Political Crossfire Forums

[Free Thinkr]

The Comrade wrote: mathurin wrote: i want you to know that i am in large part being a devils advocate, you asked some questions which nobody else answered properly, so while i may be able to pull one small positive item out of what i think will be a negative net affect, it doesnt change the net effect
in order for any drug legalization to work we will have to change many of our social organizations and methods

and is that honestly worth full drug legalization? espeically considering the negative effects that have been brought up? the two together would not change america over all. granted, there would be changes, and problems solved, but problems would merely open up in new areas.
So you claim, with no evidence whatever. Guess which is easier for high school kids to obtain:

1. legal drug: alcohol
2. illegal drug: marijuana

#2, by far and away. Why? Because it is illegal, and thus unregulated. So, ironically, by making it illegal, we make it easier to obtain, and completely unregulated, thus reducing our ability to keep it out of the hands of children.

Quote: gangs are indeed a scourge on ghettos. drug use, however, is one of the biggest reasons why there's that "born in the ghetto, stay in the ghetto" mentality. drug abuse weighs heavily on ghettos, and ties into thigns like education and home life, which we've already covered.
And legalizing drugs would change this how, exactly? Is the prohibition of drugs preventing this problem? No. Is it in any way reducing the ability for people living in the ghetto to obtain said drugs? No. Is it making the problem worse by introducing a high-profit criminal element? You bet. Is it making the problem worse by giving users and low-level dealers a criminal record, often at young age, thus hindering their ability to better themselves later in life? You bet.

So, what's the true problem here?

Quote: marijuana i have no problem legalizing, as i've stated before. opium however i somewhat of an issue with. when i look at things like the opium war it completely changes my opinion of the drug.
How does the opium war change your opinion of it?


Oh, and most importantly:
Quote: i was actually going to mention that. money spent on drugs would most likely go down, but then you would just have more drug use in said household, which brings along all sorts of problems.
You would? This sounds like a baseless assertion!

[ja]

mathurin wrote:
i just know that self administration of addictive substances leads to addiction, which leads to abuse
you really think you have your use under control dont you?
I absolutely have my use under control.

First of all psilocybin is not addictive. In fact, it is anti-addictive most likely due to its effect on 5-HT2 receptors. The same doctors that ran the Harvard study in which I participated, also research psilocybin and LSD as drug to treat addiction. Second, the dose I use is tiny, much less than a recreational dose. Third, I only need to use 2-6 of these tiny doses per year to be 99% pain free! Compare that to others that are on daily high dose narcotics to mask the pain. My medication doesn't mask the pain, it prevents the blood vessel dialation that causes the pain. Narcotics are addictive and have to be taken every day. And yet that is legal, my more effective medication is not. Fourth, my neurologist supports my treatment. I participated in a pseudo-clinical study that showed this is effective. (I say pseudo because, since the treatment is illegal it depended on case reports.) Fifth, I hate my medicine. I dread dosing. When the pain begins to ramp, I procrastinate as long as possible because I find the anxiety of dosing extremely unpleasant. If not for the months of relief, I would never use psilocybin. I don't enjoy the effects of the drug. I guess I'm too old for that.

This is the problem I have with your notion of medical use is good recreational use is bad. Under this regime, politicians decide what is medical and what is recreational. They decide certain drugs have no medical use. People like me that have a rare disorder or other people like me that get no relief except for an illegal drug are forgotten. So I must suffer or break the law.

Under this regime there will always be people willing to fake a condition or lie to a doctor to get drugs. There are always doctors willing to write a prescription just for the money. For this reason the government will hound doctors and medical users. And we end up in the same muck we are now where a stroke of the pen leaves me without legal options. The government does not belong in medicine and the only way to achieve medical freedom is to legalize the use of all drugs for any reason. The added benefit is the reduction in the harm prohibition causes to society.
mathurin wrote:
and what did you think of my proposal/idea/whatever on legalizing the "lazy" drugs
Eh, it's better than what we have now, I guess. My opinion is that the benefits of legalizing all drugs would be much greater.

[The Grandmaster]

mathurin wrote: i just know that self administration of addictive substances leads to addiction, which leads to abuse

Really? Always? If that is true, then why am I not addicted to one particular drug I partake in a few times a year, that is supposed to be very addictive?

Or did you means sometimes this is the case, but not a generalization?

[The Comrade]

Free Thinkr wrote:
So you claim, with no evidence whatever. Guess which is easier for high school kids to obtain:

1. legal drug: alcohol
2. illegal drug: marijuana

#2, by far and away. Why? Because it is illegal, and thus unregulated. So, ironically, by making it illegal, we make it easier to obtain, and completely unregulated, thus reducing our ability to keep it out of the hands of children.

how am i to get evidence to something that hasn't happened yet? claiming that i need to show evidence for something that hasn't happened is just looking for some way, any way, to not have to take something seriously.

and i can assure you as a teenager i can get alcohol just as easy as i can get marijuana.


Free Thinkr wrote: And legalizing drugs would change this how, exactly? Is the prohibition of drugs preventing this problem? No. Is it in any way reducing the ability for people living in the ghetto to obtain said drugs? No. Is it making the problem worse by introducing a high-profit criminal element? You bet. Is it making the problem worse by giving users and low-level dealers a criminal record, often at young age, thus hindering their ability to better themselves later in life? You bet.

So, what's the true problem here?

and how exactly is all the blame on prohibition? people know the rules, and selling drugs happens to be breaking the law. when you willfully break the law you go to jail. end of story. prohibition is only half the equation.

it's like claiming that if you jumped off a cliff it's the ground's fault that you died, not the fact that you jumped off a cliff.


Free Thinkr wrote: How does the opium war change your opinion of it?

because it ruined china?


oh wait i forgot, historical references aren't relevent unless you're talking about the first prohibition, in which case, they are the most relevent references available. :roll:


Oh, and most importantly:

Free Thinkr wrote: You would? This sounds like a baseless assertion!


it sounds like my opinion, backed up by research into drugs and drug related issues.


oh i forgot, would you like a link that doesn't exist to a problem that hasn't happened yet?

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote:

What if something doesn't benefit education and the ghettos, but really has no effect on them whatsoever? Should it be made illegal by default?

but it would effect those things.

The Comrade wrote:
Then how's about coke? Can we get a high five for coke?

eh?

[mathurin]

The Grandmaster wrote: mathurin wrote: i just know that self administration of addictive substances leads to addiction, which leads to abuse

Really? Always? If that is true, then why am I not addicted to one particular drug I partake in a few times a year, that is supposed to be very addictive?

Or did you means sometimes this is the case, but not a generalization?

so why do you still use it on occasion?


addiction doesnt have to be physical
granted this is not neccesarily a reason to outlaw them, but ignoring it usually does end in addiction



comrade,
i hate to burst your bubble but chinas ruin came mostly from banning opium, which led to war with britain, it was a trade dispute, little more

[mathurin]

ja wrote: mathurin wrote:
i just know that self administration of addictive substances leads to addiction, which leads to abuse
you really think you have your use under control dont you?
I absolutely have my use under control.

First of all psilocybin is not addictive. In fact, it is anti-addictive most likely due to its effect on 5-HT2 receptors. The same doctors that ran the Harvard study in which I participated, also research psilocybin and LSD as drug to treat addiction. Second, the dose I use is tiny, much less than a recreational dose. Third, I only need to use 2-6 of these tiny doses per year to be 99% pain free! Compare that to others that are on daily high dose narcotics to mask the pain. My medication doesn't mask the pain, it prevents the blood vessel dialation that causes the pain. Narcotics are addictive and have to be taken every day. And yet that is legal, my more effective medication is not. Fourth, my neurologist supports my treatment. I participated in a pseudo-clinical study that showed this is effective. (I say pseudo because, since the treatment is illegal it depended on case reports.) Fifth, I hate my medicine. I dread dosing. When the pain begins to ramp, I procrastinate as long as possible because I find the anxiety of dosing extremely unpleasant. If not for the months of relief, I would never use psilocybin. I don't enjoy the effects of the drug. I guess I'm too old for that.

you are being monitered by medical professionals
YOU do not have your drug use in control, they do
sure you have the medicine on hand, but if you started showing up asking for more than they prescribed i bet you they would cut you off and get you into rehab

you are not a recreational drug user, get what i mean

ja wrote:
This is the problem I have with your notion of medical use is good recreational use is bad. Under this regime, politicians decide what is medical and what is recreational. They decide certain drugs have no medical use. People like me that have a rare disorder or other people like me that get no relief except for an illegal drug are forgotten. So I must suffer or break the law.

if you want all drugs available for medical prescription then i am there, no questions askedi
ja wrote:
Under this regime there will always be people willing to fake a condition or lie to a doctor to get drugs. There are always doctors willing to write a prescription just for the money. For this reason the government will hound doctors and medical users. And we end up in the same muck we are now where a stroke of the pen leaves me without legal options. The government does not belong in medicine and the only way to achieve medical freedom is to legalize the use of all drugs for any reason. The added benefit is the reduction in the harm prohibition causes to society.


somehow high strength narcotics are reasonably well controlled medically, sure there are abuses, but its not like you can buy them at the store

ja wrote:
mathurin wrote:
and what did you think of my proposal/idea/whatever on legalizing the "lazy" drugs
Eh, it's better than what we have now, I guess. My opinion is that the benefits of legalizing all drugs would be much greater.
the net affect would be negative i feel, harder drugs will get people out and doing crazy things, something we should minimize

[ja]

mathurin wrote:
you are being monitered by medical professionals
YOU do not have your drug use in control, they do
sure you have the medicine on hand, but if you started showing up asking for more than they prescribed i bet you they would cut you off and get you into rehab
I found this treatment on my own. I researched it on my own. I even wrote a scientific article about it. My neurologist never has suggested when, how much or how to get my medication. All my neurologist knows it that I found a successful treatment and no longer need her drugs. I completely control when I dose and how much. I no longer have contact with the research doctors.

mathurin, I can't understand why you think everything medical needs to be controlled by authority. Perhaps you have never been wronged by authority. Perhaps you've never been seriously ill and had to work within the system. Doctors are not wizards. They are educated people. But all of us are able to educate ourselves. We should not have to live at the mercy of authority. If you ever fall ill, the first thing I would suggest is that you research your own illness. If I still depended on the medical community, I would still be suffering.

mathurin wrote: somehow high strength narcotics are reasonably well controlled medically
That's easy for you to say looking at it from your point of view. But there are millions of people suffering in pain because the DEA keeps close watch on pain doctors and medications. see: The DEA's War on Pain Doctors Doctors and patients are being sent to jail and patients suffer. It is increasingly difficult for pain sufferers to get pain killers because the government is regulating medicine. This is exactly why a system of medically controlled drugs is flawed. The government is causing human suffering!

[Malcolm Kyle]

mathurin wrote:
somehow high strength narcotics are reasonably well controlled medically, sure there are abuses, but its not like you can buy them at the store

the net affect would be negative i feel, harder drugs will get people out and doing crazy things, something we should minimize


Mathurin you probably fear a theoretical free-for-all, but that overlooks one major point: The situation at the moment is pretty much that of a free for all. And that means that even these "high strength narcotics" as you call them are not "reasonably well controlled" at all. Sure, there are laws against the possession and sale of drugs, but they have no impact on actually restricting either one. And what's the downside to this utopian ideal of not having any effective laws or restrictions? The criminal market. When we allow the sales of drugs to remain in the criminal market, they finance the activities of violent gangs and drug dealers. That's one of the most urgent reasons for regulating these substances.

[ja]

mathurin wrote: the net affect would be negative i feel, harder drugs will get people out and doing crazy things, something we should minimize

I think you've been lied to about why drugs cause crime. There is only one drug known to cause people to do crazy things and it's already legal ie alcohol.
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse:
-Drug abuse is estimated to have contributed to 25 to 30 percent of income-generating crime, and

- Alcohol abuse is estimated to have contributed to 25 to 30 percent of violent crime

...In contrast, about 5 percent or less of income-generating crime is attributed to alcohol, and 5 percent or less of violent crime is attributed to drug abuse. http://www.nida.nih.gov/EconomicCosts/Chapter1.html#1.6

Drug addicts aren't committing crimes because they're crazy on drugs. They're committing crimes because they're crazy for drugs. They need money to support their expensive habit. And their habit is expensive because it's illegal. Legalizing these drugs would reduce the amount of "crazy" things addicts do to afford drugs.
Furthermore, you must ask yourself if the current policy reduces addiction.
According to Senior Judge John L. Kane of the U.S. District Court of Denver, "In 1914 when drugs like cocaine were available on grocery shelves, 1.3% of the population was addicted [drugs were legal in the US before 1914]. In 1979, before the so-called "War on Drugs" crackdown, the addiction rate was still 1.3%. Today, while billions of dollars are being spent to reduce drug use, the addiction rate is still 1.3%." http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=331

[mathurin]

telling me how dangerous alcohol doesnt diminish the harm caused by other substances, you are in the wrong debate for bringing that up, prohibition was the 1920s

just because alcohol is too universally accepted to ban doesnt mean we should allow drugs to get there

[The Comrade]

mathurin wrote:

just because alcohol is too universally accepted to ban doesnt mean we should allow drugs to get there




if alcohol is just as dangerous, why add more legal substances to that list?

[ja]

mathurin wrote: telling me how dangerous alcohol doesnt diminish the harm caused by other substances, you are in the wrong debate for bringing that up, prohibition was the 1920s

just because alcohol is too universally accepted to ban doesnt mean we should allow drugs to get there

You dance around the debate like a boxer. Again, you can't define away issues that you don't like. Alcohol cannot be excluded from a debate just because it was illegal in the 1920's. It is vitally important to a discussion of recreational drug use in our society.

You claim that hard drugs should be illegal because they cause "crazy" behavior. I put up evidence that no drug causes more crazy behavior than alcohol (I assumed you were talking about crime). Thus, in my opinion, revealing the hypocrisy in your argument.

The main point you avoided is that drugs don't cause much violent crime. They cause income generating crime, which is a direct result of prohibition.

[ja]

The Comrade wrote:

if alcohol is just as dangerous, why add more legal substances to that list?
Because hypocrisy in the law breeds contempt for the law...for starters.

[The Comrade]

ja wrote: The Comrade wrote:

if alcohol is just as dangerous, why add more legal substances to that list?
Because hypocrisy in the law breeds contempt for the law...for starters.

all or nothing eh?

[The Grandmaster]

mathurin wrote: telling me how dangerous alcohol doesnt diminish the harm caused by other substances, you are in the wrong debate for bringing that up, prohibition was the 1920s

just because alcohol is too universally accepted to ban doesnt mean we should allow drugs to get there

What is your position on the issue? Here you appear to be for drug prohibition, but I could have sworn I saw you argue against prohibition just a few days ago. I admit to being confused to your stance on this issue.

[The Grandmaster]

mathurin wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: mathurin wrote: i just know that self administration of addictive substances leads to addiction, which leads to abuse

Really? Always? If that is true, then why am I not addicted to one particular drug I partake in a few times a year, that is supposed to be very addictive?

Or did you means sometimes this is the case, but not a generalization?

so why do you still use it on occasion?

Because it becomes available, and like a nice apple pie, it's enjoyable to have from time to time. :)

Surely you're not going to tell me people eat pies because they are addicted to them?

mathurin wrote: addiction doesnt have to be physical
granted this is not neccesarily a reason to outlaw them, but ignoring it usually does end in addiction

But I'm still curious about something you didn't answer. Do you still believe in all cases self administration of supposedly "addictive" substances always leads to addicton?

mathurin wrote: comrade,
i hate to burst your bubble but chinas ruin came mostly from banning opium, which led to war with britain, it was a trade dispute, little more

Really? I was not aware of that. If this is true, that busts his main argument, and he is ruined. Thank you Mr. Mathurin. Oh, by the way, I got your last PM. We can talk more about those Star Trek Episodes. I think we can work something out.

[mathurin]

ja wrote: mathurin wrote: telling me how dangerous alcohol doesnt diminish the harm caused by other substances, you are in the wrong debate for bringing that up, prohibition was the 1920s

just because alcohol is too universally accepted to ban doesnt mean we should allow drugs to get there

You dance around the debate like a boxer. Again, you can't define away issues that you don't like. Alcohol cannot be excluded from a debate just because it was illegal in the 1920's. It is vitally important to a discussion of recreational drug use in our society.

You claim that hard drugs should be illegal because they cause "crazy" behavior. I put up evidence that no drug causes more crazy behavior than alcohol (I assumed you were talking about crime). Thus, in my opinion, revealing the hypocrisy in your argument.

The main point you avoided is that drugs don't cause much violent crime. They cause income generating crime, which is a direct result of prohibition.

and the main point you ignore is that while alcohol may cause the most crime, it is also the most abused substance
for example, white people commit the most crimes, however when looking at proportions you will see that it is not representative

unfortunatly we dont have proportions to study for drug use
but few would disagree that alcohol is abused more frequently and by more people than other drugs

alcohol is overused in this debate, just because one drug is too socially accepted to be outlawed does not mean we should let others reach that point, its a useless point. its like saying that since knives are used in tons of crimes we should legalize howitzers


im trying to work with you here, i recognize that certain drugs cause minimal crime, but you will not recognize that harder drugs cause plenty of crimes on their own, if nothing else theft and burglary to support the addiction, people on hard substances are crazy, i cant imagine you actually being able to deny this

[The Grandmaster]

mathurin wrote: im trying to work with you here, i recognize that certain drugs cause minimal crime, but you will not recognize that harder drugs cause plenty of crimes on their own, if nothing else theft and burglary to support the addiction, people on hard substances are crazy, i cant imagine you actually being able to deny this

The problem I have with the whole thing, is that It just doesn't seem right that, say, I get into trouble or go to jail for a drug when I am completely responsible with it, and harm no one, just because there are a few idiots out there that do crazy things while on it.

Plus, you cannot put all drugs in this catagory. "Drugs" is too broad of a term. For example, coke won't make you crazy and go out and attack people. Hell, people probably attack and steal more for other reasons.

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote:
mathurin wrote: comrade,
i hate to burst your bubble but chinas ruin came mostly from banning opium, which led to war with britain, it was a trade dispute, little more

Really? I was not aware of that. If this is true, that busts his main argument, and he is ruined. Thank you Mr. Mathurin. Oh, by the way, I got your last PM. We can talk more about those Star Trek Episodes. I think we can work something out.



no, i am not ruined. sorry to disappoint grandmaster.



opium was legal in china for a long long period of time. once the british began shipping huge amounts of it into the country, and the country began to fall to shambles, the Chinese put an embargo on england and "banned" opium. england, having the most powerful navy in the world, couldn't be stopped. as such, Britain continued to ship massive amounts of opium into china, and once the population was good and ruined, china was forced to negotiate with Britain.