DescentBB

Beowulf wrote:I respect the decision not to drink, I won't try to convince anyone otherwise, but don't condemn all those who do imbibe by grouping them with alcoholics and junkies.

I didn't. I was very careful to say that some people manage to keep it within moderation. I did NOT say that those folks had serious problems, just that they didn't have anything I wanted.

Beowulf wrote:I'd rather be jaded than naive any day of the week.

My opinion exactly, but that unfortunately can lead to isolation.

Kilarin wrote:[and I am NOT trying to offend

I wouldn't apologize for that. I doubt the other side cares about not offending you.


Drugs, in any form, alter a person physically and mentally. One of the problems with teenagers doing drugs is the numbing of the intellect, which inhibits learning and clouds decision making. Pot is well known to envelop the user in a cloud of apathy, and is proven to reduce the desire to do just about everything except eat. When I was in high school there was a popular saying, "Why do you think they call it 'Getting wasted?'"

Abuse of drugs wastes a person away, in differnet degrees, but always in the direction leading to the corruption of the mind and physical condition. Even tobacco, which some have said is more addictive than heroin, alters the mind and creates a physical addition that can lead to premature death. Why would anyone in their right mind knowningly take up such a habit? (That is a question for another time.) But the point is, teenagers from every generation have done drugs of one sort or another. The difference today, however, is that more of them are doing them, and continue to do them long after they leave school, or are kicked out of school.

All my "friends" in high school did drugs. I did drugs. Some of them died before reaching the age of 18. Two OD'd, one tripped walking to his front door and hit his head on a brick (he was stoned on "Reds," barbituates some people call "downers"), one was murdered (my cousin Joe), a few went to jail for many years do to drug related offenses, and one very good freind was in jail for ten years for writing bad checks to support her heroin habit, among other things. Some of my friends are doing fine, like me, and they, like me, no longer do drugs.

I stopped doing drugs in the 10th grade, when I recognized what they were doing to my "friends", and after I had flunked every class but drafting, because of my drug related stupor and all the days I ditched class (63 days during the second semester) so I could be with my "friends" and get high.

By clouding the mind, drugs create a false sense of everything. How can anyone benefit from such a condition?

Kilarin wrote:For myself, the kind of people I would meet hanging out in bars probably wouldn't like ME much.

You don't have to go to a bar to drink or meet people.

Kilarin wrote:It just seems amazing to me that someone would only be able to "fully" enjoy themselves after they had their inhibitions lowered by chemically altering their brain.

I don't think anyone's said anything about reaching some sort of peak or full level enjoyment. The claim is really quite simple--moderate alcohol or drug use can contribute to a more enjoyable experience, even under normal circumstances. This is the claim in its simplest and most reduced form, so if you're stating it any other way, like "You need alcohol or drugs to have fun," or "You need alcohol or drugs to reach a full level of enjoyment," you're probably distorting the claim and making it say something that it's not intended to.

Even given that, I think you're direly over-simplifying the effects of alcohol if you think that its only effect on you is to lower your inhibitions. I'd try to explain it to you, but like I've said, I don't think that it's easily possible.

Still, here are some good Websites that try:

http://home.howstuffworks.com/alcohol5.htm
Unfortunately, this one explains stages like "euphoria" or "excitement" in terms of how people appear, not in terms of what they feel internally. From personal experience, the end of the euphoria or the beginning of the excitement stages are probably the most enjoyable.

Here's a site that tries to explain it a bit better by using internal terms and the biphasic curve:
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Health ... 27422.html

It seems to be a bit conversative, or maybe my high metabolism might just make my bac-to-drinks-consumed ratio a bit lower than what the table toward the bottom of the page indicates, but that's more or less the real deal.

To argue that alcohol could have no such positive effects, I think you'd have a very difficult time attempting to explain why the sum of human history disagrees and thinks that moderate alcohol or drug use can contribute to a good time. (Even the Bible makes testimony to wine's positive effects--"wine maketh merry" I believe is the line.) Moreover, I think you'd have a hard time distinguishing between people "thinking they're having a better time" and people "genuinely having a good time." Since we're talking about mental states to begin with, normally thinking you're having a good time is having a good time.

Jeff250 wrote:Even the Bible makes testimony to wine's positive effects--"wine maketh merry" I believe is the line.

Psalm 104:15
"And wine that makes the heart of mortal man rejoice."

And Paul encouraged Timothy to "use a little wine for your stomach," apparantly as a remedy for some sickness -1Timothy 5:23

The pleasant effects of wine are stated plainly in scripture. Jesus' turned water into wine at a wedding party for the enjoyment of the guests - and it was of much higher quality than what the host had brought. But this promotion of wine drinking is not intended to encourage the abuse of wine (or any other form of Alcohol), because elswhere the scriptures condemn drunkeness.

Proverbs 23:20,21
"Do not come to be among heavy drinkers of wine, among those who are gluttonous eaters of flesh. For a drunkard and a glutton will come to poverty, and drowsiness will clothe one with mere rags."

1Corinthians 5:11
"But now I am writing you to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is . . . a drunkard."

1 Corinthians 6:9,10
"What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's Kingdom? Do not be misled. . . drunkards . . . will not inheirt God's KIngdom."

The key to wine drinking is moderation. God made it for our ocassional enjoyment, but not for our abuse. We must live balanced lives. Over- indulging is not balanced, and can have disasterous consequences.

Stryker wrote:Give it another three years and you won't be. :Wink:

Thats good to hear!

Jeff250 wrote:I think you're direly over-simplifying the effects of alcohol if you think that its only effect on you is to lower your inhibitions. I'd try to explain it to you, but like I've said, I don't think that it's easily possible.

Granted. Interesting links! But as for the direct experiance, in this case, I'll stay willfully ignorant.

Jeff250 wrote:To argue that alcohol could have no such positive effects, I think you'd have a very difficult time attempting to explain why the sum of human history disagrees and thinks that moderate alcohol or drug use can contribute to a good time.

You've underestimated my ego. I'm a Libertarian, remember, I FREQUENTLY think that almost all of humanity is wrong and I'm right.

Jeff250 wrote:Even the Bible makes testimony to wine's positive effects--"wine maketh merry" I believe is the line

Yep. While I think you can make valid arguments against alcohol use from the Bible, there is simply no way to say that the Bible requires complete abstenance from alcohol.

ah, I see that Shoku has already covered that topic pretty well!

Kilarin wrote:

roid wrote:Yeah i honestly can't see myself ever actually encouraging kids to be socially conservative like you are suggesting. The world has enough sheeple.

Ha! I see the entire thing the other way around. It's the drug-heads who are sheeple, its the kids who refuse to participate who stand out as individuals.

i consider the avoiders sheeple because they avoid interaction with someone on the basis of an ideological difference as small as drug taking. An ideology which only "the bible is the only education i need" reason-proof sheeple-encouraging organisations like the Religious Right encourage.
I was about to include the DEA (and therefore the government) was part of the problem too - but really they are just taking their views from the Religious Right - so are just extentions of it:

Alcohol Prohibition was spearheaded by the (always Fascist) Religious Right, mainly the Methodists. And they got what they wanted: The Bureau of Prohibition - the department that enforced alcohol prohibition back in the 1920s. When Prohibition was finally repealed, the Bureau of Prohibition was disolved - most of the agents from it just moved into the newly formed Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Which eventually became the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
The modern DEA is the remnants of Alcohol Prohabition by the Religious Right back in the 1920s. Religion was behind alcohol prohibition - which has evolved into drug prohibition. Nothing has changed.

So, i say "Sheeple" because the very nature of the ideological difference is an authoritarian religious base which discourages reasoned thought and debate. Who ironicly suggests that sheep with their timid herding instinct are the archtype of good, and goats - bad. It's an ideologcal base that values following the herd and avoiding disent rather than questioning things and making up your own mind.

Kilarin wrote:Telling a kid not to hang out with other kids who do drugs isn't JUST about avoiding influence, although that is certainly an important element for a teenager. But its just not a good idea to hang out with people who are doing illegal and dangerous things. Don't hang out with shoplifters. Don't hang out with people who vandalize other peoples property for amusement. Don't hang out with kids who jump in front of cars and video the drivers reactions. And don't hang out with kids who do drugs or alcohol. Even if you would never be tempted to do any of these things yourself.

Yeah we're not talking about refusing participation here ("no drugs for me thx"), we're talking refusing association ("no YOU for me thx"). Social Purging. Splitting into seperate ideological camps of WE (the pure) and THEM (the defiled).

I think a problem may be that you are confusing what is physically dangerous with what is socially dangerous. Social danger is something that only sheeple shy away from.
If drugs are dangerous in any form, then sure, avoid them. Most people are in denial about the true dangers of drugs - and the differences between USE and ABUSE*. You know that our society considers small amounts of alcohol (one of the most DANGEROUS of drugs) to be acceptable risk. Even though alcohol abuse kills thousands. You know that terrorism has people in a panic, yet no-one panics about cars - that kill factors more people.
If it is truly based on learned reason rather than superstition and social & moral stigma, then be consistant.

If people think that recreational drug use melts you brain, they should stop using alcohol (yes i see you don't, now i'm being more general). The problem here is that most people are letting an insane religious grouping control a governmental organisation which dictates what is illegal and what isn't. And you are letting this in turn dictate what you believe is ACTUALLY more or less harmfull to you.
We call this circular logic - "Drugs are bad because they are illegal. And they are illegal because they are bad."
No! The system is in the control of pietist religious denominations, reason and logic are barely ever involved. This is what so many people like me are TRYING to get people to wake up to, but they won't. It's incredibly frustrating. i remain a Humanitarian Misanthrope.


Do you know what the cosmic joke to this situation is? I used to be part of the Religious Right, i grew up in it. And i hate myself for everything i once did, while i knew no better.
But here's the thing, the Religious Right hates itself too. Pietist religions work on the dualistic belief that the flesh is something to be shunned. They teach that humans are dualistic - that we have both good and bad - that we must hate the bad and fight against it. Mix this with pride and it's the basis for Denial - When you deny your own self, it causes neurosis, redirections of energy. My favourite is homophobia - caused by the (proud) denial that your own homosexual sexual urges exist. The stronger (or more "CORE") the urges are - the more neurotic and insane the denial makes the person.
Ok enough of that illustration. My point is that the cosmic joke in this situation is that i am perhaps no better than the Religious Right -because i try to deny the very real human nature to hate - it can be said that i'm in denial myself, and am therefore a hypocrite.

Those who are good, and those who are evil - They are all in denial.
The only way to avoid it, is to just be....
to just be.

(the previous words: fueled by gradually lowering blood sugars)

Kilarin wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:Even the Bible makes testimony to wine's positive effects--"wine maketh merry" I believe is the line

Yep. While I think you can make valid arguments against alcohol use from the Bible, there is simply no way to say that the Bible requires complete abstenance from alcohol.

actually, i don't think anyone could make a valid argument against alcohol USE from the bible. ABUSE yes, USE no.
There is an important difference between USE and ABUSE that both you* and Drug-Prohibitionists are ignoring.

*you say you understand the difference, but how you talk suggests otherwise. You suggest that MOST alcohol drunk is drunk by a binge drinker. But this is not the case. As an accessable example: i often have a glass of wine with dinner, or a beer while watching TV. On other occasions i often drink enough to be tipsy, but I am never drunk, i have never fergotten anything because of an alcohol binge, i have never thrown up because of alcohol. Basically, alcohol in moderation is the norm for me.

roid wrote:they avoid interaction with someone on the basis of an ideological difference as small as drug taking.

I don't consider this a small ideological difference.

roid wrote:So, i say "Sheeple" because the very nature of the ideological difference is an authoritarian religious base which discourages reasoned thought and debate.

Are you saying that most of the drug users in high school got into it because they sat down and thought and reasoned about the costs and benefits and decided that the benefits outweighed the costs. Or do you think most of the kids doing drugs start doing them because their friends are doing them? Like Sheep following the leader?

I won't deny that religious people sometimes make decisions without thinking about it, but that's a HUMAN condition that applies to both sides of this debate. In my opinion, more to the takers than the avoiders. Very few people refuse to take drugs because of peer pressure.

Now then, since the major starting point for drug use is peer pressure, that is a very valid reason for teens who don't want to end up taking drugs to avoid the crowd that does, but it wasn't the reason I listed, which brings us to:

roid wrote:I think a problem may be that you are confusing what is physically dangerous with what is socially dangerous. Social danger is something that only sheeple shy away from.

Social danger is quite real, the people you "hang with" influence you and your behavior. Especially for teenagers.

AND, Drug abusers are physically dangerous. As I pointed out, hanging out with people who carry illegal substances on their bodies is a good way to end up getting arrested. Not to mention the other physical dangers in hanging out with teenagers who abuse alcohol and drugs. AND, in high school, any use of alcohol or drugs is abuse. These kids are not old enough to be making these decisions.

roid wrote:You suggest that MOST alcohol drunk is drunk by a binge drinker. But this is not the case.

Not what I intended to say. I know very few drinkers who have never been drunk. Most of the drinkers I know do NOT get drunk most of the time, but MOST of them HAVE gotten drunk. Many of them PLAN on getting drunk every so often. I wouldn't call them alcoholics by any means, but I do consider this a dangerous use of alcohol. My opinion.

Now I think I need to clarify myself again because this seems to be coming down to a "Kilarin hates drugs and alcohol" thread. Which is true, but I also don't think it's my place to rant and rave at other people about it.

I FULLY SUPPORT any adults right to use whatever chemicals they want. Including the really hard stuff. If you want to shoot up on heroin, why should the police stop you? It's not the police's job to protect you from yourself. It IS the job of the police to protect OTHERS from you. And if we legalized drugs, we would need to eliminate intoxication of any kind as an excuse for crime. You made the decision when you became intoxicated. If you kill someone while under the influence, its murder 1. No excuses. BUT, if you can use your drug of choice, whatever that may be, without directly harming anyone else, then it's not the governments business.

I am NOT here spouting off that all of you people must stop drinking or smoking or whatever. Do I disapprove? Duh, yes. So what? It's your choice to make.

The only reason I got involved was that a TEENAGER asked about drug and alcohol abuse in high school. I think teenagers SHOULD NOT use addictive substances. They are too young to be making decisions like that. And yes, I DO support the idea that a teenager who does not want to partake of drugs or alcohol is best off avoiding the crowd that does. Peer pressure is obviously an important influence in teenagers lives, and one of the major reasons teenagers start using drugs. But even more importantly, teenagers who abuse drugs and alcohol are DANGEROUS to be around. They can get you arrested or killed.

Ideologically, I think Kilarin is on the right lines, and I'll take a step further to justify the illegality of some drugs. The prime example: heroin. One can argue that if one wishes to use heroin without harming anyone else around them, they should be free to do so. I would agree. In practical terms, though, even if it where legal, what percentage of heroin use do you think would not be linked to some sort of harm to others? I'd make a case for extremely little, because of the addictive nature of the drug. So, if 95% of heroin use results in some sort of criminal activity (or at least abusive activity), does the other 5% justify the legalization of it?

The criminalization of it is what is illegal. It shouldn't be a crime to do herion. That has stopped, what, a grand total of ZERO people from taking it? What they do on it could be a crime, and they should be put away if they do do something on it. Just...like...now. Criminalizing it is a cash cow, and that is all it will ever be.

Testiculese wrote:The criminalization of it is what is illegal. It shouldn't be a crime to do herion. That has stopped, what, a grand total of ZERO people from taking it? What they do on it could be a crime, and they should be put away if they do do something on it. Just...like...now. Criminalizing it is a cash cow, and that is all it will ever be.

On the contrary, I'd contend that criminalization of heroin has probably stopped a LOT of people from doing it. If someone randomly decides to try it, they have to do more work to make it happen if it's illegal. The fact that it's forced (at least somewhat) underground makes it harder to start.

I was thinking that this can expanded to perscription drug control. If we are to be consistent, the idea of perscription drugs should be done away with, and anyone should be able to buy anything without anything other than the cash to pay for it. I can't imagine the U.S. being a safer or more profitable place as a result of the legalization of drugs.

Snoopy, I understand where you are coming from, I'm also frightened by what might happen if we legalized drugs, but then I'm not convinced it will be any worse then the impact alcohol already has. And Prohibition showed us that alcohol caused MORE crime and trouble when it was illegal then when it was legal.

The key to legalizing drug use, is actually ENFORCING the laws against crime. no more sending someone in for treatment and then putting them back on the street. If you rob in order to support your habit, you go to jail, and you STAY THERE for a long time. Actually PUNISH people for crimes instead of having a revolving door on the prisons and we could keep the dangerous people off the streets.

Now then, I would propose a law that I think is ethical and might make for interesting change in the way drugs are dealt.

If you want to use drugs, its not unfair to anyone else. But SELLING drugs is a different issue. You can make a very valid argument that it is an unfair marketing practice to make a profit selling a physically addictive substance. If subliminal advertising is considered to be unfair, certainly selling a substance that make you sick if you don't buy more should be considered unfair marketing.

This wouldn't affect alcohol and pot, since my understanding is that neither one is physically addicting under moderate use. BUT, tobacco, heroine, cocaine, etc, would all be forbidden to be sold for a profit. Co-ops would arise that would sell the stuff on a non-profit basis, and you could, of course, grow your own. But we would eliminate much of the crime and almost all of the incentive to entice new users.

I LIKE this idea, but I'm guessing it wouldn't work out in the real world.

Snoopy wrote:I was thinking that this can expanded to prescription drug control. If we are to be consistent, the idea of prescription drugs should be done away with, and anyone should be able to buy anything without anything other than the cash to pay for it.

Yes, we SHOULD extend it to prescription drugs, with the exception of anti-biotics.

Every year the FDA releases numbers about how many lives will be saved by the drugs they have approved for use. BUT, if you work that backwards, thats a list of how many people died each year while they were making the drug wait for approval, and it can be a pretty big list.

The FDA should be a labeling organization. Drugs that pass the FDA standards are allowed to put the FDA stamp of approval on the bottle. But if I want to try the latest cancer cure before it's been proven to be safe, thats MY choice.

What would this do for liability? Would a seller be liable for damage cause by his/her product? Drug companies these days deal with huge class action suits- would they be liable if you try their experimental cancer drug and die as a direct result?

Kilarin wrote:And Prohibition showed us that alcohol caused MORE crime when it was illegal then when it was legal.

Well done Kilarin, you win an award for stating the bloody obvious.
Or perhaps you would rather rephrase your sentence and try again?

Snoopy wrote:What would this do for liability? Would a seller be liable for damage cause by his/her product?

That would entirely depend on what they advertised. If they were smart enough to clearly label the product as "This drug has not been approved by the FDA, it's safety may be in question, use at your own risk", then the responsibility lies with the purchaser. if the pharmaceutical company was dumb enough to claim that the product was safe (without the FDA stamp), or to fake the FDA stamp, then they would most certainly be liable.

Kilarin wrote:And Prohibition showed us that alcohol caused MORE crime when it was illegal then when it was legal.

TIGERassault wrote:Well done Kilarin, you win an award for stating the bloody obvious.
Or perhaps you would rather rephrase your sentence and try again?

Ha! Touché, allow me to rephrase.

BEYOND the issue that selling alcohol was a crime during prohibition, it increased crime in many OTHER areas as well. Prohibition practically built the mob in America.

Kilarin wrote:

Snoopy wrote:BEYOND the issue that selling alcohol was a crime during prohibition, it increased crime in many OTHER areas as well. Prohibition practically built the mob in America.

So would that mean that the mob has a vested interest in NOT legalizing drugs?

Despite the above being a rhetorical question, I had never actually thought of this before.

So would that mean that the mob has a vested interest in NOT legalizing drugs?

Oh, most definitely.

Kilarin wrote:

So would that mean that the mob has a vested interest in NOT legalizing drugs?

Oh, most definitely.

How ironic.

if Heroin were decriminalised, it's use would no longer cause crime - because Heroin would suddenly become affordable. Off the top of my head there are only 2 reasons for drug crime:

a) The user is so addicted to the drug, and the drug so expensive, that she must steal (a crime) to support her habit.

b) The drug itself influences you to commit criminal acts. Ironicly the major illustration of this effect is in the drug ALCOHOL which has been proven to cause violence in a number of users. Few other drugs share this trait - it's almost purely an alcohol thing.
You get high on heroin and you are not going to go into a 7-11 and pick a fight with the storeowner. Yet with alcohol - yes this is entirely possible.

This is one of the reasons why alcohol is considered one of if not THE most dangerous recreational drug in existance. The crazy situation the law creates is that if anyone wishes to alter his mind-state with chemicals - the only legal way to do this is with the most dangerous drug. The choice really is insane - if you are caught choosing a less dangerous drug you will be sent to jail.

see this thread from 2 years ago ALMOST TO THE DAY OMG!
viewtopic.php?t=4099

Kilarin wrote:

roid wrote:So, i say "Sheeple" because the very nature of the ideological difference is an authoritarian religious base which discourages reasoned thought and debate.

Are you saying that most of the drug users in high school got into it because they sat down and thought and reasoned about the costs and benefits and decided that the benefits outweighed the costs. Or do you think most of the kids doing drugs start doing them because their friends are doing them? Like Sheep following the leader?

I won't deny that religious people sometimes make decisions without thinking about it, but that's a HUMAN condition that applies to both sides of this debate. In my opinion, more to the takers than the avoiders. Very few people refuse to take drugs because of peer pressure.

i dedicatedly remained terrified of drugs until i decided to research the topic myself in my early 20s. So yes... i indeed researched and "sat down and reasoned about the costs and benefits" before i ever touched a drug becides alcohol (which my family acclimatised me to). In an ideal world i would have been taught this information about drugs from the beginning, but all the information we are taught is frankly stupid and riddled with lies. I had to google for the truth myself. Most people may never consider they have been lied to.

Kilarin wrote:Now then, since the major starting point for drug use is peer pressure, that is a very valid reason for teens who don't want to end up taking drugs to avoid the crowd that does, but it wasn't the reason I listed, which brings us to:

One is inclusive of others, one is exclusive of others. If this doesn't bother you, then hey whatever. My internal cult behavior warning siren is sensative, and justifyably so.

Kilarin wrote:

roid wrote:I think a problem may be that you are confusing what is physically dangerous with what is socially dangerous. Social danger is something that only sheeple shy away from.

Social danger is quite real, the people you "hang with" influence you and your behavior. Especially for teenagers.

AND, Drug abusers are physically dangerous. As I pointed out, hanging out with people who carry illegal substances on their bodies is a good way to end up getting arrested. Not to mention the other physical dangers in hanging out with teenagers who abuse alcohol and drugs. AND, in high school, any use of alcohol or drugs is abuse. These kids are not old enough to be making these decisions.

All of these things are dangers caused by drug laws, not drug abuse. Yes i know as a libertarian you're against the drug LAWS anyway so it's a moot point (and probabaly why you arn't more careful to avoid repeating such things). But still please, i urge you to be more careful to avoid repeating false drug-war propeganda. FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:TOTALLY TRUE REASONS DRUGS ARE BAD

Kilarin wrote:The only reason I got involved was that a TEENAGER asked about drug and alcohol abuse in high school. I think teenagers SHOULD NOT use addictive substances. They are too young to be making decisions like that. And yes, I DO support the idea that a teenager who does not want to partake of drugs or alcohol is best off avoiding the crowd that does. Peer pressure is obviously an important influence in teenagers lives, and one of the major reasons teenagers start using drugs. But even more importantly, teenagers who abuse drugs and alcohol are DANGEROUS to be around. They can get you arrested or killed.

I agree, teenages using drugs unsupervised is a concern.
But teenagers will experiment regardless. So we should be offering supervision and education. Obviously you wouldn't be able to educate kids in this regard so maybe defer to Google or something, no offense - i'm gonna be a bit blunt. The simple cause-effect of you purposefully knowing nothing about drugs and alcohol is that you will have nothing useful to teach others on the subject - you won't help anyone concentrate on healthy use and avoid dangerous abuse. The problem... the reason the drug war is allowed to continue... is mass ignorance.
</a bit blunt>

snoopy wrote:I'd contend that criminalization of heroin has probably stopped a LOT of people from doing it. If someone randomly decides to try it, they have to do more work to make it happen if it's illegal. The fact that it's forced (at least somewhat) underground makes it harder to start.

Oh, it heroin were suddenly legal you would go out and try it?

Yes, it being underground does make it harder to start in some respects, but also easier to start in other respects (eg: the lure of the forbidden) - and it's easier for children to get and use drugs than to get alcohol because the underground does not "harm minimalise". Also because when a subject is illegal/taboo your less likely to discuss it in public with others, forcing the breakdown of social networks that could have otherwise helped you to minimise harm.
- It also makes it harder to manage and/or cure any addiction you do develop.
- It also encourages unscrupulous dealers to actively encourage the style of use that leads to addiction - rather than educate people about howto avoid it. (imagine if you didn't realise that chain smoking was likely to quickly lead to nicotine addiction).
- It also makes it easier to overdose (imagine if there were no easy way to tell the difference between a beer and a vodka - we'd all get alcohol poisoning quite often).
These just off the top of my head.

Kilarin wrote:Now then, I would propose a law that I think is ethical and might make for interesting change in the way drugs are dealt.

If you want to use drugs, its not unfair to anyone else. But SELLING drugs is a different issue. You can make a very valid argument that it is an unfair marketing practice to make a profit selling a physically addictive substance. If subliminal advertising is considered to be unfair, certainly selling a substance that make you sick if you don't buy more should be considered unfair marketing.

This wouldn't affect alcohol and pot, since my understanding is that neither one is physically addicting under moderate use. BUT, tobacco, heroine, cocaine, etc, would all be forbidden to be sold for a profit. Co-ops would arise that would sell the stuff on a non-profit basis, and you could, of course, grow your own. But we would eliminate much of the crime and almost all of the incentive to entice new users.

I LIKE this idea, but I'm guessing it wouldn't work out in the real world.

actually you are getting close to harm minimalisation strategys that are actually in use in some areas in the form of "safe injecting rooms". Where you can go there and nurses will administer your heroin (or methadone) for you right then and there. It's free! What this effectively does is remove the ability of addiction to raise heroin sales and fuel crime. People don't go there for a recreational high.

Heroin injecting rooms are politically popular.
Because being "Tough on Drugs" wins the vote.
Because people are fearful reactionary ignorant sheeple.

roid wrote:All of these things are dangers caused by drug laws, not drug abuse. ...
But still please, i urge you to be more careful to avoid repeating false drug-war propeganda.

It's not false as long as drugs are still illegal. And, legal or not, especially with alcohol, people under the influence can be dangerous to be around. The combination of teenagers and alcohol is especially dangerous.

roid wrote:The simple cause-effect of you purposefully knowing nothing about drugs and alcohol is that you will have nothing useful to teach others on the subject - you won't help anyone concentrate on healthy use and avoid dangerous abuse.

Don't worry about offending me, and I certainly admit the obvious truth of the fact. I would be USELESS as a teacher of how to use drugs in moderation. But then, that's not what I recommend, I recommend abstinence.

roid wrote:actually you are getting close to harm minimalisation strategys that are actually in use in some areas in the form of "safe injecting rooms".

I suppose if a co-op or private charity ran it, I couldn't object, but I would certainly be angry if they were using my tax dollars to fund such a place. Of course, it would just go onto the very long list of misuses I'm upset about.

Kilarin wrote:

roid wrote:actually you are getting close to harm minimalisation strategys that are actually in use in some areas in the form of "safe injecting rooms".

I suppose if a co-op or private charity ran it, I couldn't object, but I would certainly be angry if they were using my tax dollars to fund such a place. Of course, it would just go onto the very long list of misuses I'm upset about.

Be glad you don't live in Vancouver then.