223 replies to this topic

[frostz]

You haven't demonstrated that an increase in drug use under the circumstances surrounding legalization would be a bad thing.
It is there that your argument collapses, because it has no foundation.

Im gona take a stab at this

"under the circumstances surrounding legalization"
-Based upon what was posted by previous members, im gona guess that the circumstances surrounding legalization is essentially the protection of people who already use drugs by
1) keeping people who smoke weed for example from being thrown in prison,
2) to make sure that drug users who want to be rehabilitated receive a legal place to go to for help without fear of being thrown into jail.
3) to provide better education for the use of drugs

I completely agree that based upon this standpoint the legalization of drugs is a good thing. when we are trying to protect the users

But from the standpoint of protecting non drug users its not.
1) Instead of legalizing all drugs, it would be better in the case of weed to make the decrease punishment for possessing certain amounts of it. making it so that posessing weed wouldn't get you thrown in jail or lose scholarships as someone else here stated.
2) I cannot comment on this as i don't know how current drug rehabilitation centers work. Do people there get thrown in jail because obviously they use drugs after they are rehabilitated? no idea someone will have to enlighten me here.
3)we already have drug education yet people still use drugs. The only thing that prevents the group of people that ive mentioned over and over again from getting drugs is that it isnt legalized.

His argument is also based on opinion therefore rendering it dismissable... If you provide some details that justify your belief that legalising drug use would increase the amount of drug users then maybe it would hold some ground. Maybe take a look at the drug laws in the Netherlands, mainly Amsterdamn. They have a very lax approach to drug use and I'm fairly sure (can't be arsed to search for any evidence as I don't currently have time) that they didn't witness a significant rise in drug users (other than the tourists that go there for the sole reason that cannabis use is tolerated... ok maybe for the whores as well but you know what I mean).

Edit:

And in my personal experience/opinion if people want to experiment with drugs they will experiment with drugs regardless of the laws surrounding them. There are also people who do not want to experiment with drugs and will not experiment with drugs regardless of the law.

At the end of the day there is no right or wrong answer here, it all boils down to each individuals opinion and motivation for them to rally their side of the argument.

Yes it is based on opinion, but if i have time later ill go take a look at this and see if i can provide any statistical evidence.

Edited by frostz, 20 May 2011 - 07:59 AM.

[Sweeney]

Im gona take a stab at this

"under the circumstances surrounding legalization"
-Based upon what was posted by previous members, im gona guess that the circumstances surrounding legalization is essentially the protection of people who already use drugs by
1) keeping people who smoke weed for example from being thrown in prison,
2) to make sure that drug users who want to be rehabilitated receive a legal place to go to for help without fear of being thrown into jail.
3) to provide better education for the use of drugs

I completely agree that based upon this standpoint the legalization of drugs is a good thing. when we are trying to protect the users

But from the standpoint of protecting non drug users its not.
1) Instead of legalizing all drugs, it would be better in the case of weed to make the decrease punishment for possessing certain amounts of it. making it so that posessing weed wouldn't get you thrown in jail or lose scholarships as someone else here stated.
2) I cannot comment on this as i don't know how current drug rehabilitation centers work. Do people there get thrown in jail because obviously they use drugs after they are rehabilitated? no idea someone will have to enlighten me here.
3)we already have drug education yet people still use drugs. The only thing that prevents the group of people that ive mentioned over and over again from getting drugs is that it isnt legalized.



Yes it is based on opinion, but if i have time later ill go take a look at this and see if i can provide any statistical evidence.

You still haven't said why it would be bad. At all.

[danielfromburn]

You still haven't said why it would be bad. At all.

Can't help but agree.

[Kat]

Can't help but agree.

Only one more to go.

[frostz]

You still haven't said why it would be bad. At all.

i don't know what you are looking for, i gave the reasons for why its good to legalize drugs,

and i also gave the reasons why legalization from the standpoint of protecting those who do not use drugs is bad.. because it would allow them access, which could lead to addiction...(see my previous posts on this topic because im tired of retyping the same argument over and over again)

its two different view points, and i wont be able to convince you that its bad if you are only looking at it from the standpoint of the protection of those who do use drugs..

which is why i proposed a middle ground on weed in one of my points.

Edited by frostz, 20 May 2011 - 08:31 AM.

[Sweeney]

i don't know what you are looking for, i gave the reasons for why its good to legalize drugs,

and i also gave the reasons why legalization from the standpoint of protecting those who do not use drugs is bad.. because it would allow them access, which could lead to addiction...(see my previous posts on this topic because im tired of retyping the same argument over and over again)

its two different view points, and i wont be able to convince you that its bad if you are only looking at it from the standpoint of the protection of those who do use drugs..

which is why i proposed a middle ground on weed in one of my points.

You've suggested that growing use is bad, but you have not said why.
I don't recall you referencing higher rates of addiction in your replies to me at all. Perhaps you could explain why higher rates of addiction are likely, and why they would outweigh the benefits of a legalised framework?

[Surrico]

As far as the topic of legalization goes

Since i am concerned with preventing an increase of smokers, by legalizing it this population of law abiding people who want to smoke but don't would then increase the smoking population which would be directly against the entire premise of my argument.

I mean, like i said i've been going at this from the standpoint of all drugs not so much that of weed which is just what seems to have become the dominant part of the debate. I don't think it should be legalized weed or anything else, for the good of these people.

Going back to the primary topic of all drugs if we are not only legalizing weed but everything else as well (heroin, meph, etc) do you really want the law abiding, as well as the ignorant to get their hands on them? Even if they were doing these drugs in private and not in public places, they are probably gona get addicted and as their tolerance rises, there would still be an illegal trade for these substances. Because they won't be able to obtain increasing amounts from the government approved pharmacies

As you can see by not legalizing it, we prevent the law abiding and ignorant from beginning on the path of this spiral of addiction. Its not simply about whether or not we should "legalize weed" to protect people who already use it, but rather to protect those who do not.


Again, my argument is that its not about protecting those who do drugs already, but to protect those who do not. Because of the harmful nature of the addiction of drugs.
__

As far as the smells thing goes, i have one last thing to say about it

Let us assume that you are a person who had never physically seen soup before(with your eyes) nor smelled them before and were only given chicken broth to smell and see as an experiment and were told that it is a kind of soup. You are blind folded and given two soups to smell, being told that they are both soups of course.

One of them you have never smelled before (beef broth)
The other you have smelled prior to the experiment, chicken broth

You can smell two kinds of soup, and you would know that they different, but without knowing that one is beef broth since you have never encountered it, you would simply classify them both as soup.

You might know that there are two different aromas, but to a person who does not know what soup is and have never encountered soup till now, it must simply be a variation of the first soup. Same as with tobacco, you might think that it is a different brand of cigarette that creates the distinctly different aroma. I know the analogy is kinda spotty but i cant think of another way to articulate this idea atm,

Anything in excess could lead to addiction. I've seen on TV's lately about how the youth is now spending 8 hours plus using media and how that they may be addicted to it. The point is for an addiction to happen you have to have a lot of the addicting substance (above case would be TV/Games/Music etc). But we cannot say for certain that the legalization would increase addiction. It would be dependent on their regulations. Such as how much and how often a person can buy drugs. From friends that I know use they've said that the first time you try weed (which I think we focused on for a while because it's been called a "gateway drug" ) you don't get a buzz like people would expect you to.

The analogy to the smell thing was a little out there (no offense) but I can get what your saying. Someone that hasn't smelled tobacco or pot wouldn't know the difference from tobacco and tobacco with some kind of aromatic in it like mint.

And in my personal experience/opinion if people want to experiment with drugs they will experiment with drugs regardless of the laws surrounding them. There are also people who do not want to experiment with drugs and will not experiment with drugs regardless of the law.

At the end of the day there is no right or wrong answer here, it all boils down to each individuals opinion and motivation for them to rally their side of the argument.

I just have to agree with that. If you truly want anything there is a way to obtain it. Might cost a lot of money but it is possible.


Edit: Found a free e-book that I'll read tonight about how treatment centers work for curing people and let you know what I find.

Edited by Surrico, 20 May 2011 - 09:05 AM.

[frostz]

Anything in excess could lead to addiction. I've seen on TV's lately about how the youth is now spending 8 hours plus using media and how that they may be addicted to it. The point is for an addiction to happen you have to have a lot of the addicting substance (above case would be TV/Games/Music etc). But we cannot say for certain that the legalization would increase addiction. It would be dependent on their regulations. Such as how much and how often a person can buy drugs. From friends that I know use they've said that the first time you try weed (which I think we focused on for a while because it's been called a "gateway drug" ) you don't get a buzz like people would expect you to.

The analogy to the smell thing was a little out there (no offense) but I can get what your saying. Someone that hasn't smelled tobacco or pot wouldn't know the difference from tobacco and tobacco with some kind of aromatic in it like mint.



I just have to agree with that. If you truly want anything there is a way to obtain it. Might cost a lot of money but it is possible.


Edit: Found a free e-book that I'll read tonight about how treatment centers work for curing people and let you know what I find.

Well the difference between getting addicted to a computer and getting addicted to drugs is that drugs actually alter the chemicals and pathways in your brain, which would result in chemically induced physical and mental symptoms.

whereas if even though you can suffer withdrawal from not playing computer games or watching tv, its not something that could ultimately prove harmful to your body.

And how much substance you need to become addicted probably varies from person to person. You could probably get hooked on your first or second try, once you realize you cant reproduce the feelings through other means.

[Sweeney]

Well the difference between getting addicted to a computer and getting addicted to drugs is that drugs actually alter the chemicals and pathways in your brain, which would result in chemically induced physical and mental symptoms.

whereas if even though you can suffer withdrawal from not playing computer games or watching tv, its not something that could ultimately prove harmful to your body.

Sorry, but that's plain wrong. Psychological addiction can be just as harmful as chemical addiction.

[frostz]

Sorry, but that's plain wrong. Psychological addiction can be just as harmful as chemical addiction.

i stated harmful to your body. Yea i guess you could starve yourself to death sitting in front of your computer screen or something and ruin your life, but its not gona have, as i made a point of saying, physical effects in and of itself caused when you stop playing video games.

[WharfRat]

Weed is easier to get most likely because once they find their source, they will have a constant supply from which you can go to to personally pick up whereas for alcohol you would always need to get someone else to buy it for you from the store. I am arguing that if you legalize weed then those who do not have access will now be able to get their hands on it whereas before to even begin you would need to find someone who already smokes weed, and then get them to reveal their source. I don't have proof to back this up of course but its from a logical conclusion in my opinion.

Your whole statement here is so fragmented... in the first half you say that weed is easier to get than alcohol because once you have a source, you have a source where as alcohol, you can (mostly) only buy it from a store which will ID you... but in the second half of this argument, you say that legalizing marijuana will make it easier to get because it will be available in a store like alcohol where they ID you...? I mean your entire point here is contradictory.

Again i state that bad for you does not necessarily mean that the drug has to be fatal. Bad can refer to "destroying your life" for example.

and again I will remind you that many things in life are bad for you in excess. Smoking, drinking, fucking, eating, and gambling to name a few.

You would not suffer from physical withdrawal symptoms if you stop playing your computer. See meph users.

I presume that was a typo and you meant "meth" users and not "meph" users to reference users of mephedrone (4-methylmethcathinone, a recent designer drug that exploded across several countries) To which I'd first like to point out that you are wrong again. Methamphetamine is a psychological addiction. I promise that I know very well as methamphetamine was my drug of choice and the core of my addiction before I got clean.

Playing computer games wouldn't have a direct chemical effect on your brain, you may want to play it but it wouldn't hurt you if you stopped. You are merely gaining a sort of satisfaction that you cannot get otherwise same as with chemical drugs, but stopping the game doesn't produce any harmful physical effects.

i stated harmful to your body. Yea i guess you could starve yourself to death sitting in front of your computer screen or something and ruin your life, but its not gona have, as i made a point of saying, physical effects in and of itself caused when you stop playing video games.

I'd like to point out here that the only drugs that DO have serious physical withdrawals (as your quote showed) are alcohol, opiates, and benzodiazepines. Oddly, all three of those groups are legalized and the last two are used medicinally at a very high occurrence. Secondly, all addiction is based upon a direct chemical effect. As a brief overview without going into too much detail... the chemical dopamine is the one primarily associated with pleasure in the brain. If you associate video games with pleasure and become addicted to them, suddenly stopping will cause you to experience those "psychological withdrawals" as your brain has grown accustomed to an external stimulus to get the dopamine pumping. All addiction is chemical in nature.

Finally, I'll leave you with a quote that belonged in my signature for a few years. "We are all chemical slaves. Whether you're triggering your dopamine, serotonin, epinephrine, norepenephrine, and/or endocannabinoid receptors synthetically (by the use of drugs) or naturally in every day life is essentially irrelevant. They're the same damn chemicals, shades of the same emotions, alternate avenues to a common reality. Say what you will about the sweet miracles of unquestioning faith or undying love, but from my perspective, nothing truly transcends our inherent chemical romance."

[Sweeney]

i stated harmful to your body. Yea i guess you could starve yourself to death sitting in front of your computer screen or something and ruin your life, but its not gona have, as i made a point of saying, physical effects in and of itself caused when you stop playing video games.

Your ignorance is astounding.

Cody just laid what I believe is commonly known as "the smackdown" on you.

[frostz]

well then instead of just saying how my arguments against legalizing drugs are completely stupid and deconstructing everything i say

lets hear what you think the effects of legalizing drugs would be on the general population... non users, users, and would be users alike. As well as your argument for for why you think drug use and addiction wouldn't increase with legalization...

I know you already covered subjects such as how harmful each drug as well as how overdosage could be prevented is and such like in your previous long post but i dont think this answer was completely and directly answered. If it was then please direct me to where you talked about it.

Edited by frostz, 20 May 2011 - 12:29 PM.

[Abradix]

I'm not sure if frost is trying to play devils advocate, or if he's really just that stupid...

I'm astounded how many people without any experience behind them feel that they should get a say. I could look up the 10 signs of addiction, point out how many WoW players meet them more than regular marijuana users, make a solid grounded argument... But from the past 5 or 6 pages of this thread I can already tell it would be an effort in futility.

Stop believing everything you're told. That is all.

[frostz]

I'm not sure if frost is trying to play devils advocate, or if he's really just that stupid...

I'm astounded how many people without any experience behind them feel that they should get a say. I could look up the 10 signs of addiction, point out how many WoW players meet them more than regular marijuana users, make a solid grounded argument... But from the past 5 or 6 pages of this thread I can already tell it would be an effort in futility.

Stop believing everything you're told. That is all.

It wouldnt be a debate if i end up agreeing to everything you say.. I came up with a standpoint from which i would argue. And i did concede on various points that other posters made in contradiction to my argument (see the subject of weed, i agreed that despite the fact that i am in support of keeping drugs illegal, i would concede that weed is harmless enough to warrant lesser punishment). Thats what a debate is, is it not? to convince the other party or a third party that you are right..

Edited by frostz, 20 May 2011 - 12:33 PM.

[Abradix]

A debate includes facts. Debating from a personal standpoint, solely from your own experiences? You're doing it wrong. Especially when you've stated that you've had no experience with the issue at hand. All I'm seeing from you is recycled puke from a DARE officer.

[frostz]

A debate includes facts. Debating from a personal standpoint, solely from your own experiences? You're doing it wrong. Especially when you've stated that you've had no experience with the issue at hand. All I'm seeing from you is recycled puke from a DARE officer.

most of my posts were debating against others who were arguing from a theoretical standpoint, i concede immediately to anyone who provides hard evidence and change my argument to accommodate it.

[Abradix]

I've found most of this thread silly. You can't compare cocaine/alcohol deaths when one is legal and the other isn't... So most of the thread ends up being theoretical. But to deny that video games can cause addiction and destroy lives? My friend has been going to work, playing WoW until bed, going back to work for about 3 years now... There are countless other cases of exactly the same thing. People will choose their own path to destruction regardless of what the government does to try and stop it (and making money in the process... neat how that works) so why not let us be adults and choose what we want to put into our bodies?

2012 will roll around, Ron Paul will get elected, everyone will be forced to take a hit of DMT, the world will find peace, humanity will finally become a singularity.

[Madcowz]

A debate includes facts. Debating from a personal standpoint, solely from your own experiences? You're doing it wrong. Especially when you've stated that you've had no experience with the issue at hand. All I'm seeing from you is recycled puke from a DARE officer.

This.


Frostz you need to form some of your own opinions on this stuff with fact. You seem to be absorbing propaganda and you can't get it off your mind that "drugs are just bad, mmk". I was like you once though, I was tricked too for a while, then i smoked a few blunts...

[frostz]

I've found most of this thread silly. You can't compare cocaine/alcohol deaths when one is legal and the other isn't... So most of the thread ends up being theoretical. But to deny that video games can cause addiction and destroy lives? My friend has been going to work, playing WoW until bed, going back to work for about 3 years now... There are countless other cases of exactly the same thing. People will choose their own path to destruction regardless of what the government does to try and stop it (and making money in the process... neat how that works) so why not let us be adults and choose what we want to put into our bodies?

2012 will roll around, Ron Paul will get elected, everyone will be forced to take a hit of DMT, the world will find peace, humanity will finally become a singularity.

I didn't deny that video games could cause addiction and destroy lives. I know from personal experience that it can disrupt my life, but video games themselves wouldn't cause a physical effect on your body barring things that you do to yourself like not sleeping etc..is what i was saying. I mean it could cause a psychological effect sure, but you probably wouldn't die from a video game playing binge unless you forgot to eat or something.

Part of my basis for not letting people choose what they can put into their bodies is as i state again what happened during the Opium wars in china. Lets ignore the political parts of this, and focus on how Opium destroyed many chinese lives with addicts numbering to about 30-40 mil in the mid 19th century. Even though China's population at the time was like around 400 million, 40 million is still a lot and it just goes to show that people can't control themselves

I'd like to point out here that the only drugs that DO have serious physical withdrawals (as your quote showed) are alcohol, opiates, and benzodiazepines. Oddly, all three of those groups are legalized and the last two are used medicinally at a very high occurrence. Secondly, all addiction is based upon a direct chemical effect. As a brief overview without going into too much detail... the chemical dopamine is the one primarily associated with pleasure in the brain. If you associate video games with pleasure and become addicted to them, suddenly stopping will cause you to experience those "psychological withdrawals" as your brain has grown accustomed to an external stimulus to get the dopamine pumping. All addiction is chemical in nature.

Chemical in nature yes, but in the case of video games you arn't putting outside chemicals into yourself.

Edited by frostz, 20 May 2011 - 01:06 PM.

[Ziz]

I agree that legalization would help develop some countries economy, bring higher quality options, and it could help develop more help fr people with drug problems.
However it wouldn't stop illegal drug trade, and it is very likely that consume could increase.
It would make it easier for some people to get into drugs because people would have another barrier lifted if it were legal to use them (Some people think it twice just because that).

And BTW, I see frostz posts in almost every topic lately.

[Madcowz]

I agree that legalization would help develop some countries economy, bring higher quality options, and it could help develop more help fr people with drug problems.
However it wouldn't stop illegal drug trade, and it is very likely that consume could increase.
It would make it easier for some people to get into drugs because people would have another barrier lifted if it were legal to use them (Some people think it twice just because that).

And BTW, I see frostz posts in almost every topic lately.

You see a lot of alcohol dealers lately?

[Ziz]

You see a lot of alcohol dealers lately?

Illegal drug trade would keep going.
You legalize marijuana, you'll have heroin and cocaine illegal dealers.
You legalize those and you'll have meth dealers.

You legalize every single drug, and there would still be an illegal market that offers them for a cheaper prize.

Legalization wouldn't be a solution to illegal drug trade or drug consumption.

[giraffe]

I agree that legalization would help develop some countries economy, bring higher quality options, and it could help develop more help fr people with drug problems.
However it wouldn't stop illegal drug trade, and it is very likely that consume could increase.
It would make it easier for some people to get into drugs because people would have another barrier lifted if it were legal to use them (Some people think it twice just because that).

And BTW, I see frostz posts in almost every topic lately.

It would decrease deaths via overdose because of standardization. It would decrease addiction because people would be able to get help more easily. It would decrease the drug trafficking because it wouldn't be necessary. If drugs are legal, they'll get CHEAPER because there's no risk with selling and no desperation in buying. There's no risk to the seller, so people won't pay as much. There will be fewer addicted people, so they won't pay as much. Also, people will be able to get the drugs legally, so why would they buy via black market where there are risks from bad product to gang warfare to legal issues?

And actually, there IS a chance that it would decrease use, because there are people that do it precisely because it's illegal (don't pretend you've never had that mentality where you want to do something because you shouldn't). It would lose some of it's mystery and appeal if it were legal. Not that I really believe this is what would happen, but it's possible.

And Frostz has been the subject of a few topics, himself

[WharfRat]

well then instead of just saying how my arguments against legalizing drugs are completely stupid and deconstructing everything i say

lets hear what you think the effects of legalizing drugs would be on the general population... non users, users, and would be users alike. As well as your argument for for why you think drug use and addiction wouldn't increase with legalization...

I know you already covered subjects such as how harmful each drug as well as how overdosage could be prevented is and such like in your previous long post but i dont think this answer was completely and directly answered. If it was then please direct me to where you talked about it.

I did in fact cover a lot of those subjects in great depth in my previous post, but I suppose I can still respond. (Despite that I just got off work an hour and a half ago, after working 100 hours this week...)

I know that generally the burden of proof in upon he who is advocating for change, however, I feel that for a law to be in place, it should be able to be justified... which is something that you have completely failed to do.

I am not a palm reader and I have no crystal ball, so I cannot tell you accurately what the world would look like if drugs were legalized. I could sit and speculate all day about what I would do and how I would predict things working out, but that isn't very scientific.

The most scientific approach I can come up with is to look at the crime and drug usage rates of countries that have decriminalized soft drugs such as the Netherlands.

To cite my sources, the american stats below are from the SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) and the dutch statistics are from the Trimbos Institute.

% admitted to smoking cannabis

Within the last year;
United States: 10.3%
The Netherlands: 5.4%


Within their lifetime;

United States: 41.0%
The Netherlands: 22.6%

So looking at a model of education, treatment, and decriminalization we could predict that drug usage over the next ~20 years would actually DECREASE as there is no longer a social incentive for those looking to rebel and proper education is provided.

I suppose for shits and giggles we can also look at the crime rate...

Netherlands:
Murders (per capita) 0.0111538 per 1,000 people
Rapes (per capita) 0.100445 per 1,000 people
Car thefts (per capita) 2.33559 per 1,000 people

USA:
Murders (per capita) 0.042802 per 1,000 people (3.8x as many as The Netherlands)
Rapes (per capita) 0.301318 per 1,000 people (2.9x as many as The Netherlands)
Car thefts (per capita) 3.8795 per 1,000 people (1.66x as many as The Netherlands)

I'll let you draw your own conclusions about that data.

Finally, just take a look at the prohibition of alcohol in the United States and what that caused. Alcohol was still widely consumed despite the legality, but now otherwise productive and law abiding citizens had to fear the wrath of the government for something that they consumed. Alcohol wasn't less available because gangs (mobsters) took over the control of most of the alcohol trade in the united states. You had high crime rates, high rates of violence, and ended up forcing people from society and into jail for partaking in an alcoholic beverage. It was seen fairly clearly that prohibition was a failure and that the government had simply outsourced all of the business into the hands of shady and violent criminals. Prohibition ended and this black market was largely destroyed and consumers were now afforded the comfort of knowing their booze wasn't tainted, knowing what strength it was, and knowing that they didn't have to worry about the police breaking down their door and dragging them to prison. WAKE UP! It's the same old song and the same old dance... prohibition of drugs is no different than the prohibition of alcohol was... and if it's end is any indicator of a future after drug legalization, I think that we should pass legislation immediately.

I would normally enter some really strongly worded closing statement here... but I'll admit it. I'm fucking exhausted. I think the statistics and our nations history should prove my point sufficiently.

P.s. Even if I didn't have a better idea of the future with drugs legalized, it still doesn't detract from the fact that all of your arguments are seriously flawed and almost entirely worthless.