Discussion in 'Drugs, Alcohol & Tobacco' started by tcb5173, Mar 12, 2013.
Okay. But what does that have anything to do with drug legalization? Please elaborate on this.
The general government is no longer delegated any social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce among the several States since the repeal of that Only Delegated social Power.
If you are going to talk about rights, then you should explain from where you believe that rights come. Otherwise, your opinion is mere assertion. It's nothing more than "I don't like people who engage in certain reckless behaviors, so I think it's moral and just to use violence against them before there's a chance someone might be harmed."
You don't have to right to stop people from engaging in reckless behavior if they have not harmed anyone and have not created an imminent threat against an identifiable potential victim.
If there's no victim, there's no crime.
Wait a minute. Now you are saying that people *do* have, sometimes, the right to engage in reckless behavior that might cause harm someone. Can you define the exact line where it's ok to engage in reckless behavior that might cause harm to someone, and where it's not?
What evidence do you have for your claim that those drugs cannot be use responsibly? Cocaine, heroin and other drugs were legal at one time. Countless people used them responsibly. What changed?
Depending ion bodyweight you would need 7grams of paracetamol to give a toxic dose which is over 20 tablets.
Tylenol exists so Americans can pay over 5 times the price for paracetamol than the generic variety
Speeding is illegal. Why? Because it's reckless behavior that could harm other people. And not everybody who speeds gets into a car accident and harms somebody. By that logic, speeding should be legal, because if there's no victim, then there's no crime. Have you ever seen somebody speed, but not get into a car accident? Yes, I have. There was no victim. However, since that sort of behavior runs the risk of a victim being created by their reckless behavior, the it remains illegal. That's the same exact reasons why drugs are illegal.
Not everybody drinks alcohol because they want to get drunk. They drink responsibly, and it doesn't impair their judgement to any significant extent. However, everybody that does heroin, acid, meth, cocaine, etc, does so, because they want to get high. It's possible to consume small amounts of alcohol without having your faculties impaired, unlike with other drugs. That's what I mean by "alcohol being used responsibly", unlike other substances.
You are still confusing getting high on some drugs, with becoming intoxicated. You can get high on some drugs and merely be more euphoric about doing your daily chores.
There is no toxicity level for marijuana........ the human body will only absorb a limited amount of THC and the rest is simply rejected by the body which prevents any possibility of an overdose.
That is false. Smoking 800 joints in one sitting causes death by carbon monoxide poisoning.
Also, in some cases, smoking too much pot at once caused such a drop in blood pressure, that it caused a stroke. Technically, those people died of marijuana overdoses.
Seriously, 800 joints? An ounce of marijuana contains about 40 joints and each ounce in today's medical marijuana market sells for about $275 dollars so we're talking about smoking over $5000 worth of marijuana that would take several days to consume causing a possible death from carbon-monoxide poisoning? How about standing in the exhaust of a diesel truck instead because that would be a lot quicker way to die from carbon-monoxide poisoning so let's ban diesel fuel.
BTW if the person uses a vaporizer instead of smoking 800 joints they won't die of carbon-monoxide poisoning because the vaporizer doesn't produce carbon-monoxide.
As for the case studies on strokes related to marijuana use what we find is correlation as opposed to causation in each of the studies. Correlation does not establish causation.
The likelihood of individuals being marijuana users and having a stroke is actually quite high and not all causes of strokes are known. In short just because marijuana use by the person was cited doesn't imply that the marijuana use actually caused the stroke. It can also be noted that these "case studies" are not even statistically significant because any sample size below 20 is statistically worthless. Now, if they can present thousands of these cases there might be reason to believe there could be a causal effect but a few rare cases that establish nothing but a possible correlation have no meaning whatsoever scientifically.
It could be argued that speeding creates an imminent threat thus initiati g aggression. Ingesting a substance does not create an imminent threat. Besides, I don't agree that speeding should be treated as a crime. Again, if there is no victim there is no crime.
And are you suggesting that I am inconsistent in my arguments? By the way, speeding is not illegal on private roads. If you are going to rely on this analogy explain why ingesting drugs in the privacy of your home is illegal.
Are you arguing that most people drink without the intent to feel good?
Even if, in ypur opinion, it is immoral to use a substance to feel good that does not raise getting high to the level of a crime. Nor does getting high equate to irresponsibility just because it is not something you would do.
That is false. Drug usage does create victims. It's not a victimless crime. Stoned drivers cause car accidents. People who are high on meth and cocaine sometimes commit crimes such as theft and rape, because the drugs impair their judgement. When people have bad trips and hallucinations on drugs such as LSD and other hallucinogens, they sometimes get violent and hurt other people around them. Drugs are mind altering, and they impair judgement. Impaired judgement causes crimes.
Alright, if you light a joint or sniff some cocaine, name the victim.
alcohol does all these things
Take this scenario:
Who is the victim of the marijauna use?
You say there is always a victim, so you must be able to identify one in this case.
Sure, sometimes people do bad things under the influence of drugs. They also do bad things under the influence of anger. Sometimes the drugs are prescription. If, as you claim, the mere use of a drug is a crime, then prescription drug use must be a crime if it alters the mind. There are *a lot* of people who are using mind altering prescription drugs. Why aren't they criminals? Does a slip of paper from a doctor suddenly make those drugs safe to use and eliminate any danger that they might hurt someone while under the influence? Does the slip of paper from a doctor make victims into non-victims?
That guy was a medical patient. Again, I do believe that medical marijuana should be legalized. Pot shouldn't be 100% legalized, just because of that one case.
Also, I do believe that certain prescription drugs should be illegal.
Also, just check out these statistics. Drug use is not a victimless crime. It does create victims.
But at least with alcohol somebody can be responsible and just drink a glass or two, without getting drunk. The only reason that people takes illegal drugs is to get high, but not everybody drinks alcohol with the intention of getting drunk.
What difference does it make if he's a medical patient? Either there's a victim or there's not.If it had been heroin, and he was taking it to eliminate pain and no one was hurt by it, who would have been the victim in the story?
So you believe that people who are in pain should be denied access to those things that help them cope with that pain? It's interesting that someone can take a drug peacefully, without hurting someone, and in your mind that makes them a criminal. Yet here you advocate for the government to violently prevent pain patients from getting what they need and that makes you a moral man. In other words, violence is moral to you, people feeling good is wrong. No wonder we can't agree on this. We have a fundamentally different take on what constitutes morality.
Drug use doesn't create the crime. Some people who do drugs are sometimes more likely to commit crimes, especially when they are dealing in a black market that cannot utilize free market methods to resolve issues. That, however, does not make drug use a crime any more than thinking bad thoughts is a crime because some people who commit bad thoughts then go on to make them reality. Or do you think that bad thoughts should be a crime as well?
The medical patient, of course.
But what does that have anything to do with recreational drug users being victims?
So he is his own victim? I wonder if that means he'd have to face himself in court as a witness, accused of harming himself.
When you say "of course", it's as if you believe that what you assert is self-evident. Perhaps I am blind. Describe, logically, how the patient is the victim of his own choices.
So you've gone from others to being victims, to claiming that the users are victims. The problem with this thinking is that it takes away responsibility and self-ownership from the person in question, and puts it in the hands of another. Would you or would you not agree that your body is your property? If it is not your property, then who does it belong to? If it is your property, how can you be a victim for doing what you choose with your own property?
You are not taking certain factors into consideration. People on drugs don't just harm themselves. They harm other people around them.
For example, why should harder drugs like LSD be legalized? When people on acid have bad trips, they sometimes commit acts of violence. Knowing how dangerous this drug is, why would anybody want to make it legal? Just check out these articles.
As I have said before, drug users are not the victims. When they harm other people around them through their reckless behaviors by altering their minds with dangerous drugs, who's the victim-the drug user, or the other people around them? Recreational drug users are not victims.
*If* they harm them. If they don't harm anyone, there's no crime. If they harm someone, then it's a crime and should be treated like one, just as if they weren't on drugs and harmed someone.
Most people don't commit acts of violence. There is no moral reason to treat them as criminals any more than someone who has bad thoughts about hurting people but doesn't act upon them.
So tell me, if someone is prescribed a mind-altering drug by a doctor, and takes the recommended dose, and they don't hurt someone, why aren't they a criminal? They *could* hurt someone because they are on a mind-altering drug. Is it the recreational part that makes it immoral and a crime? Is trying to feel good without government permission a crime?
You said that you'd like to see some prescription drugs outlawed. Would you include *all* drugs that could cause someone to commit violence? It's a very long list.
Buy a catchers mask and quit whining.
I drink to get stinking drunk a couple times a month, but occasionally smoke weed and snort a little coke and heroin for a lite controlled buzz to unwind after a long day. That proves beyond a doubt that you are full of crap.
FBI Snags Silk Road Boss With Own Methods
From an Internet café in San Francisco, a 29-year-old free-market evangelist who called himself “Dread Pirate Roberts” allegedly used untraceable web services, an international network of servers and anonymous digital currency to run a global online exchange of cocaine and heroin.
For two years, cybercrime experts from the FBI pored over the secretive online drug bazaar, known as Silk Road -- an operation that prosecutors say had become, by the time they shut it down this week, the venue for as much as $1 billion worth of illegal transactions.
But why should drugs be legal? What benefit do they bring to our society? In my opinion, none whatsoever.
Separate names with a comma.