The most valid point in favour of drug legalisation

[AlpsStranger]

No drugs. No alcohol. No Call of Duty. No fried chicken.

My political position is now "anti-busybody" more than left or right.

I guess we'll all just sit around playing checkers and eating rice cakes.

B*stards.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You're a strange one Janig.

 

[Borachio]

Youre fully agreeing that there should be no consensus on life.

I'm very intrigued. Can you unpack this for me, please?

How does the idea that one has sovereignty over one's own body imply that there should be no consensus on life?

I'm not really sure what "consensus on life" means.

 

[warpus]

Personally I think the best thing about legalizing pot is how hard it is going to hit all the biker & other gangs who make millions moving the stuff and selling it.

A huge chunk of their income, just gone.

There's also the whole "People will not have to associate with shady characters to acquire pot anymore" angle. That is going to save a lot of lives and keep a lot of people out of trouble and future criminal activity.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Yeah, but what about our "morals?" You know, that word people use to describe stuff that has eff all to do with good and evil but allows them to sound righteous when bossing other people around.

 

[Hygro]

I would love it if you could go to night clubs and instead of everyone around you was getting drunk because they want a little extra that night, they could buy pure, appropriately dosed and tested MDMA. Taken irregularly it is safer than alcohol. Additionally, it creates a safer and healthier vibe where people gather. This is especially true when compared to alcohol.

And it provides most of what people want when they augment their dancing with substances, plus a whole lot more.

Those nightclubs would be awesome. You could go 100% sober and they'd be way better than the clubs you have now. My favorite experiences going out like that have been when I've been 100% sober.

Common consensus among those I've talked to will agree that random strangers you meet while drunk, who you think you really want to become friends with, almost never create real and lasting friendships. Or even lead to meeting up ever again despite being totally motivated at the time of meeting. However with MDMA you meet and make lasting friends, because you're actually smart enough to be yourself while in a healthy place to know to connect with the right people for who you are.

Pretty interesting stuff. Also, this: It was commissioned by the UK government, which subsequently and ideologically ignored its findings. In fact it commissions this study fairly often and proceeds to ignore it every time. Weird, huh? Note that "MDMA" is listed as "Ecstasy" in this article.

 

[Janig]

Hygro that's very similar to what Ziggy Stardust wrote

Im starting the poll in The Tavern forum so people can legitimately write whatever. The staff are nowhere to be seen on this forum. Ofcourse this topic can still serve as a discussion point.

*

Warpus that's very similar to what Ziggy Stardust wrote

*

This isnt the idiots guide to english topic chumpo, go to school.

Going around in circles so poll: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=488068

 

[Borachio]

This isnt the idiots guide to english topic chumpo, go to school.

Weeeeell. Thanks very much. I already know I'm an idiot.

But, by all that's most highly chumpish, what on earth does "consensus for life" mean?

I've honestly never encountered the phrase before.

I understand the individual words, of course, but they don't add up to anything together for me. It's not at all easy to think of what you might mean by it.

Can you really not be bothered to explain, please?

A google search reveals nothing. I suspect it may be a phrase of your own devising.

Yeah, but what about our "morals?" You know, that word people use to describe stuff that has eff all to do with good and evil but allows them to sound righteous when bossing other people around.

This is an absolutely central point, imo. And I'm with you all the way on this one, I think.

Morality is, for me, an exclusively personal thing. That is to say: what I believe is right or wrong for me to do, personally, has no effect (ideally - there may be a little mission creep from time to time, I'll have to admit) on what I believe others should or shouldn't do. That is entirely their own affair. As my morality is entirely my own affair.

This doesn't mean that I can't discuss with others what we think about the morality of certain issues, does it?

For good or bad, this position means I'm effectively excluded from any legislative or judicial position. But, to be honest, I don't think I was ever in the running for anything like that anyway.

Does this make sense?

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Butane? I haven't burnt my fingers lighting a bong or other drug paraphernalia in years. Amateurs.

 

[Janig]

poll: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=488068

'Monitoring drugs allows users more rights and protection' is currently leading with 4 poll votes, and 3 more votes in this topic. However, the pioneers who first tried drugs didnt try them to allow users more rights and protection; they cant have, because there were no previous users. So the logic behind 'Monitoring drugs allows users more rights and protection' doesnt make sense yet

...

What part of 'go to school' dont you understand? As far as Im aware I wont get any credit for helping you, I dont like your attitude, and Ive got better things to do.

 

[Borachio]

Butane is popular among solvent sniffers, isn't it?

Solvents are (or used to be) one of the most popular and insidious ways for young people to get out of their heads. Extremely contra-indicated.

I used to wonder what I found so fascinating about assembling Airfix models. 'Twas the glue.

I remember some guy had a court order against him for frequenting a service station forecourt and repeatedly sniffing the petrol nozzles.

 

[Stapel]

It is if what you put in your body is likely to make you a threat or a burden to society. Outcomes should always matter more than vague and simplistic principles.

First of all, principles are exactly what they are for: good to start with. Being in charge of one's own body is neither a vague nor a simplistic principle. It's a pretty universal principle!

However, any principle has it limits. The boundaries of freedom are set by circumstances AND other principles, whether we like that or not. Another fine, and universally accepted principle is that one cannot hurt others. If two principles collide, we need to think which one is stronger.

Well, I agree with you that if my personal way of recreation would harm (or be likely to harm) others, it should be banned. Yet, we should not forget that it is far, far, far too easy to blame the use of drugs in it self. If I drink too much, it is none of your business. If I drink & drive, it is. If I wanna smoke pot, it is none of your business. If the use of it causes me to become a liability for society, it is.

 

[The_J]

[...]

[...]

Moderator Action: Due to this and other recents incidents someone just earned himself a 2 weeks ban.
Thanks for your attention, and proceed please.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

The most valid point should be evidence whether a certain policy makes does more harm than good.



It is if what you put in your body is likely to make you a threat or a burden to society. Outcomes should always matter more than vague and simplistic principles.

By that line of reasoning, one could defends eugenics.

 

[Berzerker]

has prohibition reduced drug consumption?

seems like a valid question for prohibitionists

this country is the biggest drug dealer on the planet and we're waging a war on pot smokers

the stench of hypocrisy would repel starving vultures

 

[GoodSarmatian]

By that line of reasoning, one could defends eugenics.

Yes.
So ?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yes.
So ?

Which just shows how utilitarianism is destructive, evil, and not even considered by people with any legitimate moral compass.

In any case, at the thread title, this is fairly obvious. Government shouldn't be regulating what chemicals you choose to put into your body.

"Threat to society" is irrelevant becasue you can't punish pre-crime. You aren't a criminal until you victimize someone.

"Burden to society" is irrelevant because forcing society to pay for the addict is also immoral, and if people voluntarily choose to support addicts than that is their choice.

 

[Hygro]

Which just shows how utilitarianism is destructive, evil, and not even considered by people with any legitimate moral compass.

In any case, at the thread title, this is fairly obvious. Government shouldn't be regulating what chemicals you choose to put into your body.

"Threat to society" is irrelevant becasue you can't punish pre-crime. You aren't a criminal until you victimize someone.

"Burden to society" is irrelevant because forcing society to pay for the addict is also immoral, and if people voluntarily choose to support addicts than that is their choice.

So you've abandoned libertarianism eh?

 

[GhostWriter16]

From your article:

On the subject of fornication and gambling, Mill has no conclusive answer, stating, "[t]here are arguments on both sides."[50] He suggests that while the actions might be "tolerated" in private, promoting the actions (i.e. being a pimp or keeping a gambling house) "should not be permitted."[51] He reaches a similar conclusion with acts of indecency, concluding that public indecency is condemnable.[52]

Some libertarian

 

[Hygro]

You're rolling your eyes but he started the entire philosophy...