Carlos Santana to Obama...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Frame57

I cannot reference stats, nor do I care to. However, I grew up with friends who were real Potheads. Many of them never amounted to jack squat in life and are the most un-motivated people I know. I am sure the same could be said about alchoholics. There seems to be an effect that is peculiar to Pot that takes the wind out someones sails for what ever reason. Just what this Country needs is more lazy bums who want to get high all the time.

So you knew some potheads who are lazy bums. Have you ever met one who went on to excel at college? I have. Some of the most creative, intelligent people of our time have used weed, some of them in large quantities, and they are still quite productive, possible in spite of it, possibly because of it. Not the same with alcoholics, who tend to get drunk more and more often and ruin their careers, or else stop drinking to solve the problem.

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

Either you have freedom, or you don't. I seem to be right back where I started.

[UnderseaLcpl]

@Arclight and AVGWarhawk-

You are both very correct in assuming that allowing the use of hard drugs would cause the self-destruction of many people. Arclight is correct in saying that it could be considered morally wrong.

However, where you might say, "Why should we let them?" I say "Who are we to say they cannot?".
I can't speak for the Dutch in my argument, or any nation other than the U.S. but this nation was founded upon the principle of liberty more than any other. Having the freedom to succeed includes having the freedom to fail. No one is at fault for someone else's decisions. The ultimate responsibility must lie with oneself.
I've already stated my argument that drug users continue their behaviors in spite of the state's efforts, and that those efforts drag the rest of us down further, but I will say again that in our efforts do what is morally right, we are doing more harm than good.

Drug education is a good thing, and I do support it, but only at the lower levels of the political spectrum. Educating people to make informed choices is a good idea, but the state has repeatedly demonstrated its' inability to effectively employ such a program. I would support voter-approved state subsidies for successful non-profit anti-drug programs, but that's about it.

When it comes down to it, the fact of the matter is that one cannot, and should not, force their own views down the throats of others, whether for good or ill. At some point, we must all assume responsibility for our own lives. As long as drug users are being informed of the consequences of their decisions, and are deterred from violating the rights of others, there is no reason to be overly concerned about the effects of drug use.

One final argument I will elaborate on is that private industry, in its' many forms, is a more effective form of regulation against drug use than anything the state can conjure.
Whereas the state says, you must abstain from substance abuse or we will jail you(or rehabilitate you, or whatever), at the expense of others, private industry says, you must abstain from substance abuse if you want to work here. Therein lies the key, and the key is incentive.
People who choose to abstain from drug use in order to be gainfully employed are the ones we should be saving. People who refuse to do so are the ones who will cause problems no matter what.
And best of all, it doesn't cost us a single penny of money that consumers do not choose to spend, unlike taxes. Private industry foots the bill and does it efficiently in order to remain competitive, and everyone wins.
As such, I think there ultimately more moral correctness in the legalization of drugs, because everybody wins except those who choose to lose.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

Either you have freedom, or you don't.

Well I for one agree with you 100% Steve.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So you knew some potheads who are lazy bums. Have you ever met one who went on to excel at college? I have. Some of the most creative, intelligent people of our time have used weed, some of them in large quantities, and they are still quite productive, possible in spite of it, possibly because of it. Not the same with alcoholics, who tend to get drunk more and more often and ruin their careers, or else stop drinking to solve the problem.

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

Either you have freedom, or you don't. I seem to be right back where I started.

Really? name one

[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.

[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?

[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?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Really? name one

Catherine Craven, late wife of a good friend of mine. Pathologist, specialized in Pediatrics. Leading expert in the field of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Wrote several papers on the subject. Testified in front of Congress. Alcohol problems nearly wrecked her career. Pot use didn't. She stopped smoking while in med school, but she still did have a history of prior use, so by your lights her brain should be fried.
http://en.scientificcommons.org/20208328
http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/4/683

And then there's me. I tried a whole lot of different drugs right after I got out back in 1970. I do consider myself lazy, but I was accused of that long before I knew what a joint was, and I don't like to blame my failures or lack of responsibility on anything other than my own innate abhorrence of work. And I don't think anybody who knows me is going to argue that I'm stupid, or that I don't still possess the best memory for facts and details of anyone they know. In fact I'm cursed with explicit memories of a great many stupid things I did long before I was a teenager.

Yes, it can be argued that teens who smoke weed can do damage to their still-forming brain tissue. But that's also true of smoking tobacco and especially alcohol use. And it is illegal to give those things to teens. No reason other drugs can't fall into the same category.

[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.

[NeonSamurai]

That brings up the interesting question then of the Coca plant, which is a natural plant and not super harmful, vs cocaine which is extracted from the leaf (and further crack cocaine). By legalizing one, you make the other more easy to manufacture due to the availability.

But you are correct that a lot of them are made in a lab.

Otherwise I don't see much issue with legalizing plants

[Aramike]

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.

There's no such thing as "responsible use" of crack cocaine. The very nature of the drug is its highly addictive and rationale-changing influence.

There are no "part time" crackheads.