I'm not really sure why we have drug laws.

[Jzero]

<< How much do you think a hand costs some dude who was high for 4-5 days after he punched someone's window out and had such a bad infection that the doctor almost took it off when he finally DID go to the hospital. Credit to the Doctor cause he saved all but one finger if I remember correctly. Oh yeah, and this guy didn't have a job at the time so guess who foots the bill for him getting to keep his hand??? I've seen much of this type of case or similar. >>


I've seen drunk unemployed morons do the exact same thing. This argument supports the fact that current drug laws do nothing productive. This guy gets drunk and gets violent, punches a window, tears up his hand. It hurts so to dull the pain he just keeps on drinking until it get so bad.



<< If it were legalized it would not stop the problems of addiction or criminal acts because of the drugs, only that they could no longer be arrested for mearly possesing the drug. Which solves nothing except for the person in possesion. >>


Again, are you arguing for or against the drug laws? You seem to be for them, but this arguement is exactly what the people against them think:
You can't possibly eliminate addiction and drug-related crime. All the laws do right now is royally screw an otherwise non-criminal personal. Someone who smokes occasionally in the privacy of their home and doesn't do anything otherwise illegal.


<< How many alcoholics have dropped dead on their first drink???
How many teenagers have dropped dead on their first use of a drug?!!! >>


I'd suspect the number of people who die on their first expeirence with "drugs" is about the same as the number of people who die on their first experience with booze--not all that many. If you can provide a reliable statistic to the contrary, I'll strike that statement, but there's only 2 kinds of people that die their first time--those that go completely buck-wild and do WAY too much, or those who got something other than what they thought they got--i.e. laced with something or poisoned or just plain fake.
And I'd hazard it's the same 2 cases with booze. There's an occasional outlier who dies for another reason, but it's an outlier.

MadRat:

<< Recreational users still suffer from long term side effects. >>


Recreational users of EVERYTHING still suffer from long term side effects. Smokers, drinkers, sunbathers, athletes, painters, computer techs, farmers, mechanics, doctors, EVERYONE. In everything you do you are exposed to chemicals and conditions which, if you are exposed to them regularly, you will eventually suffer adverse effects. Anyone who thinks any drug, accepted or not, has no long-term side-effects is sorely deluded.
But people drink and smoke knowing this. And they do drugs knowing this. And they'll keep right on doing them.

 

[jobberd]

<< All users of hard drugs are out of control. >>

Erm, where do you get these figures from?

<< While there are varying levels of this state of mind, it requires loss of control to use drugs either as a habitual or recreational user. >>

Not so. Certain drugs like heroin are actually reported to increase senses somtimes. And the only drugs that really make you lose all control are LSD and other powerful hallucinagens. the other ones may decrease control, but the majority of them affect you far less then alcohol.

<< Use of illicit drugs does not measure the mental capacity of the user. >>

I never said it did....

<< Most of the recreational users I know are very well educated. All of the habitual drug users I have known have always fallen back into their addiction unless they have a total change of lifestyle. >>

Just because you see certain trends does not mean that it is the median by any means. I too know people who are addicted to hard drugs, and I know people who recreationally use them as well without an addiction.

<< By your standards all smokers are dumber than a box of rocks. >>

Again, I never said that... Maybe if you quote what you are refuting I could understand better

<< Addiction is the term for out-of-control drug use. Not every drug user is a habitual user. Recreational users still suffer from long term side effects. NeuroSynapsis is just unaware of his problem. My little brother denied he had a problem for two years before his world fell apart. I tell you, NeuroSynapsis, one of these days it will catch up to you when it is least expected. You should quit now before something bad happens. Something bad always happens... >>

Just because your brother claimed to be a recreational user and became addicted does not mean it happens to everyone. Youd be surprised how many people do hard drugs and still maintain a healthy lifestyle.

<< First of all: Your Q's 2a and 2b are interrelated...Personal freedoms? Where do yours stop and mine begin? Some drug addicts steal, threaten and commit all manner of crimes to get what thier body craves. " Most of the danger is in the illegality of drugs" well...see above, then ask anyone who works in a Hospital ER how only the cost of doing the crime is high.
How much do you think a hand costs some dude who was high for 4-5 days after he punched someone's window out and had such a bad infection that the doctor almost took it off when he finally DID go to the hospital. Credit to the Doctor cause he saved all but one finger if I remember correctly. Oh yeah, and this guy didn't have a job at the time so guess who foots the bill for him getting to keep his hand??? I've seen much of this type of case or similar. >>

The amount of crimes committed because of drug addiction are extremely small; the majority of crimes come from drug dealers and turf wars. And don't think certain alcoholics aren't the same. There is always a difference between use and abuse, and anything that is abused can be dangerous for the user and the people around them.

<< If it were legalized it would not stop the problems of addiction or criminal acts because of the drugs, only that they could no longer be arrested for mearly possesing the drug. Which solves nothing except for the person in possesion. >>

Less people would die because they know EXACTLY what they would be getting and would not have to worry about anything being laced or impure. Less people would commit crimes because the drugs would be cheaper then the exhorbant prices the drug dealers charge, therefore a) driving the drug dealers out of business, and b) making the drugs more affordable to the public so less would have to steal, cheat, etc.

<< Jobberd: How many alcoholics have dropped dead on their first drink???
How many teenagers have dropped dead on their first use of a drug?!!! >>

First of all, the comparison is flawed. 0% of alcoholics have died from their first drink because a) they're alcoholics and therefore have had plenty to drink over their lifetime, and b)There is no alcoholic beverage potent enough to kill someone on their first drink. If you wish to rephrase the question to how many people have died their first time drinking compared to how many people died their first time doing drugs, then the amount of people who die from drugs would still be lower. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug by far and there has not been a single death recorded due to its use. If you want to exclude marijuana and focus on the hard drugs, then I imagine the deaths would be higher on the drug side ONLY because they are laced with something that the user was not expecting. If you legalize the drugs, I am willing to bet that the amount of deaths by first time drug users would be lower then first time alcohol users.

 

[damn]

Drugs: A. F*ck up the economy >> and people would just go crazy

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

<innocent 6yr old girl's voice>

Just say no!

</innocent 6yr old girl's voice>