The Topic is to legalize Hard Drugs. NOT THC.

[ScottL]

I don't think you're poorly educated, seedload. I think you skimmed what I wrote with pretense and applied your own interpretation, did not mean to insult if I did. In my previous remarks, I don't make mention of a paying mechanism for a reason, it's a touchy subject. I personally would prefer they pay for it themselves, but that's admittedly unlikely for the lower socio-economic class. We could use the money saved from prisons no longer maintaining large populations to pay for it as well, but as I said I'm not really advocating a pay methodology, but simply that they have the right to rehabilitation, much as I have the right to my internet service providing I pay for it.

[choff]

Anybody else hear about the pot candy, looks like the business community is ready to jump right in once its legal.

http://www.cafemom.com/group/416/forums ... l_Drug_Use

[KitemanSA]

Those who drink and drive and kill should face the EXACT same charges as those who shot a gun in a crowd and kill.

What punishment should someone face for getting young girls hooked on crack and turning them into hookers?

Enslavement?

Of course, if the drugs were legal, there would be little enducement to prostitution since the new addict could find her daily fix of clean and known potency at the corner drug store for a buck or so. And having NOT been drummed out of society's good graces, the child would probably find any number of folks who would voluntarily put her thru "rehab". So, you see, there would be no profit in hooking kids.

Drug pushers RELY on prohibition to maintain their market. No prohibiton, no pushers.

[palladin9479]

A classic libertarian argument runs into trouble with many "hard" drugs, and even some "soft" drugs. Drugs impair your judgement, and some of them tend to make you violent.

Although alcohol became legal again, in recent decades we've seen a big push against drinking and driving - because the drunk driver doesn't necessarily just kill himself.

Similarly, people high on acid, meth etc. may be much more likely to knife/shoot/shove someone into traffic, and so on. Opiates not so much - weed and opiates tend to make people passive and lethargic, at least from what I've seen.

Therefore, I don't mind a prohibition on a number of the drugs which make you significantly more likely to injure others. So long as it's something that just potentially damages you, but doesn't make you much more likely to hurt someone else, I don't really care what you do...

This is basically what I was getting at. Controlled substances should be evaluated based on their actual impact, not their perceived morality. Some things are just bad for your body, others can make you do some pretty crazy sh!t (make as in suppress your judgement / inhibitions). Psychoactive drugs mess with your brains chemistry, this cause's all sorts of things to happen that shouldn't be happening in the first place.

And to Intlibber, you REALLY might want to find out what those two drugs are for. They were both developed by the medical community as sleep aids for narcolepsy and insomnia. They world marvelously well, they actually work too well. Both will induce a near coma like state where the memory region and consciousness are suppressed. Prior to losing consciousness they will cause you to become extremely passive, you'll brain becomes unable to process external stimuli and you just do whatever your told and go wherever your lead to. The intended effect was to ensure a good nights rest with no ill side effects / headaches in the morning, and it does this.

The things that make those such a good sleep aid serve to make it the perfect rape drug. Both dissolve nearly instantly in liquid, the first having no taste or color the second have a mildly salty taste and no color. Both require very small doses to induce their effects. The reason they were banned is because people were using them to intoxicate and subdue girls (and some men) and rape them. The victim would have no memory of who did it, only that something doesn't feel right.

-=Short Story=-
One time when I was outside CP Cassey in the TDC area I went out with fellow soldiers (I was military at the time). The bars are primarily staffed with filipinas who try to get you to buy them drinks. During the evening one of them slipped something into my drink and was intending on robbing me later, thankfully my buddies were watching out for me and got me out of that bad situation. To this day I thank whatever supreme deity rules this universe that I wasn't out alone or with flaky folks that evening.

What you do to your own body is your concern not mine, but what you try to do to my body is entirely different matter. There are some things that should not be in the hands of civilians, period.

[Diogenes]

You did see where I asked the question about hooking young girls on crack and turning them into crack whores?

Pretty sure that's already happening regardless.

But does it constitute an Injury?

[Diogenes]

The contradiction is that you say that drug use is acceptable because it doesn't violate anyone else's rights and then demand that other people pay for the rehabilitation in the event of addiction.

Addicts work jobs too (translation: would pay for it), just look at Wall Street.

They would pay the costs of their own rehabilitation? When has any of them ever made so much money?

[Diogenes]

Those who drink and drive and kill should face the EXACT same charges as those who shot a gun in a crowd and kill.

What punishment should someone face for getting young girls hooked on crack and turning them into hookers?

Enslavement?

Of course, if the drugs were legal, there would be little enducement to prostitution since the new addict could find her daily fix of clean and known potency at the corner drug store for a buck or so. And having NOT been drummed out of society's good graces, the child would probably find any number of folks who would voluntarily put her thru "rehab". So, you see, there would be no profit in hooking kids.

Drug pushers RELY on prohibition to maintain their market. No prohibiton, no pushers.

That's a good theory. Still, I cannot help the feeling that such a thing would be exactly like an "18th amendment" sized miscalculation. They were pretty confident in their theory too.

But it belies the point. The question I asked you was "is turning someone into a crack whore an injury?" The more general question would be "Is getting someone hooked on drugs an injury to them?"

[Diogenes]

A classic libertarian argument runs into trouble with many "hard" drugs, and even some "soft" drugs. Drugs impair your judgement, and some of them tend to make you violent.

Although alcohol became legal again, in recent decades we've seen a big push against drinking and driving - because the drunk driver doesn't necessarily just kill himself.

Similarly, people high on acid, meth etc. may be much more likely to knife/shoot/shove someone into traffic, and so on. Opiates not so much - weed and opiates tend to make people passive and lethargic, at least from what I've seen.

Therefore, I don't mind a prohibition on a number of the drugs which make you significantly more likely to injure others. So long as it's something that just potentially damages you, but doesn't make you much more likely to hurt someone else, I don't really care what you do...

This is basically what I was getting at. Controlled substances should be evaluated based on their actual impact, not their perceived morality. Some things are just bad for your body, others can make you do some pretty crazy sh!t (make as in suppress your judgement / inhibitions). Psychoactive drugs mess with your brains chemistry, this cause's all sorts of things to happen that shouldn't be happening in the first place.

And to Intlibber, you REALLY might want to find out what those two drugs are for. They were both developed by the medical community as sleep aids for narcolepsy and insomnia. They world marvelously well, they actually work too well. Both will induce a near coma like state where the memory region and consciousness are suppressed. Prior to losing consciousness they will cause you to become extremely passive, you'll brain becomes unable to process external stimuli and you just do whatever your told and go wherever your lead to. The intended effect was to ensure a good nights rest with no ill side effects / headaches in the morning, and it does this.

The things that make those such a good sleep aid serve to make it the perfect rape drug. Both dissolve nearly instantly in liquid, the first having no taste or color the second have a mildly salty taste and no color. Both require very small doses to induce their effects. The reason they were banned is because people were using them to intoxicate and subdue girls (and some men) and rape them. The victim would have no memory of who did it, only that something doesn't feel right.

-=Short Story=-
One time when I was outside CP Cassey in the TDC area I went out with fellow soldiers (I was military at the time). The bars are primarily staffed with filipinas who try to get you to buy them drinks. During the evening one of them slipped something into my drink and was intending on robbing me later, thankfully my buddies were watching out for me and got me out of that bad situation. To this day I thank whatever supreme deity rules this universe that I wasn't out alone or with flaky folks that evening.

What you do to your own body is your concern not mine, but what you try to do to my body is entirely different matter. There are some things that should not be in the hands of civilians, period.

All very fine and well, but since it's been explained to you that this discussion is about legalizing ALL DRUGS, including the worst possible one's you can imagine, do you still feel it is a reasonable idea to allow the unregulated sale of Heroin, Crack, Meth, PCP, LSD, etc. ?

[ScottL]

They would pay the costs of their own rehabilitation? When has any of them ever made so much money?

Charlie Sheen, Robert Downey Jr. Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, 1980s Wall Street, George W. Bush, and most suburban middle america etc.

I didn't bring up how it was paid for as I know ideologically we simply disagree. Regardless of payment method, the right to rehabilitation exists.

[KitemanSA]

You did see where I asked the question about hooking young girls on crack and turning them into crack whores?

Pretty sure that's already happening regardless.

But does it constitute an Injury?

See my answer above.

[KitemanSA]

What punishment should someone face for getting young girls hooked on crack and turning them into hookers?

Enslavement?

Of course, if the drugs were legal, there would be little enducement to prostitution since the new addict could find her daily fix of clean and known potency at the corner drug store for a buck or so. And having NOT been drummed out of society's good graces, the child would probably find any number of folks who would voluntarily put her thru "rehab". So, you see, there would be no profit in hooking kids.

Drug pushers RELY on prohibition to maintain their market. No prohibiton, no pushers.

That's a good theory. Still, I cannot help the feeling that such a thing would be exactly like an "18th amendment" sized miscalculation. They were pretty confident in their theory too.

But it belies the point. The question I asked you was "is turning someone into a crack whore an injury?" The more general question would be "Is getting someone hooked on drugs an injury to them?"

DID THEY VOLUNTEER??? Injury is not the question. Boxers injure their oponents with regularity. It is part of the "sport". But they are volunteers.
Injury is NOT the issue. Consent is.

[KitemanSA]

ll very fine and well, but since it's been explained to you that this discussion is about legalizing ALL DRUGS, including the worst possible one's you can imagine, do you still feel it is a reasonable idea to allow the unregulated sale of Heroin, Crack, Meth, PCP, LSD, etc. ?

First, no, I do not feel it is a reasonable idea to allow the unregulated sale of Heroin, Crack, Meth, PCP, LSD, etc.
But you are SUCH a liar. You imply above that legalization means unregulated sale. In fact, prohibition creates "unregulated" sales. Alcohol is legal... but not to kids. It is well regulated. Making things legal makes them BETTER regulated, not the other way. Prohibition creates the "unregulated" sale. What YOU propose results in "unregulated sales", not what we propose.

[Diogenes]

They would pay the costs of their own rehabilitation? When has any of them ever made so much money?

Charlie Sheen, Robert Downey Jr. Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, 1980s Wall Street, George W. Bush, and most suburban middle america etc.

I didn't bring up how it was paid for as I know ideologically we simply disagree. Regardless of payment method, the right to rehabilitation exists.

They are the exception, not the rule. They would account for perhaps 1% of all addicts. Also, there is no such thing as a "right" to rehabilitation, which I read between the lines as a "right" to other people's money.

[Diogenes]

Pretty sure that's already happening regardless.

But does it constitute an Injury?

See my answer above.

I don't see an answer. I see an assertion that all of that would just go away. I believe scientists refer to this as "hand waving" ?

Does getting someone hooked on (let's say) "cigarettes" constitute an injury?

[Diogenes]

Enslavement?

Of course, if the drugs were legal, there would be little enducement to prostitution since the new addict could find her daily fix of clean and known potency at the corner drug store for a buck or so. And having NOT been drummed out of society's good graces, the child would probably find any number of folks who would voluntarily put her thru "rehab". So, you see, there would be no profit in hooking kids.

Drug pushers RELY on prohibition to maintain their market. No prohibiton, no pushers.

That's a good theory. Still, I cannot help the feeling that such a thing would be exactly like an "18th amendment" sized miscalculation. They were pretty confident in their theory too.

But it belies the point. The question I asked you was "is turning someone into a crack whore an injury?" The more general question would be "Is getting someone hooked on drugs an injury to them?"

DID THEY VOLUNTEER??? Injury is not the question. Boxers injure their oponents with regularity. It is part of the "sport". But they are volunteers.
Injury is NOT the issue. Consent is.

You can't consent when you don't understand to what you are consenting.