Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Of course it wouldn't be a problem if only the user was harmed. But the sad fact of the matter is that those around the user are harmed as well, often due to adverse effects from the drugs causing the user to act irrationally.
Alcohol should be illegal, as should tobacco.
Obesity is soon to be the leading cause of death... are we going to outlaw all fatty foods next? Seriously?
That's completely ignoring the point of my post, which was to show that drugs harm people around the user, not just the user. Someone eating a Big Mac only hurts the consumer.
My apologies, it was unclear that was the point from your post.
As should be alcohol, as the drug is the main reason DUI happens, getting the user drunk so that they make poor decisions.
Perhaps, but I think smoking is more dangerous in small quantities. I think one cigarette is more dangerous than one cup of coffee or one big mac. (I'm still working on finding a source for this and I'll get back to you when I find something conclusive). Also consider the addictive properties of nicotine, which may make it harder for the user to stop smoking than to stop eating big macs (although the same is true for coffee's addictive properties).
there's no way to avoid inhaling second hand smoke on the streets.
I agree that alcohol is not illegal because prohibition was a horrible failure. It's just too ingrained in our culture. It should be illegal, but that just can't happen anytime soon. But "well, alcohol is legal" should NEVER be an argument for illegal drugs.
.
It's a touchy topic. There is no silver bullet. That's the way things are in real life. It's like Climate Change or any issue facing modern humanity, there's nothing that'll fix it entirely. And even if it does, the solution is probably going to cause problems in itself. This is the problem with everything.Actually I see advantages and disadvantages from any of the options.
If we were to make illegal drugs legal it would be in the open subject to taxes and legal inspection for health reasons (It is never healthy but it would make less dangerous to a minor degree.) Also it would cut into the profit of criminal organizations (At least the ones that make money off such products.) and that I believe to be a good thing (The weakening of criminal organizations, possibly saving lives.)
On the other hand as KrazyGlue pointed out that illegal drugs are illegal for a reason, they are dangerous to people around the user and not just the user is at risk. If illegal drugs are legal then they would be easer to get to and there for there is the possibility of more users (Not granted but it is still risking human lives, unnecessary casualties.)
I do not know. I can understand both arguments, but I do not have a solution
So, the question then becomes a matter of if the good out ways the bad. In that case I say that illegal drugs should remain illegal until such a time that the benefits of making illegal drugs legal out way all of its negative results. (Like a high crime rate with their money revenue being drugs or very bad economy without many resources to pull from that would help the economy, for an example.)
Thanks
.
No trolling. You mentioned it out of spite and as a rebuttal: "So why do I need to justify my moral theory, but he doesn't?"
Then you should have made that clear from the get go. We're not your homework assignment, or lab rats to be played with, and I for one don't appreciate it.
I brought this up already. It's because the use of it is so ingrained in day-to-day living that it's a "justified evil." Prohibition's failure is proof of this.
Yet it's the basis of this thread. So what's the deal, you either want to debate it or you don't. There's little use in experimenting if you're not going to just get into it. We're not stupid. Again I take offense. Obviously if you're going to meander around SC v NL then it'll be brought to light and you'll be forced to go down that road. If it's such a headache, avoid the subject altogether.
Yes, actually. -source
I was referring the theory that began with Thomas Hobbes and continued with John Locke. Hobbes, being a fideist, said that human nature is evil, and that humans can do whatever they desire, as long as they don't interfere with other's humans ability to commit evils.
So now, I'm not allowed to put across a theory I don't agree with? Seems abit contradictory when we have a DA thread.
Ok, I forgot I said that in the OP, so I admit it was wrong to put that argument across without justifying. Nonetheless, Del still was wrong in not justifying his theory either.
Most of my information comes from either talking to credible people, or from books. The internet isn't really a reliable source of information for my field of study, so I don't cite it much.
The point of the thread was to stimulate discussion, for me to see how consistent people's usage of SC was, and how many people would actually bother to justify it.
This
No, the problem is that it's really poor debate etiquette to make a thread and not tell us your intentions from the beginning.
You haven't given any reason to believe that.
None of this made any sense, nor does it fit a definition of social contract theory. Just answer the simple question, what is social contract theory. I don't care who came up with it, or if it assumes people are evil. What does that have to do with ANYTHING anyone else is saying? No one has yet to make the argument that humans are inherently evil...
Complete and total BS... There are plenty of published papers online, both available to everyone, and some available only selectively. You can't actually say "the internet isn't a reliable source of information" because the internet can refer to almost anything online. Many books are online these days in one form or another, and scholarly journals are almost entirely online.
Do I have to?! We all know how prohibition went. We know what speakeasies are, we know the illegal alcohol trade worked - moonshining, booze-running, etc.
Basically what the post below you showed... that your definition of SC doesn't coincide with the prominent one we're all familiar with...
Prohibition failed because alcohol has been so ingrained in human society and culture for thousands of years, and now everyone uses it. In other words, it failed not because of it being illegal, but because it was so popular. When other drugs were made illegal (rightfully so), they weren't popular enough to spark the same (unreasonable) outrage that prohibition did.
Here's the problem. You said this: "I made this thread to see if people's usage of the social contract is consistent on both homosexuality and drugs." You should have put that in the OP. Don't make a thread just to observe us, or at least tell us if that's your intention.
Yes. Yes, I'm sure there is some small, safe dosage of any drug. I'm not going to deny it. But, (and you probably won't like what I'm going to say here) we do have to take account for user irresponsibility. There are many things that you and I would both agree should be illegal that can be used responsibly. For example, a machine gun. Sure, people could just use them to keep themselves secure from criminals. But they're unnecessary and are ultimately too dangerous when they fall into the wrong hands. And I would also apply that last sentence to illegal drugs.
And does making drugs illegal keep people from using them improperly (or from just using them)? Not one bit. Now, if I asked how you would mediate the damage done to society by drugs, how exactly do you go about that? Keep doing the same thing, or do something different?
So basically by throwing people who possess drugs into jail and rehab systems will turn most of these peoplel around (everyone I know that has ever been arrested for drugs never stopped after their probation/rehab ended, not to say that replaces some good statistics, but I am just saying)? As far as cutting the supply of drugs, can you show how that has had an impact by reducing the use of drugs?
Perhaps they need longer rehab and/or jail time then.
If you can't buy drugs, you can't use them (unless you're able to make them yourself). It follows that if we sharply reduce supply, drugs will be scarcer, hard to find, and much more expensive.
You're right, law enforcement would have to dismantle the whole organization.
Can we sharply reduce the drug supply though (is it possible)? If the current cost of the drug war is in tens of billions each year, and it is really only scraping up the surface, we simply cannot allocate enough capital to enable the government to institute the necessary measures to basically invade the privacy of every single citizen in the country (arresting roughly 10% of the US population or 35 million people would cost tax coffers an average of $6,245 per arrest) in an effort to stamp out illegal drugs, because that is really what it would take, and I am not sure if even that would be enough.
If it's not working...use more of it!
It also follows that demand will go up, and emotional investments to obtain the product will go through the roof. This is why people kill for drugs. If all it took was a casual stroll down the block to get a kilo of blow, don't you think drug-related casualties would go down? You wouldn't need drug mules (who often die horrible deaths) you wouldn't need showdowns, money-laundering schemes, cop shootouts, betrayals, associated crimes, crimes of passion, etc.KrazyGlue said:
This is totally false. Referring to this chart, you can see that Heroin is rated that highest (note in the chart a 6 = least, 1 = most) with 2's across the board in terms of Withdrawal, Reinforcement, Tolerance, Dependence, and Intoxication. Alcohol beats heroin for withdrawal and intoxication, but that is because you can drink a LOT more before you die, compared to how much you can shoot up. Also, the withdrawal rating is based on purely physical withdrawal, which technically is true. You can beat out the heroin addiction fairly quickly, but it can take years to remain sober, with constant support needed (AA, etc.).
? this makes no sense. Cops are there to enforce the law, regardless of what the law is. There's no such thing as "real" crimes. Crimes are crimes, ergo violations of the Law.
If hard drugs were legal, would you use them? If not, why? Probably because you know the harmful effects of them. You don't have a demand for them because you are educated about them. The alternative method to fighting the problem is simply to decrease demand for them by educating people before they use them and using a rehabilitative rather than a retributive theory of justice. The only thing a retributive theory of justice succeeds in doing is circulating users in and out of the prison system and the general population. A rehabilitative theory of justice will ultimately reduce the number of users and decrease the overall demand for hard drugs which will in turn reduce the supply. Also, using rehabilitation is a much more economically efficient than retribution. I think that decreasing demand for hard drugs will ultimately have better results and be more efficient than trying to attain the same ends by using supply side economics.
Del is saying that he'd rather have police investigate crimes with actual victims rather than victimless crimes. I personally agree with him.
Yeah, but social ideology resulted in Wars (Vietnam, WWII), Genocide (The Holocaust), Racism (Nazi Germany), etc. Look I'm just saying that radical ideology is quite dangerous, probably more so than drug use, especially if drug use is made safer.
So Americans are going out there killing people, wasting truckloads of money, and having their servicemen die, to mildly improve the health of their country? To be honest, I think in terms of health, we've got bigger fish to fry. Smoking and obesity are larger issues than illegal drug use. They kill more people, and they cost the nation much more.
... hm. Dre. made this same mistake, remember? There are no victimless crimes that the police protect us from (they'd not be crimes otherwise). Drug addicts hurt society. They drain resources. Instead of working and paying taxes, they sit at home and get high. Then they go out into the world, high, and kill people because they can't drive properly, or get into arguments and shoot people because they have no judgment. Obviously this is over-simplification, but by saying drug crimes are victimless is to make the same mistake, so it fits.
I agree, but what's to say banning hard drugs is "radical." What's so off-the-wall about it? It -should- be obvious, but we're debating it, so of course it's not. To some there is the personal freedom aspect, "it's your body, do with it what you will." The problem is we're not talking about people who grow their own coca plants, or field their own opium. We're talking about people who by their habits, are supporting agencies that are quite literally enemies of the state, and that warrants illegality at the very least.
I don't follow. The War on Drugs is a paper war for the most part. It's in legal action, arrests by civil police, etc. Coastguard is about as close as you'll get to "servicemen dying." The costs to which you refer is not for the benefit of Americans' health, it's for the benefit of American Freedom (if you believe that.) I also agree, obesity is a very serious problem and should probably get more attention than drugs do these days, but where one is funded by Hostess, the other is funded by Drug Cartels. We can fight the latter, the first, not so much, and you shouldn't have trouble understanding why, it's good economics vs bad economics.
really, though? JUST like that? It's not that easy, bob. Making drugs legal makes them not illegal anymore hence "lower crime." Sure, lol but what of it? This is cheating, it doesn't work IRL. Crack heads will still break the law, the only law they'll not be breaking is "possession" or "intent to distribute." "Safer?" how so? Why, because Pfizer will start making crack bottles instead of your local street dealer? Think the FDA would -approve- Crack use? .... Ends the drug wars? How so? Legal drugs would amplify them! With drugs legal cartels would have zero pull in the market. They'd literally have to bend over and take in the *** because The US Gov would be running the show, instead of johnny street dealer. They'd cut each other to pieces, at home, in the streets of the US, to be in the best bargaining position. "Fixing" Mexico will require a lot, but mainly an end to corruption. Turning coke and pot into legal exports won't do this. They'd still be screwing over their own population to head up the operation.
That's just it, bob, they won't go down like that. These drugs we're talking about only come from cartels, they literally own the fields that the plants are raised in. You think the US would suddenly start growing coca plants to supply their hundreds of millions of users? You're still going to need cartels in operation to meet demand, especially considering a lot of these drugs only grow in regions outside of the US. We're the user in this equation. If you've ever been a drug addict, you know exactly what that means. It means you're rarely in a position to bargain. The only thing you -can- do, is quit altogether, and that is the only thing I believe can help the US. And to quit, you've gotta face consequences if you don't. Me, it was my life, I was going to literally die if I didn't stop. For others, incarceration. Death may not come, but living in a prison might as well be death for most normal people. And then there's the fines. There's your revenue. The thoughts here is if you can afford expensive drugs, you can afford to pay your drug tax (if you didn't know there's actually a drug tax on the books, and a lot of your fine in court is estimated by calculating the tax on the drugs you've been caught using/selling).
Glad you believe that. Let's look at some facts, though:
It's funny watching a mod commit a basic begging the question fallacy. Actually, it's just silly and disappointing. The "law" is not infallible. We must question the law at all times. To assume that the law is always a "real" crime, then social justice would never have become so important as it is in 2010.Sucumbio said:
Funny. The long term effects of cocaine "abuse" sound suspiciously like the long term effects of fatty foods in your system.
I call absolute, ABSOLUTE bull****. If an administration's goal was to improve the health of American citizens, then the United States would have adopted a modern, non-medieval health care system a long, long time ago. Otherwise, I do not buy your argument.Sucumbio said:
All you're doing is making it harder and more dangerous for users to get their fix. Do you realize I could make the *exact* same argument you're making against Mcdonald's? Do you realize that we could simply make banning Mcdonald's a "law" and in your argument we would have to uphold that law, no questions asked?Sucumbio said:
Well, I was correcting you, so my point still stands. Heroin is more addictive than alcohol.
I still am not following you, here. You said "And let's be honest, I'd rather have cops busting real criminals than someone who wants to feel happy." That is a ridiculous dumbing down of the issue. Drug addicts aren't people who just want to feel happy. They're miserable! They want to die inside. They're so chicken**** scared of reality they have to crawl inside a bottle, or a syringe. They're so desperate to escape life, they have to cloud their minds, numb themselves into oblivion. "I think the real crime is telling someone that they aren't allowed to do something because of social ideologies." More sarcasm and posturing. Who are you to identify social ideology in this context? How many drugs have you been addicted to? How low have you gone in life? You blatantly defile the hard price that people pay for their failings and misguided adventures, you dismiss the hard work and sacrifice that men and women die to ensure YOUR safety on a daily basis, and then charge ME with logical fallacy? Where's the "crime" here, again?
Not funny at all, but I know you were being sarcastic... again.
President Obama says "hi." Sure it took a while, but that's what you get when your country is run by Wall Street.
And the problem with this, is? Oh right, it's supposed to be easy to get your hands on lethal chemicals so we can all go around playing bumper cars with our SUVs because the giant purple pandas are shooting at us with rainbow colored laser beams. (see I can be sarcastic too, ain't it a *****?)
Actually, I recall something like this Demolition Man. It was hilarious. What was banned, it was like, salt, red meat, alcohol, tobacco, sex, haha all this stuff. Where do you draw the line, is that what you're getting at? Well... you draw it at hard drugs. Lets just leave it at that.
And yours seem to be lacking any real point, so I guess we're even? ggs
I think it's possible. Look at the difference in drug dealing between the US and Mexico. We have a far better police system, and we have far fewer drug lords (per capita).
I agree! Prison time is a good deterrent. If the prison time for **** was only one month, I bet a lot more men would commit the crime, and men who had already committed the crime would commit it more often.
Seems kind of unrealistic that every single drug user will do these things, doesn't it? Sure, some people might go to those extreme measures, but do you really think every high school or middle school kid smoking marijuana is going to shoot a cop to get it? Moreover, if gang-related activities were legal, you wouldn't have as many cop shootouts, money laundering schemes, betrayals, associated crimes, crimes of passion, etc either, but does that mean that society would benefit?
True, but alcohol is much more available, much more used, and causes much more DUI deaths, not to mention other things such as domestic abuse and bar fights.
I just wrote an entire paragraph explaining why prohibition does not relate to illegal drugs today, and you completely ignored it.
Oh please. They know the problems associated with taking drugs. They just don't care. (Manhunter agrees with me on these points as well, if I recall correctly.)
Boo hoo. I really feel horrible for these people who only want to take drugs regardless of the health and safety of those around them. /sarcasm
Social ideologies such as... don't do something stupid that risks the lives of people around you? I think people who "just want to be happy" and will do anything to reach that goal regardless of the health and safety of others is a real criminal. Rapists "just want to be happy"! Why does everyone think drug users are such great people? Since when has the term "alcoholic" had a positive connotation? You people are the ones admitting drug users commit "showdowns, money-laundering schemes, cop shootouts, betrayals, associated crimes, crimes of passion, etc.", but you keep acting like they're these innocent people who have never done anything wrong! Do you see the contradiction here?
I don't think money should ever be valued over the safety of the public. Many things that are economically viable shouldn't be legal. It would also be economically viable to capture the 5 richest men in america, take all their money (probably around $100 billion), and throw it into the health care system.
