Thread: First part of argument

When questioned why drugs are illegal, why is it that the inevitable parallel is that of why other things are legal?

Does making the legality of tobacco and alcohol make it any more right for other drugs to be legal, EVEN if you deem them less harmful?

Are they not harmful?

Originally Posted by SKA

Drug addicts are people that use Alcohol, Cocaine, Heroin, PCP, Crack/Cocaine and Meth or some or all of those combined in excess for an extended period of time. These people destroy themselves and become a menace to society as they're going to steal and rob to get money for their hard needed fix of any of these drugs.

If you would like to compare, let's compare. You compare your list with that of hard core drugs and then claim how harmless the others are.
You tell us things as evident as what addiction is, how it becomes, but must be inept yourself to recognize the simple truth. The truth is, however slowly any substance can creep up on an individual. Many may find themselves being that menace to society.
How are you confident to decide what a persons "hard needed fix.", is? While mine may be one thing, yours may be another. Go on to tell us that cocaine is so very hardcore and addictive, as it is. But all the while you advocate the legality of a mind altering substance. That is the fact. It alters a mind, which in turn comes the obvious to some, the blurred line of decision making?

I do have a perspective of seeing and using your "list". Which prior to me saying so, you must have thought I was straight and narrow.... minded, anti drug poser. I too have altered myself many times in many shapes and forms. I have extracted out of them some experiences that I could not have otherwise. However, when I am out of this fog, I can clearly see a difference between not only me and the impaired, but me and myself, impaired.
I have and still do see the abuse of marijuana in five people on a regular basis. This may seem a shallow number. It may be. But I have had the vantage point of growing up beside all of them. Not one of their quarrels against the ban on marijuana wavers. In that they are consistent.
They not do not steal or rob in the sense that you are speaking of. But they are a menace to society. Their decision making is opaque. It is the same as it was when they began to use marijuana. It is my freind from twelve years ago. This renders them a child in an adult, decision making world. Their behavior is as unwavering as their argument. Flawed.
Although they do claim to know all the answers to the universe.

So docile, so nice. So useless. Their priorities guided by a substance and not themselves, there fore leaving them misguided, affluent only by their own standards.
Leaving the rest of us, dealing with ourselves, good or bad. But still, there to deal with harsh, sobering decisions for a lax high society.

Originally Posted by SKA

If LSD, DMT, Magic Mushrooms, Marijuana and Mescaline were legalised and proper drug-education (not propaganda) was given to the people we would actually see a dramatic DECREASE of Drug addicts; People wouldn't as easily try something as devastating as Crack or Meth when something so Magical, pleasant and harmless such as LSD or DMT would be legally and easily available.

agreed?

An example of one type of Decision making ▲

Here's a Question: If I were to give you a Teabag of Plant Material which will make you feel <-insert desired feeling/mindstate here-> and told you it's less toxic than coffee and non-addictive; Would you strain a Tea out of it and try it?

Ecstasy!??
Yes. Would I make it legal? No!

We try to allow some open discussion of this topic. It still goes by the way side. Inevitably the where and how to obtain and find specifics on drugs in discussed.

I think that in itself is an argument against rational thinking.

- Accountability for your own actions.

It does effect more than the user.How obtuse can you possibly be?
I have written, thought and deleted four times now. Why? Because it is apparent that no matter how I word it, it will not sink in.

An argument can be brought to the table, but not comprehension.

Originally Posted by SKA

And this is interresting:
Quote:
Here's a Question: If I were to give you a Teabag of Plant Material which will make you feel <-insert desired feeling/mindstate here-> and told you it's less toxic than coffee and non-addictive; Would you strain a Tea out of it and try it?

Ecstasy!??
Yes. Would I make it legal? No!

I felt that ecstasy was a great metaphor given the dialect. Let's use Euphoria instead, to eliminate confusion.

Originally Posted by SKA

I hope you meant you'd like the <insert desired feeling/mindstate here> to be an exstatic one. I didn't mean "E" just to be clear. Just a nonexistant fantasy herb to make for a good example.

What do you mean you WOULD try it but you WOULDN't legalise it?
So if you WOULD try something yourself, knowing it's safe enough not to pose a threat to your health and also be a very pleasurable experience, then why would you denie it to the rest of us and make it illegal?
Sounds backwards to me.

Backwards? Think about it.
I meant exactly what I said. That is exactly why it should not be legal.
Surely you do not think so many members of society would be responsible users as so few are, do you?

Yes, SKA, Sorry I did not see your last response.
I do approach this issue from a hard line don't I? I don't mean to sound like a bureaucrat.

I have I really have taken all your points into consideration. Not only from a first person perspective but from that of a friend, employees, co workers and family members.

I have taken these points into consideration more than once, more than this specific thread. The arguments just do not pan out.
I have tired of taking each individual variable and come to the same conclusions. Is it subjective, I guess some will view it as such. I'm not so sure I do anymore. Employees have failed me on many occasions, In return Me and all the other tax payers get to fit the bill for so many trickle down effects of drug use.

I have explored myself and being an artist I have seen a creative side. Much like steroids, I would like to take credit for my own work and not say a drug influenced my creativity.
I would like to think that people in their own homes could safely use, experiment, and enjoy some mind altering substances without ill effects on society, but I do not see it that way. To the contrary, I have seen it the other way...literally.

I will go on paying my dues to Government foundations that support these lifestyles. Becasue I have to by law. In at least our country, we all are required to. This giving rise why people should open their eyes and realize it requires so much more of themselves and NOT just the health and lifestyle of one individual.
I will go on paying, not monetarily as I see many of my acquaintances lul through life in their fog. Meanwhile attacking other drugs, alcohol, cigarettes.... along with the "Big Brother" stomping out your freedoms approach to validate their own vulnerability.

Are their exceptions?
There always are!

Notice your list Universal.
You are arguing (again) on how OTHER habits are more harmful. Notice that none of these effects our safety other than sleep. The others do effect our wallet like so many of them do.
However rules are implemented for drivers doctors, etc, all in an attempt at public safety with regards to sleep deprivation. The same goes for the legalization of psychedelics. In many cases the mushroom user or pot smoker sits in their home and does not bother anybody. <-- Can you straight out tell me that an individual that is high on weed or using a form of psychedelics is safe to operate a crane, babysit a kid, drive a bus?

Originally Posted by Howie
When questioned why drugs are illegal, why is it that the inevitable parallel is that of why other things are legal?

Does making the legality of tobacco and alcohol make it any more right for other drugs to be legal, EVEN if you deem them less harmful?

Are they not harmful?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Yeah, I agree. Every time I see someone compare alcohol/tobaco to drugs, I see it more as an argument to prohibiting the former rather than legalizing the latter.

Is it because the argument to legalize other drugs is not a strong enough argument to stand on it's own?
It will never be admitted, but it seems ironic to me. Not too many people stand in the way of this approach, know one argues with you that alcohol or tobacco is bad, so foot in the door you go?

Originally Posted by SKA

Is it that you somehow think feeling Euphoria is bad or sinfull? Is it the idea that it is "drug induced"? Or is it that you feel that being able to induce Euphoria when desired has a great abuse potential for ignorant escapist that get "out of Touch" with Reality not being willing to face it?

[COLOR=DarkGreen]I think anyone in their right mind would like to feel euphoria.
Becasue it is something that is or can be induced, it now puts the decision in the hands of the one who uses. Which I do not think all the education in the world will stand in the way of when people want to do it. This is the reasoning behind why they should not be dolled out on a legal basis.

Ya know SKA, I am as much against the government having any more power than they do now. Also how they use and abuse this power, likely as much as you are in most cases.
It seems we disagree on how members of society can handle certain freedoms, privileges and powers. That coupled with what drugs are harmful and which are not.

Psychedelic Healing?
I thought you guys may find this intersting.

Originally Posted by roguext22

drugs are illegal because then people need money to buy them !!
and people dont have money, they already spent all freakin money to buy drugs!

and then they start stealing, burning killing others!

So givethem $$$$ or drugs?

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.
When pot is outlawed (as it is) only pot smokers will have pot.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Should they be illegal?
They? NO they should be dealt with. As they can pose an immediate threat.
You just can't differentiate between should and could eey? The difference between an attempt at public safety and that of an unhealthy habit.

I am tired of your ignorant analogies.
Are you one of the citizens who stand for something and fall for everything?

The thing about psychedelic drugs is that people on them know when they are too messed up to drive cars and cranes.

Well that changes everything!

The analogy helps people understand the drug legalization view. If you think alcohol and tobacco should be legal, then we don't have far to go in getting you to understand why the other drugs should be legal. That is why we use the analogy. Plus, the inconsistency of our drug laws proves the insincerity behind them.

Thanks, it all seems proportionate now.
I think your battling yourself. Who else in this thread is fighting to keep alcohol alive and well? I brought this up from the beginning because straight out of the gates the drug advocates run with this.
Is it inconsistent - YES That has no relevance to make another drug LEGAL. It only shows why another drug should be ILLEGAL.
you are not helping your cause IMHO

Originally Posted by SKA

If pot were legal then still, obviously, only pot smokers would have and smoke it.
And putting it in such a context you made it sound like Marijuana smokers are Outlaws. And outlaw is a rather big word for someone who merely smokes a relaxing, inspiring herb.

And if it were legal? Then what. Would there not be MORE pot smokers?
Or would there only be the well educated few that decide to use another legal drug, like alcohol.