ACLU against Drug Prohibition

[Quath]

Made no such inference.

Can you clear this up? Should alcohol be illegal by what you previously said?

Quath

 

[antitox]

Made no such inference.

Can you clear this up? Should alcohol be illegal by what you previously said?

Quath

I'm not addressing what is already legal. Yes, it's easy for you to say OK to any drug on the basis of alcohol's use in society. I do not say that. I am not comparing and saying that drugs should be legal based on one thing in question. That is not my issue. Just because one thing is out there doesn't mean you say yes to everything else and hold a candle to the wind. There has got to be some some level headed thinking in this becaue the other stuff is seriously addictive and we would have an epidemic.

 

[DivineNames]

In my view, where a substance causes problems to society beyond merely health consequences to the individual taking it, then there is a greater potential justification for prohibition.

For example, alcohol is responsible for a considerable amount of violence and anti-social behaviour, so there is a good justification for making it illegal. Although I think the preferable solution is to flog those who cause such problems and ban them from drinking for a time. That way, you only restrict the liberty of a person where they are a nuisance to society.

 

[Quath]

For example, alcohol is responsible for a considerable amount of violence and anti-social behaviour, so there is a good justification for making it illegal. Although I think the preferable solution is to flog those who cause such problems and ban them from drinking for a time. That way, you only restrict the liberty of a person where they are a nuisance to society.

Do you think the same should be applied to cocaine? Make it legal, but if someone causes problems, flog them and ban them from cocaine for a time?

Quath

 

[antitox]

For example, alcohol is responsible for a considerable amount of violence and anti-social behaviour, so there is a good justification for making it illegal. Although I think the preferable solution is to flog those who cause such problems and ban them from drinking for a time. That way, you only restrict the liberty of a person where they are a nuisance to society.

Do you think the same should be applied to cocaine? Make it legal, but if someone causes problems, flog them and ban them from cocaine for a time?

Quath

No. Cocaine is and dangerously addictive drug and too disorienting.

 

[Quath]

No. Cocaine is and dangerously addictive drug and too disorienting.

Alcohol is also dangerously addictive and disorienting.

I drink very rarely, so I could easily go the rest of my life without drinking. I don't do any other recreational drugs except caffine. So I am not seeking to trap people into supporting any position. I am just curious at how some people reconcile their beliefs on drugs.

Quath

 

[antitox]

No. Cocaine is and dangerously addictive drug and too disorienting.

Alcohol is also dangerously addictive and disorienting.

I drink very rarely, so I could easily go the rest of my life without drinking. I don't do any other recreational drugs except caffine. So I am not seeking to trap people into supporting any position. I am just curious at how some people reconcile their beliefs on drugs.

Quath

Repost, because by your responses, it appears as though you don't really read what was said:

I'm not addressing what is already legal. Yes, it's easy for you to say OK to any drug on the basis of alcohol's use in society. I do not say that. I am not comparing and saying that drugs should be legal based on one thing in question. That is not my issue. Just because one thing is out there doesn't mean you say yes to everything else and hold a candle to the wind. There has got to be some some level headed thinking in this becaue the other stuff is seriously addictive and we would have an epidemic.

 

[Quath]

Repost, because by your responses, it appears as though you don't really read what was said:

I am looking for people to ue logic in this. Basically, I am hearing "something should be illegal because something is illegal." Imagine if you could wipe all drugs laws away and start over. How would you decide what is to be legal and illegal without being contradictive?

Should it be based on responsible use of a drug? Should it be based on health reasons? Should it be based on the mind influences? Should it be based on limits?

Quath

 

[antitox]

I am looking for people to ue logic in this. Basically, I am hearing "something should be illegal because something is illegal."

Again you just can't get what I said can you? Just because alcohol is out there is no excuse to legalize any dangerous drug because of it. Two wrongs don't make a right, yet you say I'm not using logic? Think again.

Imagine if you could wipe all drugs laws away and start over. How would you decide what is to be legal and illegal without being contradictive?

I don't make decisions based on a situation that doesn't exist and never would. That's hollywood reasoning based on non-existent scenarios that do not address reality. It skews judgment.

Should it be based on responsible use of a drug?

Does the public responsibly use alcohol?

Should it be based on health reasons?

There has to be hard proof of which there isn't. Really...you don't think anyone would be responsible hopelessly hooked on a drug do you? Increase in crime, murder, rape, deaths by overdose, health complications. It isn't even legalized, yet one of my neighbors died of an overdose who was a recreational user. Your policy would sacrifice the rest of society.

Should it be based on the mind influences? Should it be based on limits?

Quath

These are pretty much answered in the above response; however the gov can't regulate anything. For example, with the glaucoma users allowed weed in some areas, the distribution locations still sell the stuff on the side to people who don't have glaucoma. It was on the news. So much for regulation. If it was done your way we would all be druggies.

 

[Quath]

Again you just can't get what I said can you? Just because alcohol is out there is no excuse to legalize any dangerous drug because of it. Two wrongs don't make a right, yet you say I'm not using logic? Think again.

So are you saying that alcohol is a wrong?

I don't make decisions based on a situation that doesn't exist and never would. That's hollywood reasoning based on non-existent scenarios that do not address reality. It skews judgment.

The goal is to clarify logic. Basically, you are coming up with philosophies and then add exceptions to them to invalidates the philosophy.

Does the public responsibly use alcohol?

I would say that some people do and some don't. But I am not even sure how to tell for sure. For example, drinking and driving is a bad use. Letting your kids go hungry for alcohol is also a bad use. But is drinking 3 beers a night before bed a bad use? Is wine tasting a bad use?

There has to be hard proof of which there isn't. Really...you don't think anyone would be responsible hopelessly hooked on a drug do you? Increase in crime, murder, rape, deaths by overdose, health complications. It isn't even legalized, yet one of my neighbors died of an overdose who was a recreational user. Your policy would sacrifice the rest of society.

People are hooked on legal recreational drugs like caffine, tobacco and alcohol. There are health complications from all of these from dehydration to lung cancer to liver failure. Yet they do not commit crimes. If the price of cigrettes went to to $100 a pack, maybe there would be crime.

I don't really have a policy. I am divided over this issue. I can see several reasons to limit recreational drug use and reasons not to.

These are pretty much answered in the above response; however the gov can't regulate anything. For example, with the glaucoma users allowed weed in some areas, the distribution locations still sell the stuff on the side to people who don't have glaucoma. It was on the news. So much for regulation. If it was done your way we would all be druggies.

The government can regulate, but there will always be people that break the law. The government just needs enough checks to catch law breakers.

You seem to think that if drugs were freely available, that everyone would be a druggie. Is the only thing keeping you from doing drugs is that it is illegal or too costly?

Quath

 

[antitox]

So are you saying that alcohol is a wrong?

I did not say that, but it is being abused, and that shows you how much worse it would be with addictive drugs made legal. Think a little, Quath.

The goal is to clarify logic. Basically, you are coming up with philosophies and then add exceptions to them to invalidates the philosophy.

You do not clarify logic based on an assumption that would never be a real scenario. It is not objective, but skewed due to taking a stance on something that is not probable. All that does is cause decisions that do not truly address a given situation. Basically strawman.

I would say that some people do and some don't. But I am not even sure how to tell for sure. For example, drinking and driving is a bad use. Letting your kids go hungry for alcohol is also a bad use. But is drinking 3 beers a night before bed a bad use? Is wine tasting a bad use?

Well you're trying to find exceptions to the rule by using logic comparitively with non-essentials in the mix. Would be good if you could come to work with me at the PD and see just how much of this abuse goes on.

People are hooked on legal recreational drugs like caffine, tobacco and alcohol. There are health complications from all of these from dehydration to lung cancer to liver failure. Yet they do not commit crimes. If the price of cigrettes went to to $100 a pack, maybe there would be crime.

Again, comparison to non-essentials. A strawman.

I don't really have a policy. I am divided over this issue. I can see several reasons to limit recreational drug use and reasons not to.

:-?

The government can regulate, but there will always be people that break the law. The government just needs enough checks to catch law breakers.

You seem to think that if drugs were freely available, that everyone would be a druggie. Is the only thing keeping you from doing drugs is that it is illegal or too costly?

Quath

Yep, there would be ALOT MORE druggies than we have now, more car accidents, much greater percentage of addicted public-more health crises, more assaults, more sex crimes, more mortgage defaults, more deaths,
more dysfunctional families, more youth problems, more thefts, more taxes, more widespread health decline than ever before- malnutrition, more pregnancy complications, quality decline across the board, among hundreds of other things.

 

[Quath]

So are you saying that alcohol is a wrong?

I did not say that, but it is being abused, and that shows you how much worse it would be with addictive drugs made legal. Think a little, Quath.

I think the problem is that I think too much here. You say something like "Again you just can't get what I said can you? Just because alcohol is out there is no excuse to legalize any dangerous drug because of it. Two wrongs don't make a right..." So if the second wrong is legalizing other drugs, what is the first wrong? It would imply that the wrong is the legalization of alcohol. Yet you say that is not it.

You do not clarify logic based on an assumption that would never be a real scenario. It is not objective, but skewed due to taking a stance on something that is not probable. All that does is cause decisions that do not truly address a given situation. Basically strawman.

You clarify logic by having a consistent set of beliefs. We have shown in the past we can make alcohol illegal. Yet you seem to think that it should be legal because it is legal now. It is like saying "I want to support the current status quo because it is currently what we are doing." You are ignoring history and the power of people to change the legalization of drugs.

It would be a strawman if I attacked up on a distorted version of your stance. However, you haven't even clarified your stance enough for me to even try to distort it.

Well you're trying to find exceptions to the rule by using logic comparitively with non-essentials in the mix. Would be good if you could come to work with me at the PD and see just how much of this abuse goes on.

I am not looking for exceptions to rules, but a consistent set of rules. I have seen the problems of drugs. The only thing I want is rules that make sense and are not arbitrary.

Again, comparison to non-essentials. A strawman.

I think you don't know what a strawman attack is. You stated, "Really...you don't think anyone would be responsible hopelessly hooked on a drug do you?" I stated cases where people are responsible and hopelessly hooked on a drug. Where is the distortion in your position?

Yep, there would be ALOT MORE druggies than we have now, more car accidents, much greater percentage of addicted public-more health crises, more assaults, more sex crimes, more mortgage defaults, more deaths,
more dysfunctional families, more youth problems, more thefts, more taxes, more widespread health decline than ever before- malnutrition, more pregnancy complications, quality decline across the board, among hundreds of other things.

You seem to support the legalization of alcohol. Yet if it was illegal (such as during prohibition) crime went up. So if we applied the same principle to other drugs, then should we expect crime to come down as it becomes legal and cheaper? If not, how is alcohol different?

You completly ignored my question. You stated that if drugs were legal or cheaper, we would all be druggies. So is the only reason you are not a druggie is because it is illegal or costly?

Quath

 

[antitox]

I think the problem is that I think too much here. You say something like "Again you just can't get what I said can you? Just because alcohol is out there is no excuse to legalize any dangerous drug because of it. Two wrongs don't make a right..." So if the second wrong is legalizing other drugs, what is the first wrong? It would imply that the wrong is the legalization of alcohol. Yet you say that is not it.

Get a clue. What I'm saying is: if you question the validity of alcohol being legal (based upon the criteria I have aforementioned), then we would have to say allowing the other drugs would be two wrongs to make a right.

You clarify logic by having a consistent set of beliefs. We have shown in the past we can make alcohol illegal. Yet you seem to think that it should be legal because it is legal now. It is like saying "I want to support the current status quo because it is currently what we are doing." You are ignoring history and the power of people to change the legalization of drugs.

I am not ignoring history. The problem is you don't take into account that it was quite a different scenario back then as I mentioned in a prior post, but you ignore what was said. You aren't considering the problems as they exist today nor the widespread knowledge of use, availablity, access, and greater potential for abuse.

It would be a strawman if I attacked up on a distorted version of your stance. However, you haven't even clarified your stance enough for me to even try to distort it.

My strawman reference isn't about a distorted version but a totally non-realistic one. Stop doing the strawman.

I am not looking for exceptions to rules, but a consistent set of rules. I have seen the problems of drugs. The only thing I want is rules that make sense and are not arbitrary.

Well, just giving them what they want isn't the answer, That's what a lot of dysfunctional parents do.

I think you don't know what a strawman attack is

when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented versionof that position.

You stated, "Really...you don't think anyone would be responsible hopelessly hooked on a drug do you?" I stated cases where people are responsible and hopelessly hooked on a drug. Where is the distortion in your position?

Like I've said before, I see this every day, and most are very sad cases. I only see a very very small percentage of the overall problem. Your position will increase it exponentially. I don't care what controls you come up with. We don't have it legal now and the problem is obvious. So you think that allowing it and putting "controls" on it will improve things?:o You are self-deceived to believe such insane logic.

You seem to support the legalization of alcohol.

Where in our conversation did I say that?

Yet if it was illegal (such as during prohibition) crime went up. So if we applied the same principle to other drugs, then should we expect crime to come down as it becomes legal and cheaper? If not, how is alcohol different?

No because alcohol doesn't possess the easily addictive properties that those other drugs do. I said this before, but as always, you ignore my replies and then repost the same thing.

You completly ignored my question. You stated that if drugs were legal or cheaper, we would all be druggies. So is the only reason you are not a druggie is because it is illegal or costly?

Quath

Not saying that I'm not a druggie because the reason is "illegal or costly," but that's what you imply here. I was speaking in general and you know it.
Making easily addictive drugs with powerful properties legal is dangerous and very destructive.

It's so simple Quath, why do you make it more difficult than it has to be? It's that ol' time relativism isn't it?

 

[Quath]

Get a clue. What I'm saying is: if you question the validity of alcohol being legal (based upon the criteria I have aforementioned), then we would have to say allowing the other drugs would be two wrongs to make a right.

So what are the two wrongs then? It seems you would rather insult than answer straightforward questions.

I am not ignoring history. The problem is you don't take into account that it was quite a different scenario back then as I mentioned in a prior post, but you ignore what was said. You aren't considering the problems as they exist today nor the widespread knowledge of use, availablity, access, and greater potential for abuse.

It is really simple. We have changed our drug laws in the past. We could change our drug laws in the future. You act like that is impossible and our drug laws are fixed with respect to certain drugs. When I point out that we have, you say that things are different without saying what is different.

The only different is that people see prohibition as a failed experiment. So that mentality would have to be overcome. However, if there was a good enough reason, I am sure it could be overcome. Yet you don't appear to try to supply reasons.

My strawman reference isn't about a distorted version but a totally non-realistic one. Stop doing the strawman.

You are saying my question is unrealistic. This is not me changing what you said.

Well, just giving them what they want isn't the answer, That's what a lot of dysfunctional parents do.

I am not arguing that this is what should happen. I just want something consistent.

Like I've said before, I see this every day, and most are very sad cases. I only see a very very small percentage of the overall problem. Your position will increase it exponentially. I don't care what controls you come up with. We don't have it legal now and the problem is obvious. So you think that allowing it and putting "controls" on it will improve things?:o You are self-deceived to believe such insane logic.

You are stating this without offering any analysis. I can state a senario. Say pot were legalized. Suddenly, the PD no longer worried about pot users. The jails empty some. The price of pot goes down. What extra crimes do you see that increase expontentially under this senario?

[quote:abf7b]You seem to support the legalization of alcohol.

Where in our conversation did I say that? [/quote:abf7b]
Because you say "Just because alcohol is out there is no excuse to legalize any dangerous drug because of it. Two wrongs don't make a right, yet you say I'm not using logic? Think again." If you were against alcohol being legal, you would probably have answered something like "I think alcohol should be banned also."

But you keep avoiding saying one way or the other for sure in this and try as I might, I can't get a straight answer from you about this.

No because alcohol doesn't possess the easily addictive properties that those other drugs do. I said this before, but as always, you ignore my replies and then repost the same thing.

Now this sounds like it could be a criteria. You could divide up legal and illegal drugs by how quickly you become addicted.

I don't think this would be a good criteria because people use drugs long term. For example, from Wikipedia:

Alcohol dependence can be harder to break and significantly more damaging than dependence on most other addictive substances. The physical symptoms when withdrawing from alcohol are seen to be equal in severity to those experienced during withdrawal from heroin.

Not saying that I'm not a druggie because the reason is "illegal or costly," but that's what you imply here. I was speaking in general and you know it.
Making easily addictive drugs with powerful properties legal is dangerous and very destructive.

It's so simple Quath, why do you make it more difficult than it has to be? It's that ol' time relativism isn't it?

I only asked the question, because that is what you implied. But it sounds now like you were saying it was just an exaggeration. But it does lead to an interesting point. If it were cheap and legal, how much would it go up in use? I don't know. But I know it wouldn't affect me because I wouldn't use it if it were free and legal.

It is difficult because our current drug policies are so contradictive. Alcohol addiction is just as bad as herion addiction yet we say alcohol is bad. Alcohol is just as damaging to the body as most other drugs. Alcohol is causes people to act unresponsibly and with less coordination. So why do we say it is ok and not the other recreational drugs? It is not about relativism, just looking for a consistent rule that makes sense.

Quath

 

[antitox]

So what are the two wrongs then? It seems you would rather insult than answer straightforward questions.

Because yYou don't pay attention to anything that is said. If you call alcohol wrong, then that would be one wrong. If you make the other drugs legal, then that would be the second wrong. You never got my point as you never do and you haven't listened to anything that is said. This is ridiculous. We do this every time and it is tiring.

It is really simple. We have changed our drug laws in the past. We could change our drug laws in the future. You act like that is impossible and our drug laws are fixed with respect to certain drugs. When I point out that we have, you say that things are different without saying what is different.

You just can't understand what I said. I told ytou that access, availablity, more widespread knowledge of drugs, addictive nature taken into account,etc. required some restrictions to be placed on these things, not loosening them as you want. You are not looking at this realistically.

The only different is that people see prohibition as a failed experiment. So that mentality would have to be overcome. However, if there was a good enough reason, I am sure it could be overcome. Yet you don't appear to try to supply reasons.

You cannot use alcohol in this as being the same as having an highly addictive drug on the market. Using alcohol in this argument doesn't compare with the addictive nature of the drugs you want to legalize.

You are saying my question is unrealistic. This is not me changing what you said.

You keep responding with something inapplicable to what was said to make it seem as though the other person's argument isn't valid. You are using those non-related issues to misguide the argument which misrepresents the actual statement of the other person.
I bet you didn't get what I just said and you're going to ignore it, aren't you?

I am not arguing that this is what should happen. I just want something consistent.

How can you get something "consistent" when you can't read what I said?

You are stating this without offering any analysis. I can state a senario. Say pot were legalized. Suddenly, the PD no longer worried about pot users. The jails empty some. The price of pot goes down. What extra crimes do you see that increase expontentially under this senario?

Again, you ignored what I said in previous posts :-?

Do you drive a car? Are these drugs addicting? Do people need their brains to function, to operate heavy machinery, to be a traffic controller, etc, etc, etc, etc? Do people need money for drugs? Can people get addicted and still live a normal, healthy life while their liver deteriorates? How many questions do i have to ask, Quath? You claim to have a level head but you can't think out simple things so I have to nursemaid your train of thought in these conversations. It's a waste of time.

[quote:7811a]You seem to support the legalization of alcohol.

This has not been my argument and does not apply to the case in point.. Who cares if I did? It's already legal anyway.

Because you say "Just because alcohol is out there is no excuse to legalize any dangerous drug because of it. Two wrongs don't make a right, yet you say I'm not using logic? Think again." If you were against alcohol being legal, you would probably have answered something like "I think alcohol should be banned also."

But you keep avoiding saying one way or the other for sure in this and try as I might, I can't get a straight answer from you about this.

I really don't care because this has been about legalizing drugs, not comparing the situation of alcohol to easily addictive drugs like cocaine which really does not apply.

Now this sounds like it could be a criteria. You could divide up legal and illegal drugs by how quickly you become addicted.

Common sense. All you have to do is think about it.

I don't think this would be a good criteria because people use drugs long term. For example, from Wikipedia:

Alcohol dependence can be harder to break and significantly more damaging than dependence on most other addictive substances. The physical symptoms when withdrawing from alcohol are seen to be equal in severity to those experienced during withdrawal from heroin.

There you go again trying to make the comparison that reallt isn't applicable in this See above.

[I only asked the question, because that is what you implied. But it sounds now like you were saying it was just an exaggeration. But it does lead to an interesting point. If it were cheap and legal, how much would it go up in use? I don't know. But I know it wouldn't affect me because I wouldn't use it if it were free and legal.

I look at the effect on humans, and that's the bottom line.

It is difficult because our current drug policies are so contradictive.

Don't know how you arrive at that.

Alcohol addiction is just as bad as herion addiction yet we say alcohol is bad. Alcohol is just as damaging to the body as most other drugs. Alcohol is causes people to act unresponsibly and with less coordination. So why do we say it is ok and not the other recreational drugs? It is not about relativism, just looking for a consistent rule that makes sense.

Quath

[/quote:7811a]

Here we go again. Yeah, I know, let's all get addicted Sure.....it would be fun. Yeah...let's add another wrong and make a right. You just love going round and round. Why use sensibility? Yes, let's just compare and justify. :-?

 

[Quath]

I am a masochist up to a point. :smt075

I will see if someone else can make sense of this thread.

Quath

 

[DivineNames]

Do you think the same should be applied to cocaine? Make it legal, but if someone causes problems, flog them and ban them from cocaine for a time?

What I said was intended as what I personally would support as a general principle.