"Under God" turned Personal Freedoms thread

Okay, but how some people use a substance isn\'t a reason to ban something.

It\'s not some people, it\'s every person.  When the substance causes such a dependency that the user will do ANYTHING to get more, I see it as a safety risk to myself, to others, and to the user themselves.  At that point, the substance should be banned.

Well, that is true.
Edit: Well what you said isn\'t true, but I understand your point. Not eveyone who trys crack needs it forever.

I would be okay with Crack, Cocaine, and Heroin being banned.

But most if not all drugs should be legal.

Originally posted by SwifDi
Correct me if I\'m wrong, but aren\'t drugs linked to many other crimes in general? Imagine if you made drugs legal... acquiring them would be more convenient... the demand for it would be higher as people grew addicted... and people would become desperate for the drug and try to obtain it by any means possible.

Drugs are in fact linked to other crimes at times as are cars, baseball bats, alcohol..the list could go on.

Being legal or not hasnt much to do with addiction rates. If people are going to be addicted to something, be legal or illegal wont change that. Here is a guess, but Im thinking the vast majority who are even remotely interested in taking a drug isnt concerned with the fact that they are illegal but more of what that drug might do to them.

As for your last sentence, that already happens often.

Actually im going to entertain you some more.

Here is a major crime that would virtually be eliminated to a degree. drug robberies and the such like the murders/ beatings associated with them. You have a bunch of low level street guys no longer shooting people over turf since they are fighting over something legal now. Kinda like when prohibition ended.

On the other end, those same people may still be there because the government would probably tax the hell out of everything and the local corner man would still be selling a dime for a dime instead of the governments 13.50.

Wouldn\'t have to worry about "bad shit" on the market as the gov. would probably regulate quality quite well. So less OD\'s or mysterious deaths. "Oh man..johnny always did that much, I wonder why he\'s bleeding from every orafice after just one line."

Everything is obviously just speculation one way or the other though.

Crack addicts are usually to scary to do anything but steal to get more crack.

No real drug dealer would trust them with a gun to murder someone for them.

Look at the rap sheets for most crack addicts, the most brutal charge is often a simple battery about fighting with another crack head over the last hit.

There are always the exceptions to the rules.

I find alcoholics a much more dangerous problem as they are often on the road. Look how many put a little kaluha or bourbon in their morning coffee, only to be drinking at some bar for lunch and catching after hours drinks after the job well into the night. I\'ll take my chances with a crack head before a drunk on the road.

Great, make it all more legal.  You think crimes would go down?  People are still going to rob and murder for drugs because they lack the money to purchase them, and if you what you say about taxing is right, it\'ll go up.  As for government regulation, so what if they now don\'t OD, they are still addicted and rotting away in an addiction.  Only thing that poor johnny is doing is supporting a government you don\'t seem to like too much.  Just my hypothetical retort to your theory.

Drug related murders weren\'t rampant when almost everything was legal in the early 1900\'s.

Yes that was a long time ago and many things are different for the better AND worse. So like I said, it\'s all speculation no matter what side you support.

There is however only one way to find out. Oh wait, you can look at statistics from places where certain substances are already legal.

Are you going to now hit me with this one?
It\'s a different region..different things..etc..etc..

That can be said and it does hold true to an extent. The differences aren\'t that large. People are in fact people no matter where in the world they are.

It\'s just odd how everywhere that substances are legal it is "X" way.

Everywhere where substances are illegal, it is "X" way.

The consistentcies do exsist on both sides.

Educate me where drugs are all sold legally.

Originally posted by TSina
Drug related murders weren\'t rampant when almost everything was legal in the early 1900\'s.

 

Besides opium... what other major drugs were running around in the early 1900\'s?  This is a joke right?  Hell I am sure Teddy Roosevelt could buy crack on every street corner.    :rolleyes:

Should I include opium trade in china in the 19th century?

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Besides opium... what other major drugs were running around in the early 1900\'s?  This is a joke right?  Hell I am sure Teddy Roosevelt could buy crack on every street corner.    :rolleyes:

Cocaine was legal then as well. Not sure about heroin. It was something I was watching on the discovery channel a few months ago about the history of drugs in america.

Crack didnt make an appearence untill the 70\'s I think it was.

Originally posted by Phil
Educate me where drugs are all sold legally.

Weed is about the only thing that is legal to sell in certain places like Holland and Germany, but it must be done by an establishment or "cannabis cafe". It can be also be possesed.

When I was in Vancouver, many people were lighting up in the streets, often only a few feet from cops. This was pretty widespread so I dont think that all of those incidents were just "ignored" by the cops.


Switzerland has a program nationwide to where it prescirbes heroin to addicts. I forgot what exactly they are trying to acheive and if it is failing or succeding. Australia and the Netherlands were looking into doing the same. Not sure if they have.

We(US) spends tens of billions of dollars in arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating, often the little men. We also have a few states that have decrimilized with more wanting to. The war on drugs is a joke. Drug use is constantly on the rise. Even on the news tonight, it was stated that at least 800,000 peopl now openly admit to smoking regularly since 92. They also said that number of actual new smokers is probably closer to 1.2 million over the same period of time.

Today\'s war on drugs is a re-run of Prohibition. Approximately 40 million Americans are occasional, peaceful users of some illegal drug who are no threat to anyone. They are not going to stop. The laws don\'t, and can\'t, stop drug use.

Today\'s illegal drugs were legal before 1914. Cocaine was even found in the original Coca-Cola recipe. Americans had few problems with cocaine, opium, heroin or marijuana. Drugs were inexpensive; crime was low. Most users handled their drug of choice and lived normal, productive lives. Addicts out of control were a tiny minority.

I don\'t think any country has made the harder stuff legal at any level. Some have decriminalized them though.


If people want to OD..let them.

[SirMystiq]

I have to agree with Giga on that Jewish comments. And the drug comments.

Hey I know what we could do. We can make murder legal also. That way when a person who tries to OD themselves but fails, and is just curiously walking down the street with a gun and suddenly sees devils and begins to shoot at them, they won\'t be put in jail. I mean it was the drugs fault and it was their choice to take it.

Thats the problem and the difference. No one is saying to make drug users or anyone under the influence unaccountable for their actions at all.

Thing is with your argument right now is this. That can already happen while these drugs are still illegal. Legal or illegal, that scenario can still happen.

Or you could jus ban the gun instead since we all know banning weapons solves our murder problem, plus people dont kill people, guns do!!!!!

Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Germany had a democracy, and the Nazis were able to win 39% of the political seats. And then Hitler was made chancellor.

Wasn\'t it Vice Chancellor then when the Chancellor died he moved up to it?