Originally posted by NemeBroWhy?
Pointing out that there are legal ways of getting yourself just as killed isn't a valid argument against Nephthys' assertion that drugs are illegal for a reason.
That you can get killed by getting in a car doesn't mean driving cars is just as illogical as driving cars and doing meth, because one can in fact do both, and the one who only does one dangerous (And arguably more beneficial at that) practice is not nearly so illogical as someone who does both. [/B]
Why do you think driving cars is more beneficial than smoking pot?
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Why?
Because it doesn't actually address "Why are these drugs illegal?". It's an attempt to sidestep the question entirely. I am aware that you're a coward who is afraid of conflict, but you mustn't run away Shinji.
Why do you think driving cars is more beneficial than smoking pot?
Because it provides a means to find, pick up, have sex with, and store the corpses of prostitutes.
Originally posted by NephthysNo they aren't. They're more dangerous because the chemicals you're inducing from alcohol and cigarettes harm your body more than the chemicals you induce from many other drugs. There are places in the World where pot is as legal as alcohol and tobacco, and yet the number of deaths from those drugs still dwarf the number of deaths from pot and many other illegal drugs.
[B]Cigarettes and Alcohol are mostly more dangerous precisely because they're not illegal and are so widely available.
It's functionally impossible to overdose on marijuana, for example.
The difference between cars and drugs is that cars aren't mind-altering and don't get you addicted to using them, leading to severe problems. If you have a problem with drugs it's because of the inherent negative effects they cause, if you get into a car crash it (usually) has nothing to do with the car but on your own poor judgement or unavoidable circumstance.Most drugs aren't any more chemically addictive than, say, eating food. So getting addicted to drugs isn't any less a matter of poor judgement than getting into a car accident is, in most cases.
Even if it was, so what?
I don't recall taking some sort of moral high ground. I loath drugs, end of story.So you admit that pointing out the legality of drugs is stupid and you're silly for bringing it up?
Originally posted by NemeBro"Why are these drugs illegal" isn't the topic of discussion. The assertion is that drugs are illegal because they're bad, which is an assertion that I've expertly destroyed!
[B]Because it doesn't actually address "Why are these drugs illegal?".
Because it provides a means to find, pick up, have sex with, and store the corpses of prostitutes.Drugs do this too though.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
"Why are these drugs illegal" isn't the topic of discussion. The assertion is that drugs are illegal because they're bad, which is an assertion that I've expertly destroyed!Drugs do this too though.
You haven't though. You have to tell us why drugs are illegal to do that you fat ****.
Prove it.
We should probably clarify whether we're specifically addressing the notion that people should be prevented from using stuff that is bad for them (to a good enough degree), or whether those things should be made illegal (which is far more complicated).
For example, it makes more sense to prevent a person from using heroin than alcohol, but you could argue that it makes more sense for heroin to be legal than alcohol.
My contention against banning narcotics isn't the health consequences, it's the prohibiting people from doing what they want with their own body. If doing heroin required the blood of children (those were the days), then that'd be something to consider outlawing.
But if someone wants to get f*cked up, then go ahead. Society-wise, I'm way more scared of the completely legal (and rightfully so) overeating so many of us engage in. Getting as fat as you want is A-OK, but don't you dare snort some blow.
Originally posted by Lord LucienAre you a psychopath? You would seriously kill a child just for heroin "those where the days", I knew you where a bad person I just can't believe your this bad.
My contention against banning narcotics isn't the health consequences, it's the prohibiting people from doing what they want with their own body. If doing heroin required the blood of children (those were the days), then that'd be something to consider outlawing.But if someone wants to get f*cked up, then go ahead. Society-wise, I'm way more scared of the completely legal (and rightfully so) overeating so many of us engage in. Getting as fat as you want is A-OK, but don't you dare snort some blow.
Maybe if using was always a victimless crime.
Plus, I'm a believer that people aren't always in a position to truly give consent to some things, and similarly often face overbearing outside influences when making such choices.
As for the legality of it, I believe the research indicates that banning drugs for the most part doesn't do all that much to reduce their consumption, next to the benefits of legalizing them, such as regulating them and guaranteeing purity of product, and freeing up resources that are being used on the war on drugs.
I think efforts would be better spent addressing the reasons why people abuse drugs in the first place, and to change attitudes regarding them. Excessive drinking (to dangerous levels) for example isn't seen as being that big a taboo among younger generations when it really should be.
I'm still of the opinion that drugs are okay, provided you're a relatively stable individual that isn't prone to addiction, and you use them responsibly (i.e. research dosages and interactions, do it in a safe environment, begin at minimal dosages when you first start and only increase them in small increments, make a concerted effort to assess the impact it's having on you etc.), and stay away from the likes of heroin and crack. Strong psychedelics carry more the risk of being a potentially horrifying experience, so you'd have to make sure you're in a great place to even consider taking them (doing it under the guidance of a shaman or something would probably be ideal).
Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
Maybe if using was always a victimless crime.Plus, I'm a believer that people aren't always in a position to truly give consent to some things, and similarly often face overbearing outside influences when making such choices.
As for the legality of it, I believe the research indicates that banning drugs for the most part doesn't do all that much to reduce their consumption, next to the benefits of legalizing them, such as regulating them and guaranteeing purity of product, and freeing up resources that are being used on the war on drugs.
I think efforts would be better spent addressing the reasons why people abuse drugs in the first place, and to change attitudes regarding them. Excessive drinking (to dangerous levels) for example isn't seen as being that big a taboo among younger generations when it really should be.
And peer pressure exists for everything, not just drugs. And actually forcing someone to do what they don't want to do is illegal for everything, not just drugs, so I don't know why you mentioned that.
Agree to the rest though.