![]() |
||
|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools |
Prohibition: So What?
Somebody proposed the possibility that Drug War proponents don't see the harm caused by Drug Laws as bad, because the harm occurs to bad people. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
As Amsterdam is testament to, decriminalization will only initially increase overall drug use, but the long term rates will be negligible, at best. As the author of this article said, though, where's the harm in drug use rising? A system of regulated, taxed drugs is better than the lack of a system we currently have in place. Safety would increase dramatically, especially in the case of "hard" drugs, such as heroin, because of the regulated standards that would be put in place.
Really, a very well written article, and a sign that maybe - maybe - the idea of decriminalization isn't taboo anymore. There's nowhere I can't reach. ![]() |
It's a problem as far as hard drugs go and keeping minors away from them. Driving under the influence is an example. I don't know if you could apply the logic of an alkie mom and dad turning the kids into alcoholics to things like intravenous heroin use, but I think you get my idea.
It's hard to say what kind of increase we'd see in underage use across the board, because obviously some people would be enticed by the prospect of legal highs, but then again, some would probably be turned off by the same fact. I'm not trying to argue that legalization is a totally bunk idea, but I want to make it clear that it comes with its own set of problems. We also can't really guesstimate how people who are strung out on meth will act if they don't have any money to buy it. Crime is still a very real possibility. If I had to say there's a general concept that drug war advocates promote, it's "quality of life." Cocaine as an illegal drug means there's norms in place to keep people from doing it pretty much anywhere. As a result there's less cocaine-related disturbances between people. I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking instead about day-to-day interactions and how they start to degrade. We see the effects of this with addictions of any kind, its just that the effects of hard drugs are more pronounced. That being said, I don't know if I totally buy into the idea that legalized cocaine will lead to a less "civilized" society, but there's the possibility, and for some people I think that's enough to make them cringe a bit. How ya doing, buddy? |
If society is vulnerable enough to fall into cocaine abuse as an epidemic, I'd argue that society's already been on the downturn.
The social impacts of abuse are, if anything, enough to keep drug use or abuse at a normalcy. "Hard drugs" also carry stigmas which keep them from being acceptable by society at large to the point of alcohol and potentially marijuana. Opium for instance, was lacking for fans, despite seeing significant use in England. The social impact of the use are precisely why they shouldn't be a problem. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Drug use should not be a problem. Doing stupid things like driving while under the influence of any drug, alcohol or otherwise, IS a problem, but not one that merits an all-out prohibition of drug use.
I was speaking idiomatically. |
If drugs were ever to be decriminalized, I'm sure laws to prevent driving under the influence would be put in place. Same goes for public disturbances, and other similar situations. It's worked pretty well for alcohol all these years, why wouldn't it work for other drugs?
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? ![]() |
Ah, but both of you are missing part of Brady's argument. He doesn't believe driving under the influence should be illegal. He thinks getting in an accident under the influence should be. Part of his libertarian schtick.
FELIPE NO ![]() John Mayer just asked me, personally, through an assistant, to sing backup on his new CD. |
Well, maybe one of you filthy statist scumbags could correct me on this, but I'm pretty sure DUI laws apply to any performance-inhibiting substance. In other words, I'm pretty sure they can arrest you for being high right now.
The real problem for consideration, Capo, is that incidences of DUIs would be higher. I don't really think it's going to be that big of a problem, since the prevailing drug culture encourages people to use in the home or with friends, whereas people are encouraged to drink in bars, which one usually has to drive to. I guess you might have some hooka bars after decriminalization, but who really wants to go to one of those when you can have your own hooka? What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
I daresay a lot more people drink at home or with friends than at bars.
Most amazing jew boots |
I don't think DUI's are the issue here. It's wrong and stupid and people who do it need to be smacked around some. But, really, the legality of the drug isn't stopping people still driving under the influence, be it alcohol or weed or whatever. I mean, hell, if you're willing to do one illegal activity, why not another?
As for drug prohibition in general, it's just really fucking stupid is all it is. I've never heard a good argument for its existence; most of them are only problems because drugs are illegal to begin with. Just listen to this guy. Or even these guys (they say smart things) This is something I try to follow fairly closely, because really, I want to be able to smoke my weed without that distant nagging worry that someone will yell at me for getting high. There's nowhere I can't reach.
Last edited by whinehurst; Apr 19, 2007 at 01:07 AM.
Reason: sometimes, i don't make sense. And i try to fix that.
|
When alcohol was prohibited, the primary distribution sources were the speakeasies, partly because people didn't want to keep liquor in the house, and mostly because they were already used to going to bars in order to consume liquor. If anything, the drop in usage of alcohol during prohibition years was due to casual stay-at-home drinkers not bothering to go to or get a connection into the speakeasies. (either that or they made their own moonshine) The primary source of controlled substances in the States right now are dealers or home-grown/produced. In the latter, production is already occurring in the home and intended for use in the home, and dealers certainly can't justify the kind of investment and attention an establishment for substance purchase and use would draw. The history and mode of uses for alcohol and illegal drugs have always been wildly different, even before substances were illegal. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
I believe when Nixon began the "War on Drugs," 60% of funding was for treatment of addiction. Today, I believe that number is less than 10% (with over 90% going to law enforcement).
As a young medical student working in hospitals for the first time, it's the treatment I worry about. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
The illegal drug trade...one of the great scourges of man-kind. Currently, eradication of the drug trade in any nation is virtually impossible. The damn things will always WORK, and as long as they work people will continue to want them....and as long as people want them someone will be more then happy to supply it. Illegal drugs are one of the most profitable (if not the most profitable) products you can produce in the world.
But soon we will be given a new tool in the war on drugs...a tool...properly implimented and regularly maintained...has the potential to decimate the drug trade by cutting off the demand. Vaccines have already been developed and are currently in the final approval stages that stimulate a large immune response when a target drug is introduced to the body. In effect, this makes snorting coccaine about as pleasurable as snorting chalk dust...no high is experienced or CAN be experienced regardless of the amount. After being effectively refined (so as not to be easily duped by some isomer/add on group) and screened, its a simple matter of the government mandating these vaccinations for any individuals attending public schools/public officals/government employees. Corporations would almost certainly employ a similar policy. This has the potential to kill off an extremly large portion of the demand...and could potentially cripple the international drug trade. Kill the demand, kill the problem. Most amazing jew boots
Last edited by KILLERAOC; Apr 25, 2007 at 02:42 PM.
Reason: edited for poor sentance structure really
|
Don't listen to him, George Orwell! He didn't mean it!
you can't seriously be in support of that idea, can you, Killer? What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
That has such people in't! FELIPE NO ![]() |
Why yes, I'll take the vaccine for morphine.
![]() What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |