Drugs anybody?

[Malamis]

Having been driven once again to the point of incandescence by Mrs J. Smith, I feel inclined to open the current offense up to more representative debate (as relevant to my interests) than exists in El Reg comment threads.

That is, the categorical denial of statistics and public opinion in drug reclassification, specifically regarding J. Smith's treatment of ecstasy. I therefore wish to hear different perspectives on the state of narcotic criminalisation in your country, your favorite countries and your personal opinion about it.

As an aspiring puritan, with a lifetime of universal sobriety on all axes behind me, my viewpoint is rather skewed, that being :

"Let them kill themselves however they like so long as it does not affect me or my tax payments."

discuss pls k thx.

 

[Glenski]

Doing drugs in a foreign country is stupid.
Doing drugs in Japan is even more so.

It does affect you if you are here. Reputation and image about foreigners in general do get around.

 

[Haruspex]

You can drink yourself to death, you can join the army and go get yourself killed, you can do extreme sports and die as a subsequence, you can blow glass and shorten your life considerably, you can choose to smoke and cause a whole bunch of illnesses to develop, but no, you can't take drugs...

 

[Putrefaction]

I have done weed. I have drank underage.

I have done nothing to detriment society. I wish everyone would apply the laws of alcohol to drugs, even harder drugs.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I wish everyone would apply the laws of alcohol to drugs, even harder drugs.

They tried that during Prohibition. Turned out to be a bad idea.

 

[Half-n-Half]

They tried that during Prohibition. Turned out to be a bad idea.

I think you got it reversed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe putrefaction was saying he wants drugs to be treated the same way as alcohol, which itself is arguably another drug.

As for myself this is a hard one. I was raised in a conservative home and was taught all drugs are bad. Drugs are bad for you and can kill. But so can alcohol and cigarettes. Drugs such as LSD, ecstasy, crack, meth, etc, can severely impair your ability to properly judge your actions and the situation around you.

However, you could say alcohol, too, impairs judgement, so why is it legal and these drugs are not? Well, the only thing I have to say about that is, do two wrongs make a right? Would it be OK to make some of these drugs legal solely on the basis that alcohol is legal?

 

[Haruspex]

Two wrongs do not make a right, I will agree there, but when there's such arbitrariness, the aggrieved persons have every right to complain.
This is a simple case of either, or.
Prescribed medication can lead to an alienation of reason if misused, and so can alcohol, not to mention the failure to take medicine. Yet you have a discretion in deciding whether you would like to take medicine/alcohol, and how much you wish to take.
In all honesty, if someone wants to become intoxicated, he WILL become intoxicated one way or another. If a person goes berserk, and kills a whole bunch of people, does it really matter whether he was under the effect of alcohol, prescribed medicine or controlled drugs? Frankly? Im of the opinion that it does not, after all, what society wants to avoid are the deaths, not the intoxication itself, and so if there is a legally recognised way of becoming intoxicated, and it brings about more or less the same results, well, in that case what are we arguing about?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I think you got it reversed.

Ooops so I did

 

[Malamis]

Prescribed medication can lead to an alienation of reason if misused, and so can alcohol, not to mention the failure to take medicine. Yet you have a discretion in deciding whether you would like to take medicine/alcohol, and how much you wish to take.

So long as you have full control of your reasonable self in both cases. I was always under the impression that the controls were for the purpose of preventing dependencies, and consequently becoming dangerously unstable should the source dry up.

In all honesty, if someone wants to become intoxicated, he WILL become intoxicated one way or another. If a person goes berserk, and kills a whole bunch of people, does it really matter whether he was under the effect of alcohol, prescribed medicine or controlled drugs? Frankly? Im of the opinion that it does not, after all, what society wants to avoid are the deaths, not the intoxication itself,....

I am thinking more the avoidance of violent anti-social and property damaging behavior, which I am yet to read of arising from prescribed medicines. An extension of pre-emptive control could cannabis control preventing house fires.

and so if there is a legally recognised way of becoming intoxicated, and it brings about more or less the same results, well, in that case what are we arguing about?

that they don't bring about more or less the same results when you step back from the overly dramatic?

 

[-Rudel-]

Perhaps they make them illegal so that the countries overseas cannot make profit off of it. Such as Afhganistan harvesting Poppy, making tons of money off of it. With money you can buy war fighting equipment.

Imagine if drugs were legal. Most countries would be rich, and from that comes greed...so forth, war. Just like the oil wars in Africa.


Just another thought.

 

[Glenski]

I have done weed. I have drank underage.

I have done nothing to detriment society. I wish everyone would apply the laws of alcohol to drugs, even harder drugs.

Well, since such a thing will not happen, live with it and don't obscure the issue, which is doing other drugs in Japan.

Just don't.

Look at what happened to sumo wrestlers and rugby players who smoked pot.
http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=5756
Pot Bust Scandal for Japan's Sumo Wrestling
http://www.aol.com.au/news/story/Japan-player-positive-for-marijuana/1639661/index.html

Teachers, too.
Breitbart News Network
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20081226b3.html

Look what happened to Paul McCartney when he tried to enter the country with pot. http://www.therockradio.com/2007/05/paul-mccartney-busted-in-japan.html

And, other singers.
Wöchentlich Neuigkeiten für Sie – hdrjapan.com

It is not tolerated here. Harder drugs even more, despite their prevalence. You don't want to be in a Japanese prison. Ever!

Doesn't affect anyone but the user? Balderdash. Tell that to the sumo association and its fans, to the music fans, to the students, etc.

Just don't. You've been warned.

 

[Haruspex]

Doing drugs in a foreign country is stupid.

I do not think anyone disagrees here, domestic drug use however is a different matter.

I am thinking more the avoidance of violent anti-social and property damaging behavior, which I am yet to read of arising from prescribed medicines.

In a Ebsworth v HM Advocate the accused took 50 tablets of paracetamol and 10 tablets of diamorphine, he suffered a total alienation of reason, and in this state committed numerous crimes. But, what made him liable was the fact that he committed these crimes, as he took these drugs as painkillers, because he broke his leg.
Now, diamorphine is a legally prescribed controlled drug in the UK as the article below states.
Heroin - Wikipedia

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

Personally, I stay away from drugs because they tend to be addicting.

How do I reconcile that with my taste for alcohol? Well, I hate getting drunk, and I don't even like getting buzzed, to be honest. I don't like my mind to be altered, and if you take away that, what's the point in drugs?

On a practical level, click on the links Glenski has provided; yeah, that's trouble I can live without.

 

[Remixer]

However, you could say alcohol, too, impairs judgement, so why is it legal and these drugs are not? Well, the only thing I have to say about that is, do two wrongs make a right? Would it be OK to make some of these drugs legal solely on the basis that alcohol is legal?

Since I'm arguably a German, I'll reply from the German perspective.

In Germany it used to be completely illegal to smoke or possess Marijuana.

Until one day some guy I don't remember the name of made a case to the German equivalent of the Supreme Court.

He argued, with the negative effects of alcohol on Society and detrimental consequences on the human body compared to the effects THC has on the body, mind and society, that its legal status as an illegal drug cannot be maintained.

The Supreme Court agreed and if I remember correctly, one is now allowed to possess a maximum of 0.7g of Marijuana.



In my own opinion, I would be against any form of legality of drugs for recreational use (including nicotine and alcohol), except for the application of whichever drug is out there for medical purposes.

Drugs that can harm ones body should never be made legal. It has a negative effect on society, and I will argue this point if anyone would like me to.

Then again, society is pretty messed up by itself.



Remixer

 

[Haruspex]

It harms. So what? Plenty of **** harms society, hell, you could even argue that harming society to death would be a nice idea. The harm argument requires one to accept that harm is meant to be avoided in all forms, and even in circumstances where it causes a loss of happiness. Im not really ok with negative utilitarian views when they're forced upon people.

 

[Remixer]

It harms. So what? Plenty of **** harms society, hell, you could even argue that harming society to death would be a nice idea. The harm argument requires one to accept that harm is meant to be avoided in all forms, and even in circumstances where it causes a loss of happiness. Im not really ok with negative utilitarian views when they're forced upon people.

What a good point to make...

Of course harm should be avoided in all forms.

If one needs to harm oneself or others in order to be happy, do I really need to point out the lunacy of maintaining such a position?



Remixer

 

[Haruspex]

Unhealthy (fast food generally) food harms you right? But its convenient.
If you are going to make a decision here on whether we're allowed to harm ourselves, at least ask us please, cause frankly, I don't want someone else telling me to what extent I may harm myself, or whether I am allowed to.

I appreciate concern for me and my life, but I feel that unless we have certain liberties (the right to be foolish to an extent) our rights are violated, yes, violated.
Its my life, and I want to decide on its use. I honestly don't want to live in a sterile society where a bunch of communist manipulators deny me the right to opt out and stop supporting society and their ideas.
Society can go screw itself for all I care.

 

[Remixer]

The issue is not solely harm inflicted on oneself.

Of course one you shouldn't harm himself/herself, but that cannot and should not be enforced.

The bigger issue is intake of substances that alter one's behaviour, to the point that it can be classified as impairment.

With an impairment in oneself's behaviour, other people become involved. Mostly in a negative way.

(EDIT: Increase in) nonsensical fights, abuse of people/children, impaired perception of moral values that matter, etc etc.

For what? So that a few people can drug themselves into a fake happiness for a few hours to escape reality?

Regarding Fast Food, while I personally avoid it like women avoid cockroaches, I see no harm done by it, even if consumed in excessive amounts. If you want to die due to heart failure or clogged blood vessels, be my guest.



Remixer

 

[Malamis]

Unhealthy (fast food generally) food harms you right? But its convenient.

It also brings in significant taxable income, which I have regularly heard supporting the anti-prohibition cause.

If you are going to make a decision here on whether we're allowed to harm ourselves, at least ask us please

Its called representative democracy for a reason; scare tactics and intimidation are splendidly utilised to make it the will of the majority, whether they had an opinion of the matter at the time or not. Distressingly leading back to Mrs. Smith.

cause frankly, I don't want someone else telling me to what extent I may harm myself, or whether I am allowed to.

And you are free to do so. Unfortunately in the British case the state health service will be forced to pick up the bill, one way or the other...
Ha!
Opt out of state health care and get unrestricted access to narcotics! that could actually turn out tremendously successful in both civil liberties and lightening the support bill

I appreciate concern for me and my life, but I feel that unless we have certain liberties (the right to be foolish to an extent) our rights are violated, yes, violated.

Which rights would those be ? The ones in the declaration of "this would be a good idea"?

Its my life, and I want to decide on its use. I honestly don't want to live in a sterile society where a bunch of communist manipulators deny me the right to opt out and stop supporting society and their ideas.

I dont know about communist, it would be a bit more on the fascist bend if the purpose was to safeguard the investment the state made in the individual.

Society can go screw itself for all I care.

 

[Haruspex]

Again, before that argument can be supported you need to establish that escapism is worthless.

Honestly, if you could restrict drug use to certain parlors, drug, centres, etc., we would not face such a problem, there would probably be a slight increase in nutters going berserk, but definitely a decrease in smuggling, low quality drugs and criminal activities.
If you're unwilling to let people turn to escapism under appropriate supervision and such, you are meddling with their lives.

 

[Glenski]

I do not think anyone disagrees here, domestic drug use however is a different matter.

No, I think that doing drugs anywhere is stupid. Doing them overseas is even more stupid.

It harms. So what?

Uh, you obviously don't see the logic lacking in these two statements when written together.

Im not really ok with negative utilitarian views when they're forced upon people.

Here it comes. Whenever a conversation starts about drug use, someone always pops up with the thread killer that says, "Laws should not be made to stop people from taking drugs."

Oh, and can we stay on topic and not talk about fast food or alcohol?

 

[Remixer]

Again, before that argument can be supported you need to establish that escapism is worthless.

Honestly, if you could restrict drug use to certain parlors, drug, centres, etc., we would not face such a problem, there would probably be a slight increase in nutters going berserk, but definitely a decrease in smuggling, low quality drugs and criminal activities.
If you're unwilling to let people turn to escapism under appropriate supervision and such, you are meddling with their lives.

No, I don't believe that it would be the case.

Case in point would be alcohol.

It is incorporated as a common drug to consume in most societies.

Legalised, age restriction implemented, sold in most countries only by licensed sellers.

What do those countries experience?

Underage drinking (which is said to be a major problem in the UK, if I recollect a BBC article correctly), bench drinking, presence of openly alcoholic individuals.

I am fairly certain, that most of us here are familiar with the stereotypical alcoholic father who comes home at night, argues with the mother, beats her and sometimes turns his anger onto the kid.

That said, a person who would do such things while drunk, would possibly do them as well when sober, but I argue that the depressive and impairing effect of alcohol on one's behaviour amplifies given inhibited aggression and mental instability in an individual.

It is not worth going through an increase of victims just for the sake of people being able to drug themselves.

The issue really isn't just the harm inflicted on oneself.

Nowhere and never ever should a person be allowed to harm others. If drugs amplify such behaviour, they should be illegal as well.



Remixer

 

[Malamis]

Again, before that argument can be supported you need to establish that escapism is worthless.

It is. But, sadly, only when investments and returns can/have been made in worthwhile, productive and satisfying activities removing the need for escapism in the first place.

Honestly, if you could restrict drug use to certain parlors, drug, centres, etc., we would not face such a problem, there would probably be a slight increase in nutters going berserk, but definitely a decrease in smuggling, low quality drugs and criminal activities.

And of course families and businesses want to live near drug dens. I suppose it requires a culture shift to put up with that, since Amsterdam didn't seem to suffer much.

If you're unwilling to let people turn to escapism under appropriate supervision and such, you are meddling with their lives.

That then begs the argument of when and indeed if state or government meddling should happen.

Also @ Glenski: I get the feeling you have a personal or professional interest in this matter, and politely request any elaboration.

 

[Remixer]

Oh, and can we stay on topic and not talk about fast food or alcohol?

Alcohol is a drug.

Arguably a worse kind of drug than Marijuana.

It should not matter whether the drug/s being discussed is deemed legal or illegal by society.



Remixer

 

[Haruspex]

Which rights would those be ? The ones in the declaration of "this would be a good idea"?

Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights

Now you could argue that drug use is an exception under these documents, but that leaves a problem, what about alcohol?
Clearly, alcohol endangers public morality, safety, etc.. Does it not? please enlighten me if im wrong, but I have never heard of a person getting pissed because he had too few or no drinks, whereas the contrary I have heard.
So maybe... just maybe... WE SHOULD GET RID OF ALCOHOL?!
Oh, but no, NO NO NO! That would be... unacceptable. Why? No one bloody knows, but the majority is convinced that alcohol should stay.
Yeah, that is society. There you go. Society... pfft.

Like society, democracy can go and screw itself as well. I believe in human rights, not democracy. I have no faith in the electorate, and I do not view a good 95% of them as anything other than cattle.