Catch 22, Legalizing Drugs and Defeating Dangerious Criminal

Post Reply New Topic

You should add LSD and Mushrooms to the Legalize list. They don't do any harm either.

And who is to tell these people that they can't use drugs of any kind to take the pain away. Maybe my "compassion" is more short-sighted than yours, but I don't believe in telling people that they can't do something they really want to do at the moment because you have the idea that sometime down the line they will be worse off.

I would very much welcome the time when we have invented the necessary chemicals to achieve any mood state desired at any time by the use of chemicals that can be taken for years without significant bodily harm. That would greatly decrease the need for people to use social activities and relationships to achieve certain emotional effects, and make people more psychologically self-reliant. In turn, I think the sway of social manipulation would decrease drastically as people could use readily available and manufacturable chemicals to achieve the same sense of "superiority" they get now by controlling other human beings (who in turn lose their rights to be left alone).

Here in the Netherlands soft drugs like weed are legal.
Studies have shown 95% of the hard drugs addicts have started by using soft drugs.
I've smoked weed once but i thought it kinda sucked.
Beer is much more enjoyable to me.
So i never smoked weed again.
The most noticable thing was that it wasn't such a pleasant feeling to my throat as i am a non smoker.

Legalizing hard drugs would be disasterous.
They are often so addicting that people do crazy things in order to get a hold of them.
Many milions of lives of mostly people who get addicted easily wil get ruined.

LSD is a no.... I used to play with that stuff, but it's dangerous. You could completely fry your brain and be confined to a rubber room and a straight jacket for the remainder of your life, and that's not even the worst possible thing that could happen.

95% eh? I bet ALL of them, or as close as 95% as possible 'drank' beforehand. As well, that 95%, its weak because its only one side. How many smoke pot but nothing else? Nothing major, at least

Its only logical they start on something "soft."

I bet most people who own a car at age 50 owned another at some point in their life time - what does that mean? Absolutely nothing.

I'd just say set your limits - legalize marijuana but leave the rest as-is. Marijuana has at least proven a lot less dangerous than alcohol, doesn't kill braincells, and the whole schizophrenia link is largely a reversal of cause and effect: ie. many schizophrenics and the like smoke weed because its much like a natural antipsychotic, some of them it works for and some of them it doesn't.

As for trips and things like that - when you legalize anything your saying that whats being legalized should be almost equally safe for everyone. For every one person who can really learn a lot and grow by the stuff there's probably at least 2 who'd just party on it and not make heads or tales of it and another 2 who either have mental health problems which would just get worse or they're the types of people who already have a challenge at sorting reality and they'll believe everything they're seeing just because they don't have much mental control of themselves.

Regarding E, Heroin, Coke, Meth, and all that other fun stuff - it would be far more harm than good to legalize those because you better believe that far more people would try them, get hooked, and fry themselves out just because I think a large part of society is riding the short-bus in terms of self knowledge and self control. Again, I think the FDA and DEA have the right idea when it comes to most drugs just because, in a democracy you can't just pass out cards and say "Ok, you can handle this...Wait...hold it, the guy behind you can't - he's not allowed", it would have to be completely indescriminant and of course having as many overgrown babies as we do the results would be disastrous. People who can handle it, they're also smart enough to know the time and place to do certain drugs (at least which they're willing to take the risk on) and also know how to not be shady or get themselves in trouble, in other words the only way you can give people selective freedoms like that is unofficially and at their own risk.

and I'd guarantee that 99% of them if not close to 100% have dabbled at least occasionally with caffeine or ginseng. I think the best way to say it is that with the types of people who'd be into hard drugs, they'd get there regardless of whether or not they needed to work at getting their hands on it. Availability makes some sway but at least around here, even where its not illegal, I'd say 3/4 of the people my age who've drank and even some who haven't either do or have smoked marijuana in the past.

That's what our current government seems to think--that one of its jobs is to ban anything that isn't safe. As a libertarian, I don't find that to be one of the proper functions of government. Yes, there should be laws against misrepresenting products, selling adulterated substances as pure ones, selling untested drugs as if they had been safety tested, etc. However, even if I knew that if a drug were made legal 95% of the population would die within the next day from overdose, I wouldn't find that grounds to keep it illegal (or make it illegal in the first place).

If so many people prefer a short life of extreme euphoria to a longer, more "normal" one, who am I to say their priorities are wrong. I am well aware that my life priorities differ considerably from the average person in my society, and I don't need people criticizing me for that.

However, I in no way do I endorse violent behavior of people on drugs (or sober for that matter). People who use drugs have to find a way to contain their problem so that they don't have to exert force on the people around them or destroy their property. If people wish to use drugs and drive or otherwise engage in activities that many injure others, they either have to be sober enough when they do these activities or manufacture better drugs that won't impair them. If recreational drugs become legal, I bet the market for less impairing substances will take off explosively.

emp - we'd better hope the pollution allelle is domiant then we can get rid of any foetuses with the allelle and bye-bye, allelle. Still not polluting the gene pool. What? If they must develop the screening tech. anyway...

If I knew that even 10 or 15% of the people would overdose on it or become junkies I'd keep it illegal. I like that our government makes that choice - why? Economics. The working man/woman would have far more dead weight, if you had otherwise responsible people unable to work anymore or becoming hyper-productive as in the case of meth but just going off the rail after a while mentally - our economy would be kneecapped pretty good. As it is meth is an epidemic and from what I've learned its a drug that you just can't gain anything really positive from.



I get that and agree but if you are the type of person, like I am, who gets their thrills from personal growth, gaining maturity, and becoming something better in this life - are you really becoming a burden to anyone by being different like that? People who are short-term in their pleasures and go for immediate gratification are kinda like the weeds choking the garden that is organized society. In essence they themselves are entropy and people like us, AS or NT, have to work much harder to not only make our own lives right but fix the damage they create because of their own blatant immaturity. Not saying that all of them are blatantly immature, some very intelligent people go extremely nihilistic at times particularly with AS, but that's a rather small %.



I think the trouble there is that stupid people are stupid people. With a lot of these people you can just see it the second they get liquor in them - they have a natural urge to vandalize things and that's exactly what they do. I understand that by natural law that personal responsibility, self control, and those sorts of 'virtues' are seen as some pretty severe weaknesses and that people like us can be seen as d---riders. like we're really just adhering to the rules out of fear and gutlessness. Sometimes I think we need to strong-arm them back and shatter their little 'if your not with me your a p---y' bubbles. If talking to some people means rewinding 100,000 years of progress and dumbing out, lol, sometimes I feel like I'm just dying for someone to throw a punch at me.

i say legalize legalize legalize, let natural selection begin!

i would love to see all the dipshites OD! or be so ret*d that they are dead in a few years from what ever. all issues of race and crime would be gone. i would love to see all the junkies die off and all the stoners just sit around being the fools. let them go mad with dope heck ya... gets rid of the tards!

I don't see how people who think short-term with their pleasures are necessarily antithetical to an organized society, if by organized you mean with rules that people follow and freedoms people respect. As long as people pursue short-term rewards that do not involve taking from other people, society should not fall apart.

Maybe you feel content experiencing only the emotions and states of mind that are naturally accessible to your brain, and don't find there's anything to be gained by chemical enhancement, and that is perfectly fine, but it doesn't represent everybody.

I only mean that in the sense of them being deadweight, rehab programs getting bombarded, and we who are already financially strained with the jobs going out of the US now having to pay the tax dollars because they can't or won't pay for it themselves.



Look in the mature folder under the topic 'Drugs you take recreationally/for pleasure' and see my posts on pages 3 and for. At least with respect to hallucinogens and to some degree with ecstacy I'm of an opinion quite opposite to that. For me hallucinogens and most of the drugs I tried they actually changed my life drastically for the better - a good amount of people were actually weirded out by me and didn't like me much around the time I was 20 because they felt like I almost endorsed drug use, they were right to think that way to a point because what I experienced was polar opposite to most people at large. To this day when people tell me they've got good mushrooms, gels, hits, or sugar cubes my mouth practically waters (though with the fact that I have a 4 year degree and am looking for a professional job I need to keep that in my past for my own sake).

It's important that I stress that along with drugs being legal, I would make it such that it isn't the government's responsibility to pay addicts when they no longer can or will work to support themselves. It's the drug users' responsibility to pay for their own survival (or die if they absolutely can't or don't want to). If people want to set up a charity to help addicts get rehab then that's a commendable act on their part.

Also, how can you be sure that you experienced the polar opposite of other people. The fact that so many people use these drugs, despite the fact that they are illegal, shows that some people must be getting some benefit from the effects.

Well, here's another thing. I've been looking around trying to figure out what our prison system costs in terms of inmates. I've gotten estimates between $23,000 and $35,000 for younger inmates in some systems and even $70,000 per year if the inmate's over 60. That's pretty much dissolves a hundred or two middle-class tax payer's total tax load, just ONE inmate. Unless your suggesting we just go capital-punishment happy or go back to the code of Hammurabi and just start publicly killing people for murders or even start taking hands for stealing I really don't know what your suggesting, going the peaceable and liberal way our economy would be just as shot as if we were paying them welfare checks. Yeah, doesn't sound fun, sounds like a negative no-win situation especially with the war on terror in effect and that eating our resources but figure this: this is just that kind of world we live in.

Of course I'm not saying that all the new addicts would end up in the system, just that with no support if they were H-bombs, meth-heads, or crack heads they'd have to steal for their supply. That of course leads to numbers and a nice orange jumpsuit - again, not cheap by any means and even more than just with drugs I'm really disgusted by what our society endorses as true 'alpha' because they just encourage people to be burdens half the time.