I have figured out why drugs are illegal

[jhu]

Take one hundred people. Force them to use alcohol once a day for a year.

Take one hundred more people. Force them to use crack cocaine once a day for a year.

See the results after a year and now you've answered your own question.

Alcohol can be controlled. Hard drugs take control of YOU. Most alcohol addiction is part of a larger emotional problem. A normal person with no issues can get hooked on hard drugs like nothing.

You clearly are not thinking or know nothing about addiction.

Well, as long as we're forcing people to do things against their will, why not do the same with cigarettes? Also, what dosage are you forcing these people to use? There's no question that cocaine and other drugs cause physical and psychological dependence. But so do cigarettes and alcohol. BTW, I know people who do/have done "hard" drugs. And, like I said, they were at the top of my classes.

 

[JMapleton]

Well, as long as we're forcing people to do things against their will, why not do the same with cigarettes? Also, what dosage are you forcing these people to use? There's no question that cocaine and other drugs cause physical and psychological dependence. But so do cigarettes and alcohol. BTW, I know people who do/have done "hard" drugs. And, like I said, they were at the top of my classes.

Again, you're gasping at straws. Reason cigarettes are legal because they're only harmful to your health. No one became homeless because of a cigarette addiction.

Hard drugs destroy people's entire lives and they're nearly impossible to quit without huge intervention if you're addicted.

Alcohol and cigarettes have their issues, but most alcohol users are not addicts and most cigarette addicts are not endangering their livelihood.

You're comparing things that are COMPLETELY on different levels.

Comparing the danger of hard drugs to the danger of cigarettes is like comparing the danger of riding a bicycle (yes it can be dangerous) to the danger of drag racing on public streets, in the night, in the rain, in traffic (very dangerous).

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, as long as we're forcing people to do things against their will, why not do the same with cigarettes? Also, what dosage are you forcing these people to use? There's no question that cocaine and other drugs cause physical and psychological dependence. But so do cigarettes and alcohol. BTW, I know people who do/have done "hard" drugs. And, like I said, they were at the top of my classes.

And if you need more proof I didn't do drugs and was at the bottom of my class.

 

[jhu]

And if you need more proof I didn't do drugs and was at the bottom of my class.

Same here. I think I would have done better had I taken drugs.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Again, you're gasping at straws. Reason cigarettes are legal because they're only harmful to your health. No one became homeless because of a cigarette addiction.
Hard drugs destroy people's entire lives and they're nearly impossible to quit without huge intervention if you're addicted.
Alcohol and cigarettes have their issues, but most alcohol users are not addicts and most cigarette addicts are not endangering their livelihood.
You're comparing things that are COMPLETELY on different levels.
Comparing the danger of hard drugs to the danger of cigarettes is like comparing the danger of riding a bicycle (yes it can be dangerous) to the danger of drag racing on public streets, in the night, in the rain, in traffic (very dangerous).

You're losing sight of the fact that it's not the drugs themselves that destroy lives, it's the illegality of the drugs.
People don't knock over liquor stores to support a $.25-a-day heroin habit. People don't shoot up neighborhoods over $20 ounces of pure cocaine. Women don't whore themselves for a dime's worth of crack.
It's not the addiction that's harmful, it's the hustle to support an illegal drug habit.
For all the harmful physical effects of narcotics and illicit stimulants, the effects of the laws prohibiting them are far worse.

 

[Brigandier]

I view drugs as the apple from the tree of knowledge. Take a bite, be happy, but do not glut. Because the sin isn't in eating it's in glutting. Come to think of it, I guess everything could be the apple from the tree of knowledge. FML

 

[StageLeft]

My guess is that people who scoff at some of the major differences between soft and hard drugs would sing a different tune if they really knew anybody who's life had been epically fvcked by hard drug use.

The Czech Republic made having 15 gm of marijuana and 1.5 gm of heroin legal starting last month. Not enough time has elapsed for any meaningful statistics to emerge yet.

Portugal made personal possession of drugs no longer a crime since 2001. Drug use has declined since then.

Has no country legalized it and taxed it? I don't think they have. I'd rather see another try it before the US as the guinea pig. I do think it would be terrible. The US is not winning or losing the war on drugs; it is a war that perhaps has to be fought but can never be won, like that on terrorism or dying of old age. It's called fighting the good fight. If another country legalizes it and things work out well it's worth looking at for sure. I have no skin in the game either way except I do believe the US would be much worse off if it starting selling crack at crack stores.

 

[Brigandier]

My guess is that people who scoff at some of the major differences between soft and hard drugs would sing a different tune if they really knew anybody who's life had been epically fvcked by hard drug use.Has no country legalized it and taxed it? I don't think they have. I'd rather see another try it before the US as the guinea pig. I do think it would be terrible. The US is not winning or losing the war on drugs; it is a war that perhaps has to be fought but can never be won, like that on terrorism or dying of old age. It's called fighting the good fight. If another country legalizes it and things work out well it's worth looking at for sure. I have no skin in the game either way except I do believe the US would be much worse off if it starting selling crack at crack stores.

I pray you are being sarcastic. Thinking like that is why those wars cannot end. The wards will wind down w hen you strip the thugs of their easy money. Bullets cost money, and if they don't have money they don't have bullets. The war on drugs wouldn't be won over night, but perhaps we could find the real criminals, the ones that funnel it in here not the ones that distribute it once it arrives.

I guess it would kill gangster rap, meh, might as well keep drugs illegal then.

 

[JMapleton]

You're losing sight of the fact that it's not the drugs themselves that destroy lives, it's the illegality of the drugs.
People don't knock over liquor stores to support a $.25-a-day heroin habit. People don't shoot up neighborhoods over $20 ounces of pure cocaine. Women don't whore themselves for a dime's worth of crack.
It's not the addiction that's harmful, it's the hustle to support an illegal drug habit.
For all the harmful physical effects of narcotics and illicit stimulants, the effects of the laws prohibiting them are far worse.

They knock up liquor stores and steal and rob because when you're stoned out 24 hours a day it's hard to keep a job.

Yes what you say is partially true, but you're ignoring the fact that you cannot keep an income or maintain a normal day to day lifestyle when using these hard drugs.

 

[Brigandier]

They knock up liquor stores and steal and rob because when you're stoned out 24 hours a day it's hard to keep a job.

Yes what you say is partially true, but you're ignoring the fact that you cannot keep an income or maintain a normal day to day lifestyle when using these hard drugs.

Dude, they're called functioning addicts. It might go in cycles before their big collapse, but since it is under the rug it's much harder to get help with.

Some of these people work very diligently at crappy jobs for quite sometime, and dispose of their income in whatever way they see fit.

Some are thugs, but these thugs usually sell the drugs, and some are wannabe thugs and they just pretend, both are bad.

Some are middle class, with a family and a light habit.

Drug use cannot be lumped into one category, and without anyway to actually measure drug consumption any conclusion you come to is happenstance. I am simply asking where the war on drugs starts helping.

 

[JS80]

Dude, they're called functioning addicts. It might go in cycles before their big collapse, but since it is under the rug it's much harder to get help with.

Some of these people work very diligently at crappy jobs for quite sometime, and dispose of their income in whatever way they see fit.

Some are thugs, but these thugs usually sell the drugs, and some are wannabe thugs and they just pretend, both are bad.

Some are middle class, with a family and a light habit.

Drug use cannot be lumped into one category, and without anyway to actually measure drug consumption any conclusion you come to is happenstance. I am simply asking where the war on drugs starts helping.

Please, tell us which drug you are addicted to.

 

[Sclamoz]

Again, you're gasping at straws. Reason cigarettes are legal because they're only harmful to your health. No one became homeless because of a cigarette addiction.

Hard drugs destroy people's entire lives and they're nearly impossible to quit without huge intervention if you're addicted.

Alcohol and cigarettes have their issues, but most alcohol users are not addicts and most cigarette addicts are not endangering their livelihood.

You're comparing things that are COMPLETELY on different levels.

Comparing the danger of hard drugs to the danger of cigarettes is like comparing the danger of riding a bicycle (yes it can be dangerous) to the danger of drag racing on public streets, in the night, in the rain, in traffic (very dangerous).

My is in his mid twenties cannot function without a drink. He begins shaking and gets sick after only a few hours sober. I doubt if he'll live to see 30.

If you think alcohol addiction is any less serious than being addicted to a hard drug you're 100% wrong.

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/withdraw/a/uc_kevin.htm

 

[Steeplerot]

You cannot build a country productive people when everyone is stoned.

The whole country pretty much is high on something, if it is not pills, its booze or weed. From the CEO down to the Janitor. It has always been like this since humans figured out how to escape from smoking some plant or fermenting fruit.

 

[MJinZ]

You're playing logic games.

McDonalds and cigarettes never caused anyone to lose their familes, their careers, all their money, and left them on the street and near dead.

You know this but are playing silly debate games.

There are a lot of things that are "bad" for you, but not "dangerous" bad.

Yea well, if you don't consider strokes, heart attacks, lung and liver cancer "dangeours" nothing ever will be to you I guess.

Yes, in case you were wondering, people lose all of their money, families lose their loved ones, and their life and careers (obviously) are often forfeit as well from these issues.

 

[Brigandier]

Please, tell us which drug you are addicted to.

Have you read the stereotype thread? I am addicted to the drugs I have to take every day, sir. I take steroids for my asthma, and anti-depressants for my gloominess. I drink coffee semi-regularly and usually suffer headaches three to five times a week necessitating the use of acetaminophen.

Sometimes I take nyquil and a shot of whiskey to fall asleep, sometimes I need it.

What drugs are you addicted to?

 

[Brigandier]

Yea well, if you don't consider strokes, heart attacks, lung and liver cancer "dangeours" nothing ever will be to you I guess.

If you don't consider car travel, crossing the street, eating food, interacting with many people on a daily basis as "dangerous" nothing ever will be to you I guess.

 

[MJinZ]

Take one hundred people. Force them to use alcohol once a day for a year.

Take one hundred more people. Force them to use crack cocaine once a day for a year.

See the results after a year and now you've answered your own question.

Alcohol can be controlled. Hard drugs take control of YOU. Most alcohol addiction is part of a larger emotional problem. A normal person with no issues can get hooked on hard drugs like nothing.

You clearly are not thinking or know nothing about addiction.

I don't think anyone is arguing addiction to you, the point is, the reason why drugs are illegal is not simply because they are "bad for you". It is largely a social damaging factor that reduces a person to mush that makes drugs illegal, not because they are "bad for you".

 

[StageLeft]

I pray you are being sarcastic. Thinking like that is why those wars cannot end. The wards will wind down w hen you strip the thugs of their easy money. Bullets cost money, and if they don't have money they don't have bullets. The war on drugs wouldn't be won over night, but perhaps we could find the real criminals, the ones that funnel it in here not the ones that distribute it once it arrives.

I guess it would kill gangster rap, meh, might as well keep drugs illegal then.

No sarcasm. Surely you realize that of my examples about the war on terror and dying of old age they cannot be won, right? At least we can agree on that.

 

[MJinZ]

If you don't consider car travel, crossing the street, eating food, interacting with many people on a daily basis as "dangerous" nothing ever will be to you I guess.

Those carry risks, as do all things in life. They aren't inherently dangerous. If you labeled a vehicle as "dangerous", an apple as "dangerous", or walking around "dangerous", people would simply point you towards the nearest dictionary or call you crazy.

Cancer and serious illness are not risks. They are inherently what they are... deadly.

 

[Brigandier]

No sarcasm. Surely you realize that of my examples about the war on terror and dying of old age they cannot be won, right? At least we can agree on that.

No, but they can be minimized, drastically. It just requires humans to embrace the unknown and take step of faith. So many lives are systemically lost it's outrageous, it's the twenty-first century we should at least have the life, liberty and pursuit part down by now. No one's asking you to do drugs or think that drugs are right, what's being asked is to respect decisions up to a point and offer a bailout when things get hairy. Because whether or not that parachute is there, things will get hairy. We need to spend less time making the world what we want it to be and more time utilizing what it is and offers.

Drug users are not right, but they still deserve a way towards recovery and that path is hindered by the destruction the illegality of drugs causes. It creates a perpetual poverty state that leads right back to relapses. That cannot be dealt with by the barrel of a gun, that can be fought with economic incentives(pricing and controlling drugs) and support for being clean and sober.

 

[Brigandier]

Those carry risks, as do all things in life. They aren't inherently dangerous. If you labeled a vehicle as "dangerous", an apple as "dangerous", or walking around "dangerous", people would simply point you towards the nearest dictionary or call you crazy.

Cancer and serious illness are not risks. They are inherently what they are... deadly.

Nothing is dangerous until it kills you, and by then it's too late. Life is fleeting, let go of your immortality complex and live whatever life you wish and let those live theirs. Handing the black market mountains of money isn't helping the problem. It's time for a new approach.

 

[TruePaige]

JMapleton knows nothing about drugs, that's why he goes for opiates as his target and won't address the massive productivity gains that have driven many knowledge industry workers (tech sector, financial sector) to powerful and manageable drugs like Provigil and Adderall.

That's what I've concluded by reading his posts.

 

[CallMeJoe]

JMapleton knows nothing about drugs, that's why he goes for opiates as his target and won't address the massive productivity gains that have driven many knowledge industry workers (tech sector, financial sector) to powerful and manageable drugs like Provigil and Adderall.

That's what I've concluded by reading his posts.

He's also less than expert on the subject of opiates; he appears to buy into the stereotype that everyone who uses heroin is necessarily addicted, and spends every waking moment either nodding or jonesing.

 

[JMapleton]

This is why I like ATOT. A person makes a statement and everyone else draws a blurry line and uses false logic just to argue with you.

I don't think anyone is arguing addiction to you, the point is, the reason why drugs are illegal is not simply because they are "bad for you". It is largely a social damaging factor that reduces a person to mush that makes drugs illegal, not because they are "bad for you".

I am in agreement with you. Turning someone into "mush" is half the danger, the other half is the potential for overdose and death, which is multitudes times greater than most legal substances.

Yea well, if you don't consider strokes, heart attacks, lung and liver cancer "dangeours" nothing ever will be to you I guess.

Yes, in case you were wondering, people lose all of their money, families lose their loved ones, and their life and careers (obviously) are often forfeit as well from these issues.

Yup, draw that blurry line. I say cliff diving is dangerous, you turn it into saying crossing the street is also dangerous. Do you know how many people have died crossing the street?

Smoking is not immediately dangerous. Will you smoke and live to be 100? Probably not. But can you smoke and raise a happy family and have a successful career? Yes. Can you use crack cocaine your whole life and do all those things? I assure you you cannot.

The whole country pretty much is high on something, if it is not pills, its booze or weed. From the CEO down to the Janitor. It has always been like this since humans figured out how to escape from smoking some plant or fermenting fruit.

Right. When you explain to me, without avoiding my question without making some smart alec joke, what I am addicted to, I will accept your statement.

I have never been drunk, never touched any illegal drug ever, never been high, and never had sex with someone I wasn't in love with. Explain to me what drug I addicted to or retract your statement. 99% of people I know don't use drugs of any sort.

Dude, they're called functioning addicts. It might go in cycles before their big collapse, but since it is under the rug it's much harder to get help with.

Some of these people work very diligently at crappy jobs for quite sometime, and dispose of their income in whatever way they see fit.

Some are thugs, but these thugs usually sell the drugs, and some are wannabe thugs and they just pretend, both are bad.

Some are middle class, with a family and a light habit.

Drug use cannot be lumped into one category, and without anyway to actually measure drug consumption any conclusion you come to is happenstance. I am simply asking where the war on drugs starts helping.

But they collapse one day right? When does the person who drinks one glass of wine a night collapse? Do they come to a spiraling end?

Your guys' comments are so outlandish and your logic is so blurry and argumentative I wonder if most of you are on drugs or not.

FACT: Most people who use hard drugs suffer serious personal issues because of it.

FACT: Most people who use alcohol and cigarettes do not suffer serious issues because of it.

I don't even need proof to say this, it's like saying the sky is blue.

He's also less than expert on the subject of opiates; he appears to buy into the stereotype that everyone who uses heroin is necessarily addicted, and spends every waking moment either nodding or jonesing.

What I'm saying is you cannot consistently use heroin and not become addicted. You're insane if you think you can use hard drugs like heroin or crack cocaine without becoming addicted.

JMapleton knows nothing about drugs, that's why he goes for opiates as his target and won't address the massive productivity gains that have driven many knowledge industry workers (tech sector, financial sector) to powerful and manageable drugs like Provigil and Adderall.

That's what I've concluded by reading his posts.

Again, you people just love to draw the blurry line. Is chocolate a "drug" too? You are described medicine and prescriptions. When a person says "drug" they are referring to opiates.

Because something like Provigil and Adderall may or may not be illegal, does not make it a drug or not. And it's my personal opinion, but in the long run, I would bet heavy usage of those sort of prescriptions are unhealthy, albeit not as unhealthy as opiates.

This argument is so ridiculous it's absurd.

 

[Craig234]

Busting drugs dealers means the government gets all the drug dealer's money, guns, assets, whatever.

People will always find a way to get high, therefore, the government has an eternally built in revenue source, since there will always be drug dealers with money to seize.

Not only does this give the government money, it produces a lot of jobs in the courts, prisons and police departments. This economic boon far outweighs the paltry drug dealer money, but when has our government not devoured millions with glutinous glee?

As I explain you misunderstand the issue, I notice you have Ayn Rand in your sig. Coincidence?

The assests seized in drug law enforcement are much smaller than the costs. THere's just no conspiracy theory there.

Now, the 'gung ho righties for a period some years ago had expanded the seizure laws to be so aggressive that the police could keep assets whether or not the person was convicted, and it was a lengthy legal process to get them back for the innocent. This issue was usually referred to as 'forfeiture laws'. During this period, the police were seen a lot to increase drug enforcement because of the gain, and there were some bad examples of wrongdoing, such as a case where a property owner was targetted for a piece of land the police wanted, and was killed when the police entered for a search. IIRC, he was innocent.

The legal system is burdened by drug arrests. While it's 'jobs', it's also wasteful spending - not something like infrastructure or education. It's throwing money away.

Where you do see more pressure to throw that money away is anything that's privatized - the jails in this case. There are a lot of stories of private jail owners donating to politicians to get sentences increased.

We really don't need that corruption of our political system for people to spend longer time in jail at taxpayer expense than they otherwise would for the purpose of enriching the jail owner.