War on Drugs

[Tarvos]

I'm aware it's not quite that simple, but ideally you'd have a society in which the dangers of drugs are well-known, advertised and properly researched. Until then you can't really count on it, and there's always going to be a grey area, but yeah, in principle, taking drugs is a choice. If you know drugs are going to fuck you up, why take them??????

 

[shy ♡]

Well, because it isn't that simple! Drugs are given to children when they don't know the side effects; people get to be so depressed that they don't care about the side effects because they don't even want to live, so getting a momentary high is more important than long-term anything; not to mention a genetic component. Drugs are more easy and available and quickly effective than therapy or pharmaceutical drugs, so when you really really want to be happy for just a minute, they work wonders.

 

[Dannichu]

But addicts (of alcohol/drugs/whatever) become a drain on society, affecting everybody. Even if you don't have a publicly-funded NHS, society still pays when its members are out doing stupid things because it means fewer people are working. It's in the interests of everybody to discourage dangerous behaviour as much as possible, and while I don't have figures, I'm sure every penny spent on (sensible) prevention and education is made up in the economy/by the health service.

Plus, given the age/class/geographical lines along which most people do drugs (and certianly get put in prison for doing drugs), surely you'd accept that it's as much a social thing as a personal choice? It's not helpful to say 'it's only dumb people who take drugs' - we should look at who's taking drugs, why they feel they should, and then much more targeted and effective prevention and help can occur.

 

[Harlequin]

Out of interest: Harle and Tarvos, would you support age restrictions on any/all drugs?

I think I'd have to go with yes. A similar set up to our alcohol and tobacco laws would work quite well, I think. We'd get exactly the same kinds of problems as we get now with cigarettes and alcohol, though, probably.

I think it'd be pretty fair to say you need to be 18+ to buy drugs, especially given the precedent of alcohol and tobacco here.

 

[ultraviolet]

I will not be insulted or judged for this, I think my reasons are more than sufficient.

I am not judging or insulting you (or trying to, anyway; my apologies if I have caused hurt). What I mean is that your experiences are anecdotal and aren't really relevant. My uncle was killed by a drunk-driver, several of my friends from highschool are drug addicts, etc., etc., but it's not reasoning to bring into a debate. My mum did weed when she was my age. A lot. She's fine now. There are probably just as many anecdotal examples of people who do drugs that are okay as there are people who did drugs or were affected by drugs who aren't okay. You can't use anecdotes as reasoning behind your argument.

You have pretty strong reasons for not liking drugs! I'm not denying you that. But there is little use bringing those reasons - which obviously are a pretty big source of hurt - into a debate when you're not really interested in responding to people when they question your arguments.

All I said was that if it came to my voting, I wouldn't be able to do it based on my personal experiences. I am not forcing my views on you. I'm explaining them. I'm not saying I'm right, nor that anyone is wrong.

I didn't say you were, but if you're not really willing to evaluate your thoughts on this issue further than you just not being comfortable with drugs - which is okay, I'm not denying that - I don't think a debate on the topic is going to be the best space for you to talk about it. I just don't want people to be upset and this topic is obviously pretty personal for you. :C

but if you are dumb enough to take drugs

can we not call people dumb? my mum isn't dumb (nor is anyone). thanks.

 

[Light]

You need to realise this is about choice! The consequences of drugs are terrible, but if you are dumb enough to take drugs, then you have brought it upon yourself

Let's just assume for a moment that this is about pure choice and intelligence, and that there are no other factors that complicate the matter more than you acknowledge. As the government takes on the duty to protect people from other people, shouldn't it also assume at least some responsibility to protect people from their own stupidity? If someone's stupid in any sense of the word, it's not like it's their fault. Taking away a "choice" from someone who doesn't know what's best for them is benevolence.

Besides, if people really want to do some crack, they can. By making something illegal, the government isn't taking away choice in the slightest. If anything, it requires the person to be even more sure that they really want to do the illegal thing before they go ahead and do it.

 

[Music Dragon]

Let's just assume for a moment that this is about pure choice and intelligence, and that there are no other factors that complicate the matter more than you acknowledge. As the government takes on the duty to protect people from other people, shouldn't it also assume at least some responsibility to protect people from their own stupidity? If someone's stupid in any sense of the word, it's not like it's their fault. Taking away a "choice" from someone who doesn't know what's best for them is benevolence.

I think we need to call in Detective Del Spooner.

 

[Butterfree]

Phantom, nobody's saying you can't intensely dislike drugs. I dislike them pretty intensely myself. But the subject of this debate is, to quote your own introductory post,

So, should drugs be legal? Should pot be legal everywhere? Why do you think so, or why shouldn't it be?

And personal distaste is not relevant to whether something should be legal. If you're not planning to rationally defend the position that drugs should continue to be illegal, you have no place in a debate on the legality of drugs. People in this thread arguing that drugs should be legal are not insulting or judging you for despising drugs; they're arguing the practical issue of whether the illegalization of drugs does more harm than good. One can personally be opposed to drugs while still thinking harsh drug laws are actually harmful to society in practice. (Which happens to be my position, for the reasons opal, Dannichu et al have explained; I'd never take drugs personally and don't even drink or have any desire to do so, but addicts need help and safety, not stigma and laws that push them into the underworld.)

 

[Tarvos]

As the government takes on the duty to protect people from other people, shouldn't it also assume at least some responsibility to protect people from their own stupidity? If someone's stupid in any sense of the word, it's not like it's their fault. Taking away a "choice" from someone who doesn't know what's best for them is benevolence.

I'm sure a lot of governments already do this. Look where it got Mexico. I don't think a government has any say in it.

And maybe dumb is the wrong choice, but if you know drugs are bad for you and you still take them then isn't it obvious you are hella bad at making choices and being responsible?

And I'm not talking weed here, since the consequences of weed are so minor. But heroin? Crack? Fuck knows what else?

 

[Phantom]

Phantom, nobody's saying you can't intensely dislike drugs. I dislike them pretty intensely myself. But the subject of this debate is, to quote your own introductory post,

That may be the subject, though I was asked a question and I was responding to that.

And personal distaste is not relevant to whether something should be legal. If you're not planning to rationally defend the position that drugs should continue to be illegal, you have no place in a debate on the legality of drugs. People in this thread arguing that drugs should be legal are not insulting or judging you for despising drugs; they're arguing the practical issue of whether the illegalization of drugs does more harm than good. One can personally be opposed to drugs while still thinking harsh drug laws are actually harmful to society in practice. (Which happens to be my position, for the reasons opal, Dannichu et al have explained; I'd never take drugs personally and don't even drink or have any desire to do so, but addicts need help and safety, not stigma and laws that push them into the underworld.)

I agree, and understand; as I've said multiple times. I was just saying what you just said, but a little more sarcastically and with a little more feeling.

I found this wiki page helpful.


EDIT: Upon rereading this post I felt like singing songs from the Buffy musical... just thought I'd comment on that.

 

[I liek Squirtles]

I'm all for the legalization of drugs. Basically what we got in my country is Mexico, on a smaller scale and not so gory, in a way that is severly damaging to the labor force and subsequently, the economy. See, almost 1,200 people died last year in murders. Some of those because the drug dealers thought the people they killed were rival gang members. Those that got killed in that incident were big-time volleyball prospects, undoubtedly on their way to bring fame to our island. This year we are same route. There was a weekend where there were five murders. Five. And one time there were three in one day. I'm not kidding you. It happened.

In conclusion, the drugs sap the lives of teens, depleting the work force even more than the idiot government's measures have already. That combination means thousands of needed professionals are fleeing. Not migrating, fleeing because of their and their families' threatened lives.

 

[Light]

See, almost 1,200 people died last year in murders . . . There was a weekend where there were five murders. Five. And one time there were three in one day.

3 * 365 = 1095; I don't think you'd exactly be justified in calling that alone "almost 1,200", plus you indicate that 3 in one day, and even 5 in 3 days, is unusually many, leading me to believe the actual number was well under 1,200. Sorry, not that it invalidates your argument, but the glaringly inconsistent statistics were really bugging me.

 

[Datura]

3 * 365 = 1095; I don't think you'd exactly be justified in calling that alone "almost 1,200", plus you indicate that 3 in one day, and even 5 in 3 days, is unusually many, leading me to believe the actual number was well under 1,200. Sorry, not that it invalidates your argument, but the glaringly inconsistent statistics were really bugging me.

I can't find any solid data for 2011, but 2010 had 15,273 murders in Mexico. (Notice the high numbers in Ciudad Juárez, which I mentioned in my first post in this thread.)

 

[I liek Squirtles]

I'll admit, I had it a bit high. The number actually rounds the 1,130. Here is an article proving it.

 

[Light]

I'll admit, I had it a bit high. The number actually rounds the 1,130. Here is an article proving it. And please, don't call them

Seeing as I don't speak Spanish I would have a hard time calling them.
Anyways yeah, you can call 1,130 "almost 1,200". By that number though, 5 in one weekend would be calm, since murders probably cluster around the weekend.

 

[Kapton Jack]

Rough translation of that page done for the lazy:

Experts say the bloody wave of death that had left 1.130 dead last night has multiple causes
Statistical calculations would notice it. If the killings continued with an average of 3.11 per day would close the year with more than 1.130 murders.
And it did.
Nothing more between Wednesday night and yesterday, two days to conclude in 2011, eight people were killed in incidents including the tenth year slaughter that occurred in San Juan, and two double murders in Fajardo and Villalba.
To continue that pace, the 2011 would end with about 1.140 murders, according to police estimates themselves. This pattern has already won Puerto Rico's tragic ranked No. 19 worldwide in murders, according to a study of British newspaper The Guardian, which used data from 2010. We have more than 154 killings last year.
Experts consulted by this newspaper said that the causes for this dramatic increase in killings that has impacted the lives of thousands of families and has scared off so many people ranging from social and economic ills to the lack of adequate attention to crime by the government.
"If you have a country that suffers from a poor educational system, a country that suffers from a high economic anxiety, a country that suffers from social realities of much division and alienation, as you have the basic ingredients of antisocial behavior. Addition Therefore, our institutions of law and order does not work, "the Police exsuperintendente Miguel Pereira.
The former head of Corrections also recalled that 60% of those who enter the Juvenile Institutions are dropouts. "I mean, 6 October dropouts will end up prisoners," he said.
These evils have existed for years, said executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, William Ramirez. But what happened to get us to where we are, inter alia, that the United States escalated the war on drugs in countries like Mexico and much of this criminal activity are moved here.
"If we add that to the nefarious Law 7, unemployment for thousands of families, one can see that it is ripe for increased drug trafficking," which also makes them easy for young people with poor education, he said.
Ramirez said also in the country is high sense of impunity, with a clarification rate of about 30% - and police corruption that makes people think that crime will not have consequences.
Mystery in Villalba
Of the cases reported between Wednesday and yesterday, the slaughter of Llorens Torres and the double murder of Fajardo were linked by police to drug trafficking. Villalba's double murder was still a mystery how they were killed cooling contractor and his stepson and because both were of Juncos and gave Eastern peoples services. The murder of a man in the residential San Martin, San Juan, had not been clarified.
Ramirez said the instability in the Police, which has had two superintendents, the absence of an anti-crime plan and lack of adequate equipment and training staff have also contributed to rising crime.
In fact, yesterday, when asked about how citizens rose with eight murders the police superintendent, Emilio Diaz Colon said, "In the same way that two days ago went to bed and there was no incident."
Javier Colon and Sandra Caquías collaborated on this story.

 

[ElectricTogetic]

inb4 everyone going 'Coffee?? paracetamol?? hurr' Phantom means illegal drugs pretty obviously don't even go there guys. but I think it would be good here to properly define what you mean by 'drugs' - anything already considered illegal by the US? anything that alters someone's perceptions of reality? drugs used just for recreation?

Actually, caffiene, nicotine... pretty much EVERYTHING that has an effect on your body at all can cause the same effect as an illegal drug in large doses. Specifically, they can reduce blood flow to the brain, and all brains affected by drug use look almost the same on a brain scan - they look shriveled and holey. If you read the book, "Change Your Brain, Change Your Life," you'll get a good idea of what I mean.

So, in short, I think drugs should be kept completely illegal, and I also think that more education should be given about drugs. Those "this is what your brain looks like with drugs" signs with pictures of eggs next to them are just too rediculous.

 

[Adriane]

So, in short, I think drugs should be kept completely illegal, and I also think that more education should be given about drugs. Those "this is what your brain looks like with drugs" signs with pictures of eggs next to them are just too rediculous.

Is "drugs are harmful" your only reason for keeping them illegal? Because nobody is denying that they are.

 

[Tarvos]

Of course drugs are harmful. But you can separate "harmful" from "legal". It's also dangerous to use a knife, or a metal rod, or to sand rosewood, or work with electricity, etc.

 

[ElectricTogetic]

Is "drugs are harmful" your only reason for keeping them illegal? Because nobody is denying that they are.

yes, but no one realizes just HOW harmful they are. Isn't the fact that they're harmful enough reason to have an opinion?