Changing the World...

Started by Lord Lucien7 pages

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.

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.

Originally posted by King Kandy
[B]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.

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.

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. 😐

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.

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. 😐

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.

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".

Originally posted by King Kandy
[B]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.

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.

I disagree. Derp.

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?

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.

l

Originally 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.

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.

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.

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?

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 😉 zowwie!

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. 🙄

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.

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?

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.

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 😉 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?

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.

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"?

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?