Drugs and narcotics

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.

What is your opinion of drugs?

I've had quite a few experiences
10
24%
Tried once or a few times.
11
26%
I'd give it a shot.
1
2%
Never liked it.
12
29%
Drugs are the spawn of SATAN. I don't even drink caffeine!
7
17%
I'm an addict
1
2%
 
Total votes: 42
User avatar
ynbniar
level5
level5
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Home again...

Postby ynbniar » Tue May 27, 2008 12:45 am

My own experiences are limited.

I have only experienced marijuana 2nd hand...I dislike and feel uncomfortable with the physical act of smoking.

I am a drinker though and I am a habitual drinker...drinking out of habit is, in my opinion, not the same as a dependant drinker or alcoholic...I am able to stop drinking at any time and have done so on many occasions...for example training for a marathon. I choose to go back to drinking simply because I enjoy it but when the situation arises that I should stop I can and do and don't miss it.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue May 27, 2008 12:50 am

On the one hand, we have the prohibitionists (i.e. Feud and rus|Mike). I think that your attitudes are, quite frankly, stupid. There are two good arguments against drug use: (1) the cost to the individual, and (2) the cost to society. As far as (1) is concerned, a person should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves, assuming that they are adults, and otherwise competent to make decisions (i.e. a 35 year old with Downs Syndrome probably shouldn't be making decisions regarding drugs).

With regards to the second point, in American society, we tend to weigh one person's right against another's. I have a right to drink, for instance. I don't have a right to drink, then drive, because that is more than likely to end up hurting someone else. Smokers are usually relegated to being outside, away from entrances and windows, because there are good studies about the harm of second hand smoke. Addiction should be discouraged, because of the potential harm that addicts can wreak (i.e. crimes committed to get money for a fix).

However, banning an activity entirely simply because some people are unsafe about it is silly. Some people are bad drivers -- ban all cars. Some people throw rocks and hurt people with them -- ban all rocks. That is why we have laws about drunk driving, but we don't ban alcohol outright. I would also point out that prohibition doesn't work. All it does is create a black market for the illicit substances, and creates stigma around addicts so that they can't get help.

On the other hand, there are the complete civil libertarians (though I don't think that any of them have posted here, so I shan't bother to address their point of view).

Meh.

xander
User avatar
sfericz
level5
level5
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:25 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby sfericz » Tue May 27, 2008 12:52 am

error post. (sorry)
Last edited by sfericz on Tue May 27, 2008 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
sfericz
level5
level5
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:25 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby sfericz » Tue May 27, 2008 12:55 am

rus|Mike wrote:If you ask me which guy do I prefer to spend time with, a drunken one ot just-smoked one, I'll choose being alone. It's better to stay away from both.


And thats why people like me, who has acheived much in life, gets looked down upon. Because im less of a person, or can't be a good friend becasue I smoke? I choose not to be around anyone who judges and or preaches my life needs changing because of what I do.

I'd much rather hang out with the person who actually takes the time to see if I'm a good person or not.
Last edited by sfericz on Tue May 27, 2008 12:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue May 27, 2008 12:56 am

Xocrates wrote:--==<snip>==--

If you think that tobacco does not alter one's state of mind, then you are incorrect. Tobacco generally gives one a sense of euphoria, and withdrawl makes tobacco addicts snarky and mean. Tobacco does not as obviously effect people's states of mind (nor does caffeine), but it does to a fairly large extent.

Also, who are you to judge what other people do to their bodies? If you are ruling out the health effects, and ruling out the effects to others (which you have done by allowing for tobacco, but not pot or alcohol), then on what grounds do you object to other people doing drugs?

xander
User avatar
rus|Mike
level5
level5
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Postby rus|Mike » Tue May 27, 2008 1:00 am

sfericz wrote:I'd much rather hang out with the person who actually takes the time to see if I'm a good person or not.

I will take time :) I just have some caution by default to people using 'stuff'. And I was taliing about just-smoked guy. You're not constantly in that mode, are you? :P I think I'll be able to find time to communicate with you while you're in a fully adequate mode.
User avatar
rus|Mike
level5
level5
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Postby rus|Mike » Tue May 27, 2008 1:04 am

xander wrote:Also, who are you to judge what other people do to their bodies?

Do you will proceed with asking why do people have to pay taxes? In case alcohol is prohibited all who don't like something are aloud to refuse to live under that condition and go live in the woods or in another country. There are many things people are made to do like spending some time in the army in some countries. Such conditions can't be avoided ever. And prohibition of alcohol can be one of such conditions. In my way of thinking prohibit all of it: alco, tobacco, grugs and there wil be peace :) but if we are to start with only something from that list, it's better than nothing.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue May 27, 2008 1:07 am

Oh, and to make this point very clear: I don't smoke pot. I very occasionally smoke tobacco from a pipe. I have an occasional glass of wine, scotch, or beer with or after dinner, and drink socially. I do no other drugs, except by prescription, or to treat migraines.

That being said, I feel that nearly every narcotic substance that is currently banned should be legalized, regulated to death, and taxed to cover the medical costs incurred by those who use the substances, but don't have insurance. As I said above, prohibition doesn't work. It creates a black market, which causes the price to rise dramatically. It eliminates any kind of oversight to control the purity of the substances (i.e. right now, you don't know what you are getting in your cocaine -- it might be cut with meth or laundry detergent, for all you know). It creates criminals out of people who have done nothing wrong other than to become addicted, which makes it that much harder for them to get any kind of treatment.

Legalize the drugs. Regulate them, and control their quality. Tax them, and use the taxes collected from the sales of drugs to pay for rehab. I would be willing to bet that, after a few years, the problems associated with drug use would fall to a background level below the current "War on Drugs" levels.

xander
User avatar
rus|Mike
level5
level5
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Postby rus|Mike » Tue May 27, 2008 1:18 am

xander wrote:egalize the drugs. Regulate them, and control their quality. Tax them, and use the taxes collected from the sales of drugs to pay for rehab. I would be willing to bet that, after a few years, the problems associated with drug use would fall to a background level below the current "War on Drugs" levels.

Jesuis. Do you realise that legalisation of all grugs (and therefore allowing their advertisment etc) will increase the number of addicts in dozens of times?! Imagine a situating: a young man is feeling bad, porbably left by a girlfriend he loved much. In the world you're suggesting I give you 100:1 he will pay attention to an advertisment like "Heroin. Forget everything" and will with a good percentage become an addict (1-5 injections are enough for physical addiction as far as I remember). Do you realise that just the fact that those things are not sold on the street keeps millions of people from trying it? And after the first try the thing why it's prohibited will come in play. Addiction. After the very first use a human is not what he was before. In many cases he can no longer think for himself.

Historical example: China was for quite some time (I forgot the dates) facing the problem of complete destruction because of loads of people smoking opium. It was like a plague: there were simply not enough people for the country to function and for the population to reproduce. As far as I remember, the goverment started massively executing all those who sold drugs. Only that helped.
xander wrote:prohibition doesn't work.

Depends on how you organise it :twisted:
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Tue May 27, 2008 1:25 am

xander wrote:
Xocrates wrote:--==<snip>==--

If you think that tobacco does not alter one's state of mind, then you are incorrect. Tobacco generally gives one a sense of euphoria, and withdrawl makes tobacco addicts snarky and mean. Tobacco does not as obviously effect people's states of mind (nor does caffeine), but it does to a fairly large extent.


Thank you for making my point for me.

xander wrote:Also, who are you to judge what other people do to their bodies? If you are ruling out the health effects, and ruling out the effects to others (which you have done by allowing for tobacco, but not pot or alcohol), then on what grounds do you object to other people doing drugs?


Who are you to judge what I'm allowed to judge?

Secondly, I allow tobacco under certain conditions, however those conditions aren't as easily applied to consciousness altering drugs like drug or alcohol (and yes, I read your above point about tobacco altering consciousness. Point remains that the effects are not as noticeable or serious). I can send a smoker outside and be aware that the person that comes back in is pretty much in the same condition. However if someone goes "outside" to have a drink I won't be that sure: that depends on how much the person in question drunk.

The effects these kind of drugs to third parties are the most noticeable after taking them, as opposed to smoking where the thing that truly bothers you is the act.
Worse still is that you can't argue that people should have the right to do what they want to their bodies assuming they're competent because the act may cause them to cease to be so. There isn't a line dividing sobriety from drunkenness, and even if it were I doubt most people would know what it was. You may argue that not everybody is that irresponsible, but the actions of those who are can be very serious. Obviously you can use the same argument to justify the ban of cars, and while personally I wouldn't mind (I hate driving, by the way), I would like to point out that there is a difference between something you do for pleasure (as is the case of non medical drugs) and something you do because it's necessary/useful.


By the way, how would one pay for those high quality, overtaxed drugs?
Last edited by Xocrates on Tue May 27, 2008 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Hmuda
level3
level3
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 11:01 pm
Location: Szeged, Hungary

Postby Hmuda » Tue May 27, 2008 1:27 am

I only smoked marijuana once in the Netherlands.

I was in a group of exchange students from my original school and we spent a week in a small Holland town. We took a trip to Amsterdam and some of my friends bought a few joints. The next day we were supposed to be in the host-school's gym to practice some national ball-game, but a few of us didn't have the proper attires so we were just spectating. It was kind of boring not to participate so we went outside and one of my friends pulled out a nice fat joint. Honestly, it was great. We got really high and none of us could stop laughing at the smallest things we could see.

That was more than 5 years ago and I haven't felt the slightest urge to experience it again. If someone who I trust would offer a few puffs, I would accept it. But I was in the US for a year earlier and I've seen kids who smoked their brains away. It's kind of sad that once bright kids end up being slow and dense, only becasue they smoked too much pot. So even though I would have no problem smoking a few every once in a while, I would never go too far.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Tue May 27, 2008 1:28 am

xander wrote:However, banning an activity entirely simply because some people are unsafe about it is silly. Some people are bad drivers -- ban all cars. Some people throw rocks and hurt people with them -- ban all rocks. That is why we have laws about drunk driving, but we don't ban alcohol outright. I would also point out that prohibition doesn't work. All it does is create a black market for the illicit substances, and creates stigma around addicts so that they can't get help.


I believe that laws are a reflection of societies values. The reason that prohibition was the resounding flop that it was in keeping with the views of a significant number of Americans, perhaps even a majority. For that reason, I don't think that it would work in this day either.

However, I do think that it can work in certain situations. For example, a town might decide that they want to prohibit alcohol form their town, and I think they could do it without creating a black market as those who wished to drink could easily travel to a nearby place where sale/consumption is legal. Thus, the punishment of breaking the law isn't worth it when compared to the effort needed to obtain what they want in a legal manner.

For that reason, I do think prohibition would be a good idea, but it should be determined on as local a level as possible. Further, lest we have the vice squad raiding kitchens, it would probably be best to deal with the sale, transportation, and distribution of the product, not necessarily possession.

But since this isn't exactly an issue that I plan to picket or write the paper concerning, I admit to not having put much thought into the actually application.
User avatar
rus|Mike
level5
level5
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Postby rus|Mike » Tue May 27, 2008 1:30 am

By the way, how would one pay for those high quality, overtaxed drugs?

One will continue using drugs he was using before the legalisation. Legalisation will only create opportunity for people to easily start and after they become addicted and realise there's not much use in paying 2-3 times more they will turn to the drugs, known now.
User avatar
sfericz
level5
level5
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:25 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby sfericz » Tue May 27, 2008 1:39 am

So I don't think anyone has answered one of my questions. if so I haven't read it.

If one person uses pot, But is respectful, ambitous and a hard working adult, does this make that person less of a good citizen or good person?
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Tue May 27, 2008 1:42 am

sfericz wrote:If one person uses pot, But is respectful, ambitous and a hard working adult, does this make that person less of a good citizen or good person?


Less of a good citizen, yes, since he obviously broke the law (in most places anyway).

Less a good person, not necessarily.

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests