Have A Question? V2

[K^2]

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.

[DEALUX]

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]

 

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?

[DEALUX]

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.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Criѕtian

[Frank Brown]

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.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Vlynor

[jln22]

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.

Edited January 22, 2014 by jln22

[DEALUX]

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]

 

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?

[DEALUX]

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 Dildo]

what exactly is the argument here?

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

 

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.

[Frank Brown]

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

 

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.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Vlynor

[El Dildo]

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.

[Finn 7 five 11]

 

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.

Edited January 22, 2014 by •¿F¡ññ4L¡ƒ£?•

[Frank Brown]

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!"

Edited January 22, 2014 by Vlynor

[DEALUX]

 

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]

 

 

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?

[DEALUX]

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

[theadmiral]

I have a question, which section of the forum is the best place to go to have longwinded debates about societal issues?

[Frank Brown]

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

I'm not asking about proper research. I'm asking you a question about what would you do. But, if you want to continue this, we'll take it over to the D&D forum. You can get the last word here if you'd like.

[Finn 7 five 11]

 

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!"

 

It was an example, it doesn't have to be a few days in a row, it could be over a period of months or something similar, and by rehab I mean it could be something like a seminar you're forced to visit every few months or your license to buy drugs is revoked which talks about drugs and then you have a one on one with someone who asks you about your habits, this can be used to gather statistics and to help the person and have them realize they might have a problem. The perhaps mandatory rehab can be the next step after that some months afterwards if it looks as though this person is struggling with a drug addiction based on purchase history.

 

I don't think it is counter-productive though, regulation of these things is a good idea because it can actually decrease the number of addicts, the last thing they want to happen is to lift prohibition and drug use and addiction increases.

 

Besides, there is no way a country like the US is going to outright legalize everything, this could be a nice, justified way of doing it that will impress the people enough perhaps to allow it to pass.

------------

 

Also unrelated, I'm on 256kb/s internet right now, perhaps slower, so nothing is really loading, google is especially slow, does anyone have some good tips for cleaning a microwave? What chemicals might be suitable? I'm steaming it with water now to soften the grit, but what else?

Edited January 22, 2014 by •¿F¡ññ4L¡ƒ£?•

[theadmiral]

 

------------

 

Also unrelated, I'm on 256kb/s internet right now, perhaps slower, so nothing is really loading, google is especially slow, does anyone have some good tips for cleaning a microwave? What chemicals might be suitable? I'm steaming it with water now to soften the grit, but what else?

White vinegar and hot water for cleaning any kitchen surface.

[K^2]

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!"

That's kind of what we do with alcohol, and it works better than the alternatives. Total prohibition and total deregulation both have shown to be terrible options. If you have a fourth option in mind, feel free to share it. Otherwise, we have to go with that, however silly it sounds.

[Finn 7 five 11]

 

 

------------

 

Also unrelated, I'm on 256kb/s internet right now, perhaps slower, so nothing is really loading, google is especially slow, does anyone have some good tips for cleaning a microwave? What chemicals might be suitable? I'm steaming it with water now to soften the grit, but what else?

White vinegar and hot water for cleaning any kitchen surface.

 

Thanks! I'll do that next time, that's what I was going try. I should explain i'm house sitting for a couple days out in the bush, I looked around, no vinegar, I did find some baking soda just now though, and conveniently enough It had instructions on the back saying to put some in a bowl of water and microwave it, then wipe down the microwave.

 

Alright, my next question is: I wanna know, Who the f*ck is the funny guy who made my URL this...?

http://gtaforums.com/user/474401-zfann4lafl/

Zfann4lafl, really? You think that's funny? You that's funny? Yeah what's funny is when I come murder your family.

 

 

 

 

Alright, It is a little funny, who was it haha? I'm curious who the comedian here is.

[Frank Brown]

 

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!"

That's kind of what we do with alcohol, and it works better than the alternatives. Total prohibition and total deregulation both have shown to be terrible options. If you have a fourth option in mind, feel free to share it. Otherwise, we have to go with that, however silly it sounds.

 

 

I've decided to open a topic in D&D because I feel bad derailing the thread. If anyone wants to continue, please feel free to come down there.

[gtamann123]

How much do Real Dolls cost?

[DeafMetal]

How do Domain registrars work, exactly? How do they go about saying "example.com now exists and has been purchased by John Doe!" Would buying through, for example, GoDaddy make them the real owner, like buying a house from a bank via loans? If so, then how do large companies do that sort of thing? Cause I doubt Microsoft would appreciate a smaller company owning their websites.

 

I've been looking it up but it's all really convoluted.

[lil weasel]

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

If you want 'proper' research, you get a pile of money and visit your local University. Tell them the results you want, and let them do the work. You don't go to a forum (home of 50% preteens) and post a query and expect the world's best researchers to reply.

[Pyrrhic]

 

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

If you want 'proper' research, you get a pile of money and visit your local University. Tell them the results you want, and let them do the work. You don't go to a forum (home of 50% preteens) and post a query and expect the world's best researchers to reply.Going to a university is a very inefficient way of having questions answered

 

If everyone went to university to be enlightened we'd all be poor and there would be no point of this thread.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Linc.

[lil weasel]

Going to a university is a very inefficient way of having questions answered

If everyone went to university to be enlightened we'd all be poor and there would be no point of this thread.

Pretty funny, that... You 'HIRE' them, not you attend.

[Pyrrhic]

 

Going to a university is a very inefficient way of having questions answeredIf everyone went to university to be enlightened we'd all be poor and there would be no point of this thread.

Pretty funny, that... You 'HIRE' them, not you attend.

Going to a university

i.e. To have your questions answered.