Dave Posted September 7, 2003 Posted September 7, 2003 Didn't we have this discussion before in the politics forum? (drugs, btw)
sepultallica Posted September 8, 2003 Author Posted September 8, 2003 anyone care to discuss the negative side to drug use? it can't all be good can it?
fafalone Posted September 8, 2003 Posted September 8, 2003 Of course not, that's why its illegal to begin with. If you get severely addicted to any drug, it will cause health problems, and financial problems if you can't afford the habit that can lead to stealing. And of course overdosing is a risk if you aren't careful about it.
sepultallica Posted September 8, 2003 Author Posted September 8, 2003 they're illegal for a reason aren't they?
fafalone Posted September 8, 2003 Posted September 8, 2003 They shouldn't be. People get addicted to legal substances like alcohol and nicotine, and that leads to health problems. Also, people steal all the time when they can't afford something. Legalization would actually reduce the problems, as quality control would lead to reduced health problems, and corporate distribution would reduce the violence typically associated with rather shady people in the current distribution chain. Help for those who are addicted would be more readily available without fear of being arrested. Basic psychological principles underly the reason more people do drugs if they are illegal. Legalization makes drugs lose their appeal to a large percentage of people, thus reducing liklihood of use. And furthermore, reported use would go up if anything because people would be less worried about being caught.
Sayonara Posted September 8, 2003 Posted September 8, 2003 There's a difference between "reported use" and "reported use". A government that ushers in a grand new age of legal drugs is hardly going to wave every report of drug abuse they get in the media's collective face. If it's not a crime, it's not going to be reported as such. That doesn't mean it isn't happening.
fafalone Posted September 8, 2003 Posted September 8, 2003 Who said anything about the media. I'm talking about scientific polls that also track use of legal substances like alcohol.
matter Posted September 8, 2003 Posted September 8, 2003 If people could grow their own marijuana, there wouldn't be any demand on the street for it I'm guessing. It would put the smugglers out of business. They'd have to do it for most all other drugs though if they really wanted to eliminate the smuggling business. How can we find out if the united states government actually profits from having all these drugs illegal? What if the government is behind all the drug dealing? :scratch:
Sayonara Posted September 8, 2003 Posted September 8, 2003 fafalone said in post #34 :Who said anything about the media. I'm talking about scientific polls that also track use of legal substances like alcohol. So where does "people worrying about being caught" come in then? (Excuse paraphrasing). If you're saying that the existence of scientific polls means there will be no media interest in this massive social change, or that the fact that such polls may be executed means that you personally can accurately predict the results with no surprises and no chance of being wrong, then my response will be to laugh. Lots.
blike Posted September 8, 2003 Posted September 8, 2003 Sayonara³ said in post #36 : So where does "people worrying about being caught" come in then? (Excuse paraphrasing). He is saying that because it would be legalized, people would not be as worried about admitting substance use(abuse), and hence, reported use would likely go up. He's not referring to 'reported use' as in police reports, he's talking about polls that track things like alcohol consumption, fast food consumption, etc.
Sayonara Posted September 8, 2003 Posted September 8, 2003 If that's so he wants to be less glib about his responses. Faf strikes me as being particularly well-suited to a career in US politics. "Who said anything about the media" is a fairly skilled way of dismissing the point from the discussion despite it being completely valid.
blike Posted September 8, 2003 Posted September 8, 2003 I'm not sure I understand the confusion over the post. I was wondering what you were talking about when you mentioned media as well. Legalization makes drugs lose their appeal to a large percentage of people, thus reducing liklihood of use. And furthermore, reported use would go up if anything because people would be less worried about being caught. What valid point do you have about the media? "A government that ushers in a grand new age of legal drugs is hardly going to wave every report of drug abuse they get in the media's collective face. If it's not a crime, it's not going to be reported as such. That doesn't mean it isn't happening." "Reported use" does not necessarily suggest criminal behavior; because the term is used to track use of legal substances as well as illegal substances. Also it is clear from the context of his post that he simply could not have been referring to "reported use" in the criminal manner. I'm very confused here..
Sayonara Posted September 8, 2003 Posted September 8, 2003 I'm confused that I'm only allowed to discuss aspects of the problem that fafalone is discussing, as dictated after I've posted.
fafalone Posted September 8, 2003 Posted September 8, 2003 Sayonara³ said in post #36 : So where does "people worrying about being caught" come in then? (Excuse paraphrasing). If you're saying that the existence of scientific polls means there will be no media interest in this massive social change, or that the fact that such polls may be executed means that you personally can accurately predict the results with no surprises and no chance of being wrong, then my response will be to laugh. Lots. I for one will not fill out even anonymous surveys about illegal things I [do not] do out of paranoia about biometics/video/etc. All I'm saying is the media reporting on the results of reputable studies will not cause a change in the results.
Sayonara Posted September 8, 2003 Posted September 8, 2003 I don't believe for an instant you're stupid enough to not know what I'm talking about so I have to assume this is some kind of deliberate pseudotroll. Anyway, I'm tired and I have a headache (can you tell?) so I'm going to bed now.
blike Posted September 8, 2003 Posted September 8, 2003 Sayonara³ said in post #42 :I don't believe for an instant you're stupid enough to not know what I'm talking about so I have to assume this is some kind of deliberate pseudotroll. Anyway, I'm tired and I have a headache (can you tell?) so I'm going to bed now. hrm, i must be in the stupid section seriously though, we americans are slow, be direct. I still think there is some sort of fundamental misunderstanding in this thread somewhere because I see faf's point but I don't see yours; and usually its the opposite of that.
blike Posted September 8, 2003 Posted September 8, 2003 In a nutshell, faf was saying "because its legal, quality control will go up which should reduce violence, corporate distribution which will also help reduce violence, people would be more likely to get help because they are not afraid of prosecution, and reported use will go up because they are not afraid of prosecution." All of which I agree with. So where does "people worrying about being caught" come in then? People worrying about being caught are a lot less likely to fill out independant surveys revealing their illegal drug habbits. Legalized drugs = no worries, which means people are more likely to report drug use. If you're saying that the existence of scientific polls means there will be no media interest in this massive social change No, he didn't say that. He didn't even mention the media. ...or that the fact that such polls may be executed means that you personally can accurately predict the results with no surprises and no chance of being wrong, then my response will be to laugh. He didn't say that either. He just stated the most likely (and logical) trend of the surveys.
fafalone Posted September 8, 2003 Posted September 8, 2003 I really don't get the point you're trying to make
matter Posted September 8, 2003 Posted September 8, 2003 people who are worried about "getting caught" by reporting their drug use to surverys seem ignorant. free speech allows you to say you do drugs and not be prosecuted.
Dudde Posted September 9, 2003 Posted September 9, 2003 but if they were smart enough to figure that out, they probably aren't doing drugs in the first place
fafalone Posted September 9, 2003 Posted September 9, 2003 matter said in post #46 :people who are worried about "getting caught" by reporting their drug use to surverys seem ignorant. free speech allows you to say you do drugs and not be prosecuted. Go up to a police officer and say that. Saying that provides reasonable grounds for search and surveillance.
matter Posted September 9, 2003 Posted September 9, 2003 fafalone said in post #48 : Go up to a police officer and say that. Saying that provides reasonable grounds for search and surveillance. 1.) if you say it to a cop and you're holding, you're a dumbass and you deserve to be searched. 2.) surveys are usually anonymous. 3.) cops would never waste time doing surveilance on one guy who says he smokes weed. it's a waste of man power, especially in a city where murders still go unsolved.
fafalone Posted September 9, 2003 Posted September 9, 2003 you're missing the point that "free" speech is not truly free. we cannot make death threats to the president, we cannot scream 'fire' in a crowded movie theater, we cannot say we are a government official unless we are (impersonation)... free speech only applies when laws aren't being broken, as is in line with the original intent of the first amendent establishing the right to critisize the government.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now