|
Post by Cassiopeia on Jul 16, 2002 13:11:25 GMT -5
How do you all feel about legalizing drugs? Do you agree that the government does not have the right to legislate what people do with their own bodies?
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Jul 16, 2002 13:19:28 GMT -5
I think that in this specific case, yes, the government does have the right to tell people what to do with their own bodies. Not only does it do harm to the person who is taking the drugs (which is fine by me. If you want to harm yourself, then more power to ya), but it can also harm another party. People act like idiots when they are high, do things they normally wouldn't do, and in that case, can cause people other than themselves harm. I'm all for medical marijuana (with a doctor's prescription and all), but if you are talking about cocaine, heroin, LSD, and the like, then no.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Jul 16, 2002 16:13:00 GMT -5
I really do feel that government has no right to tell you what you can and cannot do with your body, no matter how idiotic it may be. Soft drugs such as marijuana are no more harmful to your body than tobacco and alcohol. The whole so called "war on drugs" has been a tremendous failure and I can think of numerous other things that our taxdollars could and should be going toward, and our police force could be out and subduing criminals of real statue. I severely doubt it was the intention of our founders to have police looking around to see if you have pot growing in your garden. There is even some who believe George Washington himslef might have grown cannibus.
Also, if a drug like cannibus was made legal we could make a big industry out of it. There could be many jobs created and tax revenue for the government.
And as for the harder drugs, I think if people are going to do them and totally screw with their bodies, they will do it reguardless of what the law says.
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Jul 16, 2002 16:31:18 GMT -5
^^^ That's exactly how I feel. If people want to screw themsevles up with mind-altering substances, then why shouldn't they be able to? The government should not create legislation on something that only harms the person who choses to do it.
>>People act like idiots when they are high, do things they normally wouldn't do, and in that case, can cause people other than themselves harm.<<
People act like idiots when they are drunk too (hell, enough people act like idiots when they aren't intoxicated). That's why we have legislation against drunk driving. I also feel that there should be legislation against driving under the influence of drugs, because that puts other people's lives in danger.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Jul 16, 2002 17:09:15 GMT -5
^^ Point taken. I just don't think that they should be made readily available to the public...
|
|
|
Post by julinka on Jul 16, 2002 17:15:49 GMT -5
I'm all for completely legal pot. It's probably less harmful than alcohol, and definitely not more so. Clogging the legal system with cases is a waste of taxpayer money. Legal pot would also break the casual smoker's connection to drug culture.
Harder drugs I have mixed feelings on. Their illegality definitely makes them harder to obtain. However, I think that locking up users in jail is a waste of time and money at best, and exposing them unnecessarily to worse, more violent criminals at worst. If I could magically create laws, I think that decriminalization and forced treatment would be the best option for users.
f.y.i. I personally occasionally use hard drugs, and I'm damn glad that they're hard to obtain because that helps keep me from getting out of control.
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Jul 16, 2002 21:49:54 GMT -5
>>If I could magically create laws, I think that decriminalization and forced treatment would be the best option for users.<<
Well, I definitely do not think that drug users should be put in prison. However, I also don't think that rehabilitation should be government funded. If you mess up your own body, it's not the government's job to fix it for you.
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Jul 17, 2002 12:38:31 GMT -5
While it's not the Government's job to protect people from themselves, they should protect others from those who are stupid enough to do drugs.
It's not so easy anymore to say that what one does with their bodies is fine as long as it doesn't affect others. That's not quite true. If I'm on the road, I hope the guy weaving all over the road coming at me is having car trouble, and not because he sees seven fairy princesses in three views of the same blurry road and isn't sure which one to drive on. If this guy hits me, then the fact that he smoked some dope, affects me.
Or, I don't want to be on the same airplane the pilot who just smoked some reefer is now about to fly.
And the guy who huffed some spraypaint, is now in emergency room. He has no insurance so guess who pays for it, those of us who DO have insurance, whose premiums go up because the gene pool didn't eliminate these people.
I am in agreement that the "Drug War" is an expensive dismal failure, but what to do? How do you keep people who want to suck the refridgerant out of your home's airconditioner because it's another way to get stoned? Then in a doped up euphoria, they're cartwheeling down the street and you hit him or he freaks out and kills some one or himself.
|
|
|
Post by DancinQT7610 on Jul 17, 2002 14:18:34 GMT -5
If it was just going to affect the person who did the drugs...then they should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies no matter how stupid it is. BUT it can affect others. I agree with.Hey::Now:: Girl and Toxic Avenger. People do stupid things whenever they are high, things they wouldn't normally do. And that could possibly be killing someone, blowing up a school or God knows what else. So no, I don't think drugs should be legal because it hurts more than just the person doing it.
"If I'm on the road, I hope the guy weaving all over the road coming at me is having car trouble, and not because he sees seven fairy princesses in three views of the same blurry road and isn't sure which one to drive on"
;DThat just cracked me up ;D
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Jul 17, 2002 14:37:00 GMT -5
People act like idiots when they are drunk too (hell, enough people act like idiots when they aren't intoxicated). That's why we have legislation against drunk driving. I also feel that there should be legislation against driving under the influence of drugs, because that puts other people's lives in danger.For some reason, Toxic's fairy princess example made me think of a story a police officer told me once. Now bear with me. There was this guy who was high on... LSD I believe. Anyway, what happened was that he got so doped up, he ran through his house, jumped out a window, and fell on the picket fence outside the house. He kept doing that over and over again and even when the police got there and tried to subdue him, he was still fighting. You're telling me that a drunk is more dangerous than that? Granted drunk drivers are idiots and have killed numerous amounts of people (and yes, we need more strict legislation against those assholes as well), but we don't need people hiped up on LSD, heroin, etc. running through our streets.
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Jul 18, 2002 12:43:02 GMT -5
Getting drink and getting stupid is just as bad as gettiing high. A drunk on the road is bad.
But as ::Hey:Now:Girl's: account says, Not only do drugs alter your mind, but some can give you amazing feats of strength, deaden pain, cause you to inflict pain, and distort your sense of reality in dangerous ways. When it wears off, you may have hurt yourself or others severely.
<<There was this guy who was high . . . he got so doped up, . . . jumped out a window, and fell on the picket fence outside the house. He kept doing that over and over again and even when the police got there and tried to subdue him, he was still fighting.
And this is what makes drugs so dangerous, because it also endangers those who are around the user/abuser.
|
|
|
Post by julinka on Jul 19, 2002 11:03:46 GMT -5
I also don't think that rehabilitation should be government funded. If you mess up your own body, it's not the government's job to fix it for you.
I guess I don't think of mandatory rehab for drug users as a government benefit to them. Sending (non violent) offenders to rehab instead of prison saves money both in the short and long term (cheaper than jail, and can decrease the chance that they end up back there). It's also cheaper socially in terms of fewer people on welfare because they can't hold down a job, fewer hospital visits, etc.
If someone gets in an accident because they were high/drunk/stoned then it's driving under the influance and a pretty serious crime. Yes, in this case someone's drug use has affected you, but it's not a convincing argument for why drug use, in general, should be illegal.
And the guy who huffed some spraypaint, is now in emergency room. He has no insurance so guess who pays for it, those of us who DO have insurance, whose premiums go up
Tax money pays for these people, not the charity of insurance companies, so it doesn't directly affect your premium. The government is not required to, and should not, legislate against stupidity. I could make the same argument for idiots who shoot their hunting buddies, and therefore guns should be illegal, but I don't think that would hold much water either.
we don't need people hiped up on LSD, heroin, etc. running through our streets.
First off, that's a little bit funny just because you're unlikely to see someone on heroin running anywhere. Secondly, there already are many, many people all around you who are using or abusing some kind of substance. And for the most part you'd never know. Most of the people I know who smoke pot are high-paid lawyers, technical people or consultants.
In the end, I don't think many people are arguing that it should be fully legal for someone to use hard drugs. If they were doing something obviously wacky or dangerous, they'd end up arrested, and stuck in treatment.
(also, the fence guy sounds like, if he really existed, he was on a lot of PCP, not LSD)
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Jul 22, 2002 7:28:27 GMT -5
<<Tax money pays for these people, not the charity of insurance companies, so it doesn't directly affect your premium>>
Thanks for the correction, but see? It still affects anyone who pulls down a paycheck. In other words, one's actions, however small still affects many.
|
|
|
Post by julinka on Jul 22, 2002 15:26:58 GMT -5
It still affects anyone who pulls down a paycheck. In other words, one's actions, however small still affects many.
So does the uninsured kid who fell out of a tree. But we don't ban climbing trees. For that matter, I'm sure alcohol-related hospitalizations are a much, much bigger public-health expense than all other drugs combined.
The point is, saying that my actions indirectly affect you (or all employed people), doesn't make for an argument that you can legislate said actions.
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Jul 23, 2002 7:57:27 GMT -5
<<So does the uninsured kid who fell out of a tree. But we don't ban climbing trees. For that matter, I'm sure alcohol-related hospitalizations are a much, much bigger public-health expense than all other drugs combined. >>
I'd rather pay for the uninsured child, too bad it doesn't work that way. True with the drugs, but alcohol related incidences, while bad and more numerous, alcohol is not as dangerous as drugs. What I mean is, LSD and other hallucinogens make you do and see things that are ot there. They distort your reality and will ultimatley kill you. Other drugs such as exstacy gives you awesome feelings of euphoria, then it makes you feel like your on fire. Many users become violent and other users of drugs become unbeleivably violent and powerful.
Getting drunk just makes you stupid, or mad, but your motor skills are screwed while bombed.
<<The point is, saying that my actions indirectly affect you (or all employed people), doesn't make for an argument that you can legislate said actions. >>
True, I'm just saying that many people say it's all right to do certain things--and not just financially-- as long as it doesn't affect any one else. But sometimes it does.
|
|