Can anyone give 1 legit reason why recreational use of drugs should not be legalized?

I wasn't addressing your question. I was addressing your juvenile propensity to repeatedly claim victory over a debate. If you want to "win" then address the points that your opponents are making instead of constantly yelling "Yes or No!! I win!!" ad infinitum.

 

Who are you talking to? I have yet to state a position on anything but marijuana. I am just addressing the fallacious nature of your question. I also do not smoke marijuana... but the founders took a position on it, and I side with them.

Nobody is being "violent".

Have you stopped raping and killing hookers yet? Yes or no. Answer or I claim thread win.

 

Go back and read the thread and the responses to the yes or no which was pertinent to the thread. Then come back and tell me im juvenile. If you do then youre juvenile as well.

 

I win.

 

And it is.

Non sequitur, as the inability of the addict to choose to abstain does not equate to the inability to overcome the addiction.

Far be it from the y-man to gainsay the possibilty that at least one person overcomes addiction every day, but mostly people merely trade one addiction for another, or for a combination of others.

There is no such thing as a free choice to become a slave.

Nonsense.

There's more than that to the question of whether consumption of any particular substance is deleterious.

 

What? If I follow your instructions then I am automatically as juvenile as you? Why? How would that make me juvenile Just because you say so? What if I don't follow your instructions? What would that make me?

I think I'm actually starting to understand your debate style. Here, let me try. If you make another post in this thread then I win and you're a pink poodle.

 

Go back and read the very first post. Its not my fault you jumped in the middle of the conversarion. my yes or no is pertinent to the ops very first post.

 

That is precisely what it means. They are INCAPABLE of... here

In order to overcome the addiction, they must, by definition, CHOOSE TO ABSTAIN.

- - - Updated - - -

Too late... I already won. He said he would not post again... I asked him a yes or no question, with the thread on the line... and he posted again... avoiding my question.

Now to beat you...

If you disagree with me... I win.

 

How do you know what your doctor is doing right now? Better yet...WHY on Earth do you even CARE what your doctor is doing in his/her on living room(s)? I go to my doctor because he fixes what's wrong with me. That is our contract. I have a health problem/he fixes it. I could care less how he recreates.

And don't give me that 'last post' garbage. LOL

 

Wait...but...uhhmm...but...ah, crap!

 

Nope.

Which of course they cannot, otherwise they wouldn't be addicted. This being the inescapable case, any real solution can only begin with the realization of one's enslavement, which NEVER comes by choice.

 

I really was trying to help him.


What IS to prevent the president, outside of a personal sense of duty to be lucid, from smacking up in a heroin legal world? We don't test or restrict our presidents. They can be alcoholics if they want... until they screw up, while lit, I don't believe there is any protection from them.

 

I don't see the law as being much of a deterrent to people who see themselves above such, but I see what you're saying. It's the same way in the corporate world. Like the Pres. and Congressmen, upper executives aren't drug tested but the janitor gets to pee in a cup twice a year.

The bottom line is that the only things that keep informed people from doing these hard drugs are the inherent negative consequences of actual consumption. I've never heard anyone say, "I can't wait 'til crack is legal so I can get me some of that!"

 

I ask my Dr if they submit to routine drug testing. If they say no I find a doctor that does. Dont you?
Secondly the real point is, (again read the very first post) if heroin is legal how would you then be able to know if your dr is on heroin?
Forget about answering that, you guys cant even admit going to a dr who takes heroin recreationally is a bad idea. How pathetic is your argument if you cant even admit that.

 

Yeah I'd much rather they just be an alcoholic because then it's legal when they show up to work (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up. Oh wait...

 

You keep usin dat word... I do no thin it means what you thin it means.


You seriously just do not have the slightest understanding of what you are talking about.
I personally know people who, of their own volition, recognized the damage their choices were inflicting on those around them and CHOSE to stop making those choices, without the influence of those around them... those who some would call enablers. You are stupid wrong... and speaking in absolutes about a subject you do not understand outside of subjectivity which you are likely projecting.

I am sorry if your dad was an abusive alcoholic who never learned. Your experience is not absolute. You are simply wrong.

 

I reposted the OP. I never said a Dr showing up intoxicated to work. I simply asked a very easy question (since the OP brought up the legality of shooting heroin in their home.........right above here....look up) If this person was a Dr shooting heroin in their own home would you want them treating your child whether it be surgery or a band aid the next day if they were not on heroin? Your answer is either yes or no. My answer is No.

 

It doesn't matter what you think, because you haven't the foggiest idea what the hell you're talking about.

No you don't.

That makes one of us.

 

No, because I don't care...Like I said, our contract is that he fixes me. If not, THEN I go somewhere else.

If I didn't know my doctor was on Heroine then apparently he has done a good job in fulfilling our contract. He fixes me, I pay him. I don't give a sh!t if he hangs from the ceiling and spits nickels in the privacy of his own home. He does the job...I pay him...That's it! Frankly that's all I have friggin TIME for. Geez...Who else do you make pee in a jar.....

 

So far I haven't seen that one legit reason someone said was posted. I guarantee that everyone here has met an illegal drug user every day in their professional capacity and never even knew it. Except of course for the guy who asks if they have been drug tested, which is a good idea. Anyway, I'm leaving this thread to you all, good luck. I am going to get a cup of coffee, I will ask if the barista if he is drug tested regularly though, wouldn't want a junkie cup of coffee

 

All I care about is that they do their job. If they can do their job why would I care what they do at home? Hell your doctor could be shooting up right now and you'd never know. I just don't see this as a point. I'm supposed to think that if drugs are legal my doctor is going to shoot up, not at work though, and that's supposed to scare me into thinking they should be illegal? I'm mean not only is the law not stopping this from happening, but there are in fact doctors addicted to opiates out there, and alcohol, and I'm sure the rest of the slew.

The Washington Physicians Health Program estimates -- like the general population -- ten to fifteen percent of doctors will battle addiction sometime in their career. Most to alcohol. But increasingly the drugs of choice are ones doctors can easily get their hands on: hydrocodone and oxycodone -- powerful painkillers that can give the user a euphoric high.
http://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-prosecutors-crack-down-addicted-doctors/

So, 1 in 10 your doc is doing drugs of some sort after work. Again, so long as they do their job, what's the problem? I could care less what they do after work so long as they are able to function when they are on the job, and if they don't I'm sure they'll be fired. It's not like they or the hospitals want to get hit with malpractice because they were hungover (which would be legal currently).

 

I agree totally. It's frustrating that all of these people say we should legalize drugs but should ONLY increase liberty with drug use, of course, because THEY are "okay" with it. Liberty requires tolerance, which means allowing things that we are not okay with. In example: discrimination. It ought to be perfectly legal for someone to post a sign that says "no darkies allowed." Few would shop there, I would not shop there - it'd be their loss, but not allowing it limits liberty. The entire idea that we can't allow that is predicated upon the idea that they won't have choices. If NO business would accept them, that is a reflection of society as a whole, and if NO business would accept them unless they gov made the business accept them, would the government do that?

I was going to separate the bold and respond separately, but now I see it's just one big mistake you're making.

1. "Alcohol abuse is not equatable to drug use." If you understood this, I don't think you would be disagreeing. You just recently said, "alcohol is a drug," and now you're disputing that drug abuse is equatable to drug use? Comparing 'normal' alcohol use to 'normal' weed use is fair - comparing drug abuse to safe and normal weed use is intellectually dishonest and, frankly, stupid.
2. If I have two six packs Fridays and Saturdays (obviously abuse), and you smoke 12 joints Fridays and Saturdays (obviously abuse - and a total of 24 beers/48 hrs. compared to 24 joints/48hrs.), which will be more damaging? It depends on what you're using. If you're thinking when I say "drugs" I mean "weed" exclusively, then you're missing the plural. Abusing almost anything colloquially referred to as "drugs" means abusing hard drugs - cocaine, heroin, etc. But let's assume it's weed. According to the British Lung Foundation, 3-4 joints is as damaging to respiratory health as a 20pack of cigarettes (tobacco), so those 24 joints are actually like doing 6-8 packs in a weekend. Let's be honest here - weed isn't without negative effects. It should be legal, but I'm not about to pretend like it's perfectly fine.

I compare the left and the right, and the only difference on the marriage definition between the two is that one is exclusive to heterosexuals... So I made a bigoted statement? You're suggesting that I am

big·ot·ed [big-uh-tid]
adjective
utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

because I pointed out that the two parties have almost the exact same view, and neither deserves to be call themselves tolerant or enlightened for it?

 

It's just about the saddest thing. I wish I had enough time to know what personal choices my doctor makes.

 

I'd go as far to say that government authority itself should be abolished - including the entire law and order system.

In a world with only private property individuals could create their own laws for their land as conditions of entry. People could take out insurance policies against crime, and the insurance companies would have an incentive to imprison violators of that person's property's law. Best part of all - it's entirely voluntary. The criminal has agreed to all this just by stepping on your land.

Nobody could force their views on others and everyone would regain their private property rights. If an individual doesn't like the laws in someone's property just don't accept the conditions by entering into their land.


Not sure why people think government is the only/best way to do justice. It only serves to dismantle justice through transgressions of liberty.



PS: Completely baked out of my mind at the moment so give me some breathing room with the above

 

What if we just banned drugs that caused a physical addiction within users? Bear in mind that people can become mentally addicted to anything.