Should Congress Legalize ALL Drugs, Including Meth?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

and yet coke promps robbery moreso than pot. I can tell you this because I've seen both first hand. I invite you to do some research before wielding ignorant opinions.

Getting drunk causes some people to commit crimes too, but we don't outlaw alcohol. I'm sure people commit crimes while high on marijuana, but yet you think that should be legal. You seem to have some arbitrary line of how many crimes could be committed while on a substance and that's your criteria for legalizing a drug. Well that's pointless. Either you own your own body, or you don't. I happen to think we should all be responsible for ourselves, and not have the government telling us what to do in any way shape or form.

actually, we once DID criminalize alcohol.

and, "being sure" that people commit crimes while high on pot isn't even close to personally comprehending what the hell you are talking about when slinging opinions left and right about substances that you have no experience with. Esepcially when trying to equate all drugs in relation to common criminal behavour.

Trust me, when you go smoke a giant bowl of the reef and then compare it to 4 of 5 lines of uncut powder you'll understand the cavernous difference that I'm talking about.

knowing the effects of both drugs and how they effect a person is by no means arbitrary. What is three shades of retarded is wielding goofy little libertarian talking points without nary the slightest comprehension about what you are talking about. You may own your own body... but when you are all coked out at 4am and are desperate for more coke because you just snorted your last nice and all of a sudden robbing a motherfucker sounds like a good idea AS OPPOSED TO getting high, watching Up In Smoke and microwaving a hot pocket then you will be able to make an informed observation that is worth something.

And it didn't work, just like drug prohibition doesn't work.

 

[Shogun]

Getting drunk causes some people to commit crimes too, but we don't outlaw alcohol. I'm sure people commit crimes while high on marijuana, but yet you think that should be legal. You seem to have some arbitrary line of how many crimes could be committed while on a substance and that's your criteria for legalizing a drug. Well that's pointless. Either you own your own body, or you don't. I happen to think we should all be responsible for ourselves, and not have the government telling us what to do in any way shape or form.

actually, we once DID criminalize alcohol.

and, "being sure" that people commit crimes while high on pot isn't even close to personally comprehending what the hell you are talking about when slinging opinions left and right about substances that you have no experience with. Esepcially when trying to equate all drugs in relation to common criminal behavour.

Trust me, when you go smoke a giant bowl of the reef and then compare it to 4 of 5 lines of uncut powder you'll understand the cavernous difference that I'm talking about.

knowing the effects of both drugs and how they effect a person is by no means arbitrary. What is three shades of retarded is wielding goofy little libertarian talking points without nary the slightest comprehension about what you are talking about. You may own your own body... but when you are all coked out at 4am and are desperate for more coke because you just snorted your last nice and all of a sudden robbing a motherfucker sounds like a good idea AS OPPOSED TO getting high, watching Up In Smoke and microwaving a hot pocket then you will be able to make an informed observation that is worth something.

And it didn't work, just like drug prohibition doesn't work.

it worked to a degree. How many drunk driving fatalities do you think we saw during prohibition? By your standard should we also legalize child porn just because some sick fucks will create a black market for it? I don't think it's wise to separate actual specifics for the sake of a blanket talking point. In fact, this is one of the reasons libertarians have their own flavor of batshit crazy to get over.

I believe in maximized personal liberty, be sure. But, I don't advocate ignoring the reality of the differences of drugs for the sake of a talking point mantra. Like I said, go bump a few lines and smoke a bowl and come back and tell me which one literally made you fiend for MORE.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

actually, we once DID criminalize alcohol.

and, "being sure" that people commit crimes while high on pot isn't even close to personally comprehending what the hell you are talking about when slinging opinions left and right about substances that you have no experience with. Esepcially when trying to equate all drugs in relation to common criminal behavour.

Trust me, when you go smoke a giant bowl of the reef and then compare it to 4 of 5 lines of uncut powder you'll understand the cavernous difference that I'm talking about.

knowing the effects of both drugs and how they effect a person is by no means arbitrary. What is three shades of retarded is wielding goofy little libertarian talking points without nary the slightest comprehension about what you are talking about. You may own your own body... but when you are all coked out at 4am and are desperate for more coke because you just snorted your last nice and all of a sudden robbing a motherfucker sounds like a good idea AS OPPOSED TO getting high, watching Up In Smoke and microwaving a hot pocket then you will be able to make an informed observation that is worth something.

And it didn't work, just like drug prohibition doesn't work.

it worked to a degree. How many drunk driving fatalities do you think we saw during prohibition? By your standard should we also legalize child porn just because some sick fucks will create a black market for it? I don't think it's wise to separate actual specifics for the sake of a blanket talking point. In fact, this is one of the reasons libertarians have their own flavor of batshit crazy to get over.

I believe in maximized personal liberty, be sure. But, I don't advocate ignoring the reality of the differences of drugs for the sake of a talking point mantra. Like I said, go bump a few lines and smoke a bowl and come back and tell me which one literally made you fiend for MORE.

Doing drugs is stupid, and while you may think I'm stupid I'd rather not prove you right.

How many people were driving during the Prohibition era? Not that many compared to today. My standard does not lead one to assume that child porn should be legalized. Child abuse is a crime against the liberty of the child, and the liberty of the child's parents if they're not the ones engaged in the crime.

 

[Shogun]

And it didn't work, just like drug prohibition doesn't work.

it worked to a degree. How many drunk driving fatalities do you think we saw during prohibition? By your standard should we also legalize child porn just because some sick fucks will create a black market for it? I don't think it's wise to separate actual specifics for the sake of a blanket talking point. In fact, this is one of the reasons libertarians have their own flavor of batshit crazy to get over.

I believe in maximized personal liberty, be sure. But, I don't advocate ignoring the reality of the differences of drugs for the sake of a talking point mantra. Like I said, go bump a few lines and smoke a bowl and come back and tell me which one literally made you fiend for MORE.

Doing drugs is stupid, and while you may think I'm stupid I'd rather not prove you right.

How many people were driving during the Prohibition era? Not that many compared to today. My standard does not lead one to assume that child porn should be legalized. Child abuse is a crime against the liberty of the child, and the liberty of the child's parents if they're not the ones engaged in the crime.

I don't really care if you choose to do drugs or not. But, it's glaringly obvious that your expertise is limited to mantras and baseless talking points. Drugs are not for everyone. However, neither, it seems, is factual insight regarding the vast differences between substances.


by all means.. if you want to dig up the stats and do the math then so be it. But, some silly "not as many people were driving" caveat won't make it less so that banned alcohol limited drunk driving deaths compared to our modern annual statistic.

and, by your logic and focus on all things considered personal liberty, if there is a black market and a tenacious consumer base then prohibition has failed. After all, who are you to tell a person what they can and cannot watch with their own eyes, RIGHT? After all... who is to say that the child in the video is not complicit? AGAIN, a personal liberty, YES? Who are you to tell a 15 year old kid that they cannot take a pic of themselves sucking a dick on their camera phone, RIGHT?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

it worked to a degree. How many drunk driving fatalities do you think we saw during prohibition? By your standard should we also legalize child porn just because some sick fucks will create a black market for it? I don't think it's wise to separate actual specifics for the sake of a blanket talking point. In fact, this is one of the reasons libertarians have their own flavor of batshit crazy to get over.

I believe in maximized personal liberty, be sure. But, I don't advocate ignoring the reality of the differences of drugs for the sake of a talking point mantra. Like I said, go bump a few lines and smoke a bowl and come back and tell me which one literally made you fiend for MORE.

Doing drugs is stupid, and while you may think I'm stupid I'd rather not prove you right.

How many people were driving during the Prohibition era? Not that many compared to today. My standard does not lead one to assume that child porn should be legalized. Child abuse is a crime against the liberty of the child, and the liberty of the child's parents if they're not the ones engaged in the crime.

I don't really care if you choose to do drugs or not. But, it's glaringly obvious that your expertise is limited to mantras and baseless talking points. Drugs are not for everyone. However, neither, it seems, is factual insight regarding the vast differences between substances.


by all means.. if you want to dig up the stats and do the math then so be it. But, some silly "not as many people were driving" caveat won't make it less so that banned alcohol limited drunk driving deaths compared to our modern annual statistic.

and, by your logic and focus on all things considered personal liberty, if there is a black market and a tenacious consumer base then prohibition has failed. After all, who are you to tell a person what they can and cannot watch with their own eyes, RIGHT? After all... who is to say that the child in the video is not complicit? AGAIN, a personal liberty, YES? Who are you to tell a 15 year old kid that they cannot take a pic of themselves sucking a dick on their camera phone, RIGHT?

I'm not anyone to say that. Their parents, on the other hand, are. Parents have a responsibility to protect their children from that, and anyone engaged in that behavior is guilty of child abuse. The same way I can say someone who kills someone is guilty of murder. You don't have the freedom to do something that infringes on another person's freedom. Child porn, and child abuse of any form, infringes on somebody else's freedom.

 

[Shogun]

Doing drugs is stupid, and while you may think I'm stupid I'd rather not prove you right.

How many people were driving during the Prohibition era? Not that many compared to today. My standard does not lead one to assume that child porn should be legalized. Child abuse is a crime against the liberty of the child, and the liberty of the child's parents if they're not the ones engaged in the crime.

I don't really care if you choose to do drugs or not. But, it's glaringly obvious that your expertise is limited to mantras and baseless talking points. Drugs are not for everyone. However, neither, it seems, is factual insight regarding the vast differences between substances.


by all means.. if you want to dig up the stats and do the math then so be it. But, some silly "not as many people were driving" caveat won't make it less so that banned alcohol limited drunk driving deaths compared to our modern annual statistic.

and, by your logic and focus on all things considered personal liberty, if there is a black market and a tenacious consumer base then prohibition has failed. After all, who are you to tell a person what they can and cannot watch with their own eyes, RIGHT? After all... who is to say that the child in the video is not complicit? AGAIN, a personal liberty, YES? Who are you to tell a 15 year old kid that they cannot take a pic of themselves sucking a dick on their camera phone, RIGHT?

I'm not anyone to say that. Their parents, on the other hand, are. Parents have a responsibility to protect their children from that, and anyone engaged in that behavior is guilty of child abuse. The same way I can say someone who kills someone is guilty of murder. You don't have the freedom to do something that infringes on another person's freedom. Child porn, and child abuse of any form, infringes on somebody else's freedom.

which, by your own focus on the prerogative of the parents, essentially nullifies the necessity for a LAW, right? After all, you know that EVERY SINGLE PARENT will give a shit, RIGHT?

uh, how is self-created CP a restriction of anyone's freedom? Do you think all those kids taking pics of themselves with camera phones are infringing on someone else's rights? Whose, exactly?


But, I digress. the people grinding their teeth after reading this thread about coke compared to pot know better. If mantras work for you then so be it.

 

[sealybobo]

I have a friend and we just found out he is a heroin addict. Why? If it were socially acceptable, he would just do it in the am, on break, at lunch, on second break and when he gets home. No problem so long as he is getting his job done. But its illegal so its expensive. Make it a new product and create a whole new industry for citizens to spend their disposable incomes on.

And the government will get some!!! And we'll free up the prisons.

Drunks are the same as junkies. Only one is legal.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't really care if you choose to do drugs or not. But, it's glaringly obvious that your expertise is limited to mantras and baseless talking points. Drugs are not for everyone. However, neither, it seems, is factual insight regarding the vast differences between substances.


by all means.. if you want to dig up the stats and do the math then so be it. But, some silly "not as many people were driving" caveat won't make it less so that banned alcohol limited drunk driving deaths compared to our modern annual statistic.

and, by your logic and focus on all things considered personal liberty, if there is a black market and a tenacious consumer base then prohibition has failed. After all, who are you to tell a person what they can and cannot watch with their own eyes, RIGHT? After all... who is to say that the child in the video is not complicit? AGAIN, a personal liberty, YES? Who are you to tell a 15 year old kid that they cannot take a pic of themselves sucking a dick on their camera phone, RIGHT?

I'm not anyone to say that. Their parents, on the other hand, are. Parents have a responsibility to protect their children from that, and anyone engaged in that behavior is guilty of child abuse. The same way I can say someone who kills someone is guilty of murder. You don't have the freedom to do something that infringes on another person's freedom. Child porn, and child abuse of any form, infringes on somebody else's freedom.

which, by your own focus on the prerogative of the parents, essentially nullifies the necessity for a LAW, right? After all, you know that EVERY SINGLE PARENT will give a shit, RIGHT?

uh, how is self-created CP a restriction of anyone's freedom? Do you think all those kids taking pics of themselves with camera phones are infringing on someone else's rights? Whose, exactly?


But, I digress. the people grinding their teeth after reading this thread about coke compared to pot know better. If mantras work for you then so be it.

Why would it nullify the necessity of a law? You are violating the rights of the parents and of the child if you engage in child pornography, therefore there is a law stating that it is illegal. A child does not have the full freedom an adult has, they can't because they can't necessarily make a fully informed decision on their lives.

 

[Paulie]

This whole debate is moot.

Heroin is already legal. It's called opioids.

Meth is already legal. It's called Adderall.

Oh yeah, that's different though, because some pharmaceutical company gets to sell it as a pill to 'treat' you.

Drugs aren't illegal because they hurt you. They're illegal because the street forms are competition.

 

[Shogun]

I'm not anyone to say that. Their parents, on the other hand, are. Parents have a responsibility to protect their children from that, and anyone engaged in that behavior is guilty of child abuse. The same way I can say someone who kills someone is guilty of murder. You don't have the freedom to do something that infringes on another person's freedom. Child porn, and child abuse of any form, infringes on somebody else's freedom.

which, by your own focus on the prerogative of the parents, essentially nullifies the necessity for a LAW, right? After all, you know that EVERY SINGLE PARENT will give a shit, RIGHT?

uh, how is self-created CP a restriction of anyone's freedom? Do you think all those kids taking pics of themselves with camera phones are infringing on someone else's rights? Whose, exactly?


But, I digress. the people grinding their teeth after reading this thread about coke compared to pot know better. If mantras work for you then so be it.

Why would it nullify the necessity of a law? You are violating the rights of the parents and of the child if you engage in child pornography, therefore there is a law stating that it is illegal. A child does not have the full freedom an adult has, they can't because they can't necessarily make a fully informed decision on their lives.

because parental concern is not universal, dude. True story: Traci Lord's father brought her to her first porn gigs. Underage.

and, don't you think it's a little disingenuous to talk about personal liberty on a cross... and then validate staggered personal liberty depending on arbitrary ages?

 

[Modbert]

This whole debate is moot.

Heroin is already legal. It's called opioids.

Meth is already legal. It's called Adderall.

Oh yeah, that's different though, because some pharmaceutical company gets to sell it as a pill to 'treat' you.

Drugs aren't illegal because they hurt you. They're illegal because the street forms are competition.

Not to invoke Godwin's law, but you make a great point Paulie. Heroin without the high is legal as you said, it's called Methadone for example.

Just to give everyone a idea, it was developed by Nazi Germany and they use to test it on people then not give it to them to see the withdrawal effect which is brutal.

 

[Modbert]

because parental concern is not universal, dude. True story: Traci Lord's father brought her to her first porn gigs. Underage.

and, don't you think it's a little disingenuous to talk about personal liberty on a cross... and then validate staggered personal liberty depending on arbitrary ages?

Tis true: Urban Dictionary: Wing-mom

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

which, by your own focus on the prerogative of the parents, essentially nullifies the necessity for a LAW, right? After all, you know that EVERY SINGLE PARENT will give a shit, RIGHT?

uh, how is self-created CP a restriction of anyone's freedom? Do you think all those kids taking pics of themselves with camera phones are infringing on someone else's rights? Whose, exactly?


But, I digress. the people grinding their teeth after reading this thread about coke compared to pot know better. If mantras work for you then so be it.

Why would it nullify the necessity of a law? You are violating the rights of the parents and of the child if you engage in child pornography, therefore there is a law stating that it is illegal. A child does not have the full freedom an adult has, they can't because they can't necessarily make a fully informed decision on their lives.

because parental concern is not universal, dude. True story: Traci Lord's father brought her to her first porn gigs. Underage.

and, don't you think it's a little disingenuous to talk about personal liberty on a cross... and then validate staggered personal liberty depending on arbitrary ages?

Arbitrary ages is a different discussion.

 

[PixieStix]

NO! They would just let the FDA put MORE chemicals in it and tax it, better off in the hands of the criminals

 

[judyd]

you are fucking crazy. It's no wonder why you take the opinions that you do regarding the middle east.

Why is that crazy? Do you realize all the time and money that goes into coddling these worthless drug addicts??? When I was in school in the 60's, they didn't talk about drugs at all--they weren't a problem. But there aren't ANY kids these days who haven't heard the specific dangers of all drugs from the time they're in elementary school. If they're still stupid enough to get into them, then I have absolutely no sympathy for them. They can spend the rest of their days in jail as far as I'm concerned. Most of them only go into rehab to get a suspended prison sentence and then they go right back to the drugs and crime.

yea.. drugs sure weren't a problem in THE SIXTIES.



I don't really give a shit who you are sympathetic for. But, to advocate the death penalty for drug use is just retarded. If you agree with his opinion of such then.. hey... batshit crazy seems to be en vogue.

I graduated in 65. So, no, they hadn't reached Main Street and they didn't have classes focused on the dangers of drugs. Later in the 60's use of marijuana and hashish became more prevalent, and then cocaine and LSD came into focus with a lot of "educated" support for them. So I would say that the kids in the 60's didn't really know what they were getting into. Later in the 70's they started having drug programs in the schools, and have ever since, so I really don't see any excuse for young people to use them today. They have received more than enough information.

 

[Bern80]

I am definitely of two minds on this subject.

On the one hand I totally agree with Kevin and the argument for self determination in regards to ones own body.

But on the other hand, as a person who struggled with nicotine addiction, I know first hand how difficult it was to break the cycle of addiction.

But as a smoker, I could still function as a productive member of society.

Addiction to the harder drugs often impairs a persons ability to function in society, causing their lives to spiral out of control.

Unemployed but still addicted, these people often turn to crime to feed their addiction.

And that is where there personal freedom interferes with my rights.

So, while I would be open to legalizing marijuana and some prescription drugs, we'll need to find a way to negate the effects of addiction before I can in good conscience endorse the legalization of all drugs.

This is exactly where the entire concept of freedom comes into play. One could argue, (not that I am here neccessarily) that if you can't except the negative consequences or will only accept it with some caveats, then you aren't really for freedom in the first place.

The argument we shouldn't legalize the hard drugs because of what an addict might do while he's high just doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider the laws for analogous things. We don't ban all guns because of what someone MIGHT do to someone else with one (though many argue we should ban them for that reason). We punish the PERSON when they behave irresponsibly with one. I don't know why we wouldn't do the same where drugs are concerned. Just like guns people will know there are consequences to misusing them. The health risks, the legal risks, etc.

 

[Shogun]

Why would it nullify the necessity of a law? You are violating the rights of the parents and of the child if you engage in child pornography, therefore there is a law stating that it is illegal. A child does not have the full freedom an adult has, they can't because they can't necessarily make a fully informed decision on their lives.

because parental concern is not universal, dude. True story: Traci Lord's father brought her to her first porn gigs. Underage.

and, don't you think it's a little disingenuous to talk about personal liberty on a cross... and then validate staggered personal liberty depending on arbitrary ages?

Arbitrary ages is a different discussion.

not when you seem to be relying on them in order to situationally validate your opinion about the onset of personal liberty in relation to CP and drug consumption. .....

 

[Shogun]

I am definitely of two minds on this subject.

On the one hand I totally agree with Kevin and the argument for self determination in regards to ones own body.

But on the other hand, as a person who struggled with nicotine addiction, I know first hand how difficult it was to break the cycle of addiction.

But as a smoker, I could still function as a productive member of society.

Addiction to the harder drugs often impairs a persons ability to function in society, causing their lives to spiral out of control.

Unemployed but still addicted, these people often turn to crime to feed their addiction.

And that is where there personal freedom interferes with my rights.

So, while I would be open to legalizing marijuana and some prescription drugs, we'll need to find a way to negate the effects of addiction before I can in good conscience endorse the legalization of all drugs.

This is exactly where the entire concept of freedom comes into play. One could argue, (not that I am here neccessarily) that if you can't except the negative consequences or will only accept it with some caveats, then you aren't really for freedom in the first place.

The argument we shouldn't legalize the hard drugs because of what an addict might do while he's high just doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider the laws for analogous things. We don't ban all guns because of what someone MIGHT do to someone else with one (though many argue we should ban them for that reason). We punish the PERSON when they behave irresponsibly with one. I don't know why we wouldn't do the same where drugs are concerned. Just like guns people will know there are consequences to misusing them. The health risks, the legal risks, etc.

When you shoot a gun, bern, do you physically fiend to shoot another bullet? Seriously, all this talk from people who don't know about the subject they are talking about cracks me up. I mean, really dude. When you go hunting do feel physically compelled to keep killing after your first blood? I can assure you that after snorting your first line of good coke you WILL scheme for more. Your analogies need some work.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I said yes....that way all of the stupid ass motherfuckers who do drugs will hopefully move on to the more powerful stuff and slowly kill themselves or OD outright. It's natures way of culling the herd of weaklings.

 

[Shogun]

I said yes....that way all of the stupid ass motherfuckers who do drugs will hopefully move on to the more powerful stuff and slowly kill themselves or OD outright. It's natures way of culling the herd of weaklings.

I would bet a pinky toe that you are not, yourself, totally drug free. Bravo on your e-thug reaction though. I know I'M impressed by the tough guy act.