Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Islam and Science Fiction
by zeca
Yesterday at 11:06 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 08, 2025, 01:38 PM

New Britain
February 07, 2025, 03:10 PM

German nationalist party ...
February 07, 2025, 01:11 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
February 05, 2025, 10:04 PM

Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
February 02, 2025, 04:29 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 11:48 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 07:29 PM

News From Syria
by zeca
December 28, 2024, 12:29 AM

Theme Changer

 Poll

  • Question: What do you think is the best option for us?
  • Legalizing all drugs
  • Legalizing only soft drugs like marijuana
  • Keeping the laws as they are right now
  • Making laws tougher with longer sentences for dealers

 Topic: Legalizing Drugs

 (Read 18900 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 5« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #120 - March 04, 2010, 10:06 PM

    Legalizing is not the same as allowing it to be in the aisles at Safeway. It can be legalized and heavily controlled and heavily taxed. It can be limited to certain establishments and subject to even more stringent restrictions than tobacco.

    Though personally, I want them to stay illegal, it's just these arguments are really meaningless when you consider the various equally dangerous and harmful activities that are completely legal. I guess it boils down to whether or not you think the state should be the babysitter for immature individuals.


    Ye true say, in USA, everyone has the right to own a gun lol. There are a lot of immature dickheads out there. Ye lot of dangerous things as you said but my view on this is that legalising it will be too costly even with the taxes implemented. Another hassle that we don't need like I said.

    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #121 - March 04, 2010, 11:12 PM

    Legalizing is not the same as allowing it to be in the aisles at Safeway. It can be legalized and heavily controlled and heavily taxed. It can be limited to certain establishments and subject to even more stringent restrictions than tobacco.

    Though personally, I want them to stay illegal, it's just these arguments are really meaningless when you consider the various equally dangerous and harmful activities that are completely legal. I guess it boils down to whether or not you think the state should be the babysitter for immature individuals.


    So why do you want drugs to remain banned after all that?! I know you said it's just what you "personally" think, but tell me... why do you personally think drugs should be banned?

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #122 - March 04, 2010, 11:16 PM

    Legalizing is not the same as allowing it to be in the aisles at Safeway. It can be legalized and heavily controlled and heavily taxed. It can be limited to certain establishments and subject to even more stringent restrictions than tobacco.


    Believe me, panoptic would be perfectly fine with the thought of heroin and cocaine being on sale in the supermarkets. I wouldn't bet he'd allow Safeway though...  grin12

    What I've been arguing against in this whole thread is not liberalism, but anarchism. The two main people who have been responding to me in this thread, z10 and panoptic, are both anarchists. IA is a liberal who believes that limiting demand is a good thing but limiting supply is somehow not a good thing. Whereas I believe in limiting both supply and demand.

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #123 - March 04, 2010, 11:17 PM

    So why do you want drugs to remain banned after all that?! I know you said it's just what you "personally" think, but tell me... why do you personally think drugs should be banned?


    Coz I don't like them.

    And I meant hard drugs.

    Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.

  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #124 - March 04, 2010, 11:20 PM

    Would you be offended if I said you just don't mind being inconsistent?

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #125 - March 04, 2010, 11:22 PM

    Nope. Smiley


    Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.

  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #126 - March 04, 2010, 11:34 PM

    What I wanna know is how cases of murder are dealt with in an anarchy. If the murderer is ambiguous, how does ordinary society go about finding out who the murderer was, and if the murderer is known, then what does ordinary society do with the murderer? After answering that, I wanna know what anarchists believe should happen in the case of 100 cases of murder, then 1000 cases of murder... you can see where this is going...

    I strongly feel that the anarchists' conception of the state as being something more than the sum of the people, or in some anarchist views, not even constituted of the people itself (even more preposterous!), is so deeply flawed. The state is the natural evolution of big society. It's a necessary coping procedure we can't do without. Sophisticated Anarchists are supposed to be against "law" but for "organization", and that's how society is supposed to run. But law is not something fundamentally different to organization - it's complex organization that has been developed in the setting of a very large society. Anarchism might work in a small tribe in some remote area of the world, but not in a society of this scale.

    Just needed to get that off my chest  grin12

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #127 - March 04, 2010, 11:45 PM

    implicit in your discussion james, is the idea that man will still murder his fellow man no matter what. That no matter how much we grow as a species we will still remain childish and immature and require to be controlled.
    I am not saying that man will not be so violent in the future, but it seems you don't even want to take that chance.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #128 - March 05, 2010, 12:47 AM

    I assure you that's not an assumption you have found in what I have wrote. I am well aware of the fact that different types of government were the best types of government at different points in history. A couple of millenia ago, I can imagine that liberal democracy would have resulted in a lot of chaos that just wasn't worth the idealistic principles that it stood for. Perhaps in the future an anarchical society will be the best form of society. But as for now, the idealistic principles behind it are way too idealistic for any observable benefits to result from it, should society become anarchical overnight.

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #129 - March 05, 2010, 12:57 AM

    I guess the problem is that we're thinking that the only form of society without a government is anarchical. Is that necessary?
    The natives of north america had no government, no central authority, no concept of ownership or private property and yet theirs was a harmonious, stable society without any anarchy.
    I am not saying that we should follow their model, of course, but it is possible to have a society without a central authority that polices and still remains in harmony and peace.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #130 - March 05, 2010, 01:02 AM

    z10, the definition of anarchy is statelessness...

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #131 - March 05, 2010, 01:05 AM

    yes, you're right, my bad. I guess my point is just that "statelessness" shouldn't have any negative conotations.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #132 - March 05, 2010, 02:51 AM

    my take is if people want a thing they will get it, if you criminalise it then the price goes up so they commit crimes to get the money to get the thing.  Legalise it and some people will still abuse it, like alcohol, but it isn't forbidden and thus "a sexy drug".

    Legalisation would not be perfect but can anyone argue with a straight face that prohibtion has worked?

    Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful, The Perpetually Pissed Off About Some Shit Or Other.
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #133 - March 06, 2010, 08:58 PM

    i have a friend who killed himself with heroin, overdose

    legalise only the softcore drugs like weed, crack ( whistling2)

    Besides who else here does mary jane?
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #134 - March 19, 2010, 03:31 PM

    I say legalize all drugs. I mean, do you know how bad alcohol is for you? How can that drug be legal? It all depends on the user. There should be a legal age limit like alcohol, and the rest is up to you. Drink resposibly?... Drug responsibly!

    I know someday you'll have a beautiful life, I know you'll be a star
    In somebody else's sky, but why, why, why
    Can't it be, can't it be mine

    https://twitter.com/AlharbiMoe
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #135 - March 22, 2010, 02:03 AM

    What I've been arguing against in this whole thread is not liberalism, but anarchism. The two main people who have been responding to me in this thread, z10 and panoptic, are both anarchists. IA is a liberal who believes that limiting demand is a good thing but limiting supply is somehow not a good thing. Whereas I believe in limiting both supply and demand.

    I'm not saying trying to reduce supply is not good, I'm saying it is unfeasible. We're wasting our time and money trying to. Whenever there is demand, there is going to be supply. As simple as that. It doesn't matter how tough and well-enforced the laws are.


    I strongly feel that the anarchists' conception of the state as being something more than the sum of the people, or in some anarchist views, not even constituted of the people itself (even more preposterous!), is so deeply flawed.

    They are not flawed. I agree with z10 and panoptic in that the state will always abuse its powers but I believe it is a necessary evil, therefore I'm not an anarchist.


    A question to panoptic and z10, do you believe there should be no form of law enforcement and no judiciary?
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #136 - March 23, 2010, 04:36 AM

    Yes, I think adults should act like adults and then there would naturally be no need for any law enforcement.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #137 - March 23, 2010, 05:13 AM

    What if they didn't?
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #138 - March 23, 2010, 05:48 AM

    But what if they did? life would be unimaginably better

    my point is, perhaps that's a chance worth taking...

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #139 - March 23, 2010, 06:05 AM

    New member (from FRDB), first post, greetings. z10, that is too chancy.  Some rules of the society will be necessary. Marihuana, alcohol, restricted use, sane use. No to strong drugs. Education will help (even for sex).
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #140 - March 23, 2010, 06:06 AM

    I'm not saying I know they won't. They might all act like adults and yes it would be unimaginably better.

    But again, what if they didn't? what do we do then?
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #141 - March 23, 2010, 04:34 PM

    Then we admit that we f*cked society up good and move on  Cheesy

    I just got this very strange hypothetical scenario in an anarchist state in my head the other day:

    Rest of society: It looks like you murdered so and so.
    Accused: You should treat me like an adult and trust me when I say I didn't.
    Rest of society: Fair enough.


    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #142 - June 18, 2012, 01:55 AM

    Legalizing ecstasy would save lives... says Jesse Kline.

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/15/jesse-kline-legalizing-ecstasy-would-save-lives/


    Tucked within industrial districts on the outskirts of downtown Vancouver lie innocuous-looking warehouses that, on any given weekend, play home to the city’s vibrant underground party scene.
     
    Inside an array of stimuli tingle the senses: The floors reverberate with the blare of electronic music; lights flash; and the air becomes sticky and pungent as a mass of people dance until the wee hours of the morning.

    One thing that distinguishes the underground scene from mainstream clubs is the distinct lack of alcohol at most events: It is often easier to buy ecstasy than it is to find beer.
     
    Unfortunately, consumers of that drug have no way of knowing what exactly they’re getting.
     
    “Most of the samples of what is passed off as MDMA [the original chemical used in ecstasy] on the street is of really unknown quality, unknown purity, unknown dose and is almost guaranteed to be contaminated with a variety of other drugs like PCP, ketamine or methamphetamines. So it’s potentially dangerous,” said Dr. Perry Kendall, B.C.’s Provincial Health Officer. Indeed, at least 16 people have died over the past year in Western Canada from a tainted batch of ecstasy that was laced with a deadly chemical known as PMMA.
     
    DMA has been illegal in Canada since 1976, but that has hardly stopped people from using ecstasy. It even appears to be growing in popularity
     
    Dr. Kendall caused quite a stir when he was reported on Thursday as saying that taking ecstasy can be done in a safe manner, and that it should be legalized and distributed by the government. Later in the day, he told a TV news crew he was “not advocating for the legalization of ecstasy or its distribution from government liquor store-type outlets,” but that he does believe the drug is safe, when it’s not mixed with other substances.
     
    The assertions that MDMA — the entirely pure form of ecstasy — is relatively safe, are backed up by a growing body of evidence. A 2010 study published in The Lancet medical journal, written by David Nutt, the former chairman of the U.K. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, found that pure ecstasy is much less harmful than many other narcotics. Out of 20 substances, alcohol was found to be the most harmful, while MDMA ranked 17th.
     
    Another study in the journal Addiction compared the cognitive functions of ecstasy users to non-users and “failed to demonstrate marked residual cognitive effects in ecstasy users.” Likewise, a study conducted by The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies has given the drug to over 500 people, without any serious health effects.
     
    Still, Canadian police blocking the import and manufacture of illegal MDMA and its ingredients means producers have had to resort to more dangerous ecstasy cocktails. And the problem for those attending after-hours parties in Vancouver, and other recreational drug users across the country, is they have no way of knowing if the pills they’re buying are the safe kind or the deadly kind. It’s too bad Dr. Kendall reversed his stance on legalization, because allowing the product to be produced and sold out in the open would be much safer than the current situation.
     
    Our experience with illegal narcotics mirrors many of the unintended consequences that were seen during the Prohibition era. During that time, alcohol became much more potent, too — why sell beer, when hard liquor is stronger, and the punishment is the same? — while many people ended up dying from bad batches of moonshine. (Those who didn’t just got really drunk.)
     
    Today, a majority of the harm that comes from illicit drugs is due to the fact that these substances remain illegal. Gang violence is a big problem in many Canadian cities, and the ecstasy-related deaths that have been in the news as of late never would have happened in a regulated environment.
     
    We don’t know where the tainted ecstasy that recently popped up, with deadly consequences, in Western Canada was originally produced
     
    When an outbreak of listeriosis was found at a Maple Leaf Foods plant in 2008, the company suffered a considerable loss of business. When it suspected another problem with its food in 2009, it promptly issued a voluntary recall of the product.
     
    These same free market forces do not work so well when the product in question is traded on the black market. We don’t know where the tainted ecstasy that recently popped up, with deadly consequences, in Western Canada was originally produced, because those who made it are forced to operate underground. Dealers often have no way of knowing whether the product they resell is dangerous, and customers cannot pick and choose from a variety of manufacturers to find the best, and safest, product.
     
    MDMA has been illegal in Canada since 1976, but that has hardly stopped people from using ecstasy. It even appears to be growing in popularity. Instead of imposing harsher restrictions on the substance, as the federal Tories have done, governments should think about the words of Dr. Kendall and look at ways to reduce harm by allowing the drug to be produced and sold in a safe, regulated environment.
  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #143 - June 18, 2012, 06:31 PM

    I voted that they should all be legalized.

    I fully understand that drugs can be terribly detrimental to health and that there would be many negative repercussions to legalization. But I think that the positive effects of legalizing drugs outweight the negative.

    There was actually a recent article in the Economist about this. Many Latin American presidents are beginning to talk seriously about it:

    http://www.economist.com/node/21550296

  • Re: Legalizing Drugs
     Reply #144 - June 18, 2012, 07:26 PM

    I voted legalize all drugs, at the end of the day, human curiosity is going to lead to drug taking, weather legalized or not. I think the problem is if you legalize them, then they become accessible to those whom the drugs might not have been accessible previously. There has to me proper controls and taxing it has to be regulated. I think it would lead to a situation like cigarettes it will be popular at first, but eventually it will die down, the only regular drug takers would be those who would have taken the drugs regardless.   
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 5« Previous thread | Next thread »