Up until you've caused serious pain and/or damage.
"Child's privileges" (subjectivity, yay!). Conversely, I do.
Nope, but the first defence shouldn't be "Police! Battery! Charter violation!" It should be reciprocated punch.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Conspiracy to commit murder is also a crime, by the by.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
The victim's family and friends aren't themselves "victims", dummy. They're witnesses.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
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.
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.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
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.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Last edited by Tzeentch on Jan 7th, 2011 at 08:52 AM
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Last edited by Tzeentch on Jan 7th, 2011 at 08:58 AM
Just like how MADD, anti-smoking campaigns, sexual education etc. have virtually eliminated drunk driving, smoking, STD and teenage pregnancies.
That sounds dangerously close to becoming a bureaucratic nightmare. Talk about saving money.
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).
A welcome positive.
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.
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.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
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.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
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.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Last edited by Tzeentch on Jan 7th, 2011 at 09:08 AM
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.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
...are you supporting my side now? Exactly, forbidding someone from doing something fails to a large degree with people who want to do it...
That's hardly close to being more bureaucratic than it is now, but the upside is that no one gets shot.
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.
Indeed.
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.
Indeed, but since it is shit now, and there's all those other likely (scientifically likely) positive consequences, lets do it!
Well, why wouldn't it, alcohol and tobacco are known to be more harmful and addictive than Marijuana and LSD...
KMC Community Forums
Jan 7th, 2011 08:42 AM
