Why are drugs illegal?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Snatchface
Oh really. That my friend is a statement demonstrating pure and unadulterated ignorance. Everyone in this country who needs emergency medical treatment gets it, regardless of ability to pay for it. There are several federal laws in place that say so - EMTALA for instance. Look it up.

I am aware of them. It doesn't mean that I accept them as an excuse as to why drugs are or should be illegal, especially as drugs were made illegal (1907 and 1937) long before EMTALA (1986). Can you explain that?

 

[MAME]

Originally posted by: eakers
look, drugs are fun. you think people put their lives at risk because they are "addicted"? maybe later on but at first people do drugs because it makes them feel good. wether it be as an escape from reality or a socialable thing people do drugs because they like them.

when people become addicted to drugs they do crazy things. i know, i have seen many many friends go in and out of rehab. i have seen families torn a part because kids steal from their brothers, sisters parents. my friend's dad blew her entire college savings money on a weekend coke binge.

i know about responsible drug use, i like to think i practice it but i know that there is a very very fine line between use and abuse and people rarely see when they cross that line.

at least if drugs are illegal there is LESS of a chance of bad things happening because less people are doing drugs. if people still want to do drugs, they can still get them.

I think most people can agree with that.

 

[MAME]

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eakers
look, drugs are fun. you think people put their lives at risk because they are "addicted"? maybe later on but at first people do drugs because it makes them feel good. wether it be as an escape from reality or a socialable thing people do drugs because they like them.

when people become addicted to drugs they do crazy things. i know, i have seen many many friends go in and out of rehab. i have seen families torn a part because kids steal from their brothers, sisters parents. my friend's dad blew her entire college savings money on a weekend coke binge.

i know about responsible drug use, i like to think i practice it but i know that there is a very very fine line between use and abuse and people rarely see when they cross that line.

at least if drugs are illegal there is LESS of a chance of bad things happening because less people are doing drugs. if people still want to do drugs, they can still get them.

More people abused alcohol during Prohibition than before or after. More people abused drugs after they were made illegal than before, and the more enforcement on the "War on Drugs" escalates, the more the number of drug abusers rises.
While your statement seems to make sense, reality has proven it false.
It seems that making drugs illegal makes them more attractive for certain people to abuse. For example, before alcohol prohibition, women in America almost never went to the saloons and almost never drank. During Prohibition, young women were flocking to drink at the "speakeasies" as the cool thing to do.

 

[The Sauce]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Snatchface
Oh really. That my friend is a statement demonstrating pure and unadulterated ignorance. Everyone in this country who needs emergency medical treatment gets it, regardless of ability to pay for it. There are several federal laws in place that say so - EMTALA for instance. Look it up.

I am aware of them. It doesn't mean that I accept them as an excuse as to why drugs are or should be illegal, especially as drugs were made illegal (1907 and 1937) long before EMTALA (1986). Can you explain that?

Yes, our country has always valued healthcare as a right. EMTALA and similar legislation is simply a codification of that sentiment. Society has always payed for the indiscretions of the individual in America.

 

[Jzero]

Oh really. That my friend is a statement demonstrating pure and unadulterated ignorance. Everyone in this country who needs emergency medical treatment gets it, regardless of ability to pay for it...and a free ambulance or helicopter ride to get you there. There are several federal laws in place that say so - EMTALA for instance. Look it up. It says that, essentially, if a physician refuses to care for a patient who can not pay, that physician is liable to a personal (not malpractice covered) fine of $50,000 and loss of licensure.

That sounds like a right to me.

Maybe you should get that through your fscking head, chumpo.

No such thing as a free lunch. They may not be able to refuse care, but they will get their money one way or another, even if it amounts to you paying the $20/month for the rest of your days.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Snatchface

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Snatchface
Oh really. That my friend is a statement demonstrating pure and unadulterated ignorance. Everyone in this country who needs emergency medical treatment gets it, regardless of ability to pay for it. There are several federal laws in place that say so - EMTALA for instance. Look it up.

I am aware of them. It doesn't mean that I accept them as an excuse as to why drugs are or should be illegal, especially as drugs were made illegal (1907 and 1937) long before EMTALA (1986). Can you explain that?

Yes, our country has always valued healthcare as a right. EMTALA and similar legislation is simply a codification of that sentiment. Society has always payed for the indiscretions of the individual in America.

Right... I think you need to brush up on your history of medicine in America. The idea of health care "as a right" is a very new concept, I'd say less than 30 years old.

 

[The Sauce]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Oh really. That my friend is a statement demonstrating pure and unadulterated ignorance. Everyone in this country who needs emergency medical treatment gets it, regardless of ability to pay for it...and a free ambulance or helicopter ride to get you there. There are several federal laws in place that say so - EMTALA for instance. Look it up. It says that, essentially, if a physician refuses to care for a patient who can not pay, that physician is liable to a personal (not malpractice covered) fine of $50,000 and loss of licensure.

That sounds like a right to me.

Maybe you should get that through your fscking head, chumpo.

No such thing as a free lunch. They may not be able to refuse care, but they will get their money one way or another, even if it amounts to you paying the $20/month for the rest of your days.

I can tell you from experience that that is simply not the case. The default rate on payment for hospital services averages 20%-40% in most states. Thats people not paying anything. And you and your family pays for it with higher rates whenever you pay for healthcare.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Snatchface

Originally posted by: Jzero

Oh really. That my friend is a statement demonstrating pure and unadulterated ignorance. Everyone in this country who needs emergency medical treatment gets it, regardless of ability to pay for it...and a free ambulance or helicopter ride to get you there. There are several federal laws in place that say so - EMTALA for instance. Look it up. It says that, essentially, if a physician refuses to care for a patient who can not pay, that physician is liable to a personal (not malpractice covered) fine of $50,000 and loss of licensure.

That sounds like a right to me.

Maybe you should get that through your fscking head, chumpo.

No such thing as a free lunch. They may not be able to refuse care, but they will get their money one way or another, even if it amounts to you paying the $20/month for the rest of your days.

I can tell you from experience that that is simply not the case. The default rate on payment for hospital services averages 20%-40% in most states. Thats people not paying anything. And you and your family pays for it with higher rates whenever you pay for healthcare.

Which is what you are using as an excuse for a blanket law against illicit drugs, the enforcement of which costs America hundreds of billions of dollars in lost productivity and incarceration costs.
When does it end?

 

[MangoTBG]

Originally posted by: Snatchface
There is an simple answer to the question - it is the same reason driving without a seatbelt is illegal in many states - and that is because people who do drugs (or drive without a seatbelt) incur a huge debt to society. They do physical and economic damage to themselves and have no way to afford the inevitable consequences. Hence it becomes society's burdon to support them.

Think about it...you are free to jump out the window of your office 40' up. Yet when you hit the ground and don't die you will be brought to the hospital where your 2-4 month stay in the ICU and subsequent healthcare needs (because you are now quadraplegic) will probably cost your community (since you have no way of paying and healthcare is a right in our country) in the area of 40-50 million dollars up until the day you die. Hence it is in everyone's interest for you to wear your seatbelt, not do drugs, stop smoking, and not jump out the window.

Since when is jumping out of a 4-story window illegal?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
Since when is jumping out of a 4-story window illegal?

Believe it or not, attempting to commit suicide (successful or not) is a crime in every state in the country. Our idiocy knows no bounds.

 

[The Sauce]

It's not, but it's next. And if you try it they will lock you up, in a psych ward...if you do survive.

 

[SSibalNom]

omG i need drugs

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Snatchface

Originally posted by: Jzero

Oh really. That my friend is a statement demonstrating pure and unadulterated ignorance. Everyone in this country who needs emergency medical treatment gets it, regardless of ability to pay for it...and a free ambulance or helicopter ride to get you there. There are several federal laws in place that say so - EMTALA for instance. Look it up. It says that, essentially, if a physician refuses to care for a patient who can not pay, that physician is liable to a personal (not malpractice covered) fine of $50,000 and loss of licensure.

That sounds like a right to me.

Maybe you should get that through your fscking head, chumpo.

No such thing as a free lunch. They may not be able to refuse care, but they will get their money one way or another, even if it amounts to you paying the $20/month for the rest of your days.

I can tell you from experience that that is simply not the case. The default rate on payment for hospital services averages 20%-40% in most states. Thats people not paying anything. And you and your family pays for it with higher rates whenever you pay for healthcare.

I can't figure out if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me....
But exactly. There is a right to healthcare, there is not a right to FREE healthcare. You go to the hospital for emergency treatment, SOMEBODY pays for it. There's nothing free here.

 

[Xionide]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
First off let me say that I don't endorse harmful substances, but there are many herbal based plants that people could consume for recreational use that are safe. However I often wonder why ALL recreational drugs are illegal. If rec drug use was legal I'm 110% positive that the market would be flooded with FDA approved products that carry no harmful traits. The criminal element would be eliminated, the economy would be vastly improved, violent crimes and prositution rates would drop significantly. But thats getting away from original topic, why are drugs illegal?

So they can put the prices through the roof on the ganj they grow.

 

[The Sauce]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Snatchface

Originally posted by: Jzero

Oh really. That my friend is a statement demonstrating pure and unadulterated ignorance. Everyone in this country who needs emergency medical treatment gets it, regardless of ability to pay for it...and a free ambulance or helicopter ride to get you there. There are several federal laws in place that say so - EMTALA for instance. Look it up. It says that, essentially, if a physician refuses to care for a patient who can not pay, that physician is liable to a personal (not malpractice covered) fine of $50,000 and loss of licensure.

That sounds like a right to me.

Maybe you should get that through your fscking head, chumpo.

No such thing as a free lunch. They may not be able to refuse care, but they will get their money one way or another, even if it amounts to you paying the $20/month for the rest of your days.

I can tell you from experience that that is simply not the case. The default rate on payment for hospital services averages 20%-40% in most states. Thats people not paying anything. And you and your family pays for it with higher rates whenever you pay for healthcare.

Which is what you are using as an excuse for a blanket law against illicit drugs, the enforcement of which costs America hundreds of billions of dollars in lost productivity and incarceration costs.
When does it end?

Actually Vic, I agree with you on the whole issue. Drugs should be legal, and if you do them and get sick and can't pay the bill you should just die. Same thing for driving without a seatbelt or jumping out a window. However, that is a fairly radical stance to take. It is essentially saying that if you fsck up and make a mistake we will stand by, not help, and watch you die for it. Problem is our society can't decide where to draw the line, so there is no line. We take care of everyone and so we have to make laws to keep them from doing stupid $hit. Its inane but you can't deny the reality of that situation.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Snatchface
Actually Vic, I agree with you on the whole issue. Drugs should be legal, and if you do them and get sick and can't pay the bill you should just die. Same thing for driving without a seatbelt or jumping out a window. However, that is a fairly radical stance to take. It is essentially saying that if you fsck up and make a mistake we will stand by, not help, and watch you die for it. Problem is our society can't decide where to draw the line, so there is no line. We take care of everyone and so we have to make laws to keep them from doing stupid $hit. Its inane but you can't deny the reality of that situation.

Well, perhaps we should stop being so stupidly black-and-white about everything, and try to find the lines to draw.
For example, I support the idea of guaranteeing health care in emergency situations (it would be the height of immorality to let people die when we could prevent it), but not the idea of having the government pay for it. If for example, your life was saved, why the hell would you be so immoral as to not pay for it, even if it bankrupted you? Works both ways, as it certainly beats being dead. If private charities wish to pick up more of that bill, I would support that as well, even with personal contributions.
What I don't and won't support is the idea that certain activities which some people think might be dangerous should be made illegal merely because people are afraid of paying for it. That falls into reason #1 in my first post in this thread. If someone doesn't want to wear their seatbelt, and they get into an accident and are severely injured because they didn't wear their seatbelt, then of course they should receive medical treatment, but of course they should also be forced to pay for it to the best of their ability. Or would they have prefered to have died? I don't see that as hard to understand, or outside the bounds of simple common sense.

 

[Allio]

I can't believe that anyone would think that if getting pot were as easy as walking up to a shop and paying $15, people would continue to say no. As it is you have to REALLY want to get off your stupid little stoner mind to go get drugs... the huge hassle involved in getting your hands on an illegal product is enough to discourage a huge number of people who might otherwise be tempted.

And as for this "pot doesn't hurt anybody" argument... well, I'm not even going to reply to it.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Allio
I can't believe that anyone would think that if getting pot were as easy as walking up to a shop and paying $15, people would continue to say no. As it is you have to REALLY want to get off your stupid little stoner mind to go get drugs... the huge hassle involved in getting your hands on an illegal product is enough to discourage a huge number of people who might otherwise be tempted.

Where the hell do you live?

And as for this "pot doesn't hurt anybody" argument... well, I'm not even going to reply to it.

Because you don't have a good response?

Sure, inhaling burning carbon is not good for your lungs, but there are other ways to imbibe marijuana. The long term affects of marijuana use have proven to be slight if existant at all and marijuana really only starts having negative effects in the short term when you ues it frequently.

 

[MAME]

Originally posted by: Allio
I can't believe that anyone would think that if getting pot were as easy as walking up to a shop and paying $15, people would continue to say no. As it is you have to REALLY want to get off your stupid little stoner mind to go get drugs... the huge hassle involved in getting your hands on an illegal product is enough to discourage a huge number of people who might otherwise be tempted.

And as for this "pot doesn't hurt anybody" argument... well, I'm not even going to reply to it.

It's actually not that hard to get

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Allio
I can't believe that anyone would think that if getting pot were as easy as walking up to a shop and paying $15, people would continue to say no. As it is you have to REALLY want to get off your stupid little stoner mind to go get drugs... the huge hassle involved in getting your hands on an illegal product is enough to discourage a huge number of people who might otherwise be tempted.

And as for this "pot doesn't hurt anybody" argument... well, I'm not even going to reply to it.

I got news for you, pot is no "huge hassle" to get. I don't do any illicit drugs, but if I wanted pot, it's just a phone call away. I know this, and I don't even do drugs. Think of how easy it must be for someone who actually does. So I don't know where you got the idea that it is hard to obtain, but it is actually anything but.
And alcohol and cigarettes are just as easy to get as walking into a store and plunking down money, and millions continue to say no everyday. Why do you think pot would be any different? If that is because you believe it is more addictive than alcohol or nicotine, you would be wrong. Pot has been proven to be significantly less addictive than alcohol and nicotine.
As for this "it doesn't hurt anybody", who said that? I wouldn't agree with that statement. Now if you said that it doesn't hurt anyone but the user, I would agree completely.
Now when you have a real argument, based on real thinking, do please come back. Otherwise, just spouting the rhetoric that has been force-fed into your little brain by all the "just say no" propaganda isn't going to impress anyone here, I don't think.

 

[TitanDiddly]

Oxygen is one of the most destructive substances ever known to man. It is the root and lead cause of aging and death. It has an extremely reactive nature which is harmful to all things exposed to it, over time.

BAN OXYGEN.

 

[Cerb]

1. Govt. and puritanical roots of our society. That is, such things should be regulated because they are right. And no, your opinion does count, go away and hide under a rock.
2. People are stupid.
3. Several drugs have been made illegal by lobbying from businesses and interest groups that gain by these things not being freely available, regardless of the drugs effects (marijuana and LSD come to mind).
4. Lobbying assisted by those in the drug trade, who can keep prices and supply high by leaving the stuff illegal.

There are many good reasons to legalize them, not the least of which is that having them illegal really doesn't do much to keep people from having and using them.

 

[Rainsford]

Because the people representing drug users to the public as a whole are, well, average drug users. And the majority of drug users are messed up in some way or another. I don't believe drugs did that to them, I believe they were pretty much like that all along, it's just that those kind of people are attracted to drugs for some reason. However, when looking at legalizing it, the average person looks at the guys shooting people for their drugs or money to buy drugs and draws an incorrect but understandable conclusion about it.

It's like how the average American's experience with Islam comes from terrorists. Not representitive of the religion specifically, but for some reason it seems to attract the wackos.

If the people supporting the legalization of weed didn't wear hemp pants, live with their parents and do absolutely nothing productive, then maybe we'd see some changes. But until you see regular members of socciety advocating drug legalization, all we have to look at are these really poor excuses for members of society, and I don't think that makes anyone want to legalize drugs. Not me personally, but I understand where other people are coming from.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
because they make you die.

Then mountain climbing, solo trans-Alantic sailing, football, race car driving, gun ownership, etc should be illegal too.