Carlos Santana to Obama...

[Frame57]

Ok, here is a test. Try to answer honestly please. Let's say you are dying and are in need of swift heart valve surgery. One surgeon does not smoke pot. The other smokes a quarter ounce a day. Who would you allow to operate on you?

[NeonSamurai]

Hmm is that like the test where you got 2 doctors and one of them doesn't drink and the other drinks 5 ounces of 40% rum (or whatever) a day, and which would you prefer operates on you?

Anyhow I've known moderate users who have gone on to great things, and lots of musicians and other artists are drug users too (legal and/or illegal). I've also known plenty of chronic users of weed who are utterly moronic, but then they weren't very smart to begin with so not such a huge change. I've also seen people destroy themselves with alcohol, the legal drug. It is absolutely a drug, heavy users will even suffer from nasty withdrawal if they stop suddenly.

[Aramike]

This is a good discussion.

Legalize? Criminalize? If the user isn't hurting you, then you have no business telling anyone what they can or cannot do.

Okay, so let's allow people to drive drunk, so long as they aren't hurting anyone...

Why don't we allow that?

Because, there's a clear and grave potential for someone to actually be hurt.

Look, truthfully I have no opinion on the pot argument. Both sides make agreeable and sensible points. But there is no way on earth someone can convince me that legalizing hard drugs such as crack would be a good idea. Forget people who are locked up for drug crimes for a moment. The number of people who are imprisoned for crimes related to simply the PURSUIT of drugs is staggering.

Legalizing crack isn't going to change the fact that the crackhead is broke and will do anything to get his fix.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Okay, so let's allow people to drive drunk, so long as they aren't hurting anyone...

Why don't we allow that?

Because it would be a horrible idea, just like allowing people on drugs to drive, which is already illegal. The key here is the legalization of responsible use. That is, not harming or endagering anyone but yourself without their consent. That, I gather, is what Steve meant.
Imo, good drug legislation would penalize only transgressors of that maxim.

Legalizing crack isn't going to change the fact that the crackhead is broke and will do anything to get his fix.

Perhaps it won't do anything for broke crackheads that will do anything to get their fix, but that's the idea. By legalizing responsible use, we eliminate the burden that pursuit/persecution of responsible users places on the tax base by focusing only on those that are a danger to society.
Furthermore, drugs would be cheaper and more available, so those inclined to abuse them would steal less and die faster, if you want to get really heartless.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Imo, good drug legislation would penalize only transgressors of that maxim.

How well does that work now?


Under the influence is the term I think still used which I think boils down to being influenced by something other than common sense and responsibilty. How do you remain responsible and sober when you under the INFLUENCE of a narcotic or alcohol?

Ever care for children concieved when the now mother and father were under the influence? Im sure the answer for many here would be revert to Darwinism eugenics to kill the fetus/child and punish the former mother and father. But who is really punished?

[NeonSamurai]

One problem though is some of these drugs can't possibly be used in a responsible and safe manner. Aside from being highly addictive (and some possessing lethal withdrawal symptoms if not medicated against the symptoms). Many of them cause psychosis and can further trigger all kinds of results including homicidal rage, paranoia, and other delusions. As a result people on these drugs become highly erratic and dangerous to the population.

So I'm not sure these kinds of drugs should be made legal (many of those people taking those kinds of drugs are actually self medicating a mental illness and really need proper medical care). Nor should the highly dangerous/addictive drugs like Crack.

[Sailor Steve]

As far as I know all the really dangerous drugs have to be manufactured. I agree that targetting the private labs that make the stuff and keeping them illegal is a good idea, since in those cases there is no such thing as "responsible use". But in the case of something that can be grown anywhere I'm all for ending prohibition.

[August]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Ok, here is a test. Try to answer honestly please. Let's say you are dying and are in need of swift heart valve surgery. One surgeon does not smoke pot. The other smokes a quarter ounce a day. Who would you allow to operate on you?

I'd pick the surgeon who has the better record of success for that type of procedure of course. It's not the answer you're looking for but I think it's wrong to pick ones surgeons, pilots, artists, craftsmen, employees or whatever, by any criteria besides their job performance.

Let me ask you a question in return:

You need that heart valve surgery. One surgeon occasionally smokes pot when he's off duty and not on call, the other drinks a quart of Jack Daniels a day that he keeps in his desk drawer. Which one do you allow to operate on you?

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by August

I'd pick the surgeon who has the better record of success for that type of procedure of course. It's not the answer you're looking for but I think it's wrong to pick ones surgeons, pilots, artists, craftsmen, employees or whatever, by any criteria besides their job performance.

Let me ask you a question in return:

You need that heart valve surgery. One surgeon occasionally smokes pot when he's off duty and not on call, the other drinks a quart of Jack Daniels a day that he keeps in his desk drawer. Which one do you allow to operate on you?

Seeing as you do not want to play, I will still answer yours. This becomes the lesser of two evils. You baited it by giving the pot head an occaisional toke and the other is a drunkard. Obviously I would go with the occaisional pothead.

[August]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Seeing as you do not want to play, I will still answer yours. This becomes the lesser of two evils. You baited it by giving the pot head an occaisional toke and the other is a drunkard. Obviously I would go with the occaisional pothead.

And you didn't bait yours with a quarter ounce a day smoker vs the straight arrow?

My point was that the only valid measure of a persons ability on the job is their performance on the job, not what they may or may not do in their off duty time. Now it's quite likely that both the heavy pot smoker and the heavy drinker are not going to have good track records, regardless of the legality of their favorite drug, but again it's their job performance that counts.