Author Topic: Yet another new drug  (Read 11074 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SpaceProg

  • What you read is what you get.
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 5507
  • Nocturnal
Re: Yet another new drug
« Reply #45 on: September 26, 2012, 09:34:02 am »
Because any time people want something, people will step in to sell it. One need only look at Prohibition to see that in action--not only did that not stop people consuming alcohol, it spawned NASCAR. I think we can all agree humanity as a whole is worse off for that.

:'(

In all fairness? The sport consumes shit-tons of a limited, pollution-causing resource just to let people drive around in circles. I mean, that's literally the entire thing.
It uses mostly Ethanol now.    There is not ONE track on any circuit in NASCAR that is a circle.  They're either ovals, tri-ovals, triangle, rectangle, or road courses, and every one of them is unique in how they handle, and the strategies to take on them.   It's really NOT the entire thing.
I'm not really here to argue with you though.  Just saying I don't agree with your opinion.  No ill will intended, nor intent to derail the thread.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 09:37:03 am by SpaceProg »

Offline rookie

  • Miscreant, petty criminal, and all around nice guy
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2200
  • Gender: Male
Re: Yet another new drug
« Reply #46 on: September 26, 2012, 12:52:23 pm »

Well, that's openly irrational. "Maybe we can't do anything, maybe trying to do anything will just make it worse, but we should do it anyway- because drugs are bad!" Irrational. Strawman argument. Nobody is disputing that drugs are bad. They're saying there's nothing effective we can do.



With that out of the way, please tell me how wanting to keep certain classes of drugs illegal is irrational based on the reason they are pure poison. No, don't do that. Instead, tell me how my argument that "Certain drugs are too bad to be legal" is a strawman? Why is irrational to say, I'm sorry, openly irrational, "It's not OK to do meth"? Personally, I think it's a lot more irrational to have crack available to anyone who wants it.


"There's nothing effective we can do." Of course there is. We're not doing it, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Now, I will concede lengthy jail sentences are not the answer. A combination of education and rehabilitation would be a better use of the war on drugs money. Possession would land a sentence of court ordered drying out somehow. Either in a clinic or some kind of outpatient system, like a secular 12 step program. Crimes committed related to drugs would be treated like whatever crime has been committed. Murder is still murder, stealing is still stealing. I also think if someone wants to clean themselves up, they should be able to with some sort of amnesty. Yes, I am on heroine, which is illegal, but I want to get off. So I should be able to without fear of legal consequence.

And if you go back and read what I said, not just what you wanted to see, I have never ever said "jail" or "keep thing the way they are" or any variation of that. Nor have I said anything resembling that our current system is working. You were putting words into my mouth. I am disappointed in you, Fred, for that. I thought you were better than that.
The difference between 0 and 1 is infinite. The difference between 1 and a million is a matter of degree. - Zack Johnson

Quote from: davedan board=pg thread=6573 post=218058 time=1286247542
I'll stop eating beef lamb and pork the same day they start letting me eat vegetarians.

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Yet another new drug
« Reply #47 on: September 26, 2012, 02:50:07 pm »
I don't deny that banning drugs makes them more expensive, what I'm saying is that the evidence (see the link I already provided) shows that drug use decreases when it's approached as a medical rather than criminal problem. Also, the effects of criminalization, e.g. organized crime, are unacceptable. Even if decriminalization raised drug use, which the evidence shows that it doesn't, I would still support legalization, for the simple fact that we'd no longer have people killing each other over drugs.
This has to be the most compelling argument in my opinion. Even if legalising the likes of meth and heroin doubles the amount of junkies we have to deal with, it would be well worth it to the various drug cartels and whatnot off from their funding and instead make those billions of dollars of drug money taxable. Just think of the law enforcement resources it would free up and new taxes it would bring in.

Offline rookie

  • Miscreant, petty criminal, and all around nice guy
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2200
  • Gender: Male
Re: Yet another new drug
« Reply #48 on: September 26, 2012, 04:20:56 pm »
This has to be the most compelling argument in my opinion. Even if legalising the likes of meth and heroin doubles the amount of junkies we have to deal with, it would be well worth it to the various drug cartels and whatnot off from their funding and instead make those billions of dollars of drug money taxable. Just think of the law enforcement resources it would free up and new taxes it would bring in.

Interesting line of thought. Well, the "cartels" of crystal meth wouldn't stop doing what they're doing and just undercutting the market rate. I can say this because there is still moonshine stills up and down the Appalachian mountains. Meth is fairly cheap and easy to make. As far as the wholesale supply side of other drugs, I highly doubt they're going to close up shop and quietly toast their 30+ year good run. That kind of money and the power it buys, I see them looking for other avenues for that. Much like I can see our homegrown gangs finding something else to squabble about.

I'm not saying you're wrong. Just maybe a bit naive to think legalizing would solve all these problems in one fell swoop.
The difference between 0 and 1 is infinite. The difference between 1 and a million is a matter of degree. - Zack Johnson

Quote from: davedan board=pg thread=6573 post=218058 time=1286247542
I'll stop eating beef lamb and pork the same day they start letting me eat vegetarians.

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Yet another new drug
« Reply #49 on: September 26, 2012, 05:05:08 pm »
Interesting line of thought. Well, the "cartels" of crystal meth wouldn't stop doing what they're doing and just undercutting the market rate. I can say this because there is still moonshine stills up and down the Appalachian mountains. Meth is fairly cheap and easy to make. As far as the wholesale supply side of other drugs, I highly doubt they're going to close up shop and quietly toast their 30+ year good run. That kind of money and the power it buys, I see them looking for other avenues for that. Much like I can see our homegrown gangs finding something else to squabble about.

I'm not saying you're wrong. Just maybe a bit naive to think legalizing would solve all these problems in one fell swoop.
Compare the funds that smattering of moonshine stills brings in to the huge illegal booze market that existed during prohibition. It's like comparing a homeless guy selling copies of "The Big Issue" to Donald Trump.

I'm not saying it'll happen overnight, but gangs just can't compete with legal businesses. Are you seriously suggesting that in the long term, a meth cartel could remain viable when competing directly the the likes of Pfizer or Dupont? They offer no safety to the consumer, they're not held to any safety standards, they have almost no marketing resources and they cannot hope to attract talent of nearly the same callibre as the legal producers and a whole host of other reasons. The most they could ever hope for is to hold on to some niche where they get no competition from legal producers a la the moonshine stills you mentioned.

Offline TigerHunter

  • Bishop
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Yet another new drug
« Reply #50 on: September 26, 2012, 05:18:50 pm »
Do liquor stores sell pure ethanol? Because if they don't, it's not really a fair comparison. I can't imagine that my roommate would have been able to sell the dozen or sell mason jars of moonshine he managed to move if the people he was selling to could have gotten the same thing at the liquor store.

Offline Lt. Fred

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you were trying to do there
Re: Yet another new drug
« Reply #51 on: September 26, 2012, 06:47:01 pm »
Personally, I think it's a lot more irrational to have crack available to anyone who wants it.

Okay, propose some way to prevent that. Clearly banning it is not one.

Quote
With that out of the way, please tell me how wanting to keep certain classes of drugs illegal is irrational based on the reason they are pure poison. No, don't do that. Instead, tell me how my argument that "Certain drugs are too bad to be legal" is a strawman?

The argument from the pro-legalisation crowd (which I'm not necessarily among) is that criminalisation does no good, only bad. It doesn't matter how bad the drugs are, because not one person fewer would die of them through criminalisation. In fact, more would die. Therefore, criminalisation is bad.

Drugs are also bad. Nobody is denying that.
Ultimate Paragon admits to fabricating a hit piece on Politico.

http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6936.0

The party's name is the Democratic Party. It has been since 1830. Please spell correctly.

"The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time."
-FDR

Offline TigerHunter

  • Bishop
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Yet another new drug
« Reply #52 on: September 26, 2012, 07:27:12 pm »
Drugs are also bad. Nobody is denying that.
I don't think that weed is bad. In fact, I rather enjoy it.

Offline davedan

  • Lord Cracker
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3539
Re: Yet another new drug
« Reply #53 on: September 26, 2012, 07:58:29 pm »

The argument from the pro-legalisation crowd (which I'm not necessarily among) is that criminalisation does no good, only bad. It doesn't matter how bad the drugs are, because not one person fewer would die of them through criminalisation. In fact, more would die. Therefore, criminalisation is bad.

Drugs are also bad. Nobody is denying that.

While I agree with your first paragraph (and it seems to be empirically shown that this is the case). I disagree with the second.

Not all drugs are bad. Furthermore what is bad for some can be good for others. Some people can't handle alcohol but can enjoy and function in society on the occasional LSD trip. Some people can enjoy a casual joint whereas others end up going mental from marijuana. (personally and I realise anecdotes are not data which is why this is in parentheses I don't smoke pot very often because I can feel it making me crazy, whereas I drink regularly and for a period enjoyed LSD, MDMA and speed -not so often anymore because I am old and boring).

Not everyone who takes hard drugs immediately becomes a junkie. Even with heroin users it has been shown that many of them lead normal lives. With many of these drugs the worst things about them are their methods of manufacture, contaminants and cost rather than the active ingredient.

There are exceptions Krokadil and bath salts being among them but these are used because people cannot obtain/afford other drugs as a product of criminilization.

Here is a question for those who believe in criminalization if all drugs were made legal would you immediatley go out and get ridicuously high on Krokadil, PCP, Heroin and bath salts?

Offline Smurfette Principle

  • Will Blind You With Library Science!
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1639
  • Gender: Female
  • Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo.
Re: Yet another new drug
« Reply #54 on: September 26, 2012, 10:05:33 pm »
This is why criminalizing only hard drugs (krokodil or heroin or PCP or meth or whatever) and legalizing soft drugs (weed, modern non-trippy LSD*) should work. Why go for an illegal hard drug when you can get a legal one that's not going to make you tear your skin off?

*from what I understand from certain people I know, modern LSD doesn't do what it did in the 60s, it just makes your eyesight go a bit warped and you have a pleasant high.

Offline StallChaser

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • (Haseen on the old board)
Re: Yet another new drug
« Reply #55 on: September 27, 2012, 12:46:03 am »
As far as whether legalization would hurt or help things, we can look at what happened in Portugul: http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decriminalization-works-2012-7
After decriminalizing drugs, severe addiction and diseases related to dirty needles went down.  That's what happens when you use the medical system instead of the court system to treat a medical issue.  While it's not full legalization (the supply side of it is still illegal), it's the closest example to what would happen under legalization with reasonable regulation.

*from what I understand from certain people I know, modern LSD doesn't do what it did in the 60s, it just makes your eyesight go a bit warped and you have a pleasant high.

It's still the same stuff, just not as strong.  An average hit nowadays is about 60 micrograms.  It would take at least 10 of those to get into "Holy shit" territory (not necessarily in a bad way).