Drugs anybody?

[Malamis]

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.

I'm going to go on a very thin limb and say (partially) because wine is the cornerstone of the catholic rite of communion, and certain other orthodox divisions which make (or made) up the majority of western power blocs. And secondarily because there are entire nations ( such as scotland) who's major industries include the manufacture and export of ale, possibly adding in ******.

but that then highlights the double standard against rastafarians and afghaniis...

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.

Cattle that have interests that don't particularly overlap yours I suppose.

 

[Haruspex]

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

That "I think" in the sentence surely adds to its weight. I think its stupid to be left-handed. Convinced?

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

Excuse me, why am I supposed to accept your values? Because they're your values? Great argument. To be honest, I have my own, so no thanks.

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."

Is that meant to be an argument? If so what does it argue for or against?

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

What? You want to view the matter in a vacuum of context? By all means go ahead, as for me, I do think that you can not discuss such matters out of their social context, and alcohol and fast food form a part of this context.

 

[Remixer]

Derfel, you traitor to your cousins. Reply to my previous comment.

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


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

 

[Remixer]

I'm going to go on a very thin limb and say (partially) because wine is the cornerstone of the catholic rite of communion, and certain other orthodox divisions which make (or made) up the majority of western power blocs. And secondarily because there are entire nations ( such as scotland) who's major industries include the manufacture and export of ale, possibly adding in ******.

but that then highlights the double standard against rastafarians and afghaniis...

I don't quite understand how the first paragraph is connected to the second. Could you elaborate, please?

Cattle that have interests that don't particularly overlap yours I suppose.

I agree with Derfel. Democracy is useless when the majority of people keep making uneducated decisions or decisions based solely on hunch-like bias.



Remixer

 

[Malamis]

I don't quite understand how the first paragraph is connected to the second. Could you elaborate, please?

In the case of the EU (states and the whole), outlawing alcohol would be taken as legitimate religious persecution amongst a significant proportion of it's members, not to mention the outright cultural persecution of the French and to a lesser extent the Germans. In Vino Veritas and all that.

I agree with Derfel. Democracy is useless when the majority of people keep making uneducated decisions or decisions based solely on hunch-like bias.
Remixer

eh...
I think you'll find democracy was intended to safeguard the economic and internal political stability of a nation, when the comparison is between a bloated bureaucracy which halfheartedly represents the subconcious trends of the nation, as opposed to an efficient and effective single imperative i'd take the later. sane people go for the former.

 

[Haruspex]

People should never be hurt... ideally. But implementing this system where no one gets hurt should perhaps begin in countries where people do tend to get hurt. The state's genuine care for our physical well-being is really nice and all, but most probably, if governments wanted people not to get hurt, they would not have build nukes, sent troops to countries with which theirs has nothing to do, allowed factories to pour their filth into waters and release their rather healthy fumes into the air. But hey, they don't give a shat. As things are right now, they do not want you to get hurt for whatever reasons you find worth getting hurt for, but they're more than willing to let you get hurt for reasons they deem important. Thats as much as your government cares for you.
Now, after this, I don't think any government figure can go on to deliver a speech about the moral corruption that drug violence is, not until they clean their own ****.

Once this has been done, we can start worrying about getting hurt.

Mentally unstable people tend to hurt others. They cannot all be detained in sanitariums, that would require huge sums of money, and it would also be unfair one could argue. But at the same time, these people tend to be a tad bit dangerous. Now, you can't ban them, you can't abolish them. Maybe we should shoot them dead?

 

[Malamis]

People should never be hurt... ideally.

Why? Survival of the fittest or one man sharpens another, depending on which doctrine you prefer (and yes, I realise both are way out of context but it's convenient to apply them here). But this is hurtling into the realm of social engineering(heresy!), and would be a good time to go into a new thread.

Mentally unstable people tend to hurt others. They cannot all be detained in sanitariums, that would require huge sums of money, and it would also be unfair one could argue.

It would also undermine a fair amount of the upper management of many companies, and would be generally catastrophic economically.

But at the same time, these people tend to be a tad bit dangerous. Now, you can't ban them, you can't abolish them. Maybe we should shoot them dead?

Too drastic; eugenics would have to come back into favor and I really don't see it happening.

 

[Remixer]

In the case of the EU (states and the whole), outlawing alcohol would be taken as legitimate religious persecution amongst a significant proportion of it's members, not to mention the outright cultural persecution of the French and to a lesser extent the Germans. In Vino Veritas and all that.

I am fairly certain that the amount of alcohol consumed per person in Germany is higher than in France. Though, I would have to google some EU statistics to confirm that one.

In Germany it is beer, in France it is wine.

Also, if a religion would cite the intake of cocaine as an essential part of regular rituals, I am certain that the German Government would forgo the constitution and not make an exception for them.

eh...
I think you'll find democracy was intended to safeguard the economic and internal political stability of a nation, when the comparison is between a bloated bureaucracy which halfheartedly represents the subconcious trends of the nation, as opposed to an efficient and effective single imperative i'd take the later. sane people go for the former.

Did not quite understand again, to be honest.

Are you now for or against Democracy?



Remixer

 

[Haruspex]

eh...
I think you'll find democracy was intended to safeguard the economic and internal political stability of a nation, when the comparison is between a bloated bureaucracy which halfheartedly represents the subconcious trends of the nation, as opposed to an efficient and effective single imperative i'd take the later. sane people go for the former.

That is true(though I don't agree with the sanity part), but there is an obstacle in the way of democracy. Human Rights.
Very often when the brainless masses come up with their idiocy, Human Rights stand there like a beacon of lights to tell these masses "Folks, don't be pissing against the wind."
And that is exactly when Human Rights, the rights held by every individual prevail over the sheer stupidity of the gullible retard that the electorate can be portrayed as.

In a system of representative democracy, you are forced to give power to a government whether you like it or not, but Human Rights are there to compensate you for at least a small bit of what you had to sacrifice.

I cannot express my joy whenever I read how the angry mob failed after trying to mess with certain rights, thinking they have the upper hand just because of their numbers.

 

[Remixer]

The state's genuine care for our physical well-being is really nice and all, but most probably, if governments wanted people not to get hurt, they would not have build nukes, sent troops to countries with which theirs has nothing to do [...]

Not every country is like the United States of Stupid, my friend.

[...] allowed factories to pour their filth into waters and release their rather healthy fumes into the air. But hey, they don't give a shat. As things are right now, they do not want you to get hurt for whatever reasons you find worth getting hurt for, but they're more than willing to let you get hurt for reasons they deem important. Thats as much as your government cares for you.
Now, after this, I don't think any government figure can go on to deliver a speech about the moral corruption that drug violence is, not until they clean their own ****.

Once this has been done, we can start worrying about getting hurt.

You have to start somewhere. But alas, once something IS actually taken care of, there are always some people who have to complain why "this" was taken care of first instead of "that".

Besides, the discussion is about whether drugs should or should not be legal.

I am missing the point as to how a Government's behaviour in other areas plays any role in such a debate.

Mentally unstable people tend to hurt others. They cannot all be detained in sanitariums, that would require huge sums of money, and it would also be unfair one could argue. But at the same time, these people tend to be a tad bit dangerous. Now, you can't ban them, you can't abolish them. Maybe we should shoot them dead?

I would not mind, if a child-beater, child molester, date rapist or rapist winds up shot in the head somewhere in a filthy street.



Remixer

 

[Haruspex]

Please, not child-molesters. This world would be a boring place without paedophile jokes.

What about a nut who was buttsecksed as a child, and as a result turned into a surprise seckser himself? Clearly, it was not his intention to become a rapist was it? Neither his fault. Would a "cleansing" of these persons be justified just by pure longing for justice according to one's own personal code?

 

[Remixer]

Please, not child-molesters. This world would be a boring place without paedophile jokes.

What about a nut who was buttsecksed as a child, and as a result turned into a surprise seckser himself? Clearly, it was not his intention to become a rapist was it? Neither his fault. Would a "cleansing" of these persons be justified just by pure longing for justice according to one's own personal code?

Would you believe, if I told you that I tried to pull the same argument a few years back in a debate I had?

Circumstances such as those are obviously unfortunate and would in many cases be detrimental in the development of the victim's personality over time, but it can't be helped.

If such a person can receive effective psychological treatment to deter the course taken to a more reasonable one, then that is fine.

To some degree, it would and should be classified as insanity. People who are not at fault ultimately should not be punished.

However, what do you say when somebody becomes addicted to alcohol and regularly gets drunk, to such an extent even that this new habit over time lets the person "indulge" in his/her criminal inhibitions?

Alcohol is a good catalyst for such things.



Remixer

 

[Haruspex]

A good sentence to slippery soap prison can not in all cases solve the issue, but it is generally helpful, and often offers at least a semi-solution.

I can see your point, that this is more of a punishment than prevention, but it would be even more unfair to punish persons for crimes they have not yet committed, or not advanced to a stage of perpetration.

Its kind of an arbitrary decision, and however you decide, you will never be 100% fair.

I can certainly believe that you used the same argument, its a pretty common one I believe, and rather logical.

 

[Remixer]

I can see your point, that this is more of a punishment than prevention, but it would be even more unfair to punish persons for crimes they have not yet committed, or not advanced to a stage of perpetration.

Its kind of an arbitrary decision, and however you decide, you will never be 100% fair.

I believe you missed the point.

The point was not to punish people for crimes they have not yet committed, but rather it was to decrease the amount of future victims by banning drugs, including alcohol.

It would be a child's logic to believe that one is being punished when one cannot drink a beer anymore.

Simply, it is about preventing unnecessary victims to come about. Even if you can hold your drink and won't hurt anybody when drunk, can you guarantee that someone else can control himself/herself as well?



Remixer

 

[Haruspex]

Can you guarantee that you will not lose focus for a matter of seconds and cause your car to turn a bunch of pedestrians into mincemeat? You obviously can't.
Drinking is similar. The joy caused outweighs the mischief.
You can ask people, may who have been beaten up in pub fights will say they would like drinking to be permitted nevertheless. And I think the pursuit of happiness is a very important thing in one's life.

 

[Remixer]

I agree with the notion that the pursuit of happiness is indeed a very important thing in one's life.

However, it should never come about on the expense of others.

And no, your car-driving analogy does not apply. A car does not have a detrimental effect on your behaviour; it does not impair your judgment.

An accident is an accident. By the logic you applied, you could argue to me that a brick on the street should be illegal, because a person could slip on a banana-peel nearby and hit their head on the brick, leading to that person's death.



Remixer

 

[ShadowSpirit]

Derfel's vehicle analogy does apply. A person is expected to exercise responsibility while functioning in society. Adhere to traffic laws and stay alert as a driver; section off hazardous zones and wear safety gear as a construction worker; wash thoroughly and use sterile tools as a medical practitioner. The methods can range from the basics of Operational Risk Management to that of professional discipline. Ingesting alcohol is no different in this practice. If a person chooses to breach the responsible use of alcohol consumption, then there are usually laws in place to deal aptly with the crime placed. It is a simple gesture to enjoy the activity of drinking while avoiding any reprecussions.

In terms of drug use. I side that the use of any substance that isn't highly toxic should be permitted. This includes marijuana which I personally have never sampled, but do not notice anything harmful of its ingredient. Once you remove the carcinogen factor of smoking marijuana, which can be avoided if one opts to ingest the herb, there isn't anything detrimental of this drug. Alcohol also doesn't play any risk so long as the quantity of consumption isn't abused. Either way, these substances should be controlled. Children need to be protected from things they do not comprehend the dangers of. Education should be provided to alert the public of what substances go into the production of these drugs. Chemicals used for killing rodents or cleaning tile flooring? That does not belong in your body.

Once a person reaches adulthood, understands well the destruction that hard drugs can provide, and makes a conscious decision to experiment with the said substances; they are on their own after that. I don't care if they develop an addiction, become extremely ill, can't function, or die as a consequence. I don't believe in protecting people from themselves unless they sincerely have a mental disability. Otherwise you conjure your own demons, learn the battle them.

But what do I know? I'm from the United States of Stupid. Thanks for that comment btw Remixer. It shows what an upstanding person you go out of your way to be.

 

[Putrefaction]

I'm still not sure how alcohol and tobacco are legal while pot is not.

- Social impact: Alcohol is more than prevalent and yes age restricted, anti-alcohol posters everywhere with an age limit--works for cigarettes, doesn't it? One strike against.
- Metal impact: I'm no doctor but as I've said...I didn't feel addicted at all. Of course I wanted to do it again, as will anyone who does alcohol "properly"...the loss of feelings, one could say drugs are better than, because they actually alleviate so much that you feel GOOD instead of nothingness... potential strike against.
- Physical impact: If we're talking harder drugs than marijuana then this isn't a strike, but I'd say this is where it fails. Drinking, IIRC, doesnt cause as much permanent damage as weed...carcinogen factor HUGELY fails especially if cigarettes are brought up.

bleh i suck at this.

Let us do whatever we want inside our own homes. In society, why allow anything?

 

[Remixer]

Derfel's vehicle analogy does apply. A person is expected to exercise responsibility while functioning in society. Adhere to traffic laws and stay alert as a driver; section off hazardous zones and wear safety gear as a construction worker; wash thoroughly and use sterile tools as a medical practitioner. The methods can range from the basics of Operational Risk Management to that of professional discipline. Ingesting alcohol is no different in this practice. If a person chooses to breach the responsible use of alcohol consumption, then there are usually laws in place to deal aptly with the crime placed. It is a simple gesture to enjoy the activity of drinking while avoiding any reprecussions.

Though your point on responsible behaviour is understandable, the car-driving analogy does not apply.

The consumption of alcohol has a detrimental effect on a multitude of levels.

The amount of alcohol intended to be consumed varies with each person, but it generally is aimed to cause at least a shift in one's mood and to alter one's behaviour.

Consumption of alcohol can easily get out of control.

Driving a car usually doesn't, unless the driver is completely inexperienced.

In terms of drug use. I side that the use of any substance that isn't highly toxic should be permitted. This includes marijuana which I personally have never sampled, but do not notice anything harmful of its ingredient. Once you remove the carcinogen factor of smoking marijuana, which can be avoided if one opts to ingest the herb, there isn't anything detrimental of this drug. Alcohol also doesn't play any risk so long as the quantity of consumption isn't abused. Either way, these substances should be controlled. Children need to be protected from things they do not comprehend the dangers of. Education should be provided to alert the public of what substances go into the production of these drugs. Chemicals used for killing rodents or cleaning tile flooring? That does not belong in your body.

I argue against any mind-altering drugs for two reasons:

1. A legalised drug is more accessible to minors than an illegal one.

2. Drug intake often has a negative impact on the immediate social surroundings of the user.

Once a person reaches adulthood, understands well the destruction that hard drugs can provide, and makes a conscious decision to experiment with the said substances; they are on their own after that. I don't care if they develop an addiction, become extremely ill, can't function, or die as a consequence. I don't believe in protecting people from themselves unless they sincerely have a mental disability. Otherwise you conjure your own
demons, learn the battle them.

I agree with you on not enforcing to protect an individual from himself/herself.

However, the effects of drug use in many cases do not contain themselves to only the drug consumer.

But what do I know? I'm from the United States of Stupid. Thanks for that comment btw Remixer. It shows what an upstanding person you go out of your way to be.

Clearly you must be the stupid one, since you quite obviously are the individual in charge of maintaining invasions of other countries and plan nuclear weapon projects.



Remixer

 

[ShadowSpirit]

Though your point on responsible behaviour is understandable, the car-driving analogy does not apply.
The consumption of alcohol has a detrimental effect on a multitude of levels.
The amount of alcohol intended to be consumed varies with each person, but it generally is aimed to cause at least a shift in one's mood and to alter one's behaviour.
Consumption of alcohol can easily get out of control.
Driving a car usually doesn't, unless the driver is completely inexperienced.

Studies have shown (and I will gather the research for you on it if you care to challenge it) that the effects of alcohol on a driver are almost identical to the effects of fatigue in terms of responsiveness, reflexes, and decision making. Still, this wasn't supposed to be a comparison of Intoxication vs Inexperienced Driving. It is about general responsibility. Yes, alcohol impairs judgment. That is why you're not supposed to drink and drive. One also isn't supposed to take sleeping pills and drive either, hence the reference I made at the start of this point.

I argue against any mind-altering drugs for two reasons:
1. A legalised drug is more accessible to minors than an illegal one.
2. Drug intake often has a negative impact on the immediate social surroundings of the user.

1. A child can get access to an illegal drug almost as easily as a legal one. Except now it is practically guaranteed that it is being done in an uncontrolled environment and exposing that child to a dangerous criminal element.
2. Again. It's about responsibility. Here are a few examples off the top of my head that are legal and still have a "negative impact on the immediate social surroundings of the user." : smoking, fighting, loud music, spitting, vandalism.

I agree with you on not enforcing to protect an individual from himself/herself.
However, the effects of drug use in many cases do not contain themselves to only the drug consumer.

Yes. Like any crime, it should be dealt with accordingly. Not any different than a person owning a gun for hunting or self defense, but using it to kill an innocent person.

Clearly you must be the stupid one, since you quite obviously are the individual in charge of maintaining invasions of other countries and plan nuclear weapon projects.

The sarcasm is noted. Though you didn't make an attack on solely the leadership, your comment specified the country, and thus its citizens as a whole. This is why I have called you out on it.

 

[Remixer]

Studies have shown (and I will gather the research for you on it if you care to challenge it) that the effects of alcohol on a driver are almost identical to the effects of fatigue in terms of responsiveness, reflexes, and decision making. Still, this wasn't supposed to be a comparison of Intoxication vs Inexperienced Driving. It is about general responsibility. Yes, alcohol impairs judgment. That is why you're not supposed to drink and drive. One also isn't supposed to take sleeping pills and drive either, hence the reference I made at the start of this point.

I admit that I agree with you on that point.

2. Again. It's about responsibility. Here are a few examples off the top of my head that are legal and still have a "negative impact on the immediate social surroundings of the user." : smoking, fighting, loud music, spitting, vandalism.

Smoking is another thing I'd like to see made illegal, especially around children.

With negative impact I meant harm done to others on a psychological and/or physical level.

Yes. Like any crime, it should be dealt with accordingly. Not any different than a person owning a gun for hunting or self defense, but using it to kill an innocent person.

It is common knowledge that gun control does not really exist in the US.

However, in a police state like Germany, firearms are illegal and only made available to civilians through a thorough process and obtained licenses.

It works quite well, which also shows itself in results when one compares deaths through firearms in Germany, or the EU in general, to death through firearms in the US.



Remixer

 

[Haruspex]

Ok, now this is all nice, but at the end of the day, we must ask ourselves one thing... do we really want a completely sterile society entirely bereft of any life?
Sure, go on ahead, create a perfect society where no harm may befall anyone, where the only matter to be decided is "Which shoes should I wear today?", but do that without me.
I will not argue now in this sentence for hard drugs.
But as for alcohol and marijuana, or tobacco even, I personally do neither of these, the last time I had a drink was probably way before new year, but still, personally, I do not see how the purging of customs would bring us any good. Im not trying to preserve cultures in an entirely unaltered form, but fact remains fact. We have used both alcohol, tobacco for centuries, and there is a demand for these still.
What I mean is that, when I stand before the traffic light, and there is a person smoking beside me, and that smoke I inhale, I do in fact think how annoying it is, but hell, is like the open -the world, the nature, call it whatever you wish- owned by me? It is not.

Protecting people from harm is a very gallant thing indeed, but I do agree with what Malamis stated a few comments above. If we start to remove each and every source of harm, we will end up with a society even worse than our current one.
Also, as ShadowSpirit stated, you must face your own demons. In an ideal society, you would have nothing but gutless fools, soft gutless fools.
A world where no one is mad, no one is rabid, no one is obsessed, is an appalling world to me.
Risk has been a part of our lives since the dawn of time. And I am not talking about creating unreasonably high risk, like decimating the population literally. But a reasonable level of risk enough to prevent us from becoming mindless drones.

It might sound entirely off topic, but you know what most World of Darkness storytellers would suggest to you if you want to make your character multi-dimensioned and original? Choose yourself an interesting insanity. Same with us humans, our flaws greatly determine our personality.

 

[Remixer]

You really went into the extreme there, Derfel.

If banning all types of drugs for recreational use leaves you or anyone else bereft of life, then that leaves nothing more to say than "Your life is pathetic."

It may be gallantry, but I nevertheless would much rather decrease the amount of victims as much as possible than to stick with bullshit convenience of being able to smoke or drink.

"If you want to kill, kill yourself." - Remixer

The completely vague argument, that life needs bad things to exist is ridiculous in regards to this debate.

Of course bad things always will exist in life. Whether you ban drugs and firearms or not has no effect on that.

However, a position for drugs and firearms cannot be maintained with such a reasoning.



Remixer

 

[Haruspex]

The thing that comment seems to lack is an argument behind it.
Now ridiculing is amazing, but its not much of a feat.
And you are im afraid one person, one individual, which means you are in no position to decide on the priority list of humanity as a whole.
Im not talking about drugs solely. And before making statements such as "if... then my life is pathetic", you should perhaps have read the part where I confess not to be a consumer of drugs, but anyway, its all past now, maybe next time.

It is not a completely vague argument. It is a completely valid argument against tampering with the way people lead their lives.
You want more security? You want to be delivered from this hell packed with junkies and boozers? From chain-smokers? Go build a bunker somewhere in some remote mountains and live a happy life there. As for humanity, we live at the expense of one another's health, security, sanity. This is a compromise every urban community must make.

And yes, the argument supports the position well.
As for refuting my arguments, please do so by bringing counter-arguments, because arguing (as you have), that under the circumstances my life is X or Y is indication of an epic fail.

 

[Remixer]

The thing that comment seems to lack is an argument behind it.
Now ridiculing is amazing, but its not much of a feat.
And you are im afraid one person, one individual, which means you are in no position to decide on the priority list of humanity as a whole.

Yes, because a million people can say exactly the same thing at the same time.

It all starts with one opinion voiced. There is no need for a billion people to support me.

And before making statements such as "if... then my life is pathetic", you should perhaps have read the part where I confess not to be a consumer of drugs, but anyway, its all past now, maybe next time.

You would do well to read my comment in its entirety.

"If banning all types of drugs for recreational use leaves you or ANYONE ELSE bereft of life, then that leaves nothing more to say than "Your life is pathetic."

It is not a completely vague argument. It is a completely valid argument against tampering with the way people lead their lives.
You want more security? You want to be delivered from this hell packed with junkies and boozers? From chain-smokers? Go build a bunker somewhere in some remote mountains and live a happy life there. As for humanity, we live at the expense of one another's health, security, sanity. This is a compromise every urban community must make.

No, the issue is not how I want to live. I couldn't care less about people drinking, smoking, killing and fighting around me.

What I do care about is other people, especially children, getting unwillingly influenced by the actions of irresponsible others.

Who gives them the right to meddle with other people's lives?

It is utter hypocrisy to shout out "DON'T MEDDLE WITH MY LIFE! IT'S AGAINST MY RIGHTS!" and then act irresponsibly towards the lives of others.



Remixer