Preserved Topic: Peanut Gallery for "Should Drugs Be Legal?" (Page 2 of 3)

This is going to be good! It's fun being in the gallery as opposed to the stage.

Yep. It's kinda like the smart person's Jerry Springer. In fact... I think I know where we could even get a fat lady to take her clothes off for us, if you guys really want...

I ain't gettin' on that Airplane again...*shudders*

Actually, I was awaiting more sources...but I guess that is yet to come...

Aww you loved in, WS, admit it. Everyone needs to ride a fat lady in a mumu out of an airplane once and while... how else are you going to relax?

Hehe...yeah, that was a wild ride...and has something Pro for the current debate (thread here http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/000421.html ) especially this part

quote:

---

I would try to bum some crack or some other super potent drug off of people so that I could enjoy the remaining few moments of my life free of anxiety and not have to worry about crashing (well ... in the drug related sense) or future side effects of the drug

---

Sounds like a good, solid reason to me for Drug use...

Would also make that fat lady a little more 'tolerable'...hehe...

*Puff, puff*

Of course, from a social standpoint...I guess the consequences of drug use in the thread are pretty good arguments for the Con side

quote:

---

Truth be known though, I'd probably shit my pants, then i'd spend the next 4 mins crying because not only am I going to die, but I have to spend the last 4 mins of my life in pants that I shat in.

---

Yup...that's what he said...and did. Pure gold, baby, puuure goollldd! *Wipes tears of laughter from eyes after reading through thread...*

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 09-23-2002).]

So, would you give the drugs to the fat lady to make her more amenable to your advances, or do you take the drugs yourself to alter your perception of the fat lady? That is the question.

Well, can't speak for Njuice (but I think he won't be needing any drugs for that...hehe...), but I'd need a load of 'em...so the latter.

Trippin'...yeah....

*puff, puff*

Ahh... such time has passed since I've read that thread... good times, good times.

Suho & WS: Just got two words that'll sum it all up... "Yee-haw!"

edit: Grats on 1500 Masa Suho

[This message has been edited by njuice42 (edited 09-23-2002).]

OK just got back to reading thru zour comments.

First Up Suho you are right i re read my post and the punctuation sucked...

Next the drugs i listed individually were so that people could get an idea of what i mean when i am talking about "DRUGS" in generalised terms

I realise that it may not have been the best way to open by negating some of the pro Drugs arguments at such an early stage, that comes with hindsight .

As for the cannibis for health reasons I obviously didnt really make my point clearly enough so here i will attempt to redress that issue,

My feelings towards the legalisation of drugs in general is that they have a negative influence on our society and cause more problems than maybe any other substance taken by man alchohol and cigarettes included, canabis is at the center of medical debate at the moment, as it has been said that it can under certain cumstances have medicinal uses, if this was proven 100% then its use for those purposes i feel would remove it from the illegal drugs trade IF USED STRICTLY UNDER MEDICAL SUPERVISION; and therefore would not come under debate in this issue.

I want to approach this from a phillisophical point of view, but also wish to introduce facts and figures into my main argument because i believe that having a belief that "DRUGS BEING LEGALISED" is a bad thing must be supported by reasons for those beliefs.

It has been said that there are a lot of drugs and of varying degrees of potency, i agree on this and thats why i feel that the phillisophical approach is the only way forward on this debate. However Individual drugs must be mentioned to illustrate these points i think.

anyway if enough people want me to re -edit my original post in the formal for ease of reading i will happily do so, looking at it now it is very ambiguos in places and certainly not clearly put.


anyway I DONT FEEL BASHED, and if i didnt think i could put up with valid criticisms or other peoples points of view i certainly would not have undertaken this debate.

Tom

Glad to hear you don't feel bashed, Tom. It's up to you whether or not you want to go back and edit your post. If, after reading some of the comments here, you feel you should, I imagine the ref wouldn't have a problem with it. That's his call, of course.

nj: Thanks, man. I didn't notice that at first (and was trying to figure out what you were talking about). What an illustrious way to make the big 1.5, eh?

Ok, um yea.

Here is one source that may want to be used in the legalization issue, it has to do with terrorist funding...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,794609,00.html

Well Tom...re-editing a post in the Formal Debate is always hard on the person following...esp. if they have done tons of research based on your first post...

I would suggest first asking the moderator before actually doing so...

As to whether or not your post needs to be edited...well, that depends largely on you...if you (and only you alone can really decide that...your post isn't bad enough to warrant our...displeasure - IMHO, at least) feel that your post needs to be edited, then I would suggest doing so...after you obtain permission, of course...

Ahhh...peacepipe...want a puff? *puff, puff*

opps .. can I not edit without permission? .. I just was editing my english that I missed .. I switched dealer to dealers .. that is all

[takes the peace pipe] ... ahhhhhhhhhhhh .. just chillin' waiting for the next round .. feeling good about my opening statements

well after reading my opponents reply, i dont think i will need to edit my original, he has made several grave errors (almost on the point of suicidal in a debate...man am i going to love my next reply)....

Ram my compliments on a nice repost to my opening statement, but calling Cocaine,Opium,heroin Harmless drugs !!!!!!!! either you live on a different planet or live with your head in the sand, to have chosen those three drugs which are amongst those that cause most cases of death and drug addiction leaves me completely baffled and saddened that people out there believe them to be harmless.....


anyway enough of that expect my next post in formal within the next few days, and i have nothing to hide, in fact i will give you lots of gorey details about these "harmless drugs"


hehehehe

tom


PS Ram i am sure editing for typo's etc is allowed, my edit was more of an organisational nature and therefore could have affected your reply

Takes a drag on a cigarette




[This message has been edited by tomeaglescz (edited 09-23-2002).]

hehe .. just because I call them harmless .. don't get sucked into my little trap .. hehe .. I do have proof myself .. and again this will be fun .. oh and btw .. let's not pick on each other's post "he has made several grave errors (almost on the point of suicidal in a debate"

I didn't comment on your post .. and reframed myself from doing so .. I respected your post (didn't matter how weak or strong I found it to be) and responded to your few comments .. did not attack the style of post

*puff puff, pass... refrains from passing for a moment... puff puff.... ahhhhh, ok now passing it along*

Yea, I'd have to agree with Ramm here. Not in very good taste to "trash" each others posts here, pointing out errors and such. If anything, save it for a reply in the formal thread... Just my opinion...

Should be a good debate.

Tries to reach out and get one more drag on the pipe, but alas, it's worked it's way down the line too far... Instead decides to stare at the pretty colors on everyones shirts... weeeeeeeeeeeee

ram it wasnt an attack on your post but if you read the rest of what i said in that line about "that people think that drugs are harmless" was more of what i was trying to say . That wasnt meant at you individually; but at people that use that argument in the pro legalisation debate time and time again

As for the rest of your statement you raised some very interesting points some of which i havent seen before, so let the fun continue and I look forward to a challenging debate.


Tom

For Ramm, I'm wondering how far the legalization would go? Specifically, would all of these drugs be legal in schools? If not, for what age of child would they still be illegal?

I was also interested in the couple of places where you say that organized crime would be "forced" to do this or that. Isn't that what we're engaged in right now? Organized crime doesn't seem too interested in following the law whether it be to not sell drugs or to pay massive taxes on the legal ones.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 09-23-2002).]

Yea I would just like to let everyone know that I will be gone for a week. Yes my mother took away my PC for a week because I didn't go to church with her on sunday. Just goes to show you how much enlighting power that religion has over us all.

In the event that a moderator is needed, I pass the privilage to Bugs or Dan, whichever of you can call dibs first

So I'll see you in a week!


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

Bugs

I would safely assume if drugs were to become legal that they would have the same weight that alcohol does .. you can't use them til your 18 or 21 .. and I'm sure in certain special cases if the specific drug helped in a medical situation then the parent would sign off and be the one legally responsible for the drugs that their child is using .. I can't argue legal age because I'm not an elected representive of this here country .. [wink wink]

as for the "forcing organized crime" .. we aren't forcing organized crime to do anything .. we don't know how much they have we don't know how much they import and or how they get it into this country .. this legalizing would force not just organized crime in state to register but also foreign organized crime [ie terrorist] to actually make themselves more known .. and if they aren't interested .. this gives us even MORE reason to take them out and it will be easier to locate them would it not? we all know that if we don't pay our taxes we have collectors on our asses .. if you aviod them and are caught your sent to jail .. fraud and more so .. if these does are legal and are now at a set price why would anyone take the chance? unless they are just stupid .. which I'm sure 80% of them are .. drugs are a trillion dollar industry no matter if it is legal or illegal .. so why do we as a country have to sit on the sideline and watch the war on drugs be a lost cause?

please note .. I feel like a defense attorney that doesn't really believe in his client but will defend it til the end .. but at the same time I'm learning my own angles and seeing why some drugs should be legal and why others shouldn't .. please note .. that just because I am on the pro side doesn't mean I believe that drugs should be legal .. I had originally thought the question was Should Mari Be Legal .. and in this case yes I believe it should be

thanks

InSi .. I can't but laugh at your situation .. sorry .. [soft chuckle]


.::. cEll .::. 513

The legalization of Marijuana (no other drugs listed with it) has been a huge issue in Canada for the last couple of weeks, the lastest proposal was that anyone over the age of 16 would be able to buy and use, and it would be available pretty much wherever cigarettes are sold.

Insider (for when you get back) -

Dan - If Canada passes that law, expect a lot of American visitors to the Great White North.

I suppose that would become about as common as people around here going to Mexico for the weekend (week) to get drunk off their ass

[edit: Not so much because it's "legal" there, but if you can see over the counter they'll sell you anything they have ]

________________________________________________________________
-- Jack of all trades, master of that which has my attention at
the moment.

Unoriginal Cell 693

[This message has been edited by Lord_Fukutoku (edited 09-24-2002).]

Actually, if I hadn't of been in the last Debate, I would have gladly been in this one...on the pro side of legalization. RammStein raises perhaps the best of all questions...what is the alternative? Well, we see that now. The 'War on Drugs' has failed miserably, costing huge amounts of taxpayers money.

Because, after all these years, no other working alternative has been found, one is just creating a market for criminals. One must remember just how old the drug trade is. Also, one must remember, that every attempt made to stamp out drugs, and drug use, has failed. Even such 'hard-line' regimes like China, or the old USSR, where drug use resulted in the 'death penalty', couldn't stamp it out.

And where drugs are legal, the system works. Holland is a good example of this. Now, the system doesn't work perfectly, that has to be understood. But it works a hell of a lot better than the alternative. And it generates revenue, instead of costing huge amounts to combat it.

As for the health concerns, the positives outweigh the negatives...not where the actual drugs themselves are concerned, but the actual health of the users of such drugs...legalizing means controlling purity...and the generated revenues can in turn be used to treat those with problems...and to pay for information campaigns. Also, it would then be possible to do long-term studies on the human effects of such drugs with a larger control group...which in turn leads to better understandings of which drugs are actually harmful, very harmful, or actually deadly, in these regards.

With these arguments, the con side has nothing, absolutely nothing, to bring against them. For if they did, we would have seen the results ages ago...no, they only have empty words to bring to their defense...for clearly the results of the last 10 years have solidly proven that one cannot effectively combat drugs as an illegal entity. It just doesn't work.

One cannot solve a problem by treating the symptioms...one has to go direct to the source. By legalizing drugs, one does just that. The harmful effects of drug use to a society is mainly one of the criminal aspect. Remove that, and the problems of the individual effects are much easier, and cost-effective to deal with.

WebShaman .. I was only trying to point out the obvious .. my next post should further my support .. and this whole time I was thinking about Holland .. how does it work in Holland? why can't it work in the US? what makes drugs so scary? why are they addictive? all these questions .. all have pro and con arguements

but you couldn't have said it better .. though I was mostly on the con side of things before this debate .. I'm beginning to change my perpective

[This message has been edited by RammStein (edited 09-24-2002).]

Well, many people have problems with legalizing the issue...because of the moral question...and, of course, because of the mentality of the 'anti-drug' propaganda that has been around for so long. Now, I'm not saying that drugs are great, or nice, or anything along those lines. However, faced with the cold, hard facts that combating the drug problem! has brought to light (namely, that it is just not possible to win a two or more front war), one needs to seriously start considering alternatives. The drug trade has become a global trade, with many countries contributing to it. Strangely enough, the 'industrialized' nations make up the greater part of the consumer group of drug-users...despite massive information campaigns and tough laws against drugs. Well, nothing has seriously 'detained' the flow of drugs...and no amount of money will stem this flow (unless you manage to just buy all the stuff out there up...very impractical). The military arms, the police, governments, just about everything has been tried, with very little success.

Just legalize it. Holland has (well, to a point, anyway), and it hasn't become a land of drugged-out zombies...and their prisons are remarkably leer of drug offenders...

I mean, we've tried just about everything else (and they didn't work)...legalization deserves a chance. Maybe, just maybe, it is better...it is definitely cheaper...

Another thing to consider...is that most terrorist groups fund their movements with drug money. This, of course, makes it hard to trace...because it is illegal to begin with. Legalizing it would make it a lot easier to actually track the money (because it gets taxed...and bought and sold on a 'legal' market, where such records are kept).

Of course, there are a lot more aspects (and interesting ones...just consider the stock exchange...) to legalizing drugs...though I'm not saying it is the 'cure all' way to deal with the issue, maybe it is a better way...

to think .. I thought you WebShaman would be my toughest critic .. I'm not saying though that you support me or drugs for that matter .. but I think I'm in the same shoes as you .. that feeling of "nothing else has worked and drugs aren't going to go away so why not tap into that industry .. and have better control over who is selling what and where"

it will surely make tracking terrorist groups much easier and especially their profits .. when I mention Organized Crime .. I'm speaking internationally as well .. Cuba .. Columbia .. Mexico .. Afghan .. Iraq and Iran .. etc etc

Absolutely.

I mean what's up. I respect my country, America, and its flag, but its laws...nope.

I mean anyone who tries to tell me what I can or can not do with my mind or my body is not representing true freedom and the pursuit of free will. Without free will we are slaves. This whole world is messed up. I want to do what I want, when I want, as long as my actions do not interfere with the actions of others. I mean alcohol is legal, but no one drinks at work. If drugs were to become legal, it would not effect the high work moral of Americans, or anyone else in the world. And that is the main issue. Will society crumble and turn into a chaotic unorganized mess? Of course not. The people who do not do drugs usually do not choose not to do them because they are illegial, they do not do them because they do not like the idea of them, they do not want to be messed up, or they do not want to see alternative realities. They do not do them now, and more than likely hardly anyone would start doing them just because they are legal.

Anyway, blah...

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 09-24-2002).]

Yep, this can very quickly turn into a religious debate or political or any number of others...
i.e. religious: The basic Satanic Creed: Do what ye will, lest ye harm another. (There are several different variations to that, but that pretty much sums them all up). And I know there is a lot more to Satanism then just that, e.g. you have to actually believe in a god and devil (what a disgusting thought...). But that is the general idea Gilbert mentioned.
i.e. political: There are far too many people in this world who think they have the right to tell everyone else how to live their lives. Anyone with any political power believes it's their "duty" to declare what is right and wrong, what you can/cannot do, and just what you should/should not do in life. For the most part, these people are Christian and try to make everyone else follow "God's will."


[edit: All right, well I lost my train of thought between the house and here...
Just gonna add this: The only person/people that should have any say in what goes on in the privacy of their own home/s is/are the people involved directly. Consenting adults, be it prostitution or drug use or whatever, should be allowed to do what they want in the privacy of their home. Emphasis on consenting adult, and privacy of own home.

Sorry for the tangent.

________________________________________________________________
-- Jack of all trades, master of that which has my attention at
the moment.

Unoriginal Cell 693


[This message has been edited by Lord_Fukutoku (edited 09-24-2002).]

Just to correct something that Lord_Fukutoku said. The Satanic Creed is 'Do what ye will.' Period... The Wiccan Rede is that which reads 'Do what ye will, an' it harm none.'

Just wanted to clarify.

Actually Satanists don't have to believe in God or the Devil. They believe Satan is a good figurehead for their beliefs, just not necessarily a real one.

While being a religion that I don't really agree with(Seeing as I'm Wiccan) it is one that I can respect. They state their beliefs clearly(and sometimes loudly) and hold to them.

Check out The Church of Satan<Anton LaVey>

Their basic tenets are similar to Wicca but skewed toward self gratification and a disregard for the consequences of said actions. Which is to say they are responsible for the consequences t's just that the consequences are an afterthought. Consequences are at the forfront of a Wiccan's mind in their day-to-day actions.

Off-Topic I know but Lord Fuku's statement bugged me for some reason. I guess I felt the need to expound on my differences from Satanists. Heh.

GrythusDraconis

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 09-24-2002).]

ummmm .. guys .. can we keep the focus on drugs not religion .. I mean drugs and religion don't mix very well .. much like we are to keep state/politics and religion seperate let's do the same with drugs and religion

Yes, sorry for the tangent, just the first few things I thought after reading Gilberts post. I could be mistaken (wouldn't be the first time), but I remember a version of the "Do what ye will, lest ye harm another" refering to Satanism (or at least a form of Satanism, as there's probably as many as there are other religions). However, this was several years ago when I was "debating" with a friend on the subject. It very well could have been from someone who had kinda meshed the two belief structures together, I don't know. But thanks for clearing that up.


OK, back on topic... uh what was the topic again?
Ah-ha, proof by mathematical induction...

sees essentially no one in the debate arena, and starts to head back to his cell to study for that blasted quiz this afternoon. Sees a poorly crafted peace-pipe that isn't cashed yet and takes a drag or two. Sets it down thinking WS will be ticked if he finds people imitating him.

BTW, think we can speed this debate up a tad so we can go ahead and legalize a lot of that stuff here so we're not stuck with this second rate green-leafy-substance when WS isn't around?

Or go ahead and take your time

[Edit: More crappy grammer...]
Oh yea, not supposed to be using a lot of slimies... grr...

[This message has been edited by Lord_Fukutoku (edited 09-24-2002).]

Sometimes drugs and religion do mix. I'm specifically thinking about peote.

WS, you keep mentioning how Holland is a success story but I've heard just the opposite. I've heard its a virtual cesspool in Amsterdam because of all the drug culture.

There is also something to keep in mind when comparing alcohol usage here in America with other drugs. Alcohol is built into our culture and there are certain restraints that have developed to somewhat protect us from its ill effects. These other drugs have never been legal (for the most part) and to suddenly open the floodgates with one law could be catastrophic to society. I seriously doubt the effects will be as minimal as you "pro" types are suggesting. But I'm always open to hearing counter arguments if you've got some good data.

And for the record, I don't see nearly as much of a problem lessening the laws on possession in the war on drugs. For instance, I think we are doing the black community a huge injustice by incarcerating so many young black males for possession charges when other programs would be far more productive. I might even be open to a limited legalization of marijuana but I have yet to hear a compelling argument for legalizing the "harder" drugs.

Pssst, im sneaking around on my moms PC, shhhh!

Just skimming through!

Don't worry, we won't tell!

Glad you stopped by--I was starting to get the shakes for lack of your smirkies!

quote:

---

WS, you keep mentioning how Holland is a success story but I've heard just the opposite. I've heard its a virtual cesspool in Amsterdam because of all the drug culture.

---

Ever been there? Where did you hear that?

Well, it's not a cesspool...in the literal sense. Could you maybe...redefine what you mean by that? Maybe you mean it is a city of sin?

Well, in that case, I guess it just depends on how one defines 'sin'...since prostitution is legal in Holland (and here in Germany)...and because the people are much more open with sex issues than most americans, I can understand why someone would see that from a cultural standpoint...but one must remember that Holland is a functioning nation...and some drugs are legal there...

So...it just shows that drugs (some, not all) can be legalized...the nation hasn't gone to hell because of it...they also don't have regular shoot-outs with drug dealers, either...*shrugs*

So what is worse? Dead innocent bystanders, or a 'sinful' city...hmmm...who's really getting hurt, here? And which 'sins' are really worse? At least in Holland one does have a choice...nobody is forcing anybody to do anything here...just making some things legal.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 09-25-2002).]

Just to clarify something....


I WAS in Amsterdam two weeks ago, and yes there are hash cafe's and i spoke to a few people there (dutch people) and two of my closest friends are dutch that live here in the same town as me in the czech republic. They hate amsterdam because of the things that have been mentioned, people coming friom everywhere to smoke a joint in a cafe, now it ISNT LEGAL to buy it on the street and there are a very few relatively speaking place you can buy it, but it must be smoked where purchased.. Now that means any other consumption of it is ILLEGAL or purchasing it elsewheer IS ILLEGAL....and people do buy it elsewhere...

In fact some politicians are talking about repealing the law regarding this in holland, stopping the hash cafe's because of the image it is giving Amsterdam... So a great example for legalising drugs is amsterdam ??? i think not...

one of the few sensible pro drugs arguments i have seen here so far is the DE CRIMINALISATION OF DRUGS and this does not mean legalisation but rather not making it a criminal offence to be in posession of a drug in small enough quantities that it could be shown it is for that one persons use. THIS DOES NOT MAKE THE TRADE LEGAL !!! however instead of police chasing those people consuming it as criminals they can divert their time to the people at the source of the problem the dealers and traffickers... This is the approach they have taken in holland outside of the cafe's.

so please if you are going to try and use something to support legalisation of drugs please make sure you quote all the facts.

anyway i am off on location filming for the rest of the week as of 5pm tonight so i will aim to put up my argument at the weekend or monday latest, hehe i am actually filming in Eindhoven so maybe i can pick up some amunition from amsterdam as its only about 100-150 km from there.

YEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAA sin city here i come (all in the name of research honestly)

Bugimus...

I never thought of it like that, but that makes sense. The drugs are not incorporated into our society, so people will not be able to handle the floodgates opening. But than again, perhaps the drugs are already incorporated? Laywers = cocaine...hippies=marijuanna...truck drives=crystal meth...models=heroin

Hum

-^^-
--::--
\___/

I forgot one.

Computer Programers=everything.

WS, tomeaglescz correctly expanded on what I meant. And, no, I have not been there to see it myself. As I said, I have heard that was the case and tom has seconded it.

That whole "sin" thing is interesting. Please know that I believe about the best formula for society is a secular government and an ethical populace. So the idea that I was saying that about Amsterdam had very little to do with me just being disgusted with a bunch of "sinful" behavior in a "party pooper" sense. I live in a society that is filled with sin and I am awash in it. I don't have to visit Amsterdam for that, trust me.

It's just that we can't just say that it's a good move to legalize drugs because society won't completely fall apart if we do. That shouldn't be the standard. The standard should be set a little higher than that and we can see what results from legalization by looking at Holland. Is Holland still a functioning country? Of course! But what other kinds of results have come from its drug policy? Would anyone want to duplicate that in other countries? I for one am not thrilled with that prospect.