[Iandefor]

Do people own their own bodies?

If yes, who are you to say that they can't put what they please into them?

Anyways, prohibitions don't work. All they do is increase the price of the prohibited item and make it more dangerous. If marijuana were legal and generally available, the odds of your local dealer lacing your stash with cocaine to get you hooked on that too become somewhat lower.

[nonewmsgs]

omg i can only imagine pure columbian coke at a quarter the price.

how about this: you can recreationally party as long as you can hold a job.

[AdamG]

Originally Posted by JoshJ Bullshit. You're basically saying "the government is authoritarian so we should embrace that" rather than trying to fix it.

Nope, not "we should embrace that." Simply "governments have as much power, and exactly as much power, as the people give to them, and to say that they don't have that power quickly reduces the argument to absurdity."

Originally Posted by JoshJ It doesn't help "society" if you drink a beer, unless you want to talk about the money funneled from you to Wal-Mart, from them to Budweiser, from them to their marketing companies, etc; and any currently-illegal drug would have the same positive benefit on society's economy as a whole.

Actually, I'd call into question that having money go in an ever-increasing spiral of consuming->marketing->back again is actually a waste, ineffecient and a net loss for society. This is one of the fundamental problems I have with the traditional free market approach - it works great when people actually buy based on product quality, but when marketers have the populace figured out, product quality no longer drives their decisions (but that's another thread).

Anyway, I have work tomorrow, I got to get to sleep. I'll be back on tomorrow, unless I've come to my senses and cut my internet connection by then...

[GooFy]

Originally Posted by JoshJ Homosexuality was officially recognized as a disease until the late '70s. Addiction is hardly disease- there is no bacteria, no virus, no immune system malfunction. Also, Jentsu, get on AIM.

here is the definition of disease.
1. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
2. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.
3. Obsolete. Lack of ease; trouble.

as you can see it does not require a viral or bacterial or immune deficiency.
you may not agree but it is a disease.

[vkkim]

Originally Posted by bapoumba I'm against it because basically addiction destroys life.

I can destroy my life in a number of very legal ways. Why should the government deem addiction legal? I know people who are addicted to the Internet, games, etc. My friend missed a final exam because he stayed up all night playing WoW. Should the government put a mandatory limit on MMORPGs? How about they cut off your Internet connections for 20 minutes every 3 hours or so? Or how about they make all games illegal?

If you think any of those suggestions sounds ridiculous, rethink your stance on legalization. While I agree with you that addictions destroy lives, every citizen should have the right to make that decision for himself, just as I have a choice to get a degree, a job, or any number of things deemed "good."

To state it clearer,

Originally Posted by Iandefor Do people own their own bodies? If yes, who are you to say that they can't put what they please into them?

Originally Posted by ButteBlues I think legalizing it would make those same stupid people - meaning those who got addicted - even more likely to get addicted and shoot themselves in the proverbial foot, yes.

So what? Stupid people blow themselves up with fireworks, overdose on Tylenol, cut off limbs with power tools, and even shoot themselves in the foot. You can't remove every potentially dangerous thing from society. Governments aren't mothers, and citizens aren't infants.

Originally Posted by Extreme Coder Biologically speaking, drugs aren't definitely good, in terms of what they cause to your body, and their addiction.

What do you mean by "drugs?" Many drugs are prescribed by physicians to help people's bodies. Many of those same drugs are addictive.

If you're referring to illegal recreational drugs, some are good, some are bad. Some are addictive, some are not.

Biologically speaking, there are thousands of toxic chemicals that are being used in (perfectly legal) foods and household products. The FDA and other government organiations study them, publish guidelines for their use, and make sure people are using them properly. Many (presently illegal) recreational drugs have been found by those same organiations to be much less toxic. They should be regulated the same way other chemicals are.

Originally Posted by AdamG Society is moving forward so quickly now it's difficult to know what it is we really want. I would settle for "dramatic increases in the quality of life of all people."

I would have to disagree. The only "goal" any society should have is to allow a large number of very different people to live together while allowing as much freedom as possible to all of them. The role of the government is to step in when one person's actions infringe upon another's.

Everyone's definition of a quality life is different. Again, governments aren't mothers, and they shouldn't be trying to dramatically "improve" people's lives, as laudable a goal as that may be.

Originally Posted by AdamG Unfortunately, this lifestyle can only currently be supported for a small fraction of our society. While there are certainly trust fund kids whose quality of life is sufficiently high to make that scenario possible, for the vast majority of society - and of drug users - this isn't the case. The simple fact of the matter is that other than as a means of heightening an already high quality of life, recreational drugs don't have a productive role in society. An addict is still an addict whether they are buying off the street or from a clinic.

What if you're not an addict? I'll use marijuana as an example, since I know it personally. I have used marijuana heavily and regularly. However, there have been periods of time where I have had to stop my use for various reasons, and not once during those periods have I felt an urge to smoke. They have ranged from a few months to over a year, and although I continue to enjoy it, I can stop immediately without any negative consequences to my body.

Compare this to two legal drugs, nicotine and ethanol, both which are extremely additive and cause incredibly strong physiological withdrawal effects upon cessation of use.

If legalized, marijuana can become cheaper than alcohol or tobacco, both legal drugs. I mean, it's a fucking weed for crying out loud.

And don't tell me that people can't support a lifestyle of drug use. Homeless beggars can afford heavily-taxed alcohol and cigarettes.

Originally Posted by AdamG Nevertheless, now I just don't understand why we would want recreational drugs to be legal. What does anyone gain from it? Increasing the minimum wage, universal healthcare, public education - these are productive. They make for a more humane, compassionate society with a higher standard quality of life. What does legalization of drugs gain us?

Increasing the minimum wage decreases economic efficiency in free markets.

Universal healthcare comes at the cost of increased taxes. It's not the government's job to forcefully redistribute wealth.

NCLB.

You might understand why people want recreational drugs to be legal if you'd try them.

Originally Posted by AdamG There is always the fallback card: personal freedoms. There will always be people who say that the Government has no "right" to regulate what is done on private property. I'm not going to appeal to weak slippery-slope arguments here; I will simply say that Yes, it absolutely does. By sheer virtue of being male and having registered to vote when you were 18 - or at least registering with the Selective Service, which is required by law - then you already gave the Government the power to order you to drop whatever you were doing instantly and to call you out to Military service at any time. Is that "Freedom?" ... I realized at that time that a Government does not exist to uphold the rights of individuals; societies do not exist for the good of it's members. Like all dynamic entities, governments and societies exist for the sole purpose of their own survival. Adult men do not have the freedom to not be drafted for personal reasons because it is not in the Government's interest to let them do so. Citizens do not have the right to elect a non-US born candidate to president because it was not in Society's interest to allow that. And no, you do not have a 'right' to toke on weekends, because it doesn't help anyone if you do that.

A lot of things I do don't help anyone else. I have a right to masturbate in my bedroom on weekends, and it doesn't help anyone if I do that.

Certain people thought that governments exist to uphold rights of individuals: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

If the sole purpose of a government is to insure its own survival, every government in the world would quickly become totalitarian. It would immediately kill off anyone who disagreed with it, since they could potentially be a danger to its survival. It would mandate all its citizens to become slaves to the government, working until exhaustion on bare life essentials to ensure maximum longevity. I couldn't think of a more ridiculous statement.

Originally Posted by AdamG Drugs are accessible, but not pervasive

You've obviously never been a teenager in America or set foot on an American college campus.

Originally Posted by AdamG And, of course, less destructive drugs, or more enabling ones (eg, caffeine) are legal. If the destructive/enabling dichotomy is about equal, then the legality comes from preexisting social mores, for example alcohol and marijuana, both of which can inspire some creativity but also have negative effects (stoned/drunkenness).

I'm pretty sure the negative effects of alcohol and marijuana are not in any way equal. Alcohol related deaths number in the tens of thousands every year in the US alone, while deaths attributed to marijuana use has stayed at a big fat 0 for the past, oh, I don't know, thousand years or so?

I think the most creative thing I've ever seen a drunk person do was to urinate in the middle of the street.

[bapoumba]

Originally Posted by vkkim I can destroy my life in a number of very legal ways. Why should the government deem addiction legal? I know people who are addicted to the Internet, games, etc. My friend missed a final exam because he stayed up all night playing WoW. Should the government put a mandatory limit on MMORPGs? How about they cut off your Internet connections for 20 minutes every 3 hours or so? Or how about they make all games illegal? If you think any of those suggestions sounds ridiculous, rethink your stance on legalization. While I agree with you that addictions destroy lives, every citizen should have the right to make that decision for himself, just as I have a choice to get a degree, a job, or any number of things deemed "good."

Hello,
there was a little more to my post than just that. I basically stated that I do not know. And that maybe improving society was the answer. I still do not know, and no one pick up on that idea.
Every citizen should have the right to decide, yes. But do every citizen have a choice ? Why did your friend let her/himself into such counter productive behavior regarding a student life ? Why do some citizens feel the need to fill their life with addictive behavior ?

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by bapoumba Why do some citizens feel the need to fill their life with addictive behavior ?

It's called FUN. Try it sometime.

[stalker145]

Originally Posted by AdamG The basic end of this is that there is not an inherent good in legalizing substances.

AdamG, that was a very well written argument. I apologize if my quote does not summarize your basic argument - that is how I understood it.

I wholeheartedly agree that the government should concern itself with the good of it's citizens. That should always be the considration taken when creating a law that legalizes of makes something illegal.

I would like to point out, though, that the United States placed the desires of its citizens above a good many things when it declared itself independant from England.

You have presented some good material for consideration. As I'm still on the fence when it comes to legalizing drugs, I'll have to stick around and keep reading.

[bapoumba]

Originally Posted by JoshJ It's called FUN. Try it sometime.

Eh eh
That was not my point ^^

[Wybiral]

Originally Posted by bapoumba ... Why do some citizens feel the need to fill their life with addictive behavior?

** Drinks coffee while hitting a cigarette **

Define "addictive behavior"...

People can be addicted to video games.
I think a lot of people are addicted to computers.
Even more people are addicted to TV.
And even MORE people are addicted to social interaction.

I would go as far as to say that humans, in general, have a natural tendency towards addictive behaviors.

[Extreme Coder]

Originally Posted by Wybiral ** Drinks coffee while hitting a cigarette ** Define "addictive behavior"... People can be addicted to video games. I think a lot of people are addicted to computers. Even more people are addicted to TV. And even MORE people are addicted to social interaction. I would go as far as to say that humans, in general, have a natural tendency towards addictive behaviors.

Yes, humans can be addicted to many things, but people legalize or illegalize these addictions depending on how dangerous are they to you. The rate of TVs or Video Games killing people < rate of drugs killing people.

Extreme Coder

[vkkim]

Originally Posted by bapoumba Hello, there was a little more to my post than just that. I basically stated that I do not know. And that maybe improving society was the answer. I still do not know, and no one pick up on that idea. Every citizen should have the right to decide, yes. But do every citizen have a choice ? Why did your friend let her/himself into such counter productive behavior regarding a student life ? Why do some citizens feel the need to fill their life with addictive behavior ?

I understand, I wansn't really trying to attack you or anything, just the point you made. Nobody knows the right answers (that's why we're here).

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "do[es] every citizen have a choice?" If you think that "every citizen should have the right to decide," then I'm pretty sure they have a choice. Nobody is forcing anyone else to take drugs, and if someone were, that would certainly be illegal. Alcohol and tobacco are legal, but there are plenty of people who choose not to use either.

I don't know everything about my friend, but I assume he did it because he enjoys playing the game. People make all sorts of bad decisions. It's part of life. It's not the government's position to step in and say, "No, you can't do this because it's bad for you." That's why I think age limit laws are stupid too--if a 17 year-old kid wants to smoke cigarettes or drink beer, let him. He can do other equally stupid things that would be harmful (drink antifreeze, drain cleaner, etc.) that are perfectly legal, so why prevent responsible citizens from enjoying certain substances in moderation?

Sure, some people think it's "bad." But why should their opinion infringe on another's freedoms?

Originally Posted by Extreme Coder Yes, humans can be addicted to many things, but people legalize or illegalize these addictions depending on how dangerous are they to you. The rate of TVs or Video Games killing people < rate of drugs killing people.

Marijuana has killed 0 people in its history of use.

Both alcohol and tobacco kill hundreds of thousands every year.

Marijuana is illegal.

Alcohol is legal for anyone over 21, and tobacco is legal for anyone over 18 (varies per state, NJ just made it 19).

[Dr Small]

Sure, some people think it's "bad." But why should their opinion infringe on another's freedoms?

We know it's bad, not just think.
Sure we know that it will cause lung cancer, or liver failure, but I don't see anything wrong with people dying young, so long as they choose....
It's freedom, let people use it. If they choose to die young, sobeit.

Dr Small

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by Extreme Coder Yes, humans can be addicted to many things, but people legalize or illegalize these addictions depending on how dangerous are they to you. The rate of TVs or Video Games killing people < rate of drugs killing people. Extreme Coder

So? Why should the government ban something just because people may end up killing themselves with them? Put warning labels on it like they do for tobacco and legalize it.

[Extreme Coder]

That's what I said at first, JoshJ, I said they should legalize it since they won't ever be able to finish the dealers and takers off once and for all, and because people should have their freedom. Whether they choose to misuse their freedom in damaging their health, it's up to them.

Extreme Coder

[Wybiral]

Originally Posted by Extreme Coder Yes, humans can be addicted to many things, but people legalize or illegalize these addictions depending on how dangerous are they to you. The rate of TVs or Video Games killing people < rate of drugs killing people. Extreme Coder

Well, people are addicted to junk food and it causes things like high cholesterol and nutritional problems... And obesity. Will they ever illegalize junk food... Not a chance. Even large amounts of caffeine begin to cause nerve damage over a long enough period.

Are you telling me that cigarettes & alcohol are less addictive and easier on your body than illegal drugs like mescaline, psilocybin or marijuana?

It's as dumb as illegalizing poison IMO... If people are dumb enough to abuse them, then maybe they deserve to pay for it. Perhaps education is a better use of our time and money.

[JoshJ]

They have made trans fat illegal in restaurants in some places.

[Wybiral]

Originally Posted by JoshJ They have made trans fat illegal in restaurants in some places.

But it would be crazy to tell someone they can't eat trans-fatty food in their own home. I don't see that ever happening...

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by Wybiral But it would be crazy to tell someone they can't eat trans-fatty food in their own home. I don't see that ever happening...

Right, but it's clear we're already on a slippery slope.

[gorg]

i vote to make everything legal.