39 replies to this topic

[California Mountain Snake]

This has got to be the most retarded proposal I have ever read. Legalize all drugs? That's basically letting people become addicted to them and destroy their lives. Do you really think the government wants to shoulder responsibility for that? Legalizing Marijuana is one thing, though I'm still against that due to cancer risks and shit, but legalizing ecstasy, crack, cocaine, etc? Sorry, but are you fucking stupid? You assume that usage will go down because it's accessible. The problem with addictive drugs, is that it WON'T go down. Not to mention the effects that shit has on your body...

It's not my proposal to be "fucking stupid" about.


Taking a look at numerous examples, it's evident that drug legalization doesn't always have the same effect as you predict. Reasons for this are numerous, but may include increased likelihood for people to seek treatment with the legal complications removed, and increased likelihood that a family member will seek treatment for a loved one because they now no longer have to fear getting them thrown in jail. This is not a case of me "assuming" anything, this is an opinion formed largely from statistical analysis.

It's also easy enough to argue that with double edged policies and ineffective treatment options, the government is already "letting people become addicted to drugs." The ability for our government to fight addiction is deplorable, and mostly relies on backwards, disproven treatment methods which comply best with the law (cold turkey quitting) rather than gradual moderation, a safer and more successful method.

And finally, civil liberties. It doesn't matter that it has shit effects on your body, because the no one, including the government, should have the right to dictate what a consenting adult does to themselves, because what more often happens is that one particular senator's moral view ends up affecting everyone's lives. It is for this reason that our country has had so much trouble getting medical marijuana bills passed, despite the OBVIOUS and PROVEN benefits it provides to the critically or terminally ill. You say "Legalizing Marijuana is one thing, though I'm still against that due to cancer risks and shit..." Can you not understand that just because you disagree with something, or something is potentially unhealthy, that doesn't mean it needs to be illegal? If you think they're unhealthy, don't do them! It's no excuse for anyone to foist their moral prerogatives onto another just because they think that's the best way to go.

Edited by California Mountain Snake, 13 August 2009 - 10:19 AM.

[Jyosua]

This has got to be the most retarded proposal I have ever read. Legalize all drugs? That's basically letting people become addicted to them and destroy their lives. Do you really think the government wants to shoulder responsibility for that? Legalizing Marijuana is one thing, though I'm still against that due to cancer risks and shit, but legalizing ecstasy, crack, cocaine, etc? Sorry, but are you fucking stupid? You assume that usage will go down because it's accessible. The problem with addictive drugs, is that it WON'T go down. Not to mention the effects that shit has on your body...

And finally, civil liberties. It doesn't matter that it has shit effects on your body, because the no one, including the government, should have the right to dictate what a consenting adult does to themselves, because what more often happens is that one particular senator's moral view ends up affecting everyone's lives. It is for this reason that our country has had so much trouble getting medical marijuana bills passed, despite the OBVIOUS and PROVEN benefits it provides to the critically or terminally ill. You say "Legalizing Marijuana is one thing, though I'm still against that due to cancer risks and shit..." Can you not understand that just because you disagree with something, or something is potentially unhealthy, that doesn't mean it needs to be illegal? If you think they're unhealthy, don't do them! It's no excuse for anyone to foist their moral prerogatives onto another just because they think that's the best way to go.

Actually if your moral perogatives suck or don't exist on a matter, I feel it's my duty to correct them. I'm sorry but drug legalization is retarded because it's going to allow something that shouldn't exist in the first place. Drugs are illegal because they are such a volatile substance. Legalizing them in an attempt to get rid of them isn't going to help! People are still going to be stupid, and are still going to do them. You overestimate the intelligence of the common drug addict. If they had enough intelligence to go seek out help, they likely wouldn't have tried the damn drug in the first place! I do not believe addictive drugs should be allowed on a legal market. This is the same reason I think that certain painkilling drugs like Oxycodone and Oxycontin, which are highly addictive, should be taken off the market and new drugs should be researched to replace them. I think you people should go get addicted to something, so you can personally experience it destroy your life, and then come back here and tell me we should legalize this shit. You're clearly ignorant of what these things do to people.

Governments are supposed to protect their people. Sometimes, this entails protecting them from themselves. In these cases, the right to do whatever you want to yourself is given up in exchange for keeping you safe via laws.

[California Mountain Snake]

Actually if your moral perogatives suck or don't exist on a matter, I feel it's my duty to correct them. I'm sorry but drug legalization is retarded because it's going to allow something that shouldn't exist in the first place. Drugs are illegal because they are such a volatile substance. Legalizing them in an attempt to get rid of them isn't going to help! People are still going to be stupid, and are still going to do them. You overestimate the intelligence of the common drug addict. If they had enough intelligence to go seek out help, they likely wouldn't have tried the damn drug in the first place! I do not believe addictive drugs should be allowed on a legal market. This is the same reason I think that certain painkilling drugs like Oxycodone and Oxycontin, which are highly addictive, should be taken off the market and new drugs should be researched to replace them. I think you people should go get addicted to something, so you can personally experience it destroy your life, and then come back here and tell me we should legalize this shit. You're clearly ignorant of what these things do to people.

Governments are supposed to protect their people. Sometimes, this entails protecting them from themselves. In these cases, the right to do whatever you want to yourself is given up in exchange for keeping you safe via laws.

Again, I am making none of my own claims about how people seek treatment for drugs, so stop using the pronoun "you" and ease up on out of my face. Studies have repeatedly shown that the way drug use is punished in this country, with jail time (and let's be clear, that IS the alternative you are talking about) is completely ineffective at combating addiction. Let's take a look at a legal drug, alcohol. Public endangerment due to alcohol consumption, including drunk driving, is still a crime, and can trigger mandatory treatment from the government in signs of frequent abuse, which is proven much more effective than just locking people up. Even with these monitoring processes and government attempts at forcing moderation, all of this is done without making alcohol illegal. There is no reason that this can't be true for other drugs. Treating addiction with therapy rather than jail time (again, the alternative you seem to support) is thousands of times more effective at actually solving the problem, and universally in countries with increased drug decriminalization, the number of people seeking treatment has skyrocketed. Fact. Having drug use be a punishable crime is literally retarded, even outside of the fact that it causes untold amounts of crime in the US responsible for an estimated 10,000 deaths yearly. Your argument also operates under the claim that somehow current US policy is effective in any way at significant drug deterence, when in fact, as said earlier, US policies have actually worked to make the drug trade more efficient and offer the ability to more widely distribute drugs at cheaper prices than ever before. More laws will not solve the problem, and even the current laws are arguably part of the problem.

Also, despite how happy I am that you have opinions, and this makes special, your view that you somehow have a right to control others' moral prerogatives is completely inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, documents which outline US legal philosophy.

[Jyosua]

Also, despite how happy I am that you have opinions, and this makes special, your view that you somehow have a right to control others' moral prerogatives is completely inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, documents which outline US legal philosophy.

I've read the bill of rights. And exercising my right to lobby against something I view as retarded, and succeed in doing so, thus making your proposal ineffective, is in no way violating that bill of rights.

I propose that if you want tolerance on drugs, you move to the Netherlands. They're more likely to try your proposal there.

[California Mountain Snake]

Also, despite how happy I am that you have opinions, and this makes special, your view that you somehow have a right to control others' moral prerogatives is completely inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, documents which outline US legal philosophy.

I've read the bill of rights. And exercising my right to lobby against something I view as retarded, and succeed in doing so, thus making your proposal ineffective, is in no way violating that bill of rights.

I propose that if you want tolerance on drugs, you move to the Netherlands. They're more likely to try your proposal there.

The right to persuade people to follow your beliefs and allowing them to make a choice is entirely different than shunting any illusions of choice by legally obligating them to conform to your ways. Understanding that all men are created equal is incompatible with the delusion that you somehow have the right to control another person's habits as they pertain to themselves.

Edited by California Mountain Snake, 13 August 2009 - 05:53 PM.

[Crystal Shards]

I find it funny people are flipping out over cocaine and shit while alcohol is still legal. Why don't we make that illegal too? Oh wait.

The fact of the matter is that the government can regulate it to the point that you pretty much have to be responsible with it. Set an age limit, say 18, and make rules where if you use it in a manner where it endangers someone's life (e.g. while driving, while at work, etc.) and let insurance/employers/whoever cut health benefits to those who use it (like some have done with smokers), and you're set. You don't have to necessarily legalize all drugs, but I mean seriously a lot of people get screwed over for having pot when it's not even that dangerous. If it was a lot more people would be dying from it. I don't think marijuana alone has been proven to be a cause of death, whereas tobacco and alcohol (which are both legal) are leading causes. So...

[Aitherion]

though I'm still against that due to cancer risks and shit

Realistically, people should be allowed to decide if the risk of cancer is worth the high. Obviously the cancer risk hasn't stopped cigarettes, although admittedly those need to have a lot of work done on keeping them away from kids.

[Phoenix Wright]

though I'm still against that due to cancer risks and shit

Realistically, people should be allowed to decide if the risk of cancer is worth the high. Obviously the cancer risk hasn't stopped cigarettes, although admittedly those need to have a lot of work done on keeping them away from kids.

Not gonna happen. Gullible kids will give (and do give) tobacco companies a lot of money. Especially the law-ignoring employees that sell cigarettes to minors.

Why do you think they made herbal cigarettes? To attract children to smoke. Gum cigarettes (which have been banned for some time now, I believe), other simulators? It's all for the money.

Edited by Old Snake, 13 August 2009 - 11:39 PM.

[quanta]

Actually if your moral perogatives suck or don't exist on a matter, I feel it's my duty to correct them. I'm sorry but drug legalization is retarded because it's going to allow something that shouldn't exist in the first place. Drugs are illegal because they are such a volatile substance. Legalizing them in an attempt to get rid of them isn't going to help! People are still going to be stupid, and are still going to do them. You overestimate the intelligence of the common drug addict. If they had enough intelligence to go seek out help, they likely wouldn't have tried the damn drug in the first place! I do not believe addictive drugs should be allowed on a legal market. This is the same reason I think that certain painkilling drugs like Oxycodone and Oxycontin, which are highly addictive, should be taken off the market and new drugs should be researched to replace them. I think you people should go get addicted to something, so you can personally experience it destroy your life, and then come back here and tell me we should legalize this shit. You're clearly ignorant of what these things do to people.

Governments are supposed to protect their people. Sometimes, this entails protecting them from themselves. In these cases, the right to do whatever you want to yourself is given up in exchange for keeping you safe via laws.

Let's go through this bit-by-bit.

Legalizing them in an attempt to get rid of them isn't going to help!

Getting rid of them is not the goal, and no one is arguing it is. Possible goals include reducing the economic cost of drugs, creating a system of incentives that actually makes sense for encouraging treatment for those who want it, and/or greatly reducing the incentive for violence and smuggling by bringing the use of it under government control and regulation.

People are still going to be stupid, and are still going to do them.

No one here is claiming that legalizing something will always cause huge reductions in its use (or any reductions really). But it might be nice if fewer people are getting gunned down in drug wars. For example, our drug wars against marijuana and cocaine have cost many Central and South American countries a great deal of money and life. http://en.wikipedia....exican_Drug_War There were 5,630 deaths related to the drug war in 2008 in just Mexico. It seems unlikely that if shipping and selling drugs was legal that people would bother gunning down civilians or attacking officers over it as often. For reference, just think about how prohibition greatly strengthened and empowered many criminals. http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States "The cost of enforcing Prohibition was high, and the lack of tax revenues on alcohol (some $500 million annually nationwide) affected government coffers. When repeal of Prohibition occurred in 1933, organized crime lost nearly all of its black market alcohol profits in most states (states still had the right to enforce their own laws concerning alcohol consumption) because of competition with low-priced alcohol sales at legal liquor stores."

You overestimate the intelligence of the common drug addict. If they had enough intelligence to go seek out help, they likely wouldn't have tried the damn drug in the first place!

As of now, this claim is completely unsubstantiated.

I do not believe addictive drugs should be allowed on a legal market. This is the same reason I think that certain painkilling drugs like Oxycodone and Oxycontin, which are highly addictive, should be taken off the market and new drugs should be researched to replace them.

And you have every right to hold that belief just as others do to oppose it.

I think you people should go get addicted to something, so you can personally experience it destroy your life, and then come back here and tell me we should legalize this shit. You're clearly ignorant of what these things do to people.

Skirting the border of making an outright ad hominem statement is rarely a good way to encourage intelligent or reasonable debate.

Governments are supposed to protect their people. Sometimes, this entails protecting them from themselves. In these cases, the right to do whatever you want to yourself is given up in exchange for keeping you safe via laws.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Agro]

Jyosua, I'd like to say one thing: when someone takes drugs, they don't care about if it legal or not. Trust me, I have friends in that area. The main reason people avoid drugs is because they know it's bad for them. So it wouldn't make much difference at all if drugs were legalised; drugs would still be campaigned as unhealthy and life destroyers while still being perfectly legal.

On top of that, I think you underestimate the intelligence of the general public. As I previously stated, most people steer clear of drugs for health reasons and not legal reasons. For the same reason, people take drugs because they are not fully aware of the consequences of taking them, among other things, such as peer pressure and spur-of-the-party-moment sort of dealing.

Honestly, I find that you are underesearched and hold opinions simply on what you see in the media; which, in many cases, is blown out of proportion.

[Jyosua]

Quanta, I understand what's being argued, but it's stupid. You should not ENABLE people to be able to go out and become crackheads if they want. It's stupid, and in harming themselves, they end up harming others, through various methods; emotionally harming their family, physically harming their family, if they're a pregnant women their kid will be hooked on the shit, not to mention various other things that may happen or WILL happen as a result of their drug use. This is the reason these things are illegal to begin with! It's not because of any other reason besides the fact it harms people! Harmful substances are banned! End of story! Smoking and Alcohol are exceptions because people argued that they won't cause as much damage with moderate usage. I disagree, but hey, as long as it's not hardcore drugs, do what you want. I'd even be fine if they legalized Marijuana, so long as it's not legal to use in public vicinities, and people using it are usually too mellowed out to actually cause any harm to anyone. The emotional harm to families can still exist if they just sit around all day and get high, but there's therapy for that.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Seperation of Powers. Checks and Balances.

Honestly, I find that you are underesearched and hold opinions simply on what you see in the media; which, in many cases, is blown out of proportion.

No, I hold opinions based on what I see in real life. I couldn't give two shits what the media says.

I give up. The intelligence level on this discussion board is retarded. You people clearly have no experience, and give no thought to reality. The proposals made on this forum, legalizing drugs, getting rid of seat belt laws, etc... Really? Are you people dipshits? That's a serious question. I oftentimes think you people are just trolling the place. This disheartens me and makes me wish I had not remade this forum. God I hope you people never vote.

[Aitherion]

I give up. The intelligence level on this discussion board is retarded. You people clearly have no experience, and give no thought to reality. The proposals made on this forum, legalizing drugs, getting rid of seat belt laws, etc... Really? Are you people dipshits? That's a serious question. I oftentimes think you people are just trolling the place. This disheartens me and makes me wish I had not remade this forum. God I hope you people never vote.

Finishing off a post with a gigantic ad hominem is a great way to argue your points, evidently.

[Jyosua]

I give up. The intelligence level on this discussion board is retarded. You people clearly have no experience, and give no thought to reality. The proposals made on this forum, legalizing drugs, getting rid of seat belt laws, etc... Really? Are you people dipshits? That's a serious question. I oftentimes think you people are just trolling the place. This disheartens me and makes me wish I had not remade this forum. God I hope you people never vote.

Finishing off a post with a gigantic ad hominem is a great way to argue your points, evidently.

It's not an ad hominem. It's true. I really do wonder if they're just trolling.

By the way, if you have nothing else to say other than claim that part of my post contains a fallacy, yet say nothing about the rest of my post, then don't post at all. You've added nothing to the discussion.

[Aitherion]

I give up. The intelligence level on this discussion board is retarded. You people clearly have no experience, and give no thought to reality. The proposals made on this forum, legalizing drugs, getting rid of seat belt laws, etc... Really? Are you people dipshits? That's a serious question. I oftentimes think you people are just trolling the place. This disheartens me and makes me wish I had not remade this forum. God I hope you people never vote.

Finishing off a post with a gigantic ad hominem is a great way to argue your points, evidently.

It's not an ad hominem. It's true. I really do wonder if they're just trolling.

Here's the thing, though: You're accusing people of trolling and/or being dipshits for arguing an opinion on a matter that's different from yours.

Sure, common sense dictates that people should prefer safety; wearing seatbelts, not doing drugs, whatever. But the thing there is that- particularly in the case of drugs- it's their decision, not the fucking government's.

Weed is less dangerous than alcohol in many ways, and alcohol honestly would probably continue to cause more domestic problems than weed if it was unbanned- Tell me that the government should honestly ban alcohol again. Tell me that we should go back to the way the country was during prohibition, with people opening speakeasies all over the damnfuckingplace and the FBI going around and having shootouts with the mob over barrels of beer.

If you can't, then you're arguing that the government should continue ban the lesser of two evils, when drug wars take hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding to fight and result in at least thousands of deaths a year.

[Jyosua]

I give up. The intelligence level on this discussion board is retarded. You people clearly have no experience, and give no thought to reality. The proposals made on this forum, legalizing drugs, getting rid of seat belt laws, etc... Really? Are you people dipshits? That's a serious question. I oftentimes think you people are just trolling the place. This disheartens me and makes me wish I had not remade this forum. God I hope you people never vote.

Finishing off a post with a gigantic ad hominem is a great way to argue your points, evidently.

It's not an ad hominem. It's true. I really do wonder if they're just trolling.

Here's the thing, though: You're accusing people of trolling and/or being dipshits for arguing an opinion on a matter that's different from yours.

Sure, common sense dictates that people should prefer safety; wearing seatbelts, not doing drugs, whatever. But the thing there is that- particularly in the case of drugs- it's their decision, not the fucking government's.

Weed is less dangerous than alcohol in many ways, and alcohol honestly would probably continue to cause more domestic problems than weed if it was unbanned- Tell me that the government should honestly ban alcohol again. Tell me that we should go back to the way the country was during prohibition, with people opening speakeasies all over the damnfuckingplace and the FBI going around and having shootouts with the mob over barrels of beer.

If you can't, then you're arguing that the government should continue ban the lesser of two evils, when drug wars take hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding to fight and result in at least thousands of deaths a year.

If you had read my post, you'd see that I actually have no problem with weed. I have a problem with everything else being legalized.

Of course alcohol shouldn't be banned again. It's a poison and there's no way to get rid of it. Prohibition clearly shows that. However, alcohol is not NEARLY as volatile as the substances you're arguing to unban. This proposal is not just to unban weed. If it was that, sure I'd go for it; I don't really think it causes a problem so long as it's only used in private. But crack, cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc. should not be made legal.

[Aitherion]

I give up. The intelligence level on this discussion board is retarded. You people clearly have no experience, and give no thought to reality. The proposals made on this forum, legalizing drugs, getting rid of seat belt laws, etc... Really? Are you people dipshits? That's a serious question. I oftentimes think you people are just trolling the place. This disheartens me and makes me wish I had not remade this forum. God I hope you people never vote.

Finishing off a post with a gigantic ad hominem is a great way to argue your points, evidently.

It's not an ad hominem. It's true. I really do wonder if they're just trolling.

Here's the thing, though: You're accusing people of trolling and/or being dipshits for arguing an opinion on a matter that's different from yours.

Sure, common sense dictates that people should prefer safety; wearing seatbelts, not doing drugs, whatever. But the thing there is that- particularly in the case of drugs- it's their decision, not the fucking government's.

Weed is less dangerous than alcohol in many ways, and alcohol honestly would probably continue to cause more domestic problems than weed if it was unbanned- Tell me that the government should honestly ban alcohol again. Tell me that we should go back to the way the country was during prohibition, with people opening speakeasies all over the damnfuckingplace and the FBI going around and having shootouts with the mob over barrels of beer.

If you can't, then you're arguing that the government should continue ban the lesser of two evils, when drug wars take hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding to fight and result in at least thousands of deaths a year.

If you had read my post, you'd see that I actually have no problem with weed. I have a problem with everything else being legalized.

Of course alcohol shouldn't be banned again. It's a poison and there's no way to get rid of it. Prohibition clearly shows that. However, alcohol is not NEARLY as volatile as the substances you're arguing to unban. This proposal is not just to unban weed. If it was that, sure I'd go for it; I don't really think it causes a problem so long as it's only used in private. But crack, cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc. should not be made legal.

Reading the topic so far, I have not seen a single person arguing that all of those should be. Just weed.

Perhaps I've missed something, but I'm rather sure that no one has.

[Jyosua]

I give up. The intelligence level on this discussion board is retarded. You people clearly have no experience, and give no thought to reality. The proposals made on this forum, legalizing drugs, getting rid of seat belt laws, etc... Really? Are you people dipshits? That's a serious question. I oftentimes think you people are just trolling the place. This disheartens me and makes me wish I had not remade this forum. God I hope you people never vote.

Finishing off a post with a gigantic ad hominem is a great way to argue your points, evidently.

It's not an ad hominem. It's true. I really do wonder if they're just trolling.

Here's the thing, though: You're accusing people of trolling and/or being dipshits for arguing an opinion on a matter that's different from yours.

Sure, common sense dictates that people should prefer safety; wearing seatbelts, not doing drugs, whatever. But the thing there is that- particularly in the case of drugs- it's their decision, not the fucking government's.

Weed is less dangerous than alcohol in many ways, and alcohol honestly would probably continue to cause more domestic problems than weed if it was unbanned- Tell me that the government should honestly ban alcohol again. Tell me that we should go back to the way the country was during prohibition, with people opening speakeasies all over the damnfuckingplace and the FBI going around and having shootouts with the mob over barrels of beer.

If you can't, then you're arguing that the government should continue ban the lesser of two evils, when drug wars take hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding to fight and result in at least thousands of deaths a year.

If you had read my post, you'd see that I actually have no problem with weed. I have a problem with everything else being legalized.

Of course alcohol shouldn't be banned again. It's a poison and there's no way to get rid of it. Prohibition clearly shows that. However, alcohol is not NEARLY as volatile as the substances you're arguing to unban. This proposal is not just to unban weed. If it was that, sure I'd go for it; I don't really think it causes a problem so long as it's only used in private. But crack, cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc. should not be made legal.

Reading the topic so far, I have not seen a single person arguing that all of those should be. Just weed.

Perhaps I've missed something, but I'm rather sure that no one has.

To see an effective end to the vast criminal network associated with the production, distribution, and sale of illegal recreational drugs, the only complete solution that exists is simple: across the board drug legalization.

Unless I've severely mistaken, I took that to mean all drugs.

[Aitherion]

I give up. The intelligence level on this discussion board is retarded. You people clearly have no experience, and give no thought to reality. The proposals made on this forum, legalizing drugs, getting rid of seat belt laws, etc... Really? Are you people dipshits? That's a serious question. I oftentimes think you people are just trolling the place. This disheartens me and makes me wish I had not remade this forum. God I hope you people never vote.

Finishing off a post with a gigantic ad hominem is a great way to argue your points, evidently.

It's not an ad hominem. It's true. I really do wonder if they're just trolling.

Here's the thing, though: You're accusing people of trolling and/or being dipshits for arguing an opinion on a matter that's different from yours.

Sure, common sense dictates that people should prefer safety; wearing seatbelts, not doing drugs, whatever. But the thing there is that- particularly in the case of drugs- it's their decision, not the fucking government's.

Weed is less dangerous than alcohol in many ways, and alcohol honestly would probably continue to cause more domestic problems than weed if it was unbanned- Tell me that the government should honestly ban alcohol again. Tell me that we should go back to the way the country was during prohibition, with people opening speakeasies all over the damnfuckingplace and the FBI going around and having shootouts with the mob over barrels of beer.

If you can't, then you're arguing that the government should continue ban the lesser of two evils, when drug wars take hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding to fight and result in at least thousands of deaths a year.

If you had read my post, you'd see that I actually have no problem with weed. I have a problem with everything else being legalized.

Of course alcohol shouldn't be banned again. It's a poison and there's no way to get rid of it. Prohibition clearly shows that. However, alcohol is not NEARLY as volatile as the substances you're arguing to unban. This proposal is not just to unban weed. If it was that, sure I'd go for it; I don't really think it causes a problem so long as it's only used in private. But crack, cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc. should not be made legal.

Reading the topic so far, I have not seen a single person arguing that all of those should be. Just weed.

Perhaps I've missed something, but I'm rather sure that no one has.

To see an effective end to the vast criminal network associated with the production, distribution, and sale of illegal recreational drugs, the only complete solution that exists is simple: across the board drug legalization.

Unless I've severely mistaken, I took that to mean all drugs.

Okay, yeah, I read that differently than you did, that's probably where the misunderstanding came from.

[quanta]

Quanta, I understand what's being argued, but it's stupid. You should not ENABLE people to be able to go out and become crackheads if they want. It's stupid, and in harming themselves, they end up harming others, through various methods; emotionally harming their family, physically harming their family, if they're a pregnant women their kid will be hooked on the shit, not to mention various other things that may happen or WILL happen as a result of their drug use. This is the reason these things are illegal to begin with! It's not because of any other reason besides the fact it harms people! Harmful substances are banned! End of story! Smoking and Alcohol are exceptions because people argued that they won't cause as much damage with moderate usage. I disagree, but hey, as long as it's not hardcore drugs, do what you want. I'd even be fine if they legalized Marijuana, so long as it's not legal to use in public vicinities, and people using it are usually too mellowed out to actually cause any harm to anyone. The emotional harm to families can still exist if they just sit around all day and get high, but there's therapy for that.

You're not really answering the counterpoint in any sense EDIT: (Well, at least as I understand it, but that should go for pretty much everything I say). There are other relevant factors A) banning things might not necessarily be the most effective way to obtain the goal of harming less people and the very banning of the substance causes a great deal of harm to others. You merely do not see those others because a great deal of them do not live in the U.S.

Also, I'd say there's a strong distinction between being overall neutral towards a behavior and enabling a behavior.

Seperation of Powers. Checks and Balances.

I was too vague. Governments should not be allowed to create laws purely to protect people from themselves.

If a government is supposed to protect its people even from themselves then why let people be hurt at all? Why can't we just regulate or ban anything harmful? Why should people be allowed to eat unhealthy food and not exercise? Why should they be allowed to drink alcohol? (Many of the reasons why this is allowed is are the same reasons why people argue other drugs should be allowed; alcohol is allowed because it has been realized that banning it is worse than the alternative, not because it is necessarily less harmful than other illicit drugs. Killing yourself with alcohol isn't very difficult and intoxicated people often behave in all sorts of horrible ways they would not otherwise. It just so happens that outright banning it would have even worse consequences.)

One of the most core principles upon which good government stands is the protection of private property. There is no property more important than one's own body. Although it's rarely true that harming yourself does not directly harm anyone else (either physically or property-wise; I'm not talking about emotional harm; I'd argue no government should be even vaguely trying to protect individuals from emotional harm), in the case that you can harm yourself on your own property at your own cost without harming someone else, you may as well be allowed to.

Why? Because to stop this sort of activity would involve control and monitoring of the individual in his own domain against his will. And to think that this surveillance would not rapidly be used for other purposes even if it were started with good intentions would be ridiculously naive.

By the way, if you have nothing else to say other than claim that part of my post contains a fallacy, yet say nothing about the rest of my post, then don't post at all. You've added nothing to the discussion.

I'd disagree. Pointing out fallacies in someone's argument is quite constructive. There is no obligation to attack an entire argument. Indeed, in some cases, there is no need to waste time attacking an entire argument if it's cornerstone is fallacious (No, I'm not saying this is a case of that, I'm just arguing that pointing out fallacies does add to the discussion).

Edited by quanta, 15 August 2009 - 04:20 AM.

[Jyosua]

Okay what the fuck? Where were you people yesterday? I just cleaned up this thread yesterday. Listen:

Stop arguing about what I said.

I realize I shouldn't have said it, and was hounded about it yesterday. I don't need more of you guys making this thread going to shit again. Just get on with the discussion and reply to the discussion between me and Aitherion or something, not something near 10 posts ago.

Note: This does not apply to Quanta as he did not reply to that key paragraph in public.

And sorry Quanta, I'm not replying to your post. I realize I can't win this argument until I'm able to argue another thing properly, so this will have to wait until a later date.