Legalising more drugs

[Ziggy Stardust]

The problem is that alcohol disables the part of the brain that makes you a responsible person. Once you get smashed, you might not be aware that you're too smashed to drive. Or that you're breaking the law. You're not a bad person; the alcohol short-circuited your wiring.

Alcohol disables the part of my brain that restricts the amount and choice of words comming out of my mouth, not the part that reminds me that I can't drive.

I have faced the choice many times allready and each time it wasn't much of a choice at all. I also do not start stealing, mugging people, cheat on my taxes or any other activity that is against the law.

I would say that a drunk driver would be more prone to the contempt for his own and other's safety. Even when sober, he might be more likely to run a red light, exceed the speed limit. When drunk he'd still get in his car, not because the alcohol short circuited his wiring, but because the wiring was allready or close to short circuiting.

 

[{|}$~\]

Yes you can. An addiction could come under mental health, treatment for which can be forced upon them.

Of course, this means we would *shock horror* distinguish between those who are addicted and need help, and people who use with no problems, and don't need treatment.

Anyone who uses drugs needs to be stopped.

 

[IglooDame]

I stand behind my post a hundred percent, Lucy. Well, I would, but from back there behind the monitor I wouldn't be able to reach the keyboard.

You say you're responsible, that you care for other people. That you will not drink if you're going to drive.

Almost everybody who's ever committed a DUI fatality said the same thing right before they got behind the wheel and killed somebody.

The problem is that alcohol disables the part of the brain that makes you a responsible person. Once you get smashed, you might not be aware that you're too smashed to drive. Or that you're breaking the law. You're not a bad person; the alcohol short-circuited your wiring.

So I'll say it again. Think it over next time you drink a Mike's Hard. I do, every time I drink, on those rare occasions when I do. Now, by all means go ahead and click the Report button if you like.

The implication being that once you start drinking, there's nothing to stop you from getting behind the wheel and heading out? Except for things like planning - only having one drink per hour, having a designated driver, keeping cab fare, drinking where you don't need to drive anywhere to stay the night... You can plan ahead for a lack of judgement. I do.

Aside from all this, someone even at the close-to-fatal-OD level of marijuana intoxication is a heck of a lot less likely to cause harm to someone else than your average person with a sixpack of beer in them.

Anyone who uses drugs needs to be stopped.

Define "stopped" please.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

While you're at it, define "drugs" as well

 

[El_Machinae]

Basketcase would have a point if he could show a significantly higher amount of improper driving while high if the drug was legal. The problem is, of course, is that the people who're going to drive high are already doing so.

And, I don't think anabolic steroids have caused anyone to drive while impaired.

 

[LucyDuke]

I stand behind my post a hundred percent, Lucy. Well, I would, but from back there behind the monitor I wouldn't be able to reach the keyboard.

You say you're responsible, that you care for other people. That you will not drink if you're going to drive.

Almost everybody who's ever committed a DUI fatality said the same thing right before they got behind the wheel and killed somebody.

And almost everybody who's ever committed a murder said they didn't do it.

I do say that, but it really doesn't matter if I say it, and it doesn't really matter if you believe me. The fact is, I don't do it. I've visited every point on the spectrum of drunk, and never have I been remotely tempted to start the car. I don't see how that's going to change, either.

The problem is that alcohol disables the part of the brain that makes you a responsible person. Once you get smashed, you might not be aware that you're too smashed to drive. Or that you're breaking the law. You're not a bad person; the alcohol short-circuited your wiring.

You're giving the drug far too much credit. Alcohol impairs your judgment, sure, but it doesn't change who you are. It doesn't "disable the part of the brain that makes you a responsible person". I'm not going to minimize the significance of impaired judgment and slowed reaction time when operating heavy machinery, but it's not like you magically become an irresponsible criminal after your fourth beer. It's a drug, not a brain transplant.

Sure, after three drinks I might feel okay to drive, but I still know I had three drinks and I still know that that puts me over the legal limit. I also plan ahead and exercise responsibility before I start drinking - arrange a ride home or plan to spend the night.

And I'd like to call BS, although most drunk drivers might not feel like they're too drunk to drive, they usually know they are (or might be) over the legal limit. Drugs don't transform people into law-breaking zombies.

So I'll say it again. Think it over next time you drink a Mike's Hard. I do, every time I drink, on those rare occasions when I do. Now, by all means go ahead and click the Report button if you like.

The reporting comment was a joke, perhaps botched. Mike's Hard Lemonade is disgusting.

But anyway, this is veering off the topic like a drunk off the road. It has nothing to do with lifting restrictions on steroids. Should we start a drunk-driving thread where we can rephrase our points for replies again and again, or can we both just agree that the other is wrong?

Anyone who uses drugs needs to be stopped.

I think you need to be stopped.

 

[Che Guava]

Some interesting food for thought on marijuana and driving...from the US Department of transportation!

":MARIJUANA AND ACTUAL DRIVING PERFORMANCE":
U.S. Department of Transportation,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(DOT HS 808 078), Final Report, November 1993:

"This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate, where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small."

ABSTRACT

Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality. The first was conducted on a highway closed to other traffic. Subjects (24) were treated on separate occasions with THC 100, 200 and 300 g/kg, and placebo. They performed a 22-km road tracking test beginning 30 and 90 minutes after smoking. Their lateral position variability increased significantly after each THC dose relative to placebo in a dose-dependent manner for two hours after smoking. The second study was conducted on a highway in the presence of other traffic. Subjects (16) were treated with the same THC doses as before. They performed a 64-km road tracking test preceded and followed by 16-km car following tests. Results confirmed those of the previous study. Car following performance was only slightly impaired. The third study was conducted in high-density urban traffic. Separate groups of 16 subjects were treated with 100 g/kg THC and placebo; and, ethanol (mean BAC .034 g%) and placebo. Alcohol impaired performance relative to placebo but subjects did not perceive it. THC did not impair driving performance yet the subjects thought it had. These studies show that THC in single inhaled doses up to 300 g/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance.

Anyone who uses drugs needs to be stopped.

Catch me if you can!!!!

 

[Atlas14]

Anyone who uses drugs needs to be stopped.

Same with those tards that tell you from the time you're in kindergarden that mary-J is one of the most destructive drugs and is much worse for you than cigarettes.

 

[Mirc]

I think you need to be stopped.

Hm? I can understand disagreeing with someone's opinions, but saying they should be "stopped" because of their ideas is strange to say the least. And anyway I'll keep advocating for drugs being illegal (including cigarettes, which aren't banned for economic reasons, though they really should be).

 

[CartesianFart]

Same with those tards that tell you from the time you're in kindergarden that mary-J is one of the most destructive drugs and is much worse for you than cigarettes.

Is it true, that in order to protect children from harmful substances that can actually stunt their growth on academic learning, is to deter them by anything necessary (scaring them even if it is not reasonably true in some cases) that can be harmful to achieve their individual goals?

Also, is it wise to tell kids as they are growing up, that using drugs will make them less enthusiastic on being a productive member of society?

Again and lastly, what make you think, except in rare cases, that when a child smoke marijuana, he or she can be moderate in smoking it and balance responsibility at the same time?

On regarding drugs, I like to think children (teens as well) as synonomous to a kid can't keep his or her hand out of a cookie jar even if they are warned not to do so if that cookie is soooo damn delicious.

 

[CartesianFart]

I think you need to be stopped.

I think you need to be encouraged to think otherwise than stating some rediculous positive effect can be made on the legalization of illicit substances that have obviously ruined lives.

 

[Che Guava]

I think you need to be encouraged to think otherwise than stating some rediculous positive effect can be made on the legalization of illicit substances that have obviously ruined lives.

How about taking money away from organized crime? How spending less money on tracking down, litigating, and incarcerating people for drug offenses? How about bringing drug abusers out of the shadows so that health problems associated with them can be properly tackled? How about giving people the right to do what they like with thier own body, if it doesn't hurt others?

 

[LucyDuke]

I think you need to be encouraged to think otherwise than stating some rediculous positive effect can be made on the legalization of illicit substances that have obviously ruined lives.

I think you need a writing class.

 

[Atlas14]

Is it true, that in order to protect children from harmful substances that can actually stunt their growth on academic learning, is to deter them by anything necessary (scaring them even if it is not reasonably true in some cases) that can be harmful to achieve their individual goals?

Lying to the children via drug propaganda isn't harmful to their learning?

Also, is it wise to tell kids as they are growing up, that using drugs will make them less enthusiastic on being a productive member of society?

Define "productive member of society", and tell me how moderate use of drugs makes people less enthusiastic and ambitious.

Again and lastly, what make you think, except in rare cases, that when a child smoke marijuana, he or she can be moderate in smoking it and balance responsibility at the same time?

Observations. Unless you honestly think the only people smoking marijuana are the addicted ones that are in jail for crimes and such.

On regarding drugs, I like to think children (teens as well) as synonomous to a kid can't keep his or her hand out of a cookie jar even if they are warned not to do so if that cookie is soooo damn delicious.

I like to think of people that lie and intentionally exaggerate the effects of drugs as analogous to Fred Phelps.

 

[mdwh]

Anyone who uses drugs needs to be stopped.

Hm? I can understand disagreeing with someone's opinions, but saying they should be "stopped" because of their ideas is strange to say the least. And anyway I'll keep advocating for drugs being illegal (including cigarettes, which aren't banned for economic reasons, though they really should be).

I don't think stopping someone for their ideas is any worse than stopping someone doing something with their own body. And it's less worse, because you are trying to stop other people (hence explicitly interfering with other people), whilst me smoking a cigarette in my private home does not affect you and is none of your business.

But why do they need to be stopped for, say, having a cup of coffee? What should be done to people who break the law, and how does such punishment help whatever problems you see with drugs?

 

[mdwh]

I think you need to be encouraged to think otherwise than stating some rediculous positive effect can be made on the legalization of illicit substances that have obviously ruined lives.

In a few cases, drugs can ruin lives - and criminalising them won't help them.

But criminalising people _definitely_ ruins lives.

So there is an automatic positive effect from removing criminalisation. Due to the obvious adverse affects of criminalisation, the burden is upon you to show significant positive effects that result from criminalisation. Because clearly, it isn't stopping drugs from ruining lives, so I'm wondering what other wonderful benefits it gives to those people?

The law is not even consistent, allowing people to fill their lungs with cigarette smoke, or roam the streets drunkenly violent, when other drugs which may be less harmful our criminalised. It's only this way because so many people enjoy drink and cigarettes, thus the law unfairly penalises the minority who take other drugs.

 

[LucyDuke]

Hm? I can understand disagreeing with someone's opinions, but saying they should be "stopped" because of their ideas is strange to say the least. And anyway I'll keep advocating for drugs being illegal (including cigarettes, which aren't banned for economic reasons, though they really should be).

My comment was pretty juvenile. We haven't defined "stopped", but what I had in mind is that this guy shouldn't be allowed to impose his views on other people. If he's butting into other peoples' business, he should be stopped.

 

[CartesianFart]

How about taking money away from organized crime? How spending less money on tracking down, litigating, and incarcerating people for drug offenses?

I find that we are doing these type of things that you have listed and the very fact it most cases it have no effect on the crime rate associate with drugs. It kinda goes up and down over the years due to not because there are more people doing drugs but the availablitily of it and the prices being accomodated to whatever drugs suited to whatever income of specific targeted customers.

The thing is that I am always a strong advocate of legalizing marijuana as we do with alcohol and put more strong emphasis of custom and border control against trafficking of heroine and cocaine. But that is my opinion and a total subject matter for another debate.

How about bringing drug abusers out of the shadows so that health problems associated with them can be properly tackled?

I agree with you on that policy as long as the person volunteer to seek treatment. Otherwise it is more of a case of an individual committing a crime (whether it be burgalry, theft or other crimes while under influence or seeking to get money to continue their vices) and using drugs as some kind of a disease that made them do it. I don't buy that at all since I was a hard drug user and never stoled from other people or take advantage of them in a way that is against the law.

A person in possesion of a drug and being charged with the intent to sell is hard for me to be convinced if I was a jury in a criminal court. Unless circumstances is provided that the person is a user and not a dealer is a sure challenge for any attorney if you ask me.

How about giving people the right to do what they like with thier own body, if it doesn't hurt others?

How about someone using drugs to the mere point of addiction and using illegal means to obtain and continue the addiction? Does that argument have no meaning for you?

I think you need a writing class.

Hell, while I am being taught the art of writing by you, I might as well turn in the favor for you by teaching you the art of reason since you lack that department!

Lying to the children via drug propaganda isn't harmful to their learning?

I can say "white" propaganda, but I might have to concede your point on that.

I do have to tell you that what way can we teach children in such a way that to inform them that using drugs (some drugs[MARY JANE FOR EXAMPLE]) is not in the sense harmful, but can be dangerous if not used moderately?

Define "productive member of society",

Not to be too parochial, it can mean that a person who obeys the laws and works for a living and pay taxes.

and tell me how moderate use of drugs makes people less enthusiastic and ambitious.

I didn't say that. I mean that using drugs moderately can allow a person to be enthusiastic and still be ambitious. Most kids are not, in my opinion, are moderate when it comes to alot of things that produce pleasure in their bodies.

Observations. Unless you honestly think the only people smoking marijuana are the addicted ones that are in jail for crimes and such.

I didn't mean that.

I like to think of people that lie and intentionally exaggerate the effects of drugs as analogous to Fred Phelps.

I am no Fred Phelps. I hope you don't see me as being so.

 

[CartesianFart]

In a few cases, drugs can ruin lives - and criminalising them won't help them.

I see it that some drugs can ruin lives and some other drugs ruin lives of many. I find that the act of criminalizing the drug that ruins the lives of the many that uses that specific drug should be criminalized.

But criminalising people _definitely_ ruins lives.

It also criminalize society if all people uses it. I don't understand what you are going at, but feel free to elucidate these precepts,if that is what you are implying. I find it interesting.

So there is an automatic positive effect from removing criminalisation. Due to the obvious adverse affects of criminalisation, the burden is upon you to show significant positive effects that result from criminalisation. Because clearly, it isn't stopping drugs from ruining lives, so I'm wondering what other wonderful benefits it gives to those people?

I find that you saying that eliminating the criminalizing of drugs will positively effect society better than the existing one that prevail today unconvincing and unfinished.

The law is not even consistent, allowing people to fill their lungs with cigarette smoke, or roam the streets drunkenly violent, when other drugs which may be less harmful our criminalised. It's only this way because so many people enjoy drink and cigarettes, thus the law unfairly penalises the minority who take other drugs.

I think you are focusing on "minority" to such minute detail that you fail to see what you are arguing about. Are you saying that the reason of banning cocaine and other addictive substance are just another way of oppressing the "minority" of the drug using culture? If so, then I conclude that is just downright absurd!

 

[Che Guava]

Yo ho ho! Looks like we agree on more than I thought

I find that we are doing these type of things that you have listed and the very fact it most cases it have no effect on the crime rate associate with drugs. It kinda goes up and down over the years due to not because there are more people doing drugs but the availablitily of it and the prices being accomodated to whatever drugs suited to whatever income of specific targeted customers.

The thing is that I am always a strong advocate of legalizing marijuana as we do with alcohol and put more strong emphasis of custom and border control against trafficking of heroine and cocaine. But that is my opinion and a total subject matter for another debate.

Sounds like good reasoning to me. I like the dutch approach: legalize the softs, filter it away from the hards, and treat the illegals like we would counterfit purses: stop them at the border, stop them from selling on the street but don't chase down every woman with a fake prada under her arm.

I agree with you on that policy as long as the person volunteer to seek treatment. Otherwise it is more of a case of an individual committing a crime (whether it be burgalry, theft or other crimes while under influence or seeking to get money to continue their vices) and using drugs as some kind of a disease that made them do it. I don't buy that at all since I was a hard drug user and never stoled from other people or take advantage of them in a way that is against the law.

There's no excuse, drugs or otherwise, for committing burglary or any of that nonsense, but I think we should punish them for the crime, not the drug. I sincerely belive that if some of the stigma were taken away from addictive drugs, people would be more likely to seek real help instead of getting into a cycle of crime and incarceration to feed addictions.

But it does further than the law. We need to accept that there are serious drug addicts in our society, and simply leaving them to kill themselves slowly (while possibly hurting other people in the process) isn't the right answer. Safe injection sites help stop the spread of AIDS and Hep C, more readily availible methadone could encourage people to get off heroin while still calming thier demons, and GOOD INFORMATION for god's sake!

How about someone using drugs to the mere point of addiction and using illegal means to obtain and continue the addiction? Does that argument have no meaning for you?

Again, I think an attitude of "You have the right to intoxicate yourself, but you are responsible for your actions no matter what" seems to be the most logical solution here. If someone has to steal to feed thier addiction, charge them with stealing. If they get in a car an kill someone, charge them with manslaughter. Put them through the system like you would anyone else, with the exception that you offer them addiction counselling.