Changing the World...

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, why wouldn't it, alcohol and tobacco are known to be more harmful and addictive than Marijuana and LSD...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I prefer cops to have time to enforce anti-spanking, cause drug dens are not an issue.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

*tips hat*

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.

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.

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' demands

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.

Crack/heroine/crystal meth (I'm getting sick of typing those--they're CHM [and co.] 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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm going cold turkey off my heroin and crack addiction, it's probably sweat, urine and feces.

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.

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 👆

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 [and co.] 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?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you kidding me? Drug related gang violence would pretty much vanish.

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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd agree, if there weren't those multiple other bad things that come from banning them.

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?

Originally posted by inimalist
commie

What does that mean? 😎

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.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
What does that mean? 😎

😉

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)

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

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

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.

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 😉