Changing the World...

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

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

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.

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:

If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.

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. 😖hifty:

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.

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

pub med is good too

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

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

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.

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.

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".

Originally posted by Bardock42
To be fair, no one is talking about promoting it.

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

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".

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!

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!

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

the state shouldn't be promoting it though!

Originally posted by inimalist
[B]thats the million dollar question

'zactly. 👆

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.