You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to OGame.org. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

Quiffmiester

I'm one of the big boys now :D

  • "Quiffmiester" started this thread

Posts: 810

Date of registration: May 19th 2009

Occupation: Profesional student

  • Send private message

1

Saturday, December 24th 2011, 2:14pm

Should drugs be legalised?

Taken from the racism thread. I will reply a bit later but I've condensed what I think were the relevant (non racial points) from the other thread:


Splitting this off from the racism thread. I'll attempt to copy as much of the stuff over as I can to get the ball rolling:

Quoted

I want you guys to continue debating untouched, it's interesting to see the points made, but this bit here I'm afraid is flat-out baloney. The War on Drugs creates criminals, not prevents them, and its effects do very heavily keep the impoverished in perpetual poverty. By targetting the possessors, it locks up casual consumers, who then come out criminals. Meanwhile, the drug cartels enjoy the monopolistic benefits they get from small competitors being illegal by the nature of the black market. Any idea that the drug war is helping the impoverished is a total lie, it'd be exactly akin to saying alcoholic prohibition in the 1920s saved the lower class. Far from it, as we know with miraculous hindsight.


Quoted

I fail to see how legalizing an addictive substance like cocaine is somehow going to save the lower class. I can see the benefits of marijuana, in that it will raise revenue and cut spending on minor drug busts.


Quoted

DD did a sufficient job of stuffing your argument, I'll go ahead and stick the knife in it while it's down:


As long as alcohol sits atop that list and remains legal, any argument you make in favor or drug laws is moot and bullcrap


A report sponsored by the New York County Lawyers' Association, one of the largest local bar associations in the United States, argues on the subject of US drug policy:

Quoted


Notwithstanding the vast public resources expended on the enforcement of penal statutes against users and distributors of controlled substances, contemporary drug policy appears to have failed, even on its own terms, in a number of notable respects. These include: minimal reduction in the consumption of controlled substances; failure to reduce violent crime; failure to markedly reduce drug importation, distribution and street-level drug sales; failure to reduce the widespread availability of drugs to potential users; failure to deter individuals from becoming involved in the drug trade; failure to impact upon the huge profits and financial opportunity available to individual "entrepreneurs" and organized underworld organizations through engaging in the illicit drug trade; the expenditure of great amounts of increasingly limited public resources in pursuit of a cost-intensive "penal" or "law-enforcement" based policy; failure to provide meaningful treatment and other assistance to substance abusers and their families; and failure to provide meaningful alternative economic opportunities to those attracted to the drug trade for lack of other available avenues for financial advancement.

Moreover, a growing body of evidence and opinion suggests that contemporary drug policy, as pursued in recent decades, may be counterproductive and even harmful to the society whose public safety it seeks to protect. This conclusion becomes more readily apparent when one distinguishes the harms suffered by society and its members directly attributable to the pharmacological effects of drug use upon human behavior, from those harms resulting from policies attempting to eradicate drug use.

With aid of these distinctions, we see that present drug policy appears to contribute to the increase of violence in our communities. It does so by permitting and indeed, causing the drug trade to remain a lucrative source of economic opportunity for street dealers, drug kingpins and all those willing to engage in the often violent, illicit, black market trade. Meanwhile, the effect of present policy serves to stigmatize and marginalize drug users, thereby inhibiting and undermining the efforts of many such individuals to remain or become productive, gainfully employed members of society. Furthermore, current policy has not only failed to provide adequate access to treatment for substance abuse, it has, in many ways, rendered the obtaining of such treatment, and of other medical services, more difficult and even dangerous to pursue.



Quoted

Quoted

That being said, I disagree with legalizing marijuana. Claim it has no adverse effects as much as you want, but explain why almost every person I've talked to that does weed is nearly retarded.


firstly: key words are Almost.I . Talked.

secondly: That's purely anecdotal evidence, and is pretty much invalid. But if you want to get into using such, I've met people who do weed who are idiots, and people who going to university to get rather impressive degrees. >_>

Likewise, the negative brain effects that you speak of seem to occur as a result of children and young adults (read: teens) who are excessive users, as this is a stage when the brain is still developing. None heavy users are fine, as are adults who are past that stage of brain development.
http://www.livescience.com/5298-marijuan…evelopment.html
http://www.cpha.ca/en/portals/substance/health/faq02.aspx
^From the Canadian Public Health Association site:

Quoted


heavy marijuana use at a young age may affect brain development, especially in the areas of the brain that control the ability to focus attention. Many long-term users have problems with:
-concentration
-abstract thinking
-short-term memory
Most of these problems disappear after a few weeks without marijuana, but some may last longer. Heavy marijuana users may also experience mental health problems, such as anxiety and depression. In some cases, it may trigger schizophrenia in people who have a family history of this disease.



And so what; who are our government(s) to legislate such health choices for its people? People who chose to listen to loud music get hearing damage if they do it too much; should the government ban Metallica, or any sort of live venue for that matter? Alcohol and Cigarettes are legal, but they have serious health effects as well. If people want to do such damage to themselves they should be free too. They may forfeit certain rights, or opportunities in the process (certain careers, the right to driving a vehicle while impaired, things like that) but if that's what they choose its what they choose. Societies only job is to make sure they're aware of the consequences, and ensure those who are too young to be making those choices are unable to have access to it.



Quoted

I take it you decided not to watch the video? :\

Fact of the matter is this. Legalized substances can be regulated by the government. Outlawed substances go on the black market. I never said nor even implied the lower class would be saved by drug legalization - to the contrary, I argued that the policies you advocate hurt them considerably more. We've tried the prohibition thing before and it doesn't. work.

I mean, why, in Holland, where marijuana usage is legal, is marijuana usage 50% less than the figures for the US as a per capita figure?
[Center for Drug Research, "Licit and Illicit Drug Use in The Netherlands 1997" (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands: CEDRO, 1999; Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, "Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Progress Report Sept. 1997-Sept. 1999 (The Hague, The Netherlands: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Nov. 1999); US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse 1998, 1999, and 2000 (Washington, DC: SAMHSA).

According to the Center for Drug Research in its report Licit and Illicit Drug Use in The Netherlands 1997, past-year cannabis use in The Netherlands is estimated at 4.5% for the entire population; past-month use is 2.5%. In the United States, according to NIDA’s National Household Survey on Drug Abuse for 2000, past-year cannabis use is 8.3% of the US population 12 and older, and past-month use is 4.8%.]

….

Quoted

That being said, I disagree with legalizing marijuana. Claim it has no adverse effects as much as you want, but explain why almost every person I've talked to that does weed is nearly retarded.


I never claimed it has no adverse effects. I just claim the policies you advocate have objectively failed, and you have thus far provided only one anecdotal piece of evidence. To the contrary, I disagree with the concept of "medical marijuana", because if it is good for you, why not just extract the good chemicals and use them as a medicine? Not to mention, it misses the root problem here: that the government has no right to declare what you can and cannot put in your body. Your body is your own, you are an individual, not public property - if you want to go skiing, go ahead, right? By your logic, shouldn't this be illegal, because it's so dangerous? What about alcohol, should we prohibit that again, given that one of my ex-classmates was killed by a drunk driver yesterday, yet I know of no deaths related to marijuana usage in my life thus far? That's the purely moral side of it, of course, but I'm just showing how one can find the idea of medical marijuana absurd, yet be for total legalization.

I mean, since when did you conservatives start advocating socialism? I thought you defended the value of the individual over the whims of society at large? Isn't that the core tenet of Ayn Rand's philosophy? Of course, this is bulls---, conservatives are just hypocritical liberals, screaming Big Government whilst advocating garbage regulations like this, but still, their rhetoric is all "freedom" and "individualism", so I should be free to judge them on their own claims 


Quoted

Quoted

As long as alcohol sits atop that list and remains legal, any argument you make in favor or drug laws is moot and bullcrap



Really? The cheapest and most readily accessible drug causes the most damage? I'm against alcohol, but we tried and failed to make that illegal.

….

Quoted

I never claimed it has no adverse effects. I just claim the policies you advocate have objectively failed, and you have thus far provided only one anecdotal piece of evidence. To the contrary, I disagree with the concept of "medical marijuana", because if it is good for you, why not just extract the good chemicals and use them as a medicine? Not to mention, it misses the root problem here: that the government has no right to declare what you can and cannot put in your body. Your body is your own, you are an individual, not public property - if you want to go skiing, go ahead, right? By your logic, shouldn't this be illegal, because it's so dangerous? What about alcohol, should we prohibit that again, given that one of my ex-classmates was killed by a drunk driver yesterday, yet I know of no deaths related to marijuana usage in my life thus far? That's the purely moral side of it, of course, but I'm just showing how one can find the idea of medical marijuana absurd, yet be for total legalization.



I am against legalizing drug use because I am against using drugs. I've never touched drugs or alcohol. Unlike you, I have only seen drug use at the middle and high school levels, where, as you have so kindly pointed out, it does cause brain damage. Half the kids I knew in middle school are now either smoking weed, addicted to cocaine, or abusing prescription pills and are basically walking zombies. Over a dozen people from my school have died over the past two years either from DUI (some alcohol, some drugs, some both) or overdosing. Pardon me if I'm a little biased.

I can see the benefits of legalizing marijuana, thank you for pointing that out. I support it based on personal freedom and I agree with most of what he said in the video, but I can't condone using drugs based off of my own personal experience.

As for deaths related to marijuana usage, look a little harder.
another

Nowhere near the number cause by alcohol, but it does exist.


Post no. 49 on the racism thread has a little more in it that may be relevant, but I felt it was primarily focused around the race aspect of the discussion rather than the drug usage.

Quoted

So what would I support? Decriminilasation of illicit drug use. You don't have to support people using drugs, but you have to recognize that sending someone to prison for pot use HURTS them more than you're helping them. They become a felon, they can't get financial aid to go to school, they can't get a good job, most can't pay the fines and fees associated with that legal mess, etc etc etc. And most turn to HEAVIER drug use after a prison sentence. So yeah, end the war on drugs, it's not working and it's preferentially targeting a class of people.


Quoted

Quoted

that the government has no right to declare what you can and cannot put in your body.


I believe that in Portugal, drug use is legal but it is illegal to deal drugs. To me this seems like a sensible way of doing things, as it criminalises the correct group of people. And IMO the comparisons between alcohol, nicotine and illegal drugs only serves as a case to ban alcohol and nicotine, not legalise all of the other drugs.

Quoted


The War on Drugs creates criminals, not prevents them,


The war on pedophiles creates criminals, not prevents them.

….

Quoted

You don't have to support people using drugs, but you have to recognize that sending someone to prison for pot use HURTS them more than you're helping them.


But how many of the people arrested are sent to prison for pot use compared to pot dealing? I can understand drug use as a cause of poverty, and drug dealing as an escape route from poverty, but drug use in poverty doesn't seem like a massively rational thing to do. And how do people on 5k USD per year afford drugs for recreational use? Also, the chart of 'drug harm to society' isn't 'per capita'. So the harm to society is proportional to the number of users, which is how alcohol comes top. That and it's a nasty drug to the people who take it.



Quoted


Quoted

Quoted


that the government has no right to declare what you can and cannot put in your body.


I believe that in Portugal, drug use is legal but it is illegal to deal drugs. To me this seems like a sensible way of doing things, as it criminalises the correct group of people. And IMO the comparisons between alcohol, nicotine and illegal drugs only serves as a case to ban alcohol and nicotine, not legalise all of the other drugs.


Saywhat o.O

If you're going to attempt to rebut a statement by me, don't be a hypocrite by posting high... I mean seriously, no offense, but pardon? "Alcohol prohibition failed, many people do alcohol responsibly, to prohibit alcohol is to make criminals out of innocents - the drug war is exactly like this" as a general concept does not translate into "We should ban alcohol too". Maybe in your statist mind it does, but I assure you, your logic does not follow reason.

Also, funnily enough, alcohol consumption was allowed in prohibition, it was a supply-side law. They couldn't ban alcohol consumption, because of its uses in medicine and religion. No, trying to attack the supply will do nothing. My argument of monopolism, Milton Friedman's arguments of much the same? Your logic remains defeated. Leave drug production to the free-market - if you want people to stop, educate them.

Quoted


Quoted


The War on Drugs creates criminals, not prevents them,


The war on pedophiles creates criminals, not prevents them.


What an absolutely awful argument lol! Okay, I'm sorry for the ad hominem, I'm just rather amused at the idea of you posting that thinking you were making a rational point <.<
Pedophilia is a directly harmful act. As children cannot consent to acts beyond their maturity, any sexual conduct involving children is a coercive action. A person taking drugs is neither harming nor coercing anyone but themselves. Your point is thus a total nonsequitur.

Quoted


I can understand drug use as a cause of poverty, and drug dealing as an escape route from poverty, but drug use in poverty doesn't seem like a massively rational thing to do.


Let's take away their video games too. That doesn't seem like a massively rational thing to escape from poverty with either. And alcohol and tobacco, they should all be banned too, right? Skiing, bungee jumping, parachuting, ban these too? Quick highs with very big and regular consequences? 

Quoted

That and it's a nasty drug to the people who take it.


Ahhh, the true mind of the statist reveals itself here. All hail the glorious state, because I know what you like better than yourself! What a stupid set of ideas…


Not putting quotes round the bits in here. Sorry - check the racism thread (post 52) if you have difficulty reading this:

Quoted

Ooops! Sidetracked :S

My original post wasn't clear and I (as I have a tendency to do) jumped around in the same paragraph. Not pot-induced though, just related to the way I reply (badly, lol). I've added in the red bits to the quote to clarify what I meant.

 Quoted
 Quoted

 Quoted
that the government has no right to declare what you can and cannot put in your body.

I (generally) agree with that ^, andI believe that in Portugal, drug use is legal but it is illegal to deal drugs. To me this seems like a sensible way of doing things, as it criminalises the correct group of people i.e. the people who, under the current system, are making money by exploiting a predominantly (depending on the drug) addicted consumer base. Much like Gameforge. End of idea, move on by forming a new paragraph....

And IMO the comparisons argument mentioned previously likening the harm levels between alcohol, nicotine and illegal drugs only serves as a case to ban alcohol and nicotine, not legalise all of the other drugs.


Saywhat o.O

If you're going to attempt to rebut a statement by me, don't be a hypocrite by posting high... I mean seriously, no offense, but pardon? "Alcohol prohibition failed, many people do alcohol responsibly, to prohibit alcohol is to make criminals out of innocents - the drug war is exactly like this" as a general concept does not translate into "We should ban alcohol too". Maybe in your statist mind it does, but I assure you, your logic does not follow reason.

Also, funnily enough, alcohol consumption was allowed in prohibition, it was a supply-side law. They couldn't ban alcohol consumption, because of its uses in medicine and religion. No, trying to attack the supply will do nothing. My argument of monopolism, Milton Friedman's arguments of much the same? Your logic remains defeated. Leave drug production to the free-market - if you want people to stop, educate them.


That wasn't what I was getting at, but I appreciate that is how it came out and that that makes no sense at all. I had intended to show that saying "these legal drugs are more harmful than these illegal drugs" as a rationale for legalising drugs is merely the reverse of using that same idea (that alcohol and nicotine are more harmful than many illegal drugs) to justify criminalising alcohol and cigarettes. So it is therefore (IMO) not a valid argument to state in favour of acting one way or the other on the matter, contrary to the initial claim which I seem to remember used that line as one rationalisation for legalising all drugs.

Maybe supply regulation doesn't work economically. Maybe by legalising all drugs the world would be a better place (drugs could be taxed, quality control, new trade revenues etc) HOWEVER to attempt to quantify the net effect of legalising (for example) heroin is purely speculative because of the system complexity. Personally, I think legalising all drugs sends out the wrong message and yes, whilst educational programs (financed by taxes from the drug trade) could educate people I still think that some drugs (such as heroin), if made publicly available as alcohol is now, would be dangerous because of their highly addictive nature. Maybe very few people would still use heroin, and maybe the taxes raised would cover the cost of re-habilitating those who over-indulge, but I am personally not willing to advocate taking that risk to find out. Therefore, some drugs (IMO) should remain illegal. From that point, does it make sense to go around arresting everyone who uses it? Maybe, but I think there should be a focus on removing the drugs as far up the supply chain as possible, as that seems like a much better use of resources than charging someone in possession of an 8th of skunk.

 Quoted
What an absolutely awful argument lol! Okay, I'm sorry for the ad hominem, I'm just rather amused at the idea of you posting that thinking you were making a rational point <.<
Pedophilia is a directly harmful act. As children cannot consent to acts beyond their maturity, any sexual conduct involving children is a coercive action. A person taking drugs is neither harming nor coercing anyone but themselves. Your point is thus a total non sequitur.

I'm glad someone picked me up on that point. I was trying to point out that the rather snappy "The War on Drugs creates criminals, not prevents them," is as awful an argument as my reply was, however I shall attempt to justify what I said further. Paedophilia is the act of having sexual encounters with someone below the age of consent. This age is chosen, by law, to determine how old a child must be before they can legally "agree" to engage in sexual activity with someone else. In the UK, the age of consent is 16 for heterosexual/18 for homosexual intercourse. However, in some countries the age of consent is as low as 12. The mistake I was expecting people to make is highlighted by: "any sexual conduct involving children is a coercive action." which is false. An 18yr old boy who sleeps with a 15yr old girl because they are in love and she (genuinely) fully consents makes the 18yr old boy a criminal in the UK. In fact in UK law I believe that underage sex where the boy is over 12 can potentially be treated as paedophilia. So it could be argued that by lowering the age of consent, paedophiles will no longer be criminalised. The similar concepts I intended to highlight was the idea of adjusting the law to prevent innocent people from being classified as criminals comes at a price to other individuals within society. Legalising drugs could place excessive strain on shared resources, maybe increase crime (to fund habits), whilst lowering the age of consent could lead to more un-punished cases of teenage coercion and prostitution. Note I'm not comparing the severity of the two concepts; merely highlighting the idea that decriminalising something because you believe (for whatever reason) that those breaking that law are not criminals will have negative repercussions.

Not everyone who takes drugs is necessarily viewed as a "criminal", but I would argue that those selling drugs are potentially preying on other, vulnerable members of society and (under the current system) should be prevented from doing so by law. Just like the law provides an age bar to define when a child can consent to sexual encounters.

And yes, I'm sure people will be up in arms at the idea of comparing paedophiles with drug users, but please bear in mind that in the same way you perceive the negatives of this idea to outweigh the benefits, legalising drugs to decriminalise drug users may well appear to be just as nuts to other people. However wrong/loony/irrational/stupid you personally believe that perception to be.

A person taking drugs, under the current system, is providing a market for drug dealers and the associated unsavoury behaviour associated with them. OK, so let's legalise it! Then when someone needs help to cold turkey, the state funded rehab clinics are there to help them out. Which may or may not be funded by non-drug tax revenues. What about people becoming dependent on a drug who don't seek help, and end up turning to criminal behaviour to fund their habit? It happens with alcohol, and if other drugs were legalised I'd see no reason to assume their consumption levels would drop. So no, drugs can be indirectly responsible for causing harm to others, and it is my perception of this that turns me against the idea of fully legalising all drugs.

….

That and it's a nasty drug to the people who take it.


Ahhh, the true mind of the statist reveals itself here. All hail the glorious state, because I know what you like better than yourself! What a stupid set of ideas...

Please keep what I said in context:

 Quoted
So the harm to society is proportional to the number of users, which is how alcohol comes top. That and it's a nasty drug to the people who take it.

That was in reference to the figure someone posted showing how various drugs damage society, which places the 'harm to self' bar pretty high up. I was not passing my own judgement on that matter.


Quoted

Quoted

A person taking drugs, under the current system, is providing a market for drug dealers and the associated unsavoury behaviour associated with them. OK, so let's legalise it! Then when someone needs help to cold turkey, the state funded rehab clinics are there to help them out. Which may or may not be funded by non-drug tax revenues. What about people becoming dependent on a drug who don't seek help, and end up turning to criminal behaviour to fund their habit? It happens with alcohol, and if other drugs were legalised I'd see no reason to assume their consumption levels would drop. So no, drugs can be indirectly responsible for causing harm to others, and it is my perception of this that turns me against the idea of fully legalising all drugs.



The indirectness of the connection there is the key problem with your argument. Any action that you can think of is going to have indirect consequences that may be difficult to predict and either strongly positive or negative. It is easy to see how perhaps more successful policing of economic crimes (such as fraud) could lead to job creators being imprisoned and innocent people losing their jobs as a result - clearly a negative outcome. Does that mean it'd be better not to bother pursuing these crimes? Well, no - it's just one possible eventuality.

If one is to attempt to consider the (direct and) indirect consequences of an action in order to weigh up it's effectiveness than all of them must be taken into account by looking at the benefits and drawbacks of each as well as the likelyhood of that particular occurance. Personally, I find it remarkably unlikely that the indirect link between people taking drugs and causing harm to others (which, let's note, can happen at the moment anyway regardless of the legal status of the involved drugs) would cause more harm than the current groups involved in the criminal drug trade, the power of which would be significantly broken by laws liberalising drug-use.

I also find it unlikely that more harm would be caused than at present by such factors given that illegal drugs are relatively easy to obtain, so anyone wanting to use them is quite capable of doing so if they so wish. If they do not use them, chances are it's because they don't want to and think it's rather ill-advised rather than because they are afraid of any specific legal consequences.




Basic HoFs: 12
AHoF: 1
Moons given: 0
Moons received: 99999999999999999
I is wewl n00bish innit. But then, who needs m4d ski11z when you can DDC your way through the universe!

Quiffmiester

I'm one of the big boys now :D

  • "Quiffmiester" started this thread

Posts: 810

Date of registration: May 19th 2009

Occupation: Profesional student

  • Send private message

2

Saturday, December 24th 2011, 10:46pm

Quoted

The indirectness of the connection there is the key problem with your argument.


I agree, but wish to point out that it's no more a key problem with one side of the argument than the other. Ultimately, I don't think the effects of legalising drugs would be predictable enough to make any sensible judgement either way, so people can and will believe whichever conclusion suits them. But that's no fun to debate, so placing that to one side....

Quoted

Any action that you can think of is going to have indirect consequences that may be difficult to predict and either strongly positive or negative. It is easy to see how perhaps more successful policing of economic crimes (such as fraud) could lead to job creators being imprisoned and innocent people losing their jobs as a result - clearly a negative outcome. Does that mean it'd be better not to bother pursuing these crimes? Well, no - it's just one possible eventuality.


Quoted

The similar concepts I intended to highlight was the idea of adjusting the law to prevent innocent people from being classified as criminals comes at a price to other individuals within society. Legalising drugs could place excessive strain on shared resources, maybe increase crime (to fund habits), whilst lowering the age of consent could lead to more un-punished cases of teenage coercion and prostitution. Note I'm not comparing the severity of the two concepts; merely highlighting the idea that decriminalising something because you believe (for whatever reason) that those breaking that law are not criminals will have negative repercussions.


To date, people who have spoken up on the side of legalising drugs have done so by choosing to focus entirely on the 'positive outcomes' without mentioning any potentially negative points. So I mentioned some potential (hence my use of "could" and "maybe") negative effects that no-one had showed any consideration of up to that point. As the thread was on racism rather than drug use, I didn't acknowledge that I agreed with the positive effects of legalising drugs that had been mentioned already. The reason I am not in complete agreement with the conclusions is because I do not believe the net result will be positive, once the negative aspects of drug legalisation are considered, for reasons I shall outline below whilst addressing you arguments in favour of legalising drugs.

Quoted

If one is to attempt to consider the (direct and) indirect consequences of an action in order to weigh up it's effectiveness than all of them must be taken into account by looking at the benefits and drawbacks of each as well as the likelyhood of that particular occurance. Personally, I find it remarkably unlikely that the indirect link between people taking drugs and causing harm to others (which, let's note, can happen at the moment anyway regardless of the legal status of the involved drugs) would cause more harm than the current groups involved in the criminal drug trade, the power of which would be significantly broken by laws liberalising drug-use.

I also find it unlikely that more harm would be caused than at present by such factors given that illegal drugs are relatively easy to obtain, so anyone wanting to use them is quite capable of doing so if they so wish. If they do not use them, chances are it's because they don't want to and think it's rather ill-advised rather than because they are afraid of any specific legal consequences.


I'll work from the bottom up because it makes more sense. The idea that 'illegal drugs are relatively easy to obtain' is anecdotal evidence, based (presumably) on the fact that you have been in a situation where you have been able to acquire illegal drugs. My counterclaim, based on equally anecdotal evidence, is that they are not easy to obtain. However if we attempt to treat this point with some element of objectivity, I would say that being able to acquire illegal drugs 'over the counter' is significantly easier than the current setup. So the crux of our disagreement over this point boils down to the following (the way I see it): You believe that the current demand for illegal drugs is at approximately the same level that it would be if those drugs were legal, whilst I suspect that demand would increase if those substances were legalised.

Fundamentally, the size of the demand increase doesn't matter. What matters (assuming there is a demand increase - I will address this later) is the net effect of the change in harm to society as a function of the change in demand. So this is the second point on which we disagree - I feel the net harm to society will increase, whilst you feel it will decrease. So I will now attempt to justify my stance.

The situation currently is that the drug suppliers at the top of the chain currently have many negative externalities associated with them. Let us say they collectively cause "X" amount of harm to society. They supply drugs which get passed along through the system and end up with the consumer. Over the whole consumer base, "Y" amount of harm to society is caused through the negative externalities associated with drug use (note - I am assuming that the positive externalities associated with black market supply and consumption are minimal, if they even exist at all). The total harm to society as a result of the current drugs trade is therefore X+Y. Note that these two quantities are not independent (they are both functions of each other)

By legalising drugs, the negative externalities associated with drug supply (i.e. X) will be reduced, by some amount "dx". Likewise, the change in negative externalities associated with drug consumption can be denoted "dy", such that the new 'harm to society' is now "(X-dx)+(Y+dy)" (assuming consumption increases). The 'for legalisation' camp seem to be insinuating that X<dx, assuming that drug cartels will no longer need to engage in violent criminal behaviour, that more people would become employed in the supply sector, taxes could be raised from drug sales, quality control etc. The problem I believe is that the real, legal markets may not provide any incentives for successful cartels to bother leaving the black market. People currently buy and sell legal drugs illegally (tax evasion) so the reduction in violent drug-related activity depends largely upon the financial incentives (revenue change) for the black markets to move 'above board'.

The "dy" part is equally difficult to quantify, however I would now like to refer back to the figure in my previous post and consider the "damage to society" bars for alcohol and heroin. Here are my references:

drugs

Alcohol

Around 3% of the UK population admitted (in an anonymous survey) to have taken class A drugs in the last year. This is compared to over 60% of the population who admitted to drinking at least 1 unit of alcohol in the week before the survey (i.e. 60% of the population drinks regularly). Bearing in mind the number of heroin users is a subset of the 3% of class A drug users, the 'damage to society' bars when scaled per capita would be more AT LEAST 20 times greater for heroin than is currently shown, relative to the alcohol bars. It is this perceived damage per capita that, in my view, makes the concept of legalising all drugs a bad policy, because even a small increase in demand would have a disproportionate impact on society.

Note I have not given consideration to the concept of two societies trading drugs, such that one society sells to the other. I don't believe that UK heroin (for example) is home grown. As the vast majority of the negative externality reduction occurs at the suppliers end, I think the case for legalising drug trade becomes even weaker. I also wish to note that there will be an unquantifiable change in the 'damage to society' associated with heroin use if the substance quality was regulated, however I do not think that providing a better quality addictive substance will compensate for the other factors mentioned.

Interestingly, of the ~10% of the population who, in 2007, had taken illicit drugs within the past year, 1 in 3 were determined (how, I don't know) to be dependent on those drugs (3.4% of the overall population). I don't think that's massively relevant, but I was surprised at that figure. Especially since the majority (2.5% of the population, so about 75% of the dependents) were dependent on cannabis - I thought that a non-physically addictive drug would not have resulted in such a high dependency rate.

Anyway, there was one statistic quoted about the cannabis consumption rates in Holland vs the US which was may appear to "disprove" the idea that legalising drugs would cause the demand to increase because 4% of Dutch people smoked pot compared to 8% in the US. I think comparing two distinct societies is a particularly bad practice - just consider the vast differences in alcohol consumption between countries where alcohol is legal. Furthermore, there are countries in the world where alcohol is an illegal substance (shock horror) and, strangely enough, alcohol consumption is nowhere near as high as the rest of the world (e.g. Saudi arabia, where 3% of the population drink). Basically, the idea of a substance that can be advertised and consumed publicly would result in a lower demand than the same substance that relies on word of mouth and private consumption is wrong.

So the above is why I do not believe that a blanket 'legalise all drugs' policy will benefit society.




Basic HoFs: 12
AHoF: 1
Moons given: 0
Moons received: 99999999999999999
I is wewl n00bish innit. But then, who needs m4d ski11z when you can DDC your way through the universe!

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Quiffmiester" (Dec 24th 2011, 10:58pm)


Major Tom

Unregistered

3

Sunday, December 25th 2011, 1:10pm

I'll take some time to read all this but dude it is hard to read not one but two wall of words like those

I've read here and there atm and I'd like to add something to express why I'm (almost) totally in favour of legalization. First of all, let's change the word "legalize" (which is ok for cannabis but not for eroin for instance) with "regulate". Now, why am I so much in favour? Because this would be really really important for one main reason: cut off the criminal organizations business using drugs markets to recylcle their dirty money and to make absurd incomes using any kind of chemicals and other illegal stuff to give more addictivity or even worse "collaterals". If this was done by at least europe and usa, all the world's market would be totally broken down and the narcos could change job immediately.

Said that, I have my personal opinions about what should be "accessible to all" (such as cannabis which never killed anyone despite what your stats show) and what should be "accessible to sick people having psychic troubles" such as those addicted to eroin and similar stuff. For the former, being 18 should be enough to buy them in a tobac or any other "free shop", for the latter I guess medical structures _AND ONLY THEM_ should be allowed to give those substances _FOR FREE AND PERSONAL USE_ (not half a kilo I mean ^^) to those having great problems when not assuming it. Of course this medical structures could offer also some different assistance, medical and psychological and try to show a sort of "correction path" or anything to clean themself up from that crap.

Of course: this would not solve the problems connected to the use of drugs in general, but it is a fundamental step in the right direction, which is not erasing the use of these substancies, rather than giving the proper and right perspective and informations to everyone about what it really is (and is not) and what it can bring you to. I mean: drugs (heavy ones too) existed since man appeared on earth (btw: drugs existed much before mankind ^^) and they have been always connected to spiritual rites and initiations path. Nowadays problem is that drugs became chemicals and chemicals became a commodity, Why that? Because it's a businees, so: hit the business and you're done!

edit: not to mention how many money any governement could earn from that!! Expecially in these hard times we're living in it's a chance they should really consider. All the rest is pseudo-ethical resistance to someone who cannot accept that "life is hard" and for someone it's even harder

Quiffmiester

I'm one of the big boys now :D

  • "Quiffmiester" started this thread

Posts: 810

Date of registration: May 19th 2009

Occupation: Profesional student

  • Send private message

4

Tuesday, December 27th 2011, 4:00pm

Quoted

I'll take some time to read all this but dude it is hard to read not one but two wall of words like those


Sorry about that - the first wall of text is actually a collection of the argument on another thread up to the point where I decided to split the thread because it was getting sidetracked. Hence why it was all quoted.

Quoted

edit: not to mention how many money any governement could earn from that!! Expecially in these hard times we're living in it's a chance they should really consider.

One point of debate (for which I have outlined my current view of in my previous post) is that legalisation may not translate into a net financial gain for society. However as you pointed out, there is a lot of variation from drug to drug: I doubt many people would condone the legalisation of heroin, but more people may be inclined to agree with the concept of legalising pot (for example). Yourself included.

Quoted

..."regulate". Now, why am I so much in favour? Because this would be really really important for one main reason: cut off the criminal organizations business using drugs markets to recylcle their dirty money and to make absurd incomes using any kind of chemicals and other illegal stuff to give more addictivity or even worse "collaterals".

Another point I addressed in my previous post.

Quoted

Said that, I have my personal opinions about what should be "accessible to all" (such as cannabis which never killed anyone despite what your stats show) and what should be "accessible to sick people having psychic troubles" such as those addicted to eroin and similar stuff. For the former, being 18 should be enough to buy them in a tobac or any other "free shop", for the latter I guess medical structures _AND ONLY THEM_ should be allowed to give those substances _FOR FREE AND PERSONAL USE_ (not half a kilo I mean ^^) to those having great problems when not assuming it. Of course this medical structures could offer also some different assistance, medical and psychological and try to show a sort of "correction path" or anything to clean themself up from that crap.

I'd like to point out that "psychic troubles" isn't the most relevant term to describe heroin addiction. Heroin is physically addictive, which means once you're hooked stopping continual use results in physical withdrawal symptoms, which can be incredibly severe. Furthermore, "Heroin" and "Morphine" are virtually the same thing, and morphine is currently used in hospitals. Making morphine a prescription drug though (see "for the latter I guess medical structures _AND ONLY THEM_ should be allowed to give those substances _FOR FREE AND PERSONAL USE_") would be an expensive waste of money. No - if people need help, there are rehab clinics which can help, and I suspect they can administer morphine to help ease the withdrawal symptoms to people there but having never gone to rehab I don't know how this works in the UK.

Quoted

Of course: this would not solve the problems connected to the use of drugs in general, but it is a fundamental step in the right direction, which is not erasing the use of these substancies, rather than giving the proper and right perspective and informations to everyone about what it really is (and is not) and what it can bring you to. I mean: drugs (heavy ones too) existed since man appeared on earth (btw: drugs existed much before mankind ^^) and they have been always connected to spiritual rites and initiations path. Nowadays problem is that drugs became chemicals and chemicals became a commodity, Why that? Because it's a businees, so: hit the business and you're done!

I agree entirely with the concept of educating people - the education about drug use that I have received during my school years was significantly better than the information my parents received (I think they were probably just told "drugs are bad, mmmmmkay"). As for the drugs existing before man - I don't see that as a relevant point. So what if people took smack to appease their gods in the past? People used to lick arsenic to get high in the 16th century - it doesn't mean it'd be ok to carry on with it today.

What about the concept of legalising some drugs? I'm on the fence about cannabis legalisation, and tbh there are lots of drugs I don't know enough about so I'm open for suggestions.




Basic HoFs: 12
AHoF: 1
Moons given: 0
Moons received: 99999999999999999
I is wewl n00bish innit. But then, who needs m4d ski11z when you can DDC your way through the universe!

cabanadave

I think I spend too much time here

Posts: 325

Date of registration: Jan 31st 2008

Location: chicago

Occupation: carpenter/self employed

  • Send private message

5

Monday, January 2nd 2012, 4:44pm

I'm for decriminalizing Marijuana for personal use....if folks want to grow a couple plants for themselves so be it. I believe its the primary reason it won't be legalized. The possible threat to profit margins of certain company's. Big farma doesn't seem to have a problem with making synthetic THC and making it available in prescription form...dronabinol and marinol.
marijuana demand will continue to rise in the U.S.A. The primary age group driving this demand will be senior citizens.
I have no desire to see my mom or gramma throw in jail because they prefer the real stuff versus all the manufactured drugs their doctors try to push on them. I will enjoy my retirement yrs in part the same way.

Spots

There're many behind me...but still some ahead

  • Send private message

6

Tuesday, January 10th 2012, 1:58pm

What are is the impact of drug use on the creation of offspring?
Without solid research on that, you'd be out of your mind to actually legalize drugs.

So no. In this day and age it should not be allowed.

IMNVS

say it out loud speak the truth

  • Send private message

7

Tuesday, January 10th 2012, 6:26pm

First, let me state that I think the war on drugs is little different than the war on alcohol during the prohibition era of US history. It costs more and creates more problems than it solves.

Having said that, I should also state that I do believe that some drugs are just plain dangerous for the user. The severity of addiction in some (like heroin) and the ease of overdose (like heroin and many amphetamines) means that the common person would find more danger in the drug than they would find relief/joy.

I am all for the continued regulation of many drugs, but some are just silly to forbid when we do not forbid all, see alcohol and tobacco. I am not saying we should decriminalize anything, but if we do not, we should also criminalize both alcohol and tobacco too or be labeled hypocrites... or we actually should decriminalize some things.
:huh: /do͞oSH/ :huh:
1. (n) shower
2. (v) take a shower

:nono "Honour: If you need it defined, you don't have it." - Ron Swanson :nono

civil - adj - courteous and polite
insult - verb - speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse
source: google.com

Ellgieff

quite possibly

Posts: 35

Date of registration: Aug 25th 2010

Location: Where ever the Burn is.

Occupation: Burning

  • Send private message

8

Saturday, January 28th 2012, 8:52am

The key to drug prohibition is knowledge, it's knowing what to take, how to take it, how long the effect will last and so on and so forth.

However it is also due to some people's lack of wanting to live. They wish to squander there money away, let them do it. Addiction can be managed but I feel that those that have led themselves to addiction clearly didn't understand what they were taking should be taken in regulation.

Personally this is a tough topic, due to the physical and emotional harms that are caused by the stimulants within the drug.

Also with regards to the impact on offspring it usually comes down again the knowledge of the drug, from personal experience I have taken illegal drugs, but I was told exactly what it did and so on and so forth, thus making an educated decision on if I should take the drug or not.

I am 17 by the way so no drug is technically legal for me.....

LGF

Cheers DunknMunky

Quoted


"All science is either physics or stamp collecting.
---Ernest Rutherford."

343GuiltySpark

Retired Art Veteran

Posts: 1,795

Date of registration: Aug 7th 2005

Location: UK

  • Send private message

9

Monday, January 30th 2012, 8:47am

However it is also due to some people's lack of wanting to live. They wish to squander there money away, let them do it. Addiction can be managed but I feel that those that have led themselves to addiction clearly didn't understand what they were taking should be taken in regulation.
1. I do illegal drugs all the time, who is to say i dont want to live? i would say i want to live more than people who dont do them.

2. Who is to say it is a way of squandering money.


3. Addiction works in a completely different way to what you are describing here. You dont choose to get addicted, and you dont have any rational thought about it, it just happens



UNI 43 & ANDROMEDA- DontShootTheWockets

HoF's

Basic %20- 6




AngelofDeath

I'm one of the big boys now :D

Posts: 493

Date of registration: Aug 1st 2009

Location: USA

  • Send private message

10

Tuesday, January 31st 2012, 12:36am

However it is also due to some people's lack of wanting to live. They wish to squander there money away, let them do it. Addiction can be managed but I feel that those that have led themselves to addiction clearly didn't understand what they were taking should be taken in regulation.
1. I do illegal drugs all the time, who is to say i dont want to live? i would say i want to live more than people who dont do them.

2. Who is to say it is a way of squandering money.


3. Addiction works in a completely different way to what you are describing here. You dont choose to get addicted, and you dont have any rational thought about it, it just happens






1. He was saying that a percentage of addicts were addicted because they don't want to live. No evidence to put a number to it, but he wasn't claiming that all addicts were suicidal. (I'm sure someone could find a study comparing the rates of suicide among drug users and non-drug users, but I'm really not too interested).

2. Let's use cigarettes as an example. Say you smoke a pack every day. Let's put the price of cigarettes at approx. $5/pack (about what it is here in Virginia, more expensive up north, maybe less so further south).

365 days * $5 = $1825/year

Let's say you smoke two packs a day.

$1825 * 2 = $3650

If you make approx $20,000/year, that is 18.25% of your yearly income, wasted on cigarettes. Whether or not it's actually a waste of money is your opinion, but spending 18% of your yearly income on something that significantly increases both your insurance and your chances of death doesn't seem like a good deal to me.

3. You choose to start. You choose not to stop while you still could. It doesn't "just happen".

Team BLUE

Quoted from "Darth B."

remember, our actions anywhere reflects on us, what we do here is similar to what we do in real life, regardless if we convince ourselves that it's not true.


Rest In Peace Darlo, you will never be forgotten

Treize Khushrenada

Unregistered

11

Tuesday, January 31st 2012, 3:26pm

However it is also due to some people's lack of wanting to live. They wish to squander there money away, let them do it. Addiction can be managed but I feel that those that have led themselves to addiction clearly didn't understand what they were taking should be taken in regulation.
1. I do illegal drugs all the time, who is to say i dont want to live? i would say i want to live more than people who dont do them.

2. Who is to say it is a way of squandering money.


3. Addiction works in a completely different way to what you are describing here. You dont choose to get addicted, and you dont have any rational thought about it, it just happens






1. He was saying that a percentage of addicts were addicted because they don't want to live. No evidence to put a number to it, but he wasn't claiming that all addicts were suicidal. (I'm sure someone could find a study comparing the rates of suicide among drug users and non-drug users, but I'm really not too interested).


From what i've seen this is a fuzzy area. Depending on how you analyze the data, you can draw whatever conclusion you want. Are they already depressed and suicidal and that's why they turn to drugs? Did the drugs make them depressed or suicidal? What sort of environmental factors contribute? Etc etc etc.

Quoted

2. Let's use cigarettes as an example. Say you smoke a pack every day. Let's put the price of cigarettes at approx. $5/pack (about what it is here in Virginia, more expensive up north, maybe less so further south).

365 days * $5 = $1825/year

Let's say you smoke two packs a day.

$1825 * 2 = $3650

If you make approx $20,000/year, that is 18.25% of your yearly income, wasted on cigarettes. Whether or not it's actually a waste of money is your opinion, but spending 18% of your yearly income on something that significantly increases both your insurance and your chances of death doesn't seem like a good deal to me.



A 12 pack of yuengling lager costs 10.95 at the local market. If you buy (and consume) a twelve pack every 2 days so that's 182.5*10.95=1998.35/year Now if you were a serious alcoholic and bought a twelve pack daily that'd be 3996.75. More than the cigs. I guess what I'm getting at is what's your point? Alcohol and cigs are considered a luxury and therefore get taxed as such which accounts for the high prices. Both are legal, so I fail to see what you're getting at by making this argument in terms of drug legalization. If anything, this just further shows why drugs SHOULD be legal as they'd be cheaper in a non-scarce, regulated market.


Quoted

3. You choose to start. You choose not to stop while you still could. It doesn't "just happen".


I love how unflinching and uncaring you are. You probably 'think' homosexuality is a choice as well. You'd be wrong on both accounts. http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLand…=1999-04387-003 <-- an older study, but it's very well understood now that addiction varies amongst individuals. Most refer to it as having an 'addictive personality'. For example, my mom smokes cigs, she's tried to quit and literally can't. She stopped for six months but had to start back due to adverse psychological effects. I have smoked cigs before, but I don't smoke nor do I desire to smoke. My mother's brain chemistry is different from mine. Some people don't 'choose' to be addicted, and one can argue, they don't even choose to start, they are simply unfortunate enough to try something once and then get instantly addicted. I'd suggest you be a little more sympathetic in your beliefs. So yeah, addiction does just "happen". No one sets out to become dependent on a substance, just like people don't choose their sexuality, it just is.

343GuiltySpark

Retired Art Veteran

Posts: 1,795

Date of registration: Aug 7th 2005

Location: UK

  • Send private message

12

Tuesday, January 31st 2012, 5:37pm

that is 18.25% of your yearly income, wasted on cigarettes
the fact that you refer to it here as "wasted" before going on to say its your choice just proves your pre disposition to a negative attitude to smoking and drugs as a whole and shows your arrogance in thinking that you (asuming you are a non smoker) have the superiority over smokers, because they "waste" their money. It all comes down to preference, if you dont want to spend your money that way then dont, but its not a waste. Personally i think drugs is one of the best things you could possibly spend money on.
You choose to start. You choose not to stop while you still could. It doesn't "just happen".
True you do choose to start, but as stated above, some have pre dispositions to addiction. Also once you have started, you dont have a choice in addiction. For example a friend of mine was addicted to "hard" drugs at one point in his life. He is of exceptionally above average intelligence and knew the damage he was doing to himself. All his friends told him what he was doing. He would agree with us that he wasnt going to do it anymore, then go home and do it straight away. He knew all the facts, but the addiction controls your actions. Not the otherway round, which is the point i was trying to make.
UNI 43 & ANDROMEDA- DontShootTheWockets

HoF's

Basic %20- 6




AngelofDeath

I'm one of the big boys now :D

Posts: 493

Date of registration: Aug 1st 2009

Location: USA

  • Send private message

13

Saturday, February 4th 2012, 5:35am

Quoted from "AngelofDeath"

Quoted from "343GuiltySpark"
Quoted from "Ellgieff"



However it is also due to some people's lack of wanting to live. They wish to squander there money away, let them do it. Addiction can be managed but I feel that those that have led themselves to addiction clearly didn't understand what they were taking should be taken in regulation.
1. I do illegal drugs all the time, who is to say i dont want to live? i would say i want to live more than people who dont do them.\
2. Who is to say it is a way of squandering money.
3. Addiction works in a completely different way to what you are describing here. You dont choose to get addicted, and you dont have any rational thought about it, it just happens
1. He was saying that a percentage of addicts were addicted because they don't want to live. No evidence to put a number to it, but he wasn't claiming that all addicts were suicidal. (I'm sure someone could find a study comparing the rates of suicide among drug users and non-drug users, but I'm really not too interested).

From what i've seen this is a fuzzy area. Depending on how you analyze the data, you can draw whatever conclusion you want. Are they already depressed and suicidal and that's why they turn to drugs? Did the drugs make them depressed or suicidal? What sort of environmental factors contribute? Etc etc etc.


Fair enough.

Quoted
2. Let's use cigarettes as an example. Say you smoke a pack every day. Let's put the price of cigarettes at approx. $5/pack (about what it is here in Virginia, more expensive up north, maybe less so further south).
365 days * $5 = $1825/year
Let's say you smoke two packs a day
$1825 * 2 = $3650
If you make approx $20,000/year, that is 18.25% of your yearly income, wasted on cigarettes. Whether or not it's actually a waste of money is your opinion, but spending 18% of your yearly income on something that significantly increases both your insurance and your chances of death doesn't seem like a good deal to me.

A 12 pack of yuengling lager costs 10.95 at the local market. If you buy (and consume) a twelve pack every 2 days so that's 182.5*10.95=1998.35/year Now if you were a serious alcoholic and bought a twelve pack daily that'd be 3996.75. More than the cigs. I guess what I'm getting at is what's your point? Alcohol and cigs are considered a luxury and therefore get taxed as such which accounts for the high prices. Both are legal, so I fail to see what you're getting at by making this argument in terms of drug legalization. If anything, this just further shows why drugs SHOULD be legal as they'd be cheaper in a non-scarce, regulated market.


That was in response to another post, explaining why I view narcotics as a waste of money.

Quoted

2. Who is to say it is a way of squandering money.


I view both as a waste, just my opinion.

Quoted


3. You choose to start. You choose not to stop while you still could. It doesn't "just happen".

I love how unflinching and uncaring you are. You probably 'think' homosexuality is a choice as well. You'd be wrong on both accounts. http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLand…=1999-04387-003 <-- an older study, but it's very well understood now that addiction varies amongst individuals. Most refer to it as having an 'addictive personality'. For example, my mom smokes cigs, she's tried to quit and literally can't. She stopped for six months but had to start back due to adverse psychological effects. I have smoked cigs before, but I don't smoke nor do I desire to smoke. My mother's brain chemistry is different from mine. Some people don't 'choose' to be addicted, and one can argue, they don't even choose to start, they are simply unfortunate enough to try something once and then get instantly addicted. I'd suggest you be a little more sympathetic in your beliefs. So yeah, addiction does just "happen". No one sets out to become dependent on a substance, just like people don't choose their sexuality, it just is.


Yes, some people are more likely to get addicted to certain substances. However, they chose to "try something once", which led to their addiction. Don't try it in the first place, and you won't get addicted. Seems simple enough to me.


Quoted from "AngelofDeath"

that is 18.25% of your yearly income, wasted on cigarettes
the fact that you refer to it here as "wasted" before going on to say its your choice just proves your pre disposition to a negative attitude to smoking and drugs


Negative attitude towards things that have been proven to have adverse health effects.Check. Moving on.

Quoted from "343GuiltySpark"

as a whole and shows your arrogance in thinking that you (asuming you are a non smoker) have the superiority over smokers, because they "waste" their money. It all comes down to preference, if you dont want to spend your money that way then dont, but its not a waste. Personally i think drugs is one of the best things you could possibly spend money on.


Quoted

Whether or not it's actually a waste of money is your opinion, but spending 18% of your yearly income on something that significantly increases both your insurance and your chances of death doesn't seem like a good deal to me.




So what, because I disagree with your views, I can't express them? You think drugs should be legalized, I think they're a waste of money. I expressed that opinion. Your post merely shows your arrogance in thinking that you are the only one who has a right to an opinion.


Quoted from "AngelofDeath"
You choose to start. You choose not to stop while you still could. It doesn't "just happen".
True you do choose to start, but as stated above, some have pre dispositions to addiction. Also once you have started, you dont have a choice in addiction. For example a friend of mine was addicted to "hard" drugs at one point in his life. He is of exceptionally above average intelligence and knew the damage he was doing to himself. All his friends told him what he was doing. He would agree with us that he wasnt going to do it anymore, then go home and do it straight away. He knew all the facts, but the addiction controls your actions. Not the otherway round, which is the point i was trying to make.


Quoted from "Me"

[your friend] choose not to stop while [your friend] still could.

i.e. He should have stopped before he got addicted. Or never have started at all.

However, if you tried telling him this, he acknowledged it, and he was still unable to quit, maybe you should have gone a step farther and actually tried to help him quit, rather than just talk to him when you knew he wasn't quitting. Take him to rehab, wean him off yourself, whatever you need to do.

Team BLUE

Quoted from "Darth B."

remember, our actions anywhere reflects on us, what we do here is similar to what we do in real life, regardless if we convince ourselves that it's not true.


Rest In Peace Darlo, you will never be forgotten

letssled

I'm one of the big boys now :D

Posts: 450

Date of registration: Apr 15th 2009

  • Send private message

14

Tuesday, February 7th 2012, 3:44am

3. Addiction works in a completely different way to what you are describing here. You dont choose to get addicted, and you dont have any rational thought about it, it just happens
I disagree, with all the information floating around, access to the internet, etc there is no excuse for "it just happens". If I try Crystal Meth, or any "unknown substance" without proper research it is still MY CHOICE and MY DECISION.
I love how unflinching and uncaring you are. You probably 'think' homosexuality is a choice as well. You'd be wrong on both accounts. http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLand…=1999-04387-003 <-- an older study, but it's very well understood now that addiction varies amongst individuals. Most refer to it as having an 'addictive personality'. For example, my mom smokes cigs, she's tried to quit and literally can't. She stopped for six months but had to start back due to adverse psychological effects. I have smoked cigs before, but I don't smoke nor do I desire to smoke. My mother's brain chemistry is different from mine. Some people don't 'choose' to be addicted, and one can argue, they don't even choose to start, they are simply unfortunate enough to try something once and then get instantly addicted. I'd suggest you be a little more sympathetic in your beliefs. So yeah, addiction does just "happen". No one sets out to become dependent on a substance, just like people don't choose their sexuality, it just is.
ummmm, you even stated "they are simply unfortunate enough to try something once and then get instantly addicted" Again, the person CHOSE to try it and then got THEMSELVES addicted. Further, I don't appreciate being classified as unflinching and uncaring. I have helped MANY people whom made poor, poor choices in life. Right up to making food for them to eat and delivering Christmas hampers to there homes. It is sad that today's culture has completely removed responsibility for ones actions. If I chose to drive my car over the speed limit, I accept and acknowledge the risk of getting a speeding ticket. Or is it the Police's fault for not phoning me up every morning to remind me not to speed?

And Homosexuality is off topic, but there are ex-homosexuals so there you should not make a "blanket statement". Anyways, enough on that, I won't respond to anymore of that.
Hey, I know letssled attacks you a lot with his rips.......and I want to crash those rips a lot!

TurtleCrasher

I'm one of the big boys now :D

Posts: 663

Date of registration: May 2nd 2011

Location: Croatia

Occupation: Ogame, School

  • Send private message

15

Wednesday, May 2nd 2012, 6:44pm

For some medical purposes yes but for everyone big NO;)
]
Tnx brain rot for sig

JUPITER-RETIRED
NEKKAR-Miner-RETIRED
TAURUS-Retired
Blind lanx on DF harvest -http://goo.gl/G4kTto





intercept

Grumpy veteran noob - Game operator uni kassiopeia

Posts: 447

Date of registration: Feb 19th 2012

  • Send private message

16

Thursday, May 3rd 2012, 4:14pm

think the programmers of GF are already on drugs...

Contacted. Please don't spam.
-Nightingale
Uni 4- retired (top 300(2 HOFs))
uni 12 retired (top 500)
uni Jupiter ( alive and kicking :P (60HOFs 2 ACS advanced3 ninjas 12 moons given -3)
HOF's 62
RIPs killed 4
This post has already been reported.

Just_Rot

Master of Minions

Posts: 1,388

Date of registration: May 2nd 2008

Occupation: Representin' Sunnyvale

  • Send private message

17

Friday, May 4th 2012, 10:41pm

For some medical purposes yes but for everyone big NO;)

What makes you try and say what I can and cannot put into my body?
<3 TehPinkEmoBunni
Interested in Magic: The Gathering? Click Here!

Gilgamesh

There're many behind me...but still some ahead

Posts: 1,223

Date of registration: Aug 15th 2008

Occupation: Being the King of hopeless humanity

  • Send private message

18

Sunday, May 6th 2012, 4:24am

For some medical purposes yes but for everyone big NO;)

What makes you try and say what I can and cannot put into my body?




Drugs, and overuse of Alcohol are for people who to scared/disappointed of reality and want to run away from it, so if you cant accept the world as it is, than maybe it would be easier/cheaper just make a deadly pill so you can just vanish from the world?
Iskandar the King of Conquerors

"Glory lies beyond the horizon. Challenge it because you know you cannot reach it. Speak of conquest and make it real." -

Gilgamesh the King of Heroes


All dreams must disappear when the dreamer wakes. Every last one of them."

Just_Rot

Master of Minions

Posts: 1,388

Date of registration: May 2nd 2008

Occupation: Representin' Sunnyvale

  • Send private message

19

Sunday, May 6th 2012, 12:04pm

That's wonderful that you think that, it really is, but it still doesn't answer my question.
<3 TehPinkEmoBunni
Interested in Magic: The Gathering? Click Here!

TurtleCrasher

I'm one of the big boys now :D

Posts: 663

Date of registration: May 2nd 2011

Location: Croatia

Occupation: Ogame, School

  • Send private message

20

Sunday, May 6th 2012, 12:40pm

For some medical purposes yes but for everyone big NO;)

What makes you try and say what I can and cannot put into my body?


Well it isnt just what you put in your body, if this could stay on this level than i am 100% for legalizing drugs but there is lot of people that will do anything to get more so they will harm sociality anyway just to get it;)
]
Tnx brain rot for sig

JUPITER-RETIRED
NEKKAR-Miner-RETIRED
TAURUS-Retired
Blind lanx on DF harvest -http://goo.gl/G4kTto