Legalize soft-drugs yes or no.
Mohmar Deathstrike
Banned
Ted said:Now now Mohmar.... shall we just say: no exactly like the US? We'll take their fast food, films and celebs.... and we have drinking binges, mushrooms and all the little things that make life fun (once in a while)
Yeh, we should pick the best of both worlds
Mohmar Deathstrike
Banned
Yes. In the EU all tobacco products are requred by law to have HUUUUGE labels that say "Smoking kills" or something similar. And yet, the number of smokers hasn't decreased since the law was introduced. They know it might kill them but do it anyway. What right do we have to stop them?
Last edited:
major liability
Active member
Sorry, I only got up to page 6, but here's my two cents, and a little info:
Legalize cannabis, ban tobacco. Why? Well, pot is not physically addictive (though if you weak, stay away). Tobacco is. Pot actually does something for the user; tobacco does nothing but satiate the need for nicotene that WASN'T EVEN THERE BEFORE THE PERSON BECAME A SMOKER. Too bad big tobacco is good at lobbying. I think that cannabis, if legalized, should be well-regulated, with a 21+ age limit (though I don't know anyone that old that still smokes it) and official standards for quality, purity, and safety. The government gets tax money that will help with the healthcare cost that will be there either way (people who are willing to use cannabis probably don't respect the law enough to be deterred anyways), the cannabis smokers get a safer way to light up, and organized crime loses a source of income.
P.S.: The "War on Drugs" WILL NOT be won without massive civil-rights and privacy violations or some way of giving everyone a good life where there is no demand for mind-altering chemicals. Where there's a will, there's a way. And as long as people like substances that make them feel good, they will use them, no matter how well-informed they are about the health consequences. I go to a large high school in a rural part of New York, and you can get just about anything. Cannabis, crack/cocain, acid, shrooms... heroin, etc. There is no way to enforce the law when you have one state trooper covering for 3,200 kids who have yet to outgrow their sense of invulnerability.
Legalize cannabis, ban tobacco. Why? Well, pot is not physically addictive (though if you weak, stay away). Tobacco is. Pot actually does something for the user; tobacco does nothing but satiate the need for nicotene that WASN'T EVEN THERE BEFORE THE PERSON BECAME A SMOKER. Too bad big tobacco is good at lobbying. I think that cannabis, if legalized, should be well-regulated, with a 21+ age limit (though I don't know anyone that old that still smokes it
) and official standards for quality, purity, and safety. The government gets tax money that will help with the healthcare cost that will be there either way (people who are willing to use cannabis probably don't respect the law enough to be deterred anyways), the cannabis smokers get a safer way to light up, and organized crime loses a source of income.P.S.: The "War on Drugs" WILL NOT be won without massive civil-rights and privacy violations or some way of giving everyone a good life where there is no demand for mind-altering chemicals. Where there's a will, there's a way. And as long as people like substances that make them feel good, they will use them, no matter how well-informed they are about the health consequences. I go to a large high school in a rural part of New York, and you can get just about anything. Cannabis, crack/cocain, acid, shrooms... heroin, etc. There is no way to enforce the law when you have one state trooper covering for 3,200 kids who have yet to outgrow their sense of invulnerability.
godofthunder9010
Active member
THE UNDERLYING QUESTION: Is it the responsibility of the government to protect people from themselves??
That is the question that must be answered for this, assisted suicide, and even for arguments in favor if banning all alchohol and cigarettes. So is the government responsible for protecting you from yourself? If they are, how far to we want that protection to run?
That is the question that must be answered for this, assisted suicide, and even for arguments in favor if banning all alchohol and cigarettes. So is the government responsible for protecting you from yourself? If they are, how far to we want that protection to run?
major liability
Active member
In case you couldn't tell, my belief is: HELL NO. In my opinion, the government's ONLY duties are to protect people from each other and foreign powers.
Yes, I'm libertarian. :m16:Guns, drugs, and anarchy for all!
... j/k
Yes, I'm libertarian. :m16:Guns, drugs, and anarchy for all!
... j/k
LeEnfield
Active member
Sooner or later the drugs will take over your mind and body, and you can't function in the finish as a proper human being and so often the State is left to pick up the pieces. Now what if the Government refused to do any thing for these people as a it would be a waste of time and money, and just gave them a slightly larger dose of drugs to end their suffering. also being a military forum would you want to serving with some one who was constantly high on drugs, would you trust him with a loaded weapon to give you covering fire, or to guard your sleeping area when you are out on patrol, I for one would not want some like that with in a mile of me.
Whispering Death
Active member
Something should only be illiegalized when they poses a clear and presant danger to the society. Marijuana does not.
LeEnfield 2 said:
As clear as your point might seem, the deeper implications aren't as easy. If you choose to legalize you have to treat addicts the same as all the other addict of booze, pills, internet..... you name it. You can't exclude one specific addiction.
Secondly, your point about the servicemen is very true. But how do you feel about a drunken watchman or drunken rifleman behind you, weapon locked and loaded? This is not allowed..... and the same will be true about being high. (This point has been stressed before in this post) There are many situation where you can be under the influence of any substance, even if these are legal. I wouldn't like my heart surgeon to be drunk or fireman or....... you get my point?
G
G Connor
Guest
Hey RABS, been to Nevada lately? Prostitution is legal there and condoned in most other jurisdictions.
Back in the early 90's, DC cops rounded up the hookers in the usual "strolls". They didn't arrest them. They walked them across the 14th St bridge into Virginia and told them to move their a**es and their business to the Old Dominion.
Back in the early 90's, DC cops rounded up the hookers in the usual "strolls". They didn't arrest them. They walked them across the 14th St bridge into Virginia and told them to move their a**es and their business to the Old Dominion.
System Bolaget
Active member
While I do not use any of the drugs being discussed here besides alcohol I am in favor of legalizing all drugs. Cocaine, heroin, pot, whatever. Most users would use them casually and the ones who abuse them now will continue to abuse them. It would free up much of our jail system and police to persue more violent criminals. The country could even tax the drugs and raise countless billions. They could then lower income taxes. Drugs like crystal meth have come into the scene largely due to the illegality and difficulty to obtain normal drugs. Sure, they screw people up but you aren't going to stop free people from getting high if they really want to. Why make it a legal issue? That is just stupid. A lot of folks probably wouldn't use them at all even if they were legal and easily available.
mmarsh
Active member
I assume when we say soft drugs we are referring to marijuana. Im on the fence on the issue. There are 2 points I'd like to make.
1. As a 'gataway' drug. First of all I read studies that said smoking pot leads to the heavier stuff in only 5-10% of cases. Its true that most hardcore drugs addicts started with pot, but most of them drank alcohol as well, ans yes alcohol is a drug too. So I'd dont think thats a viability arguement in and of itself. I have got family members who smoke that stuff regularly and to this day never have done anything harder than pot.
2. In most countries where pot is legal (or at least turned a blind eye) there is not the same level of crime as there is in the US. Pot smokers do not holdup gas stations in order to score. The only real crime comes from competition from rival smugglers such as what happened during prohibition. And like prohibition, this type of organized crime trade disappeared when the 21 amendment was repealed.
Again I havent decided if it should be legalized (certainly for medicinal purposes), I do agree that USMC03 is correct in saying that the cops have better things to do.
1. As a 'gataway' drug. First of all I read studies that said smoking pot leads to the heavier stuff in only 5-10% of cases. Its true that most hardcore drugs addicts started with pot, but most of them drank alcohol as well, ans yes alcohol is a drug too. So I'd dont think thats a viability arguement in and of itself. I have got family members who smoke that stuff regularly and to this day never have done anything harder than pot.
2. In most countries where pot is legal (or at least turned a blind eye) there is not the same level of crime as there is in the US. Pot smokers do not holdup gas stations in order to score. The only real crime comes from competition from rival smugglers such as what happened during prohibition. And like prohibition, this type of organized crime trade disappeared when the 21 amendment was repealed.
Again I havent decided if it should be legalized (certainly for medicinal purposes), I do agree that USMC03 is correct in saying that the cops have better things to do.
godofthunder9010
Active member
On the other hand, alcohol definitely does present a danger to society. Drunk drivers, drunk spouses beating up their family, other such things. Just a thought.
System Bolaget
Active member
Even with alcohol only SOME are wife beaters / abusers. most are not. Hey, and some non-drinkers are abusive as well. :shock: Look, we're going to have substance abusers legal or not. Why not stop living in this pretense that drugs are bad? I don't even want to know how much we spend on police and courts and prisons for people picked up with a few crack rocks or a small amount of marijuana or some cocaine for personal use. Does anyone see how ridiculous this is? The only ones profiting by drugs being illegal is the criminals because they control the trade. A few people have mentioned what a crock prohibition was. :roll: It's the same thing with drugs.
godofthunder9010
Active member
Right and not every Angel Dust or Cocaine user is a detriment to society. Many of them are, in every other category, fine upstanding citizens.System Bolaget said:
I'm not giving my opinion about whether or not illegal drugs should really be illegal or not. That goes back to my original question: Is it the government's job to protect people from themselves??
I don't think it is the governments job. If it was, you would open up the way to governmental interference with how you'd like to run your life. You could be detained if they thought that you would go and have a drink, commit suicide or go sky diving!
I reckon it is their job to point out the dangers of many things and let you make up your mind. That is called individual responsibility and belongs in any democracy.
I reckon it is their job to point out the dangers of many things and let you make up your mind. That is called individual responsibility and belongs in any democracy.