fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 Yes, because I believe it should be a freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 So, perhaps the discussion should continue after you have completed the course then. Perhaps, or half cocked may be more entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 16, 2004 Author Share Posted January 16, 2004 Doesn't matter if I have taken a formal course or not. Furthermore as it happens the professor who teaches the course is in complete agreement with the legalization philosophy (we had a floor program on the topic last year that he was a guest speaker at) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iglak Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 i believe i might be able to touch on the answer to all of the whys. let's face it, the U.S. is a land based on fear. the parents fear that their kids will do drugs and die or become murderers or something. at the same time, the DEA and similar administrations fear that everyone who does drugs is evil and will become a murderer or something. both of these groups see the statistics of drug users in jail, and fear what could happen if someone they knew did drugs. so they decide that they should try to make people not want to do drugs. the problem is, they try to do this be telling people their fears and trying to make them believe the same fears. but it doesn't work, why? because those that fall for it are afraid that they are being controlled, and that they are doing what everyone wants them to do. since they were never actually told what the drugs do, they think it won't hurt them too badly, and do drugs just to prove that they can. what we call drug "awareness education" is nothing more than people standing up and shouting random statistics, and saying "umm... drugs are bayd, m'kay?" if these "drug awareness" classes gave precise descriptions of what drugs do, and on a molecular level as well, not just listing the symptoms, then people would actaully become aware of the problem, and wouldn't do drugs even if it was legal, except maybe once in a while in correct dosages. but this will never happen because "people" are too stupid and afraid to think clearly. P.S. for example, i have no idea whatsoever what any of these drugs do. there have been classes in school where people say this is what the drugs do, and give a list of symptoms. i don't care what the symptoms are, i wanna know what they do! why the heck would i want to memorize a list of symptoms. all that says is that they want me to be afraid of drugs, well i'm afraid of being afraid, i wana be brave. i'm not gonna cower in fear of them drugs, i'm gonna stand up. fortunatally, i grew up with very minor allergies to almost everything, and i know not to consume anything that makes me cough, vomit, feel bad, or whatever. i want to be in control of my life, and i know alcohol lowers my reflexes... somehow, so i wouldn't take any more drinks than one or two at parties and special occasions. i am lucky in that i understand these things... better than most my age, and that i am one of the few who are actually not afraid. <edit> lol, i should be a psychologist or something ignorance is bliss, knowlege is hell, understanding is heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 fafalone said in post # :Yes, because I believe it should be a freedom. what? you are going to take drugs just because it is a freedom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 16, 2004 Author Share Posted January 16, 2004 It should be a freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 that doesn't answer my question though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 16, 2004 Author Share Posted January 16, 2004 I also believe taking a couple pills and waking up normally beats the hell out of getting drunk, not being able to drive, possibly vomitting, and having a hangover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 are you being intentionally evasive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 16, 2004 Author Share Posted January 16, 2004 Yes, yes I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iglak Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Radical Edward, the point is that since the drugs are obviously available to anyone that wants them anyway, why not make them legal? and if they are going to remain illegal, why are the two most overall destructive drugs still legal (alcohol and nicotine)? and my point is that if we were to make them legal, there would only be more abuse, and more complaints. if we were to teach people about drugs (not those half-a$$ed drug awareness classes), then abuse would drastically drop, and we could make them legal to drop it even more. it all has nothing to do with us wanting to take drugs. it's just that if we did, no one's going to stop us anyway, and making them legal might even lower drug abuse and deaths, since it will result in better drugs. and may i point out that i can't see any inclination of your point. your last two quesstions contradicted eachother. your question: "well would you risk doing something that is illegal, which could result in prisoners arse?" fafalone's answer: "Yes, because I believe it should be a freedom." your next question: "what? you are going to take drugs just because it is a freedom?" let me see here... you asked if people would risk taking drugs and going to jail. he said yes. you interpereted that as people would take drugs just because it's legal... i'm confused. i would be just as evasive, because i can't figure out what you are asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 first of all yes nicotine is more addictive than herion, but only just. itS A fact that herion users get so much more buggered up on herion that they cant get themselves of it while nicotine addicts dont get buggered up whilst they smoke BTW umm what course and where faf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 iglak said in post # :if these "drug awareness" classes gave precise descriptions of what drugs do, and on a molecular level as well, not just listing the symptoms, then people would actaully become aware of the problem Or maybe half the brains in the class would turn off as you systematically alienate them to the programme. You aren't going to get through to the entire population by bombarding them with biochemistry that few are interested in, and fewer understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 iglak said in post # :Radical Edward, the point is that since the drugs are obviously available to anyone that wants them anyway, why not make them legal? and if they are going to remain illegal, why are the two most overall destructive drugs still legal (alcohol and nicotine)? Because currently they are illegal, and people take them despite the risk of being the close friend of a large muscular inmate, so therefore it should remain illegal. Nicotine and Alcohol on the other hand are not illegal, so people do not take this risk. Add to that, the statistics are not really comparable. and my point is that if we were to make them legal, there would only be more abuse, and more complaints. if we were to teach people about drugs (not those half-a$$ed drug awareness classes), then abuse would drastically drop, and we could make them legal to drop it even more. funny that though, since sex ed classes have been increasing, so have the rates of teenage pregnancy. also drug use has increased, despite the dissemination of knowledge. I don't really think there is anything we can tell the average joe about drugs that he doesn't already know. it all has nothing to do with us wanting to take drugs. it's just that if we did, no one's going to stop us anyway, and making them legal might even lower drug abuse and deaths, since it will result in better drugs. as i pointed out though, it should remain illegal because of the risks people are willing to take. and may i point out that i can't see any inclination of your point. your last two quesstions contradicted eachother. your question: "well would you risk doing something that is illegal, which could result in prisoners arse?" fafalone's answer: "Yes, because I believe it should be a freedom." your next question: "what? you are going to take drugs just because it is a freedom?" let me see here... you asked if people would risk taking drugs and going to jail. he said yes. you interpereted that as people would take drugs just because it's legal... i'm confused. see, I asked him specifically, would you take drugs just because it is legal. He said "yes, because ... it should be a freedom." I was confused by this so I wished to clarify that "were drugs legal, he would take them just because it is a freedom ." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post # : You aren't going to get through to the entire population by bombarding them with biochemistry that few are interested in, and fewer understand. that is in itself a problem. most people are so stupid that they need protecting from themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Radical Edward said in post # : that is in itself a problem. most people are so stupid that they need protecting from themselves. This was the point I was trying to make when we last discussed this topic, before the thread ("Should Prostitution be Legalised") descended into a slagging match. Hence the "not bothering to go over the same arguments again and again" thing. The question of whether or not society can abdicate responsibility for the social, financial or medical well-being of an individual, on the grounds that their freedom to act as they will might otherwise be compromised, is going to take a lot more answering than any random statistics can provide. Not that I disagree entirely with the pro-decriminalisation arguments, but I haven't seen any sufficiently convincing reasoning yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post # : This was the point I was trying to make when we last discussed this topic, before the thread ("Should Prostitution be Legalised") descended into a slagging match. Hence the "not bothering to go over the same arguments again and again" thing. The question of whether or not society can abdicate responsibility for the social, financial or medical well-being of an individual, on the grounds that their freedom to act as they will might otherwise be compromised, is going to take a lot more answering than any random statistics can provide. Not that I disagree entirely with the pro-decriminalisation arguments, but I haven't seen any sufficiently convincing reasoning yet. I am inclined to agree with you on this. The problem I find with the majority of pro-legalisation arguments is that they seem completely oblivious to a number of real world factors. For any given country to just wholescale legalise the use of all intoxicating and mind altering substances, this may well lead to that country becoming a destination point for people wishing to take them (Amsterdam++) and all associated issues that come with it. Undoubtedly it would result in the increased load on the mediacl system of that country, since with pretty much all of these substances, even nicotine and alcohol, there are medical side effects. These would no doubt have to be paid for by the taxpayer of that country. It would also end up being legal to produce in that country too (I see no logical reason why it would not be, but feel free to say if this is just a slippery slope), so it would just become the hub of global criminality, since the exporters know full well that they can produce and so on with impunity (you could make it illegal to export stuff if you like, but I see that making no difference at all). This would then have firther reprocussions on trade and relations with other countries and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 fafalone said in post #103 :Doesn't matter if I have taken a formal course or not. Furthermore as it happens the professor who teaches the course is in complete agreement with the legalization philosophy (we had a floor program on the topic last year that he was a guest speaker at) It helps to present a more balanced view with substantiated evidence. Your using an awful lot of statistics, which are misrepresented so very easily. What I assume you think is a revolutionary viewpoint is common to most people of your age, I've had the same discussion myself on many occasions and argued your viewpoint and against it. Obviously, from the comments your getting back most of your peers don't see you as Che Guevara, despite how hard your trying. The discussion would just me more interesting after the course. The argument as it's stands is repetative, and not a little bloodyminded. Crash said in post # :first of all yes nicotine is more addictive than herion, but only just. itS A fact that herion users get so much more buggered up on herion that they cant get themselves of it while nicotine addicts dont get buggered up whilst they smoke Nicotine is not more physically addictive than heroin, it's just smokers have a lower chance of quitting than heroin addicts. That's because people can't really be arsed to stop smoking, but heroin users have methadone and the severe health risks to help give them momentum. Smokers don't have cold sweats, diarrhea, vomiting et al when quitting they just get a little short tempered and grouchy. I think the comparison is meant to be made to cocaine, and not heroin. But you can't hold up smoking as some kind of example of a legitimate drug that poses health risks, and say drugs should be allowed because smoking is just as harmful. Smoking is slowly being banned in the US and UK, because of it's harmful effects. Do you see the link? It's nice and simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 "Smoking should be banned because it's harmful, therefore illegal drugs should be legalised" isn't a particularly good argument in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 atinymonkey said in post # : Nicotine is not more physically addictive than heroin, it's just smokers have a lower chance of quitting than heroin addicts. That's because people can't really be arsed to stop smoking, but heroin users have methadone and the severe health risks to help give them momentum. Smokers don't have cold sweats, diarrhea, vomiting et al when quitting they just get a little short tempered and grouchy. I think the comparison is meant to be made to cocaine, and not heroin. I have never argued against the addictive aspect of heroin, but if what you are saying there is true, then it makes alot of sense. I should have thought of it really... how many smokers are willing to go out and mug old ladies and so on, purely so they can get another packet of cigarettes. Furthermore, most successful heroin quitters that I have heard of tend to either go into a programme of other heroin quitters, or actively leave the drug-taking social group. I have never heard of a case of an ex addict who still hangs around with all his addict friends. This is in contradiction to smoking, where a smoker tends to quit while remaining in the same social group, which often contains other smokers. Finally there is the severity of withdrawal effects, which I don't even need to mention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 I`m fairly sure the stat is taken from the occurance of Re-Adiction. a good many junk users when quit, Stay quit. the same cannot be said for smokers, it`s also to do with the areas in the brain that heroin and nicotine mess with. the longer term effects of the addiction is greater in smokers than junkies, the imediate effects are alot more pronounced in junkies kicking it than with smokers though, so it`s a trade off really, severity over the longer lasting. I`m sure when I read about the comparison, it was something along those lines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :I`m fairly sure the stat is taken from the occurance of Re-Adiction. a good many junk users when quit, Stay quit. the same cannot be said for smokers, it`s also to do with the areas in the brain that heroin and nicotine mess with. the longer term effects of the addiction is greater in smokers than junkies, the imediate effects are alot more pronounced in junkies kicking it than with smokers though, so it`s a trade off really, severity over the longer lasting. I`m sure when I read about the comparison, it was something along those lines It helps to have a chemical substitute when they quit, and other mechanisms, something that many smokers don't think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 "the same cannot be said for smokers" Why not? If you're going to say it's because "many users quit then resume their habit", wouldn't that also be the other side of "a good many junk users when quit, Stay quit"? (The inference being that 'a good many' staying quit suggests not all of them manage it). Not all smokers who quit resume smoking, so you might just as easily say "a good many cig users when quit, Stay quit". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 True, and shooting up in public isn`t exactly socialy acceptable whereas smoking is (in the main). so there`s pressures of exposure whereas a junky needs special kit and privacy to do it. the availabilty isn`t there either, I never see herion on the shelves when I buy a newspaper, it`s all these little (largley unconscious) triggers that don`t help either I should imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :True, and shooting up in public isn`t exactly socialy acceptable whereas smoking is (in the main). Less and less so these days. Even when I was smoking I objected to other people's smoke, so I'm all for reduced exposure \o/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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