel it is my right and obligation to discipline my children which can and should include spanking. He doesn't believe I should have that right. That's really what our discussion was about.

well, your consitution doesn't give "parent's rights" afaik, but does say you can't hit people.

All I've said is that there is no justification for hitting a child as a form of behavioural modification. Whether or not you think it is your "right" to be able to.

Lucius
My parents had a three foot long paint stirring stick painted blue and inscribed with the bible verse about sparing the rod and spoiling the child.

I remember running out of the house, trying to escape my mom while she chased me with it.

I think it might have worked since I was so scared of the thing I recall acting more behaved then I might have been.

Not that I experienced anything different, so I wouldn't know.

ADarksideJedi
My parents also had a paddle with something written on it and two children boy and girl bending over.I manger to hid it and as far as I remember they never found it.But I have nothing against parents spanking there kids.
It seem to work alot better then being sent to your room or sitting in a corner.Now adays kids are alot worst and I blame the parents for not being there for them and not spankign them when they were younger.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
no I'm not. You child has the right not to be hit. Nothing you postedd addressed that, you simply rambled about your rights, never talking about the child


Yes you are and here's why:

My children still have the right not to be abused. I still have the right properly discipline them which includes spanking.

This was clearly explained in my post in much more "wind-baggish" terms.



Originally posted by inimalist
well, your consitution doesn't give "parent's rights" afaik, but does say you can't hit people.

Incorrect: my constitution does not say that I can't hit people. (Generally, that's a misdemeanor unless you can prove that they were trying to kill, had the potential to kill, or caused permanent physical damage(loss of limb, mobility, etc)). In fact, it implies that I can slaughter the utter living shit out of my government if I feel they've become tyrannically oppressive. (Provision of he second amendment for the militias.)

If I do not cause physical damage to the children (if you want to get pedantic, just touching the child causes "damage", which would rule placing your children in timeout, as out of the question. But let's not get pedantic.), then it does not qualify as physical abuse (domestic abuse). If the discipline, however, causes psychological damage, that is a form of abuse. This includes-what I have seen parents who refuse to spank their children-putting your child in the closet, locked, without any light causing phobias such as clausterphobia, achluophobia, vestiphobia, cleisiophobia, isolophobia, etc. That's considered domestic abuse and can be criminal, depending on the state. Again, that's not from the constitution.

Originally posted by inimalist
All I've said is that there is no justification for hitting a child as a form of behavioural modification. Whether or not you think it is your "right" to be able to.

I provided that justification from a reputable source in addition to my own justifications. You can ignore those parts if you wish and I will not mind: we can move on and I won't press the issue further.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.