Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Have A Question? V2

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
22,848 replies to this topic
Soran Is On
  • Soran Is On

    I bust until I'm empty, best chance to take you with me.

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2013
  • Canada

#17521

Posted 21 January 2014 - 06:11 PM

How do you embed a youtube video within a post...

 

Ive tried the special bbcode button and code button but never seem to be able to embed. 

 

Lil help please?


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#17522

Posted 21 January 2014 - 06:11 PM

How do you embed a youtube video within a post...

 

Ive tried the special bbcode button and code button but never seem to be able to embed. 

 

Lil help please?

 

[.youtube] xyz [/youtube.]

 

Remove the dots, place your video's link in-between the brackets in place of xyz.


Panz
  • Panz

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2008
  • United-States
  • Best Returning Member 2013
    Best Member in a Group 2013
    Hottest Member 2014
    ET Porn Endorser

#17523

Posted 21 January 2014 - 06:17 PM Edited by Panz, 21 January 2014 - 06:18 PM.

Vlynor: Unfortunately, it still exists. Like I mentioned earlier, I was just reading articles about the soda tax introduced to cut obesity numbers. Whatever saves the moolah.

 

Ultimately, yes, it's our right to ingest what we want. But, in my personal opinion, I can't say I hate the laws. Drugs almost took my brother's life, and the police intervened, which likely prevented him from killing himself in the end, so I'm biased here. Yeah, it's his fault that he couldn't control himself, but drugs are addicting and mind-altering and incredibly manipulative. They have the potential to throw people into completely uncontrollable mental states, which could easily turn into a threat to society. These laws ultimately protect us from harming ourselves and others if it gets out of hand.

 

Plus, drugs aren't the worst things that could be banned right now. The fact that gay marriage is illegal in some states? Now that's ridiculous...but that's another topic of discussion, of course. 

 

Stonepimpso: You can just post the link directly into the box and it automatically embeds, as well.

  • Frank Brown likes this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#17524

Posted 21 January 2014 - 06:22 PM Edited by Vlynor, 21 January 2014 - 06:25 PM.

Vlynor: Unfortunately, it still exists. Like I mentioned earlier, I was just reading articles about the soda tax introduced to cut obesity numbers. Whatever saves the moolah.

 

Ultimately, yes, it's our right to ingest what we want. But, in my personal opinion, I can't say I hate the laws. Drugs almost took my brother's life, and the police intervened, which likely prevented him from killing himself in the end, so I'm biased here. Yeah, it's his fault that he couldn't control himself, but drugs are addicting and mind-altering and incredibly manipulative. They have the potential to throw people into completely uncontrollable mental states, which could easily turn into a threat to society. These laws ultimately protect us from harming ourselves and others if it gets out of hand.

 

Plus, drugs aren't the worst things that could be banned right now. The fact that gay marriage is illegal in some states? Now that's ridiculous...but that's another topic of discussion, of course. 

 

I'm sorry about your brother. I won't bring this up anymore if it bothers you. If you want to continue a discussion about this or whatever else we can PM about it or open a new thread so we don't derail this one. And yeah, gay marriage bans are idiotic. The LGBT community needs to be given the same protections as heterosexual couples. That's all, I couldn't care if they called it a Civil Union or whatever as long as the protections are the exact same.


Panz
  • Panz

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2008
  • United-States
  • Best Returning Member 2013
    Best Member in a Group 2013
    Hottest Member 2014
    ET Porn Endorser

#17525

Posted 21 January 2014 - 06:36 PM Edited by Panz, 21 January 2014 - 06:37 PM.

No no no, it doesn't bother me at all! Don't worry about it. I'm just saying that you're 100% correct in that drug use should be legal. I just don't hate it for personal reasons.

 

I really think it's anyone's right to use drugs, just as it should be anyone's right to do anything with their own bodies, really. And for me, that includes abortion, gay marriage, and whatever else. You should be entitled to do whatever you want with yourself, even if it's harmful to you in the end because, hey, that's your choice.

 

My question: Why don't we require re-tests for driver's licenses after a certain age? Do you think it's too discriminatory? Elderly people simply don't have the reaction time that younger people do, so how do we account for this on the road? I even think we should instill some sort of check-up permit test after every so many years to ensure that people are still up to date with the rules of the road, and I'm surprised we don't have a system like this in America. 

  • Frank Brown likes this

Eris
  • Eris

    Ghetto Star

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2013
  • None

#17526

Posted 21 January 2014 - 06:53 PM

 

 

Nipperkins: Not everyone is your friends, though. Statistics and studies have shown that there is an astoundingly higher number of users of legal drugs, currently, than there is of illegal drugs. It does work, maybe not on everyone, but it's making enough of a difference for them to keep it.

Alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine have been socially acceptable well before marijuana has. Laws can only influence social behavior so much before breaking the law becomes the social norm; that's where we are right now. Marijuana, LSD, MDMA, a few others, all seen as normal. Very few people I grew up with see those drugs as dangerous, nor the usage as foreign. It's seen the same as alcohol. 


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#17527

Posted 21 January 2014 - 07:01 PM

Vlynor: Unfortunately, it still exists. Like I mentioned earlier, I was just reading articles about the soda tax introduced to cut obesity numbers. Whatever saves the moolah.

 

Those laws don't 'save money', that doesn't make sense. Firstly it serves to make money, but what I assume you mean is that such a taxation is used to cover expenses caused by overweight people. Sure it does, but I'm not sure how this warrants the cynicism. Surely freeing up budgets to be spent on more proactive things such as community enhancements is much better than having it all dragged down on public services to deal with obesity.


Panz
  • Panz

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2008
  • United-States
  • Best Returning Member 2013
    Best Member in a Group 2013
    Hottest Member 2014
    ET Porn Endorser

#17528

Posted 21 January 2014 - 09:25 PM Edited by Panz, 21 January 2014 - 09:26 PM.

Oh, they save money. The taxes are intended to deter consumers from buying more product, thus lowering consumption and therefore healthcare costs for treating health issues such as obesity and diabetes and high blood pressure. It has been quite effective, too.

 

And do you think these taxes are being instilled because these people genuinely care about the obesity epidemic, or do you think they're doing it primarily to focus on saving money?  And are they really using that money elsewhere, or are they making budget cuts? The second one is a genuine question (the first a bit more rhetorical), as I know we're in a bind with money and I'm not so sure whether we're actually redistributing the saved money or just, well, saving it.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#17529

Posted 21 January 2014 - 09:34 PM

Oh, they save money. The taxes are intended to deter consumers from buying more product, thus lowering consumption and therefore healthcare costs for treating health issues such as obesity and diabetes and high blood pressure. It has been quite effective, too.

 

And do you think these taxes are being instilled because these people genuinely care about the obesity epidemic, or do you think they're doing it primarily to focus on saving money?  And are they really using that money elsewhere, or are they making budget cuts? The second one is a genuine question (the first a bit more rhetorical), as I know we're in a bind with money and I'm not so sure whether we're actually redistributing the saved money or just, well, saving it.

 

Are we talking about New York City? Since that's the only place I know of that has limited sodas to a certain size.


Ex Hellraiser
  • Ex Hellraiser

    Legendary

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011
  • None

#17530

Posted 21 January 2014 - 11:30 PM Edited by Ex Hellraiser, 21 January 2014 - 11:35 PM.



 



Vlynor: What do you mean exactly?

 

Unfortunately, we can't rely on humans not to use drugs if they're legal, and I feel that we may have these laws because, if they were legal, we'd have more addicts and higher healthcare costs. It's kind of like the whole soda tax by Bloomberg. It's not really because they care about the people. It just saves them money. Still, drugs often don't produce harmful effects until later down the line, so it's also a nice method to at least attempt to prevent people from using them. They might produce nice, stimulating effects at first, but they'll destroy the body eventually.

 

I'd assume that there's a hatred for drugs because they're terribly addictive and have a pretty messy history of messing up relationships and lives. And the fact that people make money off of such substances is pretty scummy, too.

 

But what right does the government have to tell you what you can or cannot put into your body? If I want to shoot up heroin, become an addict, and then go to rehab/relapse, why not let me? It's my life, my body, etc. You mention healthcare costs, but healthcare costs, if determined by a private market, should have no effect on you, so why should you care? If we ever do nationalize medicine, then why not make certain people pay out of pocket for drug-related treatments? They could purchase a supplemental insurance program that covers drug use and rehabilitation.

 

It all boils down to self control. Until the early 1900's, there were few such laws as cannabis, morphine, etc being illegal, because at the time the vast majority of the population had self control. A child could go to a corner store and buy morphine, because no child would use it improperly, and because everyone was expected to use it for controlled reasons (illness). Nobody at the time really would buy drugs for recreation, only if they truly needed it. But nowadays, if the same system existed, where any and all drugs were legal, we would live in one dangerous f*cking country. Do you know just how bad industry would be, if half the population was under the influence of any number of substances? If nothing was regulated at all? Would you really feel safe going down the road, knowing one or all of the cars around you had someone blacked out on something, and could kill you at any moment? Would you really feel safe sitting in a passenger jet, knowing your pilot could be high as a kite, (pun intended) And send the plane crashing into the Atlantic?

 

When it comes down to it, every law that exists is simply a restriction of freedom. Every law. There were no such things as speed limits when automobiles first came about, because there was little need to try pushing the limits at the time. Once cars became more refined, faster, more purpose-built, a need to create a speed limit came about, because people began to push the envelope, mainly, because there wasn't a law that existed telling them that they couldn't. Rules and laws exist for simply because someone did it. Not allowed to shoot a firearm less than 50 yds from a building? Someone did it, someone died, someone said no longer. Stop signs? Someone went through an intersection without stopping, someone wrecked, and someone said no longer. In a society without self control, lawmakers, unfortunately, are forced to make rules and regulations, because when someone does something that isn't illegal and begins abusing it, eventually it begins to affect others, and someone has to step in and stop them (legislators). That is how it works.

 

I seem to have gone off on a tangent... But I digress, if drugs became legal today, no restrictions, the lack of morals and self control that the majority of the population has will cause the country to crumble in no time.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#17531

Posted 21 January 2014 - 11:42 PM

 



 



Vlynor: What do you mean exactly?

 

Unfortunately, we can't rely on humans not to use drugs if they're legal, and I feel that we may have these laws because, if they were legal, we'd have more addicts and higher healthcare costs. It's kind of like the whole soda tax by Bloomberg. It's not really because they care about the people. It just saves them money. Still, drugs often don't produce harmful effects until later down the line, so it's also a nice method to at least attempt to prevent people from using them. They might produce nice, stimulating effects at first, but they'll destroy the body eventually.

 

I'd assume that there's a hatred for drugs because they're terribly addictive and have a pretty messy history of messing up relationships and lives. And the fact that people make money off of such substances is pretty scummy, too.

 

But what right does the government have to tell you what you can or cannot put into your body? If I want to shoot up heroin, become an addict, and then go to rehab/relapse, why not let me? It's my life, my body, etc. You mention healthcare costs, but healthcare costs, if determined by a private market, should have no effect on you, so why should you care? If we ever do nationalize medicine, then why not make certain people pay out of pocket for drug-related treatments? They could purchase a supplemental insurance program that covers drug use and rehabilitation.

 

It all boils down to self control. Until the early 1900's, there were few such laws as cannabis, morphine, etc being illegal, because at the time the vast majority of the population had self control. A child could go to a corner store and buy morphine, because no child would use it improperly, and because everyone was expected to use it for controlled reasons (illness). Nobody at the time really would buy drugs for recreation, only if they truly needed it. But nowadays, if the same system existed, where any and all drugs were legal, we would live in one dangerous f*cking country. Do you know just how bad industry would be, if half the population was under the influence of any number of substances? If nothing was regulated at all? Would you really feel safe going down the road, knowing one or all of the cars around you had someone blacked out on something, and could kill you at any moment? Would you really feel safe sitting in a passenger jet, knowing your pilot could be high as a kite, (pun intended) And send the plane crashing into the Atlantic?

 

Someone can kill you with a car now regardless. Alcohol is legal, they could drink and then smash into you and kill you, your family, and whomever else is in your car. That's a very real possibility, and you know what? No one is banning alcohol anytime soon. Your pilot would be screened beforehand, just like is done already. Private businesses would set their standards. And how bad industry is? So what? If I want to shoot up heroin, snort cocaine, take ecstasy, etc. why not let me? Don't want to employ me? Don't, no one's forcing you to. The government's job isn't to regulate who is going to be the best worker or the best citizen. If I end up on the streets from drug addiction, let me, it's none of yours or the government's business. 

 

 

 

I seem to have gone off on a tangent... But I digress, if drugs became legal today, no restrictions, the lack of morals that the majority of the population has will cause the country to crumble in no time.

 

Again, the government's job isn't to regulate morality. If I'm harming you, fine, throw me in jail. But, if I'm sitting at home shoving needles into my arm and watching television, what business is that of yours? 


Panz
  • Panz

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2008
  • United-States
  • Best Returning Member 2013
    Best Member in a Group 2013
    Hottest Member 2014
    ET Porn Endorser

#17532

Posted 22 January 2014 - 12:06 AM Edited by Panz, 22 January 2014 - 12:07 AM.

Vlynor: Yeah, NYC is what I was talking about.

 

Do you think this drug thing is about image? Hypothetically, let's just say we legalized drugs and societies began to spiral out of control with drug problems. Who wants to lead a city or state or country with drug prominence? What do we relate drugs with? Well, violence and poverty. It's not necessarily the case, but it's a general association. What kinds of families with children want to move to a city with these issues? Not many, most likely. Who wants to visit this type of city? Likely not many people.

 

I think it's also the fact that drugs are just so addictive. It's easy for a person to become addicted and start to blow his money on these drugs. And then he loses his job because he fails a routine drug test at work or maybe wants to stay home and shoot up instead. Then he stresses out and turns to more and more drugs because now he's not making money, and then he falls into this vicious cycle. Maybe he turns to selling drugs because it's easier. If enough people fall into this cycle, then the society starts to crumble because priorities change. I really don't know many people who can casually sit around and use drugs without it affecting their lifestyle, but maybe I'm just biased from my own experiences.

 

If you're talking marijuana, then that's a different story. I really don't see the problem with that one except maybe that it often serves as a gateway drug (but let's not get into that). 

  • The Leviathan likes this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#17533

Posted 22 January 2014 - 12:18 AM

Vlynor: Yeah, NYC is what I was talking about.

 

Do you think this drug thing is about image? Hypothetically, let's just say we legalized drugs and societies began to spiral out of control with drug problems. Who wants to lead a city or state or country with drug prominence? What do we relate drugs with? Well, violence and poverty. It's not necessarily the case, but it's a general association. What kinds of families with children want to move to a city with these issues? Not many, most likely. Who wants to visit this type of city? Likely not many people.

 

It might be. But then I have to ask you, do you think if drugs were legalized that crime rates would spike? Would we see rates similar to the 90's? And would you personally start using any hard drugs?

 

 

 

I think it's also the fact that drugs are just so addictive. It's easy for a person to become addicted and start to blow his money on these drugs. And then he loses his job because he fails a routine drug test at work or maybe wants to stay home and shoot up instead. Then he stresses out and turns to more and more drugs because now he's not making money, and then he falls into this vicious cycle. Maybe he turns to selling drugs because it's easier. If enough people fall into this cycle, then the society starts to crumble because priorities change. I really don't know many people who can casually sit around and use drugs without it affecting their lifestyle, but maybe I'm just biased from my own experiences.

 

Shouldn't you have the choice of whether or not to blow your money and become an addict or not? I know, it can cause a cycle, but that's because of personal choice, not because anyone's forcing you to do X and then that causes Y. If you asked the people you live by if drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, are addictive, what would the general consensus be: Yes? Or no? If it's the former, do you really thing we need to regulate a choice?


K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#17534

Posted 22 January 2014 - 12:39 AM

Shouldn't you have the choice of whether or not to blow your money and become an addict or not? I know, it can cause a cycle, but that's because of personal choice, not because anyone's forcing you to do X and then that causes Y. If you asked the people you live by if drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, are addictive, what would the general consensus be: Yes? Or no? If it's the former, do you really thing we need to regulate a choice?

The problem is that with some of these drugs, it's only a choice the first few times. Then it stops being a choice and becomes a necessity for the addict. Shouldn't we be trying to help people who made a mistake to get back to a place where they can make choices again?

There is a big difference between prohibition and regulation. Prohibition is bad. It spawns all sorts of crimes, and it often prevents these who want to get help from getting it. Regulation is good, however. We have seen that regulation of alcohol can reduce impact on general population, help alcoholics get support they need, and doesn't carry the same problems as prohibition does.

So if your main point is that people should have a choice, regulation of substances with potential for abuse is the best way to ensure that more people have more choices. Ergo, regulation without prohibition is the best policy.
  • El Diablo and Frank Brown like this

Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Dealux (Πvar.ΣΓ01122599)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#17535

Posted 22 January 2014 - 12:39 AM

Shouldn't you have the choice of whether or not to blow your money and become an addict or not?

If you want to be a part of society, no. You can become addicted to drugs even if you don't intend to (i.e. even if you only intend to try them out). How many people become smokers just because they were curious and they wanted to try it out? How many of them are able to quit? Those are all relevant questions that apply even more to drugs like cocaine or heroin.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#17536

Posted 22 January 2014 - 12:43 AM

 

Shouldn't you have the choice of whether or not to blow your money and become an addict or not?

If you want to be a part of society, no.

 

Why not?

 

 

 

You can become addicted to drugs even if you don't intend to (i.e. even if you only intend to try them out). How many people become smokers just because they were curious and they wanted to try it out? How many of them are able to quit? Those are all relevant questions that apply even more to drugs like cocaine or heroin.

Again, if you asked the majority of people in the United States, I believe the general consensus on any hard drug you mention would be that they're addicting. If you decide to go ahead and do them anyway, what is the issue? Should someone have to hold your hand so you don't make any bad choices at all?


Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Dealux (Πvar.ΣΓ01122599)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#17537

Posted 22 January 2014 - 01:11 AM Edited by Criѕtian, 22 January 2014 - 01:12 AM.

If you are likely to become a liability for society, then the government should care.

 

To say that all drugs should be legalized just because the government should have no authority over your choices is a weak argument. The more sensible approach is to examine the effects of those drugs and establish the likelihood of forming an addiction (and what the addiction entails). I provided smoking as an analogy. If we were to replace all smokers with cocaine or heroin addicts—if those drug addictions were similar to tobacco addiction—the difference would be devastating. There is no such a thing as a high-functioning cocaine or heroin addict.

 

I'm not giving any definitive answers on whether we should or should not ban certain drugs, but what I am saying is that we should examine the situation in greater detail.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#17538

Posted 22 January 2014 - 01:17 AM Edited by Vlynor, 22 January 2014 - 01:17 AM.

If you are likely to become a liability for society, then the government should care.

 

Why, though? Why should the government take care of me? If I have to suffer for my own choices, what is the government's part in it? They're not paying for my treatment, nor are they paying for my housing. What liability would I be?

 

Please elaborate.

 

 

To say that all drugs should be legalized just because the government should have no authority over your choices is a weak argument. The more sensible approach is to examine the effects of those drugs and establishing the likelihood of forming an addiction (and what the addiction entails). I provided smoking as an analogy. If we were to replace all smokers with cocaine or heroin addicts—if those drug addictions were similar to tobacco addiction—the difference would be devastating. There is no such a thing as a high-functioning cocaine or heroin addict.

 

I'm not giving any definitive answers on whether we should or should not ban certain drugs, but what I am saying is that we should examine the situation in greater detail.

 

How is it a weak argument? You should have the right to put whatever you'd like into your system. That's a natural right. If I am not harming you and I am not violating any of your personal liberties, then please do tell me what is the problem.


jln22
  • jln22

    Call me Julian

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2013

#17539

Posted 22 January 2014 - 01:20 AM Edited by jln22, 22 January 2014 - 01:22 AM.

Hey I've been really interested in the WW1 study right now and as it seems, Austria-Hungary had a really poor equipped army for an empire of that size. It was pretty much a death hand for the German army. Can somebody tell me the causes that the Austrian army was so poor? I mean, if there's anything related to Officers, or was it just a general thing for the Austrian army that didn't wanted to fight as the empire was formed by many cultures?

 

I mean f*cking hell their army suffered heavy loses even to Serbian army lol.


Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Dealux (Πvar.ΣΓ01122599)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#17540

Posted 22 January 2014 - 01:35 AM

How is it a weak argument? You should have the right to put whatever you'd like into your system. That's a natural right. If I am not harming you and I am not violating any of your personal liberties, then please do tell me what is the problem.

You missed my point. Simply put, if a drug is dangerous enough and likely to cause a societal decline (i.e. large numbers of people becoming addicts and thus irresponsible citizens), then the government should have a say in all of this.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#17541

Posted 22 January 2014 - 01:37 AM

 

How is it a weak argument? You should have the right to put whatever you'd like into your system. That's a natural right. If I am not harming you and I am not violating any of your personal liberties, then please do tell me what is the problem.

You missed my point. Simply put, if a drug is dangerous enough and likely to cause a societal decline (i.e. large numbers of people becoming addicts and thus irresponsible citizens), then the government should have a say in all of this.

 

 

Should alcohol be illegal?


Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Dealux (Πvar.ΣΓ01122599)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#17542

Posted 22 January 2014 - 01:46 AM

The fact that you can consume alcohol regularly without becoming an alcoholic should give you the answer to that question. Regular heroin or cocaine use will invariably lead to addiction.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#17543

Posted 22 January 2014 - 01:48 AM

what exactly is the argument here?

we have a great place for this already, called the Debates forum :pp

 

but it seems like you guys are all sort of agreeing with each other; albeit arriving from different angles.

what it comes down to is this:

 

Prohibition is bad. It spawns all sorts of crimes, and it often prevents these who want to get help from getting it. Regulation is good, however. We have seen that regulation of alcohol can reduce impact on general population, help alcoholics get support they need, and doesn't carry the same problems as prohibition does.

it's really simple because it's just reality.

prohibition of any drug does not work. legal regulation is the only way to address any of societies issues with these drugs.

 

it's also sad because our absurd attachment to prohibition has almost gotten us to the point of no return.

we have allowed so many synthetic, hardcore, and mysterious drugs with ambiguous ingredients to spawn in the last few decades thanks directly to our War on Drugs. it has gotten so out of hand that it's difficult to keep track of. these new test-tube-baby drugs are far more harmful and risky to use than any of the 'traditional' or 'natural' drugs that had been pervasive for thousands of years prior to the 20th century.

 

and the whole world is at fault on this one. we're all to blame.

there's almost no modern nation without its own destructive policy of war on drugs. and they're all losing.

  • Finn 7 five 11 likes this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#17544

Posted 22 January 2014 - 01:48 AM Edited by Vlynor, 22 January 2014 - 01:49 AM.

The fact that you can consume alcohol regularly without becoming an alcoholic should give you the answer to that question. Regular heroin or cocaine use will invariably lead to addiction.

 

Yes, but someone being an addict doesn't mean they'll be violent or a danger to society. And can you please expand on your idea of an irresponsible citizen?

 

 

what exactly is the argument here?

we have a great place for this already, called the Debates forum  :pp

 

but it seems like you guys are all sort of agreeing with each other; albeit arriving from different angles.

what it comes down to is this:

 

Prohibition is bad. It spawns all sorts of crimes, and it often prevents these who want to get help from getting it. Regulation is good, however. We have seen that regulation of alcohol can reduce impact on general population, help alcoholics get support they need, and doesn't carry the same problems as prohibition does.

it's really simple because it's just reality.

prohibition of any drug does not work. legal regulation is the only way to address any of societies issues with these drugs.

 

it's also sad because our absurd attachment to prohibition has almost gotten us to the point of no return.

we have allowed so many synthetic, hardcore, and mysterious drugs with ambiguous ingredients to spawn in the last few decades thanks directly to our War on Drugs. it has gotten so out of hand that it's difficult to keep track of. these new test-tube-baby drugs are far more harmful and risky to use than any of the 'traditional' or 'natural' drugs that had been pervasive for thousands of years prior to the 20th century.

 

and the whole world is at fault on this one. we're all to blame.

there's almost no modern nation without its own destructive policy of war on drugs. and they're all losing.

 

This is my fault. I continued the conversation.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#17545

Posted 22 January 2014 - 01:54 AM

well the great thing about legality is that when people need help they can actually get it.

when you automatically label anyone who uses drugs a criminal and throw them into prison, they will never get the help that they deserve.

 

at least not here in the US.

our prisons may have fancy names like the Slick Willy Correctional Facility or the Charles Foster Kane Rehabilitative Center... but there's no "correction" or "rehabilitation" happening at most of these places. most of our jails here may as well be named Al Capone's School of Advanced Criminology.

  • Frank Brown likes this

Finn 7 five 11
  • Finn 7 five 11

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#17546

Posted 22 January 2014 - 01:56 AM Edited by F4L?, 22 January 2014 - 01:58 AM.

 

Shouldn't you have the choice of whether or not to blow your money and become an addict or not? I know, it can cause a cycle, but that's because of personal choice, not because anyone's forcing you to do X and then that causes Y. If you asked the people you live by if drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, are addictive, what would the general consensus be: Yes? Or no? If it's the former, do you really thing we need to regulate a choice?

The problem is that with some of these drugs, it's only a choice the first few times. Then it stops being a choice and becomes a necessity for the addict. Shouldn't we be trying to help people who made a mistake to get back to a place where they can make choices again?

There is a big difference between prohibition and regulation. Prohibition is bad. It spawns all sorts of crimes, and it often prevents these who want to get help from getting it. Regulation is good, however. We have seen that regulation of alcohol can reduce impact on general population, help alcoholics get support they need, and doesn't carry the same problems as prohibition does.

So if your main point is that people should have a choice, regulation of substances with potential for abuse is the best way to ensure that more people have more choices. Ergo, regulation without prohibition is the best policy.

 

This is directed at Panz btw, since he seems to be against it.

This is my thoughts on it as well, legalize drugs, have them produced by pharmaceutical companies, tax them, and make everyone who wants to buy them enrol their details. Money from tax can be spent on education about drugs and on help and rehabilitation.

Then if somebody is going to buy heroin every day or something like that, the pharmacies can pick up on it, notify authorities and put them into forced rehab or something similar and help them. Drugs being illegal doesn't benefit anyone, everybody still takes drugs, I don't even do drugs except on a rare occasion recreationally, and I can find what I want be it heroin, or ice, or cocaine within an hour or two, I only need to ask 2 or 3 people in the right area and presto, got what I want, and people sometimes ask me where to get it, and I point them off in the right direction, prohibition clearly isn't working if that's possible, and the drugs people take, they're not pure, only god knows what's in there, they are potentially more harmful.
Prohibition creates way too many criminals who go to prison, come out and are forced into crime due to lack of prospects, and from hanging around hardened criminals every day. 
You know what happens to the Mexican Cartel when there's no drugs? They have no money, they would pretty much disappear, or at least become significantly smaller and less well funded, there is like a 3 trillion a year illegal drug trade ( forget the exact figures now so don't exactly quote me) and the US spends 25- 50billion+ anually (Again I forget exact figure I think that's roughly what it was) enforcing prohibition, imagine if that money was spent on rehab, education and other things? Plus all the tax money made...Prohibition of drugs is f*cking stupid.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#17547

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:00 AM Edited by Vlynor, 22 January 2014 - 02:00 AM.

Then if somebody is going to buy heroin every day or something like that, the pharmacies can pick up on it, notify authorities and put them into forced rehab or something similar and help them. 

That seems counter-productive, doesn't it?

 

"Heroin is legal!"

 

Someone buys Heroin a few days in a row.

 

"ARREST HIM. HE'S AN ADDICT. FORCE HIM INTO REHAB!"


Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Dealux (Πvar.ΣΓ01122599)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#17548

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:01 AM

 

The fact that you can consume alcohol regularly without becoming an alcoholic should give you the answer to that question. Regular heroin or cocaine use will invariably lead to addiction.

 

Yes, but someone being an addict doesn't mean they'll be violent or a danger to society. And can you please expand on your idea of an irresponsible citizen?

You are just looking at it from an individual point of view, but the larger picture (society as a whole) is also very important. By irresponsible I mean useless or not productive for society, which drug addicts tend to be. So, if large numbers of people become addicted to drugs like cocaine or heroin, that will inevitably affect society as a whole. It will cause a decline (an economic one and a social one) that will affect everyone.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#17549

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:04 AM

 

 

The fact that you can consume alcohol regularly without becoming an alcoholic should give you the answer to that question. Regular heroin or cocaine use will invariably lead to addiction.

 

Yes, but someone being an addict doesn't mean they'll be violent or a danger to society. And can you please expand on your idea of an irresponsible citizen?

You are just looking at it from an individual point of view, but the larger picture (society as a whole) is also very important. By irresponsible I mean useless or not productive for society, which drug addicts tend to be. So, if large numbers of people become addicted to drugs like cocaine or heroin, that will inevitably affect society as a whole. It will cause a decline (an economic one and a social one) that will affect everyone.

 

 

The individual (to me, maybe not to you) is an extremely important thing. Would you personally begin to use heroin or cocaine if it were legalized tomorrow?


Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Dealux (Πvar.ΣΓ01122599)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#17550

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:09 AM

You failed to address what I said. What you, I, or anyone in this thread would do doesn't count as proper research.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users