Topic: Valid Arguments on Whether Drugs Should Be Legalized for Personal Consumption (Read 3465 times)
March 04, 2012, 04:42:16 PM
Rarity must be high
March 04, 2012, 11:15:39 AM
This was posted somewhere and reminded me how ineffective the war on drugs is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency
So, Rarity (or those of a similar mindset), how much are you willing to pay each year to stop this from happening?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency
Quote
In 1994, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that in Los Angeles, out of every four banknotes, on average more than three are tainted by cocaine or another illicit drug
Quote
Forensic scientists have said that around 80% of all British banknotes contain traces of drugs. A 1999 study found even higher levels of contamination in the London area; of 500 notes tested, only four had no traces of cocaine.
So, Rarity (or those of a similar mindset), how much are you willing to pay each year to stop this from happening?
March 01, 2012, 06:57:47 AM
Quote
I am not talking about sex addiction. I am talking about loving someone (being addicted to them) so much that you go into a fit of rage when they do something you do not like.
I must inform you at this point that if you tell me you are abusing your partner I will be seeking to report you to the relavent authorities.
I'm going to be afk for a few hours before I can resume this conversation, anyone that is facing challenges with drug issues should check out this site:
http://www.narconon.org/
There is hope.
Rarity, do you happen to be a Scientologist?
If so, I'm interested in how your beliefs affect your views on drugs. What is the official Scientology position on drugs?
If not, were you aware of the background to the the link you posted?
March 01, 2012, 04:06:05 AM
Quote
You missed the point, or ignored it. Water intoxication can occur just by drinking too much water. Breathing air too high in oxygen is damaging, and can cause brain damage and blindness.
Of course, this is why you don't do those things that can put you in danger. Why risk death for temporary pleasure when there are plenty of natural ways to have fun?
Quote
On a more sober note, harsh prescriptive laws won't work in the long term (I wouldn't believe the Singapore govt stats - Singapore maybe a parliamentary republic in name, but how many different parties have actually run the place?)
That just seems like simple denialism. The stats are the stats, harsher drug laws work for Singapore and they could work in the US.
Quote
Choosing to use drugs is exercising freedom, not sacrificing it.
As I pointed out before, once you are addicted you are no longer exercising freedom. You are controlled by the drug and compelled to continue using it. Addiction directly results in harm to others as addicts resort to theft or crash cars in intoxicated states or any other number of things that can occur when you are in a state of intoxication. Your freedom to punch ends at my nose.
Quote
What about fatty foods? Should they be illegal as well considering all the harm they can cause to the friends and family of the morbidly obsese, not to mention the implicated costs of treating morbid obesity through state and government funded programs like Medicaid and Medicare that are paid with our taxes?
Food is neccesary for people to live. Abuse is a shame, but food can't be banned like drugs can. You don't die if you don't get high.
Quote
I've also wondered how much money pharmaceutical companies would make developing party drugs that are guaranteed non-addictive and safe? Would you still be against drugs they were safe and non-addictive? Or do you just not like people havin' fun?
No drug is ever without side effects. That is okay if their use is medically necessary, but not when the goal is only some immature fun.
Why do you trust the interpretation of the "singapore stats" from a single news article? The more in-depth stats (source= singapore government) show that DRUG ABUSE IN SINGAPORE HAS RISEN MORE THAN 4-FOLD SINCE 2005. This is an increase of 70% per year. It is a huge increase. The stats are the stats, after all, so draconian drug laws must not work.
Also, people can live without love. I personally think we should ban love because it leads to irrational behavior and any number of bad decisions, even leading to violence (especially against women). Do you agree or disagree?
March 01, 2012, 01:37:32 AM
No drug is ever without side effects.
Please define 'drug' and 'side effect' so I can show you some counter examplesQuote
That is okay if their use is medically necessary, but not when the goal is only some immature fun.
And there you have it. Rarity is against immature fun. Nuff said.
March 01, 2012, 01:30:23 AM
Quote
You missed the point, or ignored it. Water intoxication can occur just by drinking too much water. Breathing air too high in oxygen is damaging, and can cause brain damage and blindness.
Of course, this is why you don't do those things that can put you in danger. Why risk death for temporary pleasure when there are plenty of natural ways to have fun?
Quote
On a more sober note, harsh prescriptive laws won't work in the long term (I wouldn't believe the Singapore govt stats - Singapore maybe a parliamentary republic in name, but how many different parties have actually run the place?)
That just seems like simple denialism. The stats are the stats, harsher drug laws work for Singapore and they could work in the US.
Quote
Choosing to use drugs is exercising freedom, not sacrificing it.
As I pointed out before, once you are addicted you are no longer exercising freedom. You are controlled by the drug and compelled to continue using it. Addiction directly results in harm to others as addicts resort to theft or crash cars in intoxicated states or any other number of things that can occur when you are in a state of intoxication. Your freedom to punch ends at my nose.
Quote
What about fatty foods? Should they be illegal as well considering all the harm they can cause to the friends and family of the morbidly obsese, not to mention the implicated costs of treating morbid obesity through state and government funded programs like Medicaid and Medicare that are paid with our taxes?
Food is neccesary for people to live. Abuse is a shame, but food can't be banned like drugs can. You don't die if you don't get high.
Quote
I've also wondered how much money pharmaceutical companies would make developing party drugs that are guaranteed non-addictive and safe? Would you still be against drugs they were safe and non-addictive? Or do you just not like people havin' fun?
No drug is ever without side effects. That is okay if their use is medically necessary, but not when the goal is only some immature fun.
February 29, 2012, 09:10:34 AM
Quote
I am a medical student in my 6th year and I can assure you i can compile a similar list for you for oxygen and water!
Water intoxication is in fact a potential side effect from using this hormone in a medical setting. You dont mess with your body like that just for fun, no matter the substance.
You missed the point, or ignored it. Water intoxication can occur just by drinking too much water. Breathing air too high in oxygen is damaging, and can cause brain damage and blindness.
The upside is that the same MSDS mentions that excessive O2 use can cause dizziness, poor coordination, tingling sensation, visual and hearing disturbances - (I call that a great night out) and prolongation of adaptation to darkness (IT MAKES ME INTO BATMAN! YES!)
On a more sober note, harsh prescriptive laws won't work in the long term (I wouldn't believe the Singapore govt stats - Singapore maybe a parliamentary republic in name, but how many different parties have actually run the place?)
The harder it is to get drugs, the more desirable they seem. I think decriminalising them is the best bet, along with much more education and harm minimisation than exists currently. Ensure that people know society looks on illegal drugs as 'unacceptable' in the same way smoking is, and take away the glamour of doing something illegal.
I've also wondered how much money pharmaceutical companies would make developing party drugs that are guaranteed non-addictive and safe? Would you still be against drugs they were safe and non-addictive? Or do you just not like people havin' fun?
BTW, I don't take illegal drugs Edit: or take legal drugs illegally in case you are wondering.
February 29, 2012, 07:10:33 AM
Drugs should definitely remain illegal. Personal freedom is not an issue when addiction is a part of the equation. Once you go down that path, you sacrifice the ability to exercise your free will and the government must step in for your own good.
Not to mention the damage addicted individuals due to society. They rob whatever they can and hurt the people around them, family and strangers. Alcohol was not just prohibited in the name of Christianity, it was one of the first moments where women began to flex political power even before they gained the vote, the goal was to stop their drunk husbands from smacking them around.
Not to mention the damage addicted individuals due to society. They rob whatever they can and hurt the people around them, family and strangers. Alcohol was not just prohibited in the name of Christianity, it was one of the first moments where women began to flex political power even before they gained the vote, the goal was to stop their drunk husbands from smacking them around.
The point is that people can choose to use drugs regardless of the law. They are exercising their freedom, and if they choose to place their own constraints upon themselves through drug use leading to addiction, that is their right. Wouldn't you agree that it is better for someone to erect his own constraints than for someone else to attempt to do it for him? Choosing to use drugs is exercising freedom, not sacrificing it. Also, the vast majority of illicit drugs are recognized for their medicinal properties in many cultures (nicotine is a classic example, and it is used in many Amazonian tribal cultures to cure illnesses even in infants, an act that would be considered child abuse in Western societies).
What about fatty foods? Should they be illegal as well considering all the harm they can cause to the friends and family of the morbidly obsese, not to mention the implicated costs of treating morbid obesity through state and government funded programs like Medicaid and Medicare that are paid with our taxes?
In my opinion, freedom is made more precious and meaningful because people can choose to exercise it for harm to self or others. Effective use of freedom is a testament to wisdom and intelligence.
February 29, 2012, 04:48:57 AM
The main problem is that we are too lenient in our criminal penalties. If you make them tough enough, you can really reduce drug use. Take a look Singapore.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay
Quote
With all these efforts, Singapore has one of the lowest prevalence of drug abuse worldwide, even though it has not been entirely eliminated. Over two decades, the number of drug abusers arrested each year has declined by two-thirds, from over 6,000 in the early 1990s to about 2,000 last year (last year=2009). Fewer than two in 10 abusers released from prison or drug rehabilitation centres relapse within two years. We do not have traffickers pushing drugs openly in the streets, nor do we need to run needle exchange centres. Because of our strict laws, Singapore does not have to contend with major drug syndicates linked to organised crime, unlike some other countries.
Is there a reason you think these numbers are particularly trustworthy? Neither of the links in the article worked. I found this:
Quote
CENTRAL NARCOTICS BUREAU DRUG SITUATION REPORT 2011: MORE DRUG ABUSERS ARRESTED AND DRUGS SEIZED AS CNB INTENSIFIED ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS IN 2011
http://www.cnb.gov.sg/drugsituationreport/drugsituationreport2011.aspxIf you follow the link to the complete news release:
It is interesting to figure out "how the number of drug abusers arrested each year has declined by two-thirds" was arrived at.
Anyway... these are interesting stats that should be discussed in this thread. What happened in 2005? I gathered from wikipedia (yea, wikipedia so take with a grain of salt) that the Singapore government stopped publishing accurate execution numbers around 2001. We should also note that the reported "abuse" prevalence is about 7 times less than that in the united states (if we take the population of Singapore to be 5.1 million, US pop = 313 million, and US drug arrest rate as 1.5 million per year).
There are obviously numerous confounds that make such a comparison problematic. To name a few:
-Trustworthiness of each government's numbers.
-False arrest rates in each country.
-Drug abuse that is not included in this statistic because the abuser avoids arrest or may bribe themselves out of it, etc.
-Differences in definition of drug abuser.
In fact the UNODC itself has noted these problems with comparing between countries:
Quote
The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/Seventh-United-Nations-Survey-on-Crime-Trends-and-the-Operations-of-Criminal-Justice-Systems.htmlThis, of course, did not stop Michael Teo of The Guardian from doing so:
Quote
According to the 2008 World Drug Report by the United Nations office on drugs and crime 8.2% of the UK population are cannabis abusers; in Singapore it is 0.005%. For ecstasy, the figures are 1.8% for the UK and 0.003% for Singapore; and for opiates – such as heroin, opium and morphine – 0.9% for the UK and 0.005% for Singapore.
I know very little about Singapore, maybe someone who has lived/visited there could say more.
February 29, 2012, 04:19:01 AM
So you support law that tells me what i can do with my body?
It seems to me that you are aiming towards agruments of "do not mess with the natural".
Stating that something CAN happen doesn't mean it will happen.
All the people that never had any problems did not see a doctor I assure you.
Shure a percieved risk / benefit equation does not balance for 2 people the same.
I copy paste you something, too:
If they truly want to have Americans believe that the government wants to "keep our peoples from becoming addicted to dangerous drugs" they really need to take pot off that list.
All but the stupid and brainwashed know that pot is neither addictive, nor dangerous. If they insist on keeping it on the same page as crack, heroin, meth, etc., they will continue to be the source of jokes for late night TV hosts, and will continue to be ignored by the educated among us.
Taking pot off the "hit" list would certainly cause significant unemployment in the legal/penal system, rightfully so, but many of the people who insist on criminalizing pot smokers are the same people who had no problem with turning Detroit into a huge grave marker, and sending huge numbers of people to the unemployment line.
If they want to make a difference, how about putting alcohol on the "dangerous" list, instead of the current "drugs AND alcohol" label. Of course that would NEVER happen, because we would then turn police, lawyers, judges, doctors, teachers, etc., into DRUG users. We couldn't have that, could we? Even though alcohol IS a drug, AND is poison in high amounts.
It's time to rewrite some of the rules!
It seems to me that you are aiming towards agruments of "do not mess with the natural".
Stating that something CAN happen doesn't mean it will happen.
All the people that never had any problems did not see a doctor I assure you.
Shure a percieved risk / benefit equation does not balance for 2 people the same.
I copy paste you something, too:
If they truly want to have Americans believe that the government wants to "keep our peoples from becoming addicted to dangerous drugs" they really need to take pot off that list.
All but the stupid and brainwashed know that pot is neither addictive, nor dangerous. If they insist on keeping it on the same page as crack, heroin, meth, etc., they will continue to be the source of jokes for late night TV hosts, and will continue to be ignored by the educated among us.
Taking pot off the "hit" list would certainly cause significant unemployment in the legal/penal system, rightfully so, but many of the people who insist on criminalizing pot smokers are the same people who had no problem with turning Detroit into a huge grave marker, and sending huge numbers of people to the unemployment line.
If they want to make a difference, how about putting alcohol on the "dangerous" list, instead of the current "drugs AND alcohol" label. Of course that would NEVER happen, because we would then turn police, lawyers, judges, doctors, teachers, etc., into DRUG users. We couldn't have that, could we? Even though alcohol IS a drug, AND is poison in high amounts.
It's time to rewrite some of the rules!
February 29, 2012, 04:17:48 AM
Here is an interesting table: About 40% of female homicide victims are killed by intimate's or family members. What role does oxytocin play in this?
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm#vorelgender
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm#vorelgender
February 29, 2012, 04:14:38 AM
Quote
I am not talking about sex addiction. I am talking about loving someone (being addicted to them) so much that you go into a fit of rage when they do something you do not like.
I must inform you at this point that if you tell me you are abusing your partner I will be seeking to report you to the relavent authorities.
Huh??? It was funnier when you had the wrong quote in there. Anyway I have no idea why you are ignoring my point about crimes of passion thinking I am talking about myself. Do you think these do not occur? Jealous lovers, etc?
February 29, 2012, 04:10:37 AM
Quote
I am not talking about sex addiction. I am talking about loving someone (being addicted to them) so much that you go into a fit of rage when they do something you do not like.
I must inform you at this point that if you tell me you are abusing your partner I will be seeking to report you to the relavent authorities.
I'm going to be afk for a few hours before I can resume this conversation, anyone that is facing challenges with drug issues should check out this site:
http://www.narconon.org/
There is hope.
February 29, 2012, 04:09:03 AM
Quote
I am a medical student in my 6th year and I can assure you i can compile a similar list for you for oxygen and water!
Water intoxication is in fact a potential side effect from using this hormone in a medical setting. You dont mess with your body like that just for fun, no matter the substance.
February 29, 2012, 04:08:26 AM
I am not talking about sex addiction. I am talking about loving someone (being addicted to them) so much that you go into a fit of rage when they do something you do not like.
February 29, 2012, 04:06:02 AM
Love (oxytocin)
Oxytocin has many dangerous potential side effects when used in treatment. It should only be used legally under the care of a doctor. Messing with your hormones for recreational purposes is not a smart idea, let your body handle it naturally.
http://www.drugs.com/sfx/oxytocin-side-effects.html
Ha, I was kind of kidding (but mostly not). I meant that addiction is only possible because people are meant to get addicted to certain things, one of them other people. I couldn't easily find stats on crimes of passion but that would be interesting.
And sex addiction is a real problem too. "It's natural" is not an argument in favor. People have a prevalence for violence unless you teach them better too, we don't encourage it.
February 29, 2012, 04:03:34 AM
Every crime is a result of the actions, inactions, or negligence of the human mind. Do you have a substance you would like to debate?
Every crime is a result of law.
But why not. Why do you think LSD should not be avaible for sale in Germany to registered users who after psychiatric evaluation have gotten a letter of consent by a doctor?
http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/lsd/dangers.htm
LSD can trigger psychotic episodes in vulnerable individuals, there is no way for a doctor to rule this out entirely in a patient. If there was some medical purpose, that would be fine if medical science supports it as a good gamble, but not purely for unsupervised recreation. LSD leaves people in a state of hallucinatory intoxication which can and has led to self harm.
February 29, 2012, 04:01:49 AM
Love (oxytocin)
Oxytocin has many dangerous potential side effects when used in treatment. It should only be used legally under the care of a doctor. Messing with your hormones for recreational purposes is not a smart idea, let your body handle it naturally.
http://www.drugs.com/sfx/oxytocin-side-effects.html
Quote
Side Effects by Body System - for Healthcare Professionals
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular side effects have included hypertension, premature ventricular contractions, sinus tachycardia, and other cardiac arrhythmias. Neonatal bradycardia, premature ventricular contractions and other arrhythmias have been reported.
Nervous system
Nervous system side effects have included mania-like disturbances and seizures. The seizures may have been related to water intoxication. Neonatal seizures and permanent CNS or brain damage has been reported.
Metabolic
Metabolic side effects have included water intoxication resulting in coma and seizures.
Hypersensitivity
Hypersensitivity side effects have included anaphylactic reactions.
Genitourinary
Genitourinary side effects have included pelvic hematoma. Excessive doses have produced pelvic fracture, uterine hypertonicity, spasm, tetanic contraction and rupture.
Hematologic
Hematologic side effects have included postpartum hemorrhage and fatal afibrinogenemia.
Hepatic
Hepatic side effects have included neonatal jaundice.
Gastrointestinal
Gastrointestinal side effects have included nausea and vomiting.
Respiratory
Respiratory side effects have included pulmonary edema.
Renal
Renal side effects have included decreases in glomerular filtration rate and renal plasma flow. Doses of 40 milliunits per minute may produce significant decreases in urine output.
Local
Local side effects have included nasal irritation and rhinorrhea.
Ocular
Ocular side effects have included neonatal retinal hemorrhages.
Psychiatric
Psychiatric side effects have included memory impairment and mania in patients on high doses.
General
General side effects have include low Apgar scores at 5 minutes. Fetal death has been reported.
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular side effects have included hypertension, premature ventricular contractions, sinus tachycardia, and other cardiac arrhythmias. Neonatal bradycardia, premature ventricular contractions and other arrhythmias have been reported.
Nervous system
Nervous system side effects have included mania-like disturbances and seizures. The seizures may have been related to water intoxication. Neonatal seizures and permanent CNS or brain damage has been reported.
Metabolic
Metabolic side effects have included water intoxication resulting in coma and seizures.
Hypersensitivity
Hypersensitivity side effects have included anaphylactic reactions.
Genitourinary
Genitourinary side effects have included pelvic hematoma. Excessive doses have produced pelvic fracture, uterine hypertonicity, spasm, tetanic contraction and rupture.
Hematologic
Hematologic side effects have included postpartum hemorrhage and fatal afibrinogenemia.
Hepatic
Hepatic side effects have included neonatal jaundice.
Gastrointestinal
Gastrointestinal side effects have included nausea and vomiting.
Respiratory
Respiratory side effects have included pulmonary edema.
Renal
Renal side effects have included decreases in glomerular filtration rate and renal plasma flow. Doses of 40 milliunits per minute may produce significant decreases in urine output.
Local
Local side effects have included nasal irritation and rhinorrhea.
Ocular
Ocular side effects have included neonatal retinal hemorrhages.
Psychiatric
Psychiatric side effects have included memory impairment and mania in patients on high doses.
General
General side effects have include low Apgar scores at 5 minutes. Fetal death has been reported.
I am a medical student in my 6th year and I can assure you i can compile a similar list for you for oxygen and water!
February 29, 2012, 04:00:59 AM
Love (oxytocin)
Oxytocin has many dangerous potential side effects when used in treatment. It should only be used legally under the care of a doctor. Messing with your hormones for recreational purposes is not a smart idea, let your body handle it naturally.
http://www.drugs.com/sfx/oxytocin-side-effects.html
Ha, I was kind of kidding (but mostly not). I meant that addiction is only possible because people are meant to get addicted to certain things, one of them other people. I couldn't easily find stats on crimes of passion but that would be interesting.
February 29, 2012, 03:54:32 AM
The main problem is that we are too lenient in our criminal penalties. If you make them tough enough, you can really reduce drug use. Take a look Singapore.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay
Quote
With all these efforts, Singapore has one of the lowest prevalence of drug abuse worldwide, even though it has not been entirely eliminated. Over two decades, the number of drug abusers arrested each year has declined by two-thirds, from over 6,000 in the early 1990s to about 2,000 last year (last year=2009). Fewer than two in 10 abusers released from prison or drug rehabilitation centres relapse within two years. We do not have traffickers pushing drugs openly in the streets, nor do we need to run needle exchange centres. Because of our strict laws, Singapore does not have to contend with major drug syndicates linked to organised crime, unlike some other countries.
Is there a reason you think these numbers are particularly trustworthy? Neither of the links in the article worked. I found this:
Quote
CENTRAL NARCOTICS BUREAU DRUG SITUATION REPORT 2011: MORE DRUG ABUSERS ARRESTED AND DRUGS SEIZED AS CNB INTENSIFIED ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS IN 2011
http://www.cnb.gov.sg/drugsituationreport/drugsituationreport2011.aspxIf you follow the link to the complete news release:
It is interesting to figure out "how the number of drug abusers arrested each year has declined by two-thirds" was arrived at.
Jump to: