Do you think we should legalize drugs?

[Warik]

I think all drugs should be legalized and harsher sentences be imposed on offenders involved in crimes that had to do with drugs (i.e. some fucked up junkie shooting someone).

Why? Drug abuse is a victimless crime.

If you sit there in your living room and start shooting heroin and O.D., who gets hurt besides you? No one. I am COMPLETELY unaffected by one of my friends who sits down to smoke some shit every night, and I'm COMPLETELY unaffected by whoever decides to do a good cycle or two of gear.

So why is it illegal? Because politicians and common citizens are illogical.

Before any of you go and complain about "oh, what if someone goes nuts with his drugs and goes and kills someone! there's a victim!" True, but that person was killed by A DRUG ABUSER - NOT BY A DRUG. This would be comparable to banning cars because people get killed by motorists every day.

Start thinking and stop regulating everything. Stupid government.

-Warik

 

[bigguns7]

I think all drugs should be legalized and harsher sentences be imposed on offenders involved in crimes that had to do with drugs (i.e. some fucked up junkie shooting someone).

Why? Drug abuse is a victimless crime.

-Warik

Okay, here's the scenario. And this is an actual scenario that happened to a friend, except of course, that coke is illegal.

Let's say we make cocaine legal. Now everyone knows that cocaine is highly addictive. Now let's say Mr X, father of two and loving husband, becomes addicted to cocaine. He proceeds to sell the furniture, his daughters' college funds, and the grocery money on cocaine, which is legal.

That's perfectly fine, right? It's a victimless crime right? He's not hurting anyone except himself right? Wrong. There are victims. But under your scenario, this scumbag wouldn't serve any time, because he didn't commit any crime. I think we should keep things the way they are.

 

[techlifter_2]

Re: Re: Do you think we should legalize drugs?

Nah, if it got legalized, the income for Uncle Sugar would be about $63.75. The legal status is why we pay so much for what we do(if we do). The Gov make their cash by having the black market fucking us up(cops, lawyers, courts, ATF,rehabs, treatments,doctors,yap yap yap......). They know what they are doing.

If it were legalized, i dont think the amount of use would fluctuate much. Just as sarcastically as you said $63.75, that means there is about $62,999,999,999.25 more dollars for americans to put into the economy instead of to terrorists.

 

[Immortal Juicer]

Okay, here's the scenario. And this is an actual scenario that happened to a friend, except of course, that coke is illegal.

Let's say we make cocaine legal. Now everyone knows that cocaine is highly addictive. Now let's say Mr X, father of two and loving husband, becomes addicted to cocaine. He proceeds to sell the furniture, his daughters' college funds, and the grocery money on cocaine, which is legal.

That's perfectly fine, right? It's a victimless crime right? He's not hurting anyone except himself right? Wrong. There are victims. But under your scenario, this scumbag wouldn't serve any time, because he didn't commit any crime. I think we should keep things the way they are.

It happened to your friend regardless of cocaine being illegal. He still got hooked on it. That shows you that the war isnt working. If it had been legal, your friend may have been able to get help earlier because he wouldnt have to hide his initial use. He also wouldnt spend his daughters college fund on it because it would not be as expensive and there would not be the threat of violence if he owed money for coke.

Most of the true problems arise because it is illegal.

 

[Warik]

Let's say we make cocaine legal. Now everyone knows that cocaine is highly addictive. Now let's say Mr X, father of two and loving husband, becomes addicted to cocaine. He proceeds to sell the furniture, his daughters' college funds, and the grocery money on cocaine, which is legal.

That's perfectly fine, right? It's a victimless crime right? He's not hurting anyone except himself right? Wrong. There are victims. But under your scenario, this scumbag wouldn't serve any time, because he didn't commit any crime. I think we should keep things the way they are.

Then why don't we charge poor people with crimes, too? Hey, Joe Schmoe doesn't make enough money to buy furniture, send his daughters to college, or buy enough groceries for 3 meals a day. Mother fucker should be locked up!!!

Wrong.

The important facts to notice here are:

1) It's not illegal to sell furniture.
2) It's not illegal to spend college funds.
3) It's not illegal to spend grocery money.

The price that this real family paid was NOT because of a father addicted to cocaine, but rather a bad man in general. Why? A good man wouldn't abuse an addictive substance and cause his family so much harm. There are zillions of way to screw up a family without using drugs. Should we regulate all of them?

-Warik

 

[Crazier]

I think all drugs should be legalized and harsher sentences be imposed on offenders involved in crimes that had to do with drugs (i.e. some fucked up junkie shooting someone).

Why? Drug abuse is a victimless crime.

If you sit there in your living room and start shooting heroin and O.D., who gets hurt besides you? No one. I am COMPLETELY unaffected by one of my friends who sits down to smoke some shit every night, and I'm COMPLETELY unaffected by whoever decides to do a good cycle or two of gear.

So why is it illegal? Because politicians and common citizens are illogical.

Before any of you go and complain about "oh, what if someone goes nuts with his drugs and goes and kills someone! there's a victim!" True, but that person was killed by A DRUG ABUSER - NOT BY A DRUG. This would be comparable to banning cars because people get killed by motorists every day.

Start thinking and stop regulating everything. Stupid government.

-Warik

I'm impressed.

When I saw you were the last one to post on this thread, I thought for sure... since you haven't tried pot mostly... Because you haven't I thought that you would be like the majority and wish to ban something that you have no idea the influence or feeling it has on you.

Good for you.
--

 

[Warik]

I'm impressed.

When I saw you were the last one to post on this thread, I thought for sure... since you haven't tried pot mostly... Because you haven't I thought that you would be like the majority and wish to ban something that you have no idea the influence or feeling it has on you.

Good for you.
--

Thanks. I just think it's so primitive to impose things on people in response to what they "might" do. It's comparable to gun ownership, automobile ownership, or even a damn alarm clock. What if he uses that gun to shoot someone? What if he gets drunk and crashes his car into someone? What if he uses that alarm clock to make a tick-tock bomb?

My thought? What if you are the only dipshit who fantasizes about these atrocities on a daily basis and thus want to regulate everything you can manipulate the populace into giving up?

-Warik

 

[junglist]

the american public doesnt have the common sense to know where to draw the line with drug use. Sure, we could legalize drugs, but how many dumbasses would knod off on heroin driving back from a party? or 15 year old kids suffering from amphetamine induced psychosis? perhaps a nation of bi-polar ecstacy abusers?

drug use shouldnt be legal, but without a doubt, it shouldnt be a criminal offense (maybe defferment to educational classes, rehabilitation, a fine?)

our government has more than our health and best interest at stake with the war on drugs.
dont beleive it? here are the DEA's current 3 standards for scheduling a drug:
1. The substance must be physically harmful
2. It must be physically addictive
3. It must serve no medicinal purpose

*nicotine and alcohol meet all three requirements for scheduling/classification of an illegal substance (yet somehow are legal?!?)

*heroin serves a medicinal purpose for pain-killing properties
*ecstacy serves a therapuetic purpose for post-traumatic stress disorder...
*I could talk about marijuana but...

i wonder what type of hold phillip morris and anheiser-busch lobbyists have on our policy makers?

 

[Taps]

Damn, Warik -- you one smart cracka!

I see drug laws as a form of censorship. What it basically comes down to is one person saying to another" "You can't do this because I don't agree with it." I believe individual freedom is an absolute -- you either have it, or you don't.

If someone chooses to use drugs, fine. If they're irrisponsable with thier use and they fuck up thier lives, fine. As long as they arn't directly hurting anyone else, fine. It's their choice.

Nobody has the right to tell anyone else how to live.

 

[bigguns7]

Then why don't we charge poor people with crimes, too? Hey, Joe Schmoe doesn't make enough money to buy furniture, send his daughters to college, or buy enough groceries for 3 meals a day. Mother fucker should be locked up!!!

Wrong.

The important facts to notice here are:

1) It's not illegal to sell furniture.
2) It's not illegal to spend college funds.
3) It's not illegal to spend grocery money.

The price that this real family paid was NOT because of a father addicted to cocaine, but rather a bad man in general. Why? A good man wouldn't abuse an addictive substance and cause his family so much harm. There are zillions of way to screw up a family without using drugs. Should we regulate all of them?

-Warik

I see your point, but my story was meant to illustrate the naivety of your statement that drug abuse is a victimless crime.