RP Will Legalize Drugs?

[Seth M.]

Isn't it every person's choice whether or not he should ruin his body with drugs? Why does the government have any say in what you put in your body???

Why? follow the money sad to say

 

[Shmuel Spade]

Speaking candidly for a moment I have to say: I despise drug warriors even more than I do "terror warriors" or cold warriors.

 

[NewEnd]

Drugs don't kill people? Go snort some coke some night and tell me it can't happen. Crack addicts go to incredible lengths to get money to get more. Heroin kills so many people on just one night, so does speed balls.

Do you want to see the rise of innocent deaths? Legalize drugs, allow Walmart to sell it, and let's see what happens. Many, many, many people won't do them simply because of the fear of getting arrested and it stops their curiosity. Watch how many people die in proportion to what we have now.

Anything which can effectively kill you on one night by an accident should be illegal. You can't OD on weed, and ODing on alcohol is incredibly difficult and very rarely causes death, but it certainly can happen with crack, coke and heroin. One night and you are dead. I don't want that situation to be a reality.

Want no drug problem? Follow Madagascar's policy: found dealing drugs you die. The real problem is the justice system allowing this while the ACLU destroying justice by playing the system, and the gov't not arresting people and shipments they know exist. My freaking brother was a dealer, the cops knew it, and never did a thing until he almost died. I used to work with drug addicts so I know how the system works and how the juridical system is handcuffed to the new insanity of false civil liberties that are perpetrated by ingenious lawyers who defend the guilty looking for loopholes while be funded by drug dollars.

That's the problem, not this pseudo war we are facing.

Freedom implies morality. We are not free to murder, we are not free to defamation, etc.. We are not free to allow the traffic of illegal substances that can easily destroy life and the ignorant and innocent must be protected. This is institionalized license and to pretend that it will kill the Afghan trade of opium, or stop the bad guys in alleys from the perpetuation of a black market is myopic and sophomoric logic.

Guns kill people
hamburgers kill people
cars kill people

 

[NewEnd]

Historical perspective: at one point in the early 1900's, 40-50% of Americans were hooked on various amounts of Heroin or Morphine. This is what initially prompted the Fed to regulate the apothecaries and pharmacies.

No it's not. And that number is way off, and impossible. I don't know where you go tit, but it cannot be true.

The first drug made illegal was cocaine, and that was because it was being sold fraudulently as a cure for everything.

 

[angelatc]

It's been a looooong time since I wrote term papers, but I seem to recall that the original US drug laws had to do with opium. The white women were sneaking off to China town to get stoned all day.

edited to add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_(drugs)#Early_drug_laws

The first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug was a San Francisco, California ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875 . The inspiration was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise....

My brain isn't entirely addled.

 

[NewEnd]

It's been a looooong time since I wrote term papers, but I seem to recall that the original US drug laws had to do with opium. The white women were sneaking off to China town to get stoned all day.

edited to add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_(drugs)#Early_drug_laws



My brain isn't entirely addled.

Perhaps, either way, certainly 40-50% of America was not hooked on opiates.

 

[cujothekitten]

Perhaps, either way, certainly 40-50% of America was not hooked on opiates.

That may not be too far off. Remember that morphine and other opiates were in most of the patent medicines. It wasn't something that needed a prescription and was handed out to children as well as adults.

 

[NewEnd]

That may not be too far off. Remember that morphine and other opiates were in most of the patent medicines. It wasn't something that needed a prescription and was handed out to children as well as adults.

Nope, sorry, not buying it. I'll need to see a study or some real good evidence.

And he used the term "hooked". I am just not believing it.

 

[angelatc]

Perhaps, either way, certainly 40-50% of America was not hooked on opiates.

No, the opium laws were clearly written in the name of morality.

 

[Gee]

Legalizing drugs would not harm others, or innocents. Drugs would be cheap enough that people would not have to kill and steal for them, and their legalization would mean that drug dealers and kingpins would be out of work. Yes, more people could afford to destroy their own lives, but they would be less likely to destroy the lives of others.

There is just no way the illegial drug trade could compete with a legal, free market of drugs. Real businessmen would crush them. Drugs would be regulated, safer, and properly labeled.

The idea that people are not intelligent enough to know what they can and cannot eat, snort, smoke or inject into their veins is... I'm sorry, just incredibly pessimistic to me. Drugs are very easy to come by for people who actually want to try them.

Why do kids want to try them? Because the existance and effects of drugs are DRILLED into their heads by our education system. Of course they are curious! In the history of mankind, has telling a child or adolescent "Don't do X, even though its a lot of fun, because X is dangerous" EVER worked? It doesn't work with alcohol - plenty of nations with lower minimum drinking ages have less of a problem with alcoholism in kids (France). Why would we think it would somehow work with drugs?

At any rate, the power would go to the states, so its moot.

 

[mikelovesgod]

Guns kill people
hamburgers kill people
cars kill people

I was already clarified with my inquiry by the one poster which I looked up and confirmed.

Your statement though isn't the point. Objects used for public consumption and use are judged by their moral objective. A gun is morally neutral and can be used for moral good or evil, the same with hamburgers and cars. Drugs don't have any neutrality, they are made to destroy the God given ability of ratiocination and with that harm potential death to physical body. That's the reason why drugs are intrinsically immoral to the user while your other examples are not intrinsically harmful.

You study the object in their moral use as either intrinsic to their use and if so their use is always wrong. Such is the case with the uses of drugs and poisons to our body.

When someone uses a gun they use it for someone other than themselves unless it's suicide. Guns are morally reprehensible in murder or in the case of children handling them. Guns are laudable for self-defense of defense of family or country. Stick a gun in the hand of a 4 year old and tell me if the act is moral. Hamburgers don't kill anyone and can be healthy in moderation. Cars are completely neutral in their use and are mostly used for utilitarian reasons.

The same cannot be said for drugs whose only purpose is to erase ratiocination and create psychotropic reactions not found in nature. Too much exposure immediately creates brain trauma, heart trauma, or death. Things which can be used in moderation and do not create such reactions in moderate forms can be moral as their immediate use in small forms do not cause bodily damage. I don't have time to give an ethics discussion, but I hope this suffices that such examples are poor in nature and do not expose the discussion at hand in the same formality of thought.

 

[Shmuel Spade]

Morals and morality only make sense in terms of human action, they are irrational in relation to inanimate objects. Inanimate objects left alone and untended by human intelligence will simply be exposed to the elements and wear away. Rust, mold, dissolution, and disintegration will happen and the inanimate objects will cease to be.

Please stop posting on this topic mike.

 

[mikelovesgod]

Shmuel,

Morals do only make sense to humans because we have an intellect and a will. How that has any relation to the context of the discussion you have not defined. Last time I checked we were both human and this topic does relate unless you pretend to be a rust, mold, etc..

Last time I checked the entire purpose of supporting a candidate was because we believed in them, something only humans can do. Their ideas are important and the discussion of those ideas are vital.

My inquiry was sufficiently resolved, but to hear someone refute morality on specious arguments need to be addressed.

 

[graystar]

Is there a law against people drinking Draino?

 

[Shmuel Spade]

Morals do only make sense to humans because we have an intellect and a will.

If you meant this as in the same way that I meant my words in my last post (that the terms, phrases, and descriptions of things as "moral" or "immoral" can only be coherent in relation to human actions, and irrational if used in other contexts) then very good. This is all that needs to be said.

If you meant this as simply "because humans are smart, they can understand", then you've misunderstood.

How that has any relation to the context of the discussion you have not defined.

Quotes from you:

"Objects used for public consumption and use are judged by their moral objective."

Objects are not be judged, only human actions are to be judged, as only human actions can be either moral or immoral.

"Drugs don't have any neutrality, they are made to destroy the God given ability of ratiocination and with that harm potential death to physical body."

"Drugs" (a scare word nowadays) are inanimate objects, and as such are by definition morally neutral. I'll assume if you're upholding what you've said in this sentence you advocate the prohibition of alcohol, cigarettes, and just about all other "drugs" humans can "legally" get their hands on. In that case you might want want to have a second look at this party, They're applying your principles to the letter.

"That's the reason why drugs are intrinsically immoral to the user while your other examples are not intrinsically harmful."

The inanimate objects known as "drugs" are not "immoral" (not even intrinsically) only particular human actions are immoral.

"Guns are morally reprehensible in murder or in the case of children handling them."

Guns are inanimate objects, and therefore cannot be "morally reprehensible" or "laudable". Only human actions can be morally reprehensible or laudable.

"Stick a gun in the hand of a 4 year old and tell me if the act is moral."

It seems that here you were actually able to make the distinction, even if only briefly and perhaps only subconsciously. Note the description of the action here as moral or immoral, and not the ridiculous notion of the gun being moral or immoral. Inanimate objects do not act, sentient creatures do.

"Hamburgers don't kill anyone and can be healthy in moderation."

Here you let on an heretofore undisclosed insight that hamburgers may not be healthy out of moderation, in fact they may even kill you. The same can be said of "drugs", which many of our members have attested to consuming in unknown quantities. Drug consumers don't consume the product to be killed, and drug producers and retailers don't produce the product to kill their customers. That would be absurd, as there would be no repeat business. Drugs are consumed for the effects they have on the human body and the human psyche, and in moderation they can be healthy.

Even if drugs did kill people, i.e. people voluntarily chose to kill themselves with drugs (as humans have done for all of recorded history) I personally wouldn't try to pass a law to stop such an action. Individuals are the owners of themselves, and they can dispose of themselves as they see fit. If you believe that human beings in reality are the property of a god and so being are actually stewards of their bodies and lives, then such is your personal belief. Use your human capabilities of reason, intellect, and will to argue with other humans for your point of view. Don't simply threaten them with punishment for not conforming to your private religious views.

"Cars are completely neutral in their use and are mostly used for utilitarian reasons."

Another reference to the human action of use being either moral or immoral, and not the silly position of positing inanimate objects like cars being immoral or moral.

"The same cannot be said for drugs whose only purpose is to erase ratiocination and create psychotropic reactions not found in nature."

"Drugs" are inanimate objects like all other inanimate objects mentioned thus far. The reactions produced by consumption of some drugs are indeed natural, as the drugs and all ingredients for them are to be found in nature. Humans have been seeking out these drugs from nature for as long as drugs have been known to them.

"Too much exposure immediately creates brain trauma, heart trauma, or death. Things which can be used in moderation and do not create such reactions in moderate forms can be moral as their immediate use in small forms do not cause bodily damage."

Which "drugs" are you referring to? Would you like to eliminate human free will to ensure that no one uses things beyond moderation?

Notice how you've switched back to referring to inanimate objects as either immoral or moral when you've moved onto the subject of "drugs." During the founding of the United States it was a goal to finally put an end to the superstitious ideas that supported the concept of deodand, why would you like to bring it back?

Last time I checked we were both human and this topic does relate…

Relate to what? And who asked about relation?

Last time I checked the entire purpose of supporting a candidate was because we believed in them, something only humans can do.

My inquiry was sufficiently resolved…

Ron Paul as POTUS would not be a legislator but the chief executive, and as such would have no power to "legalize" anything. Not that I want "drugs" or anything else "legalized" anyway. I'm not sure you'll even comprehend that last sentence so I'll stop there.

…but to hear someone refute morality on specious arguments need to be addressed.

Who "refuted" morality?

 

[NewEnd]

Processed cheese is disgusting and unhealthy. It is unecessary, and only used for pleasure.

We can live without processed cheese, we can live without transfats, like partially hydrogenated soybean oil, which is not consumed in "nature" (the hydrogenization process is unnatural)

Yet it is legal, and very unhealthy.

The obesity epidemic in America is a much bigger crisis than the drug epidemic, and at least a hundred times more people die each year from obesity related diseases than illicit narcotic use-related diseases.

Skydiving, is incredibly dangerous, and yet, it is legal, same with skateboarding and mountain biking. What is natural about jumping off of a cliff, or out of a plane?

The same cannot be said for drugs whose only purpose is to erase ratiocination and create psychotropic reactions not found in nature.

ratiocination? Please tell me, who is more clear thinking;

A: the stoner who thinks that time is precious, and spending 60 hours a week working as an admiistrative's assisant is a waste of life or

B: the administratvie assistant who thinks money is precious, working 60 hours a week thinking the stoner has a wasted life?

You talk of ratiocination and then nature, and try to apply it to human nature, which is not natural at all. We are not natural beings.

Too much exposure immediately creates brain trauma, heart trauma, or death.

You are classifying all drugs as the same drug, many drugs do not immediatley cause damage.

Things which can be used in moderation and do not create such reactions in moderate forms can be moral as their immediate use in small forms do not cause bodily damage.

Drugs can be used in moderation, without any harm, unless somebody has an adverse reaction. Much like peanut butter.

I don't have time to give an ethics discussion, but I hope this suffices that such examples are poor in nature and do not expose the discussion at hand in the same formality of thought.

I think they do. How people choose to destroy their bodies is really not anyone else's business. There are a million ways to screw yourself up. Drugs are just one of them.

 

[Electric Church]

Ok... I just read up on Paul's stance on drugs and I'm now wavering on the guy. You cannot legalize insanity and anarchy. Institutionalized legality of things which can kill you easily is insane.

then take a hike...join another forum....bye

 

[NewEnd]

P.S.

Don't even get me started on the most dangerous drug of them all..... television.

Talk about something whose only purpose is to erase ratiocination and create psychotropic reactions not found in nature.

That's the definition of advertising.

 

[NewEnd]

then take a hike...join another forum....bye

No, I don't think so.

mikelovesgod, you are certainly welcome, and talking about legalizing drugs seems strange, because so many of them seem evil, but evil is in actions, not thought or substance.

I think advertising Big Macs to children is terrible, but because this is America, I believe McDonalds has the right to do so. I can only hope over time, the truth will win, andpeople will realise how incredibly wrong Mcdonalds is to push very unhealthy food to children. They love McDonalds not because it tastes good, but because it is associated with puppet characters and indoor play rooms.

 

[AgentSmith]

Ok... I just read up on Paul's stance on drugs and I'm now wavering on the guy. You cannot legalize insanity and anarchy. Institutionalized legality of things which can kill you easily is insane.

Dear god how did mankind survive for 2 centuries? How did the united states survive for over 100 years?