The Topic is to legalize Hard Drugs. NOT THC.

[Giorgio]

"We" is the same group of people that has been discussing this issue for the last several years.

Ah ok, I thought that the "we are discussing" was referring to some new law proposal.

Why are you against the legalization of hard drugs?

Because if you do not remove hard drugs from a legalization proposal for light drugs than the proposal will never pass.

Unfortunately all the confusion on this drugs issue tend to make people forget that one's life is just that, HIS life.
If someone chooses to use drugs of any type for any reason (be it stupidity, recreational fun, pain relief, .... ) it's just his business and no one else.

[Diogenes]

Are you not even looking at the Charts regarding China? At what point can you conclude it isn't harming anyone?

Yeah because Great Britain had nothing to do with that right? Just like the U.S. had nothing to do with sterilization in Gautemala right? Another argument please. Dominant foreign powers with loads of money and product will often do what they want in weaker socio-economic countries. It happens all the time.

It doesn't matter if "MARTIANS" made the drugs available. The Consequences would still be the same. The source of the drugs has no bearing on the consequences to the population.

Again, at what point can you conclude the drugs aren't harming anyone?

[ScottL]

Are you not even looking at the Charts regarding China? At what point can you conclude it isn't harming anyone?

Yeah because Great Britain had nothing to do with that right? Just like the U.S. had nothing to do with sterilization in Gautemala right? Another argument please. Dominant foreign powers with loads of money and product will often do what they want in weaker socio-economic countries. It happens all the time.

It doesn't matter if "MARTIANS" made the drugs available. The Consequences would still be the same. The source of the drugs has no bearing on the consequences to the population.

Again, at what point can you conclude the drugs aren't harming anyone?

It's not a matter of creating the drugs, a foreign power was actively trying to push addiction within China. That's like saying Joe Camel or depictions of smoking being cool in movies didn't persuade youth to start smoking.

Should probably start prohibiting alcohol, tobacco, and steak and eggs too.

[MSimon]

Well let me see. The antidote for opiates is legally unavailable. Despite prohibition purity is way up but quality control is almost nil. Thus great variation in strength and purity per batch. What exactly would you expect from those circumstances? More deaths.

Most of them caused by prohibition.

And then you have the fact that (some, many?, most?) heroin users will switch to snorting H if the supplies are cheap enough.

D,you do a very good job of proving prohibition doesn't work. Just look at your numbers.

BTW The American experience for the last 100 years before and after prohibition is 1.3%. Americans are different from the Dutch, German and Swiss? OK. They are also different from the Chinese. More so in terms of genetics, culture, and development.

And because of the prohibitions on pain relievers doctors are not interested in going into the pain relief specialty.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-11-04/ ... n-doctors/

Addiction, Pain and the War on Doctors

So to get at the 3 or 4 million illegal users (about .6 million hard core) adequate pain relief is being denied to 30 to 50 million. That hardly seems equitable. Or nice. Or civilized.

And not in the not too distant past sufferers from fibromyalgia were treated as junkies. Until medicine recognized their pain. That hardly seems equitable. Or nice. Or civilized.

So what other unrecognized (by medicine) pain is out there.

[Teahive]

My argument is simple. When you legalize drugs, this is what happens.

For half of that period opium was illegal in China. But the title of the graph gives a rather big hint on what it was really about: a (trade) war.

Then how was China different from Us? If you can't explain why China went into a state of massive addiction, then you haven't thought this issue through.

If the Chinese situation wasn't different, then why did other countries not have the same addiction rates during the 19th century?

"Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up."

I don't think the reasons why drug prohibition exists are in doubt. Their justification and the effectiveness of prohibition are, though.

[Diogenes]

Yeah because Great Britain had nothing to do with that right? Just like the U.S. had nothing to do with sterilization in Gautemala right? Another argument please. Dominant foreign powers with loads of money and product will often do what they want in weaker socio-economic countries. It happens all the time.

It doesn't matter if "MARTIANS" made the drugs available. The Consequences would still be the same. The source of the drugs has no bearing on the consequences to the population.

Again, at what point can you conclude the drugs aren't harming anyone?

It's not a matter of creating the drugs, a foreign power was actively trying to push addiction within China. That's like saying Joe Camel or depictions of smoking being cool in movies didn't persuade youth to start smoking.

Should probably start prohibiting alcohol, tobacco, and steak and eggs too.

You are fixated on the wrong aspect. "Pushing" wouldn't work if the substance wasn't addictive. I'm sure you have seen commercials for products that you didn't need. Did you go out and buy them?

Do you know any addicts?

[ScottL]

You are fixated on the wrong aspect. "Pushing" wouldn't work if the substance wasn't addictive. I'm sure you have seen commercials for products that you didn't need. Did you go out and buy them?

Do you know any addicts?

There are addictions for every behavior whether it be a substance or a product. People and companies do push those things constantly through media. So yes some people when they see a product do go out and buy it. Pushing works all the time in many cases....facebook, i-everything, sex, tv, exercise, etc.

Do I know rehabilitated addicts? Yes, but I understand that is anecdotal evidence at best and at worst a contrived attempt to push my own agenda if I were to use that experience. A better argument on your part whether made in the previous thread or not would be the potential for effect on non-drug using population. IE: violent acts or crimes, but until we're at that state, we simply cannot say and it still ties back to as long as the drug user is not effecting anyone else, then it should be perfectly fine.

[Diogenes]

Well let me see. The antidote for opiates is legally unavailable. Despite prohibition purity is way up but quality control is almost nil. Thus great variation in strength and purity per batch. What exactly would you expect from those circumstances? More deaths.

Most of them caused by prohibition.

Sounds similar to this argument:

And then you have the fact that (some, many?, most?) heroin users will switch to snorting H if the supplies are cheap enough.

D,you do a very good job of proving prohibition doesn't work. Just look at your numbers.

The numbers in China seem to be going up every year from 1800 onward.

BTW The American experience for the last 100 years before and after prohibition is 1.3%. Americans are different from the Dutch, German and Swiss? OK. They are also different from the Chinese. More so in terms of genetics, culture, and development.

I think binding receptors are pretty common to all humans. The numbers may vary, but we all have them.

And because of the prohibitions on pain relievers doctors are not interested in going into the pain relief specialty.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-11-04/ ... n-doctors/

Addiction, Pain and the War on Doctors

So to get at the 3 or 4 million illegal users (about .6 million hard core) adequate pain relief is being denied to 30 to 50 million. That hardly seems equitable. Or nice. Or civilized.

If it were a medical condition, the addicts could go to a Doctor for treatment. Strangely, most doctors don't seem to regard it as a medical condition.

And not in the not too distant past sufferers from fibromyalgia were treated as junkies. Until medicine recognized their pain. That hardly seems equitable. Or nice. Or civilized.

So what other unrecognized (by medicine) pain is out there.

The pain caused by people's own bad decisions. Drugs are like what one of my friend says about lawyers. "The more of them you have, the more of them you need." (They all go out and start cases suing other people.)

[Diogenes]

My argument is simple. When you legalize drugs, this is what happens.

For half of that period opium was illegal in China. But the title of the graph gives a rather big hint on what it was really about: a (trade) war.

Fine. A trade war, not the drugs, cause half of China to become addicted.

Then how was China different from Us? If you can't explain why China went into a state of massive addiction, then you haven't thought this issue through.

If the Chinese situation wasn't different, then why did other countries not have the same addiction rates during the 19th century?

Money. They didn't have any. China did, for awhile. Don't you remember how the opium wars started? China wanted nothing the Europeans had to sell. They would only accept Gold in exchange for their silks, jade, fine porcelain, etc. Europeans got tired of paying the Chinese in Gold, so they started selling them drugs.

"Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up."

I don't think the reasons why drug prohibition exists are in doubt. Their justification and the effectiveness of prohibition are, though.

So you think China was better off after they stopped their prohibition than they were before?


Seriously?

[Diogenes]

You are fixated on the wrong aspect. "Pushing" wouldn't work if the substance wasn't addictive. I'm sure you have seen commercials for products that you didn't need. Did you go out and buy them?

Do you know any addicts?

There are addictions for every behavior whether it be a substance or a product. People and companies do push those things constantly through media. So yes some people when they see a product do go out and buy it. Pushing works all the time in many cases....facebook, i-everything, sex, tv, exercise, etc.

Do I know rehabilitated addicts? Yes, but I understand that is anecdotal evidence at best and at worst a contrived attempt to push my own agenda if I were to use that experience. A better argument on your part whether made in the previous thread or not would be the potential for effect on non-drug using population. IE: violent acts or crimes, but until we're at that state, we simply cannot say and it still ties back to as long as the drug user is not effecting anyone else, then it should be perfectly fine.

And you think the experience of China has no bearing on our own future under such an idea?

[ScottL]

I think it's unlikely to map 1 to 1 correct. I think initially you'll see an initial rise in drug use (mostly mairjuana) followed by a drop back to the usual level. The biggest difference being that our jails and prisons will be less packed as possession is no longer a crime. The U.S. Prohibition on alcohol is more telling than China's prohibition with foreign influence.

[choff]

There is no gaurentee that once drugs are legalized things will go either the way of the opium trade in China during the 1800's or the alcohol trade in America during the 1930's to present. Much will depend on whether large corporations promote it and how lawsuits are settled(think tobacco industry). Has the AA ever tried to sue the liquor distillers? Once its legal users can sue pot growers for alleged harm.

[CaptainBeowulf]

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...

[Betruger]

There is no gaurentee that once drugs are legalized things will go either the way of the opium trade in China during the 1800's or the alcohol trade in America during the 1930's to present. Much will depend on whether large corporations promote it and how lawsuits are settled(think tobacco industry). Has the AA ever tried to sue the liquor distillers? Once its legal users can sue pot growers for alleged harm.

If corporation arbitrary is a variable, then so is public reaction - at least.

[seedload]

From an individual's rights view, all drug use should be allowed providing it does not violate any other individual's rights. On the reverse-side, the ability to break addiction through rehabilitation should always be available, whether it be hard drugs or not.

One wonders if you see the contradiction of your own statements. You proclaim that it doesn't violate other individuals rights and then demand the mechanism by which drug use would necessarily violate other individual's rights. Wild.

"It's wrong" isn't a defensible position to take. Rape is considered wrong because it violates another's rights. Drug use is considered wrong to act as a mechanism for control over those from poor socio-economical positions and non-model minorities. Drug use does not violate the right of any individual and to deny it's been used as a mechanism of control would be to deny you breathe air.

Ummm... what? Drug use is wrong because it is a mechanism for control over poor people and minorities? Seriously? That is why it is wrong? Anyway...

You should note that I said 'selling' drugs is wrong. You (intentionally?) changed what I said. Were you afraid to address the rightness or wrongness of selling in your response?