Illegal Drugs. Should they be illegal ?

[w!zard]

Your links have nothing to do with this. Almost everybody can agree that they at least impair vision; and that's enough to cause car crashes. And the majority of sources also agree that marijuana impairs judgment. Even when I look at pro-marijuana websites, they don't mention driving.

vision doesn't matter. judgment is the ONLY one that does. if the person's judgment isn't impaired but his vision is, it's HIS fault if he decides to do something he shouldn't be doing. it's the exact same as if he takes any legal drugs (such as sleeping pills) and decides to drive. it's not a reason to ban the drug, but to punish the person.

No, no, no. Those examples you gave are different. Anyone who participates in these is making a choice to do so. The non-users who die in car crashes never made any sort of decision to be killed, and they weren't even being targeted by the person. They just happened to end up as a casualty of drug use.

no actually they are exactly the same if you stop for 1 sec to actually THINK. people kill other people for video games, people take unnecessary sleeping pills and decide to drive... there are tons of other examples of stuff like this

Sources that say marijuana impairs vision AND judgment:
http://www.hazelden.org/web/go/info_marijmyth
http://www.savp.iastate.edu/drug-info/marijuana.php
http://www.glenbeigh.com/Resources/DrugQuickFacts/Marijuana/tabid/99/Default.aspx
http://www.waynecounty.com/sheriff/protectYours/Dfaq_mari.htm#driving
http://www.sacsconsulting.com/book/chapter8p3.htm


And don't say that they're ALL biased. I'm sure I could find more of these sources but 5 is probably enough for now.

i'd like to see results of studies done on marijuana and "impaired thinking." none of them are specific enough, and they may count things such as "paranoia" as "impaired judgment."

i like how they're all anti-drug sites though

Wizard in your earlier post you say that drugs that don't impair judgement should be legal because they don't threats to others. The drugs you listed were Xtc, Weed, Marijuana.

Marijuana sources are listed above and I found some for xtc.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/644471
http://www.ecstasy.ws/e-side-effects.htm

the first one is a forum and the second one doesn't mention judgment

Even if they don't impair judgement they are still hazardous to the user and by legalizing them the government would give consent for people to kill themselves.

why should the government have to power to restrict what you do to yourself as long as it doesn't restrict the freedom of others?

I have here an interview like thing i did with a friend over aim. I'll take the irrelevant things out.

the user is aware of all those symptoms while on xtc. if he decides to do something like drive, it's not the drug affecting him, it's HIM deciding to DUI

Since you are obviously not listening, wiz, allow me to repeat myself:

.................

If you cannot counter these points, which I directed to you, then all of your arguments are null.

what you wrote doesn't have to do with what i'm arguing about

 

[|RK|]

what you wrote doesn't have to do with what i'm arguing about

Doesn't it, now? It is whether illegal drugs should be illegal.

 

[Skrah]

Governments should legalize drugs and set up clinics in which any person stupid enough who wants to try drugs can do so, as long as they stay in the premises. No business could sell drugs, but the drugs in the clinics would be free, so I don't see that being a problem.

 

[w!zard]

Doesn't it, now? It is whether illegal drugs should be illegal.

no. read my posts if you want to know what i'm talking about

 

[|RK|]

vision doesn't matter. judgment is the ONLY one that does. if the person's judgment isn't impaired but his vision is, it's HIS fault if he decides to do something he shouldn't be doing. it's the exact same as if he takes any legal drugs (such as sleeping pills) and decides to drive. it's not a reason to ban the drug, but to punish the person.


no actually they are exactly the same if you stop for 1 sec to actually THINK. people kill other people for video games, people take unnecessary sleeping pills and decide to drive... there are tons of other examples of stuff like this


i'd like to see results of studies done on marijuana and "impaired thinking." none of them are specific enough, and they may count things such as "paranoia" as "impaired judgment."

i like how they're all anti-drug sites though


the first one is a forum and the second one doesn't mention judgment


why should the government have to power to restrict what you do to yourself as long as it doesn't restrict the freedom of others?


the user is aware of all those symptoms while on xtc. if he decides to do something like drive, it's not the drug affecting him, it's HIM deciding to DUI

Uh-huh. What I explained... nulls that part, right there. Because it is harming others.

 

[Skrah]

Ok, really, you guys are going on an on about the same thing over and over and just can't seem to agree on anything, thus the debate will never end. I offered an alternative to legalizing drugs, so debate on that for the sake of this thread.

 

[|RK|]

What, with nothing resolved? It's a debate, Skrah. If you have relevant points to deny a former argument, it's supposed to go on.

 

[w!zard]

RK you should read my posts before you comment on them

skrah, that idea won't work for many reasons, but one of them is who's going to pay for the drugs?

 

[Skrah]

Umm, the government. Please state the reasons why it wouldn't work.

 

[|RK|]

RK you should read my posts before you comment on them

skrah, that idea won't work for many reasons, but one of them is who's going to pay for the drugs?

I cannot comment on what I haven't read... >_>

 

[w!zard]

yes, RK. don't comment on something out of context. i've addressed your relevant questions in previous posts

skrah - the government doesn't have unlimited money. most of it comes from taxes, which shouldn't be going toward people getting wasted whenever they want. if people want to do drugs, they can pay for it themselves

 

[KrazyGlue]

vision doesn't matter. judgment is the ONLY one that does. if the person's judgment isn't impaired but his vision is, it's HIS fault if he decides to do something he shouldn't be doing. it's the exact same as if he takes any legal drugs (such as sleeping pills) and decides to drive. it's not a reason to ban the drug, but to punish the person.

Yes, it would be a poor decision by the driver (just like taking marijuana and ecstasy), but it's still the drugs that cause the crash.

no actually they are exactly the same if you stop for 1 sec to actually THINK. people kill other people for video games, people take unnecessary sleeping pills and decide to drive... there are tons of other examples of stuff like this

The drug effects judgment, so if the user kills people it's the DRUG's fault.

Even if they didn't effect judgment (they do, but let's assume they don't for this particular example), your logic is flawed. This is the same kind of argument someone would put up if they wanted it to be legal for normal citizens to carry around bombs:

"Even though they might hurt people, they should have the right to blow stuff up for fun. After all, the bomb doesn't effect judgment, so to ban them is like banning video games."

i'd like to see results of studies done on marijuana and "impaired thinking." none of them are specific enough, and they may count things such as "paranoia" as "impaired judgment."

Why don't you post a site that claims they don't impair judgment? All you've posted are a couple of sites that simply don't mention judgment; that's not going to cut it. You want me to find in depth research and you didn't even really back up your claims.

i like how they're all anti-drug sites though

No pro-marijuana site would say they impair judgment. But some of these are neutral, not anti-drug. You assume because they oppose your views that they are anti-drug.

 

[Skrah]

yes, RK. don't comment on something out of context. i've addressed your relevant questions in previous posts

skrah - the government doesn't have unlimited money. most of it comes from taxes, which shouldn't be going toward people getting wasted whenever they want. if people want to do drugs, they can pay for it themselves

Yeah but they could use some of their money on the clinics. Believe me they use money for more stupid things. They would be getting wasted in a government building, were they wouldn't be able to harm others. Basically they would be saying "Want to hurt yourself? Come here so you don't harm others in the process." They would recieve treatment, be registered so the government has controlled data on addicts, and then formulate a plan to better erradicate the problem.

So basically, it is possible.

 

[w!zard]

Yes, it would be a poor decision by the driver (just like taking marijuana and ecstasy), but it's still the drugs that cause the crash.

then why not force all drugs with the side-effect of drowsiness to be perscriptions, since they're so "dangerous"

Listen for once please. The drug effects judgment, so if the user kills people it's the DRUG's fault.

that would be true for drugs that do negatively affect judgment; however, there are illegal ones that do not.

Even if they didn't effect judgment (they do, but let's assume they don't for this particular example), your logic is flawed. This is the same kind of argument someone would put up if they wanted it to be legal for normal citizens to carry around bombs:

"Even though they might hurt people, they should have the right to blow stuff up for fun. After all, the bomb doesn't effect judgment, so to ban them is like banning video games."

so you do agree that there must be a significant difference. otherwise, you would have tried to refute that

bombs can be dangerous just by being there. also someone with a bomb usually has the intention of hurting others. that's why it's illegal to carry them around in public but it's not illegal to possess one if you have the correct authorization.

Why don't you post a site that claims they don't impair judgment? All you've posted are a couple of sites that simply don't mention judgment; that's not going to cut it. You want me to find in depth research and you didn't even really back up your claims.

...posting a site that excludes "impaired judgment" in their "effects" section is equivalent to claiming they don't impair judgment.

you are right though that it isn't sufficient. although this means you haven't provided any support either . i've tried looking for a study that is consistent with my claim, but i couldn't find one. it's not exactly an ethical study.

No pro-marijuana site would say they impair judgment. But some of these are neutral, not anti-drug. You assume because they oppose your views that they are anti-drug.

an alcohol and drug treatment, substance abuse prevention, a sheriff's website, and two drug rehab sites. OF COURSE they're anti-drug. you also have no idea what my views are, so stop pretending like you do.

Yeah but they could use some of their money on the clinics. Believe me they use money for more stupid things. They would be getting wasted in a government building, were they wouldn't be able to harm others. Basically they would be saying "Want to hurt yourself? Come here so you don't harm others in the process." They would recieve treatment, be registered so the government has controlled data on addicts, and then formulate a plan to better erradicate the problem.

So basically, it is possible.

it's impossible. legislation that allows this will never pass. the government may be stupid, but gov officials have strong views

the "rehab site" would cause more problems than it would fix. free drugs isn't going to solve anything and is counterproductive if rehab is the ultimate goal.

 

[Skrah]

Political views should be shouldered aside. This is not a debate on wether it would be passed or not, but wether if it should and if it would be a viable option.

It would OFFER the drug to anyone curious enough to try, as long as they stay in the premises. It would certainly avoid AIDS transmission through used needles, among other things. As the drug is free, it would leave drug dealers with no job, and armed robberies caused by drug addiction would stop. We could keep a more acurate record of drug addicts, and we could also observe with much more ease the effects and symptoms of addiction. It then would be able to offer more efficient rehabilitation.

 

[KrazyGlue]

@w!zard


If you want an official study that shows marijuana impairs driving, then here's one (find the conclusion section on page 8) :

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1739765.pdf


Now unless you have a real scientific study to counter this view, then there's no real argument for the legalization of marijuana.

And then I'll get to work on a study on ecstasy.

 

[w!zard]

.................................
............
i've made it very clear the issue is on impairment in judgment. have you been ignoring my posts?

 

[Sukai]

I guess no one decided to read my last post.
But basically, if the government legalized drugs once were illegal, they're setting themselves up for a lot of lawsuits.
Contrary to what you think, these drugs are illegal for a reason.
Not to mention that there is no guarantee what influence this would have on the public.
People make and deal these drugs simply to get high, notwithstanding completely unhealthy addictions, these take place in vastly unsafe neighborhoods.

For one, prescribed medicine has a purpose, to remedy a body condition.
These kind of drugs are to get high--not a fundamental treatment. Not to mention as said above, people gain unhealthy addictions to these drugs, they make people addicted to cigarettes look dignified. The drugs take over their lives, they end up selling any possession they can, doesn't even have to belong to them, just to get a fix, all the while neglecting whatever household they are in charge of.
Are you saying these drugs should be legal?
And I lived in these kind of neighborhoods before, pretty common in Detroit, so I can vouch on the shamefully horrible influence drugs can have on an entire family, just because one person in the house is using.

 

[Skrah]

I have proposed a viable option to legalizing drugs, without it being at the reach of vulnerable people, such as kids. It's not much, and its nothing official yet, but it has been demanded in several countries that suffer heavily from both drugs and drug dealers.

As I said before, it's not much, but maybe you could have a look at it in the last page.

 

[Sukai]

So you're saying that in this, a recession, you would want your hard earned money to go to drugs meant to just get people high?
That's not even plausible, much less viable.
The government will pay for things people need, like "no person left behind", or welfare, or health insurance, not to get addicts their fix, that does even begin to make sense.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I guess no one decided to read my last post.
But basically, if the government legalized drugs once were illegal, they're setting themselves up for a lot of lawsuits.
Contrary to what you think, these drugs are illegal for a reason.
Not to mention that there is no guarantee what influence this would have on the public.
People make and deal these drugs simply to get high, notwithstanding completely unhealthy addictions, these take place in vastly unsafe neighborhoods.


For one, prescribed medicine has a purpose, to remedy a body condition.
These kind of drugs are to get high--not a fundamental treatment. Not to mention as said above, people gain unhealthy addictions to these drugs, they make people addicted to cigarettes look dignified. The drugs take over their lives, they end up selling any possession they can, doesn't even have to belong to them, just to get a fix, all the while neglecting whatever household they are in charge of.
Are you saying these drugs should be legal?
And I lived in these kind of neighborhoods before, pretty common in Detroit, so I can vouch on the shamefully horrible influence drugs can have on an entire family, just because one person in the house is using.

I'm on your side here, and I totally agree with you, but this point is easily countered by saying "people should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves as long as it doesn't hurt others". Most people can agree that the drugs are unhealthy. But like I said, I'm all for keeping them illegal.

I have proposed a viable option to legalizing drugs, without it being at the reach of vulnerable people, such as kids. It's not much, and its nothing official yet, but it has been demanded in several countries that suffer heavily from both drugs and drug dealers.

Why would people support paying extra money through taxes just so we could let some people get high on drugs?

So you're saying that in this, a recession, you would want your hard earned money to go to drugs meant to just get people high?
That's not even plausible, much less viable.
The government will pay for things people need, like "no person left behind", or welfare, or health insurance, not to get addicts their fix, that does even begin to make sense.

Yeah we don't really need the clinics.
________________________________

Hey wiz, I've been looking for a good study on the effects of marijuana on judgment, and I found one. But I can't find the full text version...

Still, it's a scientific study and in the abstract the author makes it clear that marijuana impairs judgment: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/deta...a=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#db=ehh&AN=22442414

 

[Sukai]

but this point is easily countered by saying "people should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves as long as it doesn't hurt others".

But I just pointed out how drugs can hurt others, even in an indirect sense.
Family members losing their possessions because someone sold them for drugs.
A household falling, because an addict is neglecting his/her duties.
Someone dying due to involvement or relative involvement with drugs, which death can affect an entire family, and even people outside the bloodline.
Suing the government, because they legalized a drug that killed someone near and dear to them.
There's no justifying that, unless you live alone in a house which you don't have to pay for, with no friends, family, co-workers and a job which does nothing fundamentally productive to the community in anyway, drug use will affect more than just you.
They can try to counter it with that bull all they want, but it's just as credible as countering it with the word "kitten". It does not disprove that illegal drug pull a big impact on people, just because one person is using.
I dare anyone to show me some sort of article in which someone ODing from drugs did not affect someone else.

 

[kingdomofthehearts_snucas]

In my opinion Illegal Drugs should definitely stay illegal for the time being as they have so many risks to health and relationships. Different drugs affect different parts of the body in teenagers and adults. Some teens believe that the drugs have benefits like these:

-Entertainment-For fun, just something to do for a couple hours.....or a lifetime.
-Fitting in-"Oh ya, now I am in with the crowd!"
-Growing up-"Doing drugs makes me feel more mature" but it is the exact opposite.
-Numb for a couple hours

^ These are all reasons that Teens and Adults think it is OK to do these illegal drugs. Teens and Illegal Drug abuse is on the rise and the only way to stop it is to think of these:

-Drug Wars
-Arrested?
-Fees or Fines?
-Criminal Record?
-Maybe your drivers license gets taken away for abuse of Illegal Drugs?
-Your whole car taken away for inspection?
-Ruin your life?
-The trust from your parents is out the door?
-Support from parents is out the door?
-Health Risks?
-Body Damage?


The list of Cons greatly outweigh the list of Pros.
In my opinion I believe that Illegal Drugs should stay Illegal.
These are my thoughts and facts about Illegal Drugs.


-KOTH

 

[Skrah]

So you're not willing to pay for people to get high on an environment where they will cause no harm instead of drugging themselves at home anyway even though you pay to mantain criminals in jail?

First of all, yes, drugs would be given to anybody stupid enough to try them. It would be quite preferable to have people getting high in a controlled space where there can be no harm to others than to them getting high anyway and possibly hurting someone. And since everyone ignored everything else that I typed I guess I'll type it in again. An advantage of the clinics would be that anyone signing up to try drugs would be registered, to better control drug addiction in case they are addicted, and to find ways to counteract the addiction. By giving drugs out free, drug dealers wouldn't have anything else to sell. Minors wouldn't be able to reach drugs since they would be administered within the facility, and obviously there'd be an age limit.

Yes, it sounds stupid at first, but it really is an ingenious way to counter the drug problems that we suffer today.

 

[Eor]

In my opinion Illegal Drugs should definitely stay illegal for the time being as they have so many risks to health and relationships. Different drugs affect different parts of the body in teenagers and adults. Some teens believe that the drugs have benefits like these:

-Entertainment-For fun, just something to do for a couple hours.....or a lifetime.
-Fitting in-"Oh ya, now I am in with the crowd!"
-Growing up-"Doing drugs makes me feel more mature" but it is the exact opposite.
-Numb for a couple hours

Way to patronize everyone that does it

-Drug Wars
-Arrested?
-Fees or Fines?
-Criminal Record?
-Maybe your drivers license gets taken away for abuse of Illegal Drugs?

All of those are just because it's illegal. You can't argue that they should stay illegal because if you get caught you get in trouble. That makes no sense

-Your whole car taken away for inspection?

What? That's not how search warrants work, man.

-Ruin your life?

Loaded statement. Drug addiction, sure. There is a huge gap between people who use drugs and those who are addicted to them. About 40% of Americans below 40 have used drugs.

The list of Cons greatly outweigh the list of Pros.
In my opinion I believe that Illegal Drugs should stay Illegal.
These are my thoughts and facts about Illegal Drugs.


-KOTH

Well you wrote the list, you can't use that as some sort of measure. I could write a list of pros/cons about murdering someone where the pros outweigh the cons, but that wouldn't mean the pros of murdering someone actually outweighs the cons.

Besides that, you provided no sources for what you said, and half of it seemed to be taken from an anti-drug infomercial. Provide your own arguments! Almost everything you said could just as easily be applied to alcohol.

 

[Sukai]

Kitten.

You honestly think that Addicts would agree to live in a controlled space to take drugs?
You are really all for, the government paying for drugs for people to take in drug clinics?
What experience you have in this kind of stuff? Please tell me.

If a clinic is there to control their addiction, just put their *** in rehab! it gets them off drugs without feed it to them at the same time. You don't quit smoking by smoking more, at the same time, you don't help control their addiction by giving them the same drugs, if the clinic refuses to give them their fix, there are drug dealers to fill the void.

There is no way to build a concentrated and controlled environment where addicts can do drugs to their hearts content. The government has more priorities to put their money into than one so selfish.
You know, like; building houses, paying for homeless shelters, welfare, feeding hungry children foster care for orphans or children of unfit parents, and yeah--prison, I'd gladly allow my hard earned money to go to keeping serial killers and rapists far away from my loved ones.

Why don't we let the government pay for sex doll clinics so all those rapists have something to unleash those violent hormones on!
And why stop there!? Let's have the government pay for a grocery store simulator, so all those people with an itch to rob an establishment can do so in a "safely controlled area".

You don't quench a flame with fire! Am I getting through to you.
It won't work. There are no logical means in which that idea would be possible. Drug addicts are impulsive, they would do anything to get their fix, in or outside a clinic. Your idea is only going add to a place for druggies to waste their lives away.
Stupid/uneducated people are to be educated and informed, not left to their own self-destructive devices.
If a child is unaware of drugs, would you just kick back and let him start using? Or would you try to keep him away from them, while telling him what they can do to him? At least try.

 

[Palpi]

I am not saying your wrong, but there is a place in seattle where people use clean needles, so people don't get infectious or sexually transmitted diseases while doing their drugs. They also have help to get off the drugs and people claim it is working, but I am not too sure myself.

 

[kingdomofthehearts_snucas]

Way to patronize everyone that does it
Patronize:
to act as patron of : provide aid or support for

I was not supporting it in any way. I was stating that these are the reasons for people to think that it is OK to do these illegal drugs.


All of those are just because it's illegal. You can't argue that they should stay illegal because if you get caught you get in trouble. That makes no sense

Can you explain this more thoroughly?

What? That's not how search warrants work, man.

Depending on the situation. If your crossing the border, or entering a drug free zone, and you are smuggling narcotics, and you get caught, then you get your car ripped apart during the search.

Loaded statement. Drug addiction, sure. There is a huge gap between people who use drugs and those who are addicted to them. About 40% of Americans below 40 have used drugs.

And where did you get these facts? If you are telling me down here to give sources,
v
do.


Well you wrote the list, you can't use that as some sort of measure. I could write a list of pros/cons about murdering someone where the pros outweigh the cons, but that wouldn't mean the pros of murdering someone actually outweighs the cons.

If what your getting at is the size of the lists, than that is not what I am saying. I am saying the risks outweigh the reasons that people think it should be OK.

Besides that, you provided no sources for what you said, and half of it seemed to be taken from an anti-drug infomercial. Provide your own arguments! Almost everything you said could just as easily be applied to alcohol.

You didn't even bother to touch on the drug wars issue. Indefinitely I got my information from past experiences, and Human Growth class as well.

 

[Faithkeeper]

I was not supporting it in any way. I was stating that these are the reasons for people to think that it is OK to do these illegal drugs.

(I believe) He means you didn't support their case in a fair way, many of they pros seemed more like cons in the way you worded them. To list pros and cons, they should be addressed as thus, consider rewording your pros and adding other things such as "dealing with depression or severe loss".

Can you explain this more thoroughly?

They are not viable cons because this debate is whether or not they should remain illegal. If they were to become legal, these would cease to be cons.

Well you wrote the list, you can't use that as some sort of measure. I could write a list of pros/cons about murdering someone where the pros outweigh the cons, but that wouldn't mean the pros of murdering someone actually outweighs the cons.

If what your getting at is the size of the lists, than that is not what I am saying. I am saying the risks outweigh the reasons that people think it should be OK.

Read the post again, he never mentions the size of the list. He merely states that using a list is far from an empirical way to judge something of this manner.

You didn't even bother to touch on the drug wars issue. Indefinitely I got my information from past experiences, and Human Growth class as well.

In debate, both sides can completely ignore something the opposition brings up if it is not detrimental to their case. I can only assume he did this here.

 

[kingdomofthehearts_snucas]

(I believe) He means you didn't support their case in a fair way, many of they pros seemed more like cons in the way you worded them. To list pros and cons, they should be addressed as thus, consider rewording your pros and adding other things such as "dealing with depression or severe loss".


They are not viable cons because this debate is whether or not they should remain illegal. If they were to become legal, these would cease to be cons.


Read the post again, he never mentions the size of the list. He merely states that using a list is far from an empirical way to judge something of this manner.


In debate, both sides can completely ignore something the opposition brings up if it is not detrimental to their case. I can only assume he did this here.

Apparently I am no good at this stuff...
/facepalm

-KOTH

 

[KrazyGlue]

The main con is that people will die from second hand smoke and DUI; there's no real way to get around it.

 

[Skrah]

You honestly think that Addicts would agree to live in a controlled space to take drugs?
You are really all for, the government paying for drugs for people to take in drug clinics?
What experience you have in this kind of stuff? Please tell me.

They wouldn't have a choice. The government would be the only source of drugs, and I mean, it would be free, so they'd go.

So now I have to be an addict to debate in this? I know about drugs and their effects, along with sufficient knowledge to get through this debate.

If a clinic is there to control their addiction, just put their *** in rehab! it gets them off drugs without feed it to them at the same time. You don't quit smoking by smoking more, at the same time, you don't help control their addiction by giving them the same drugs, if the clinic refuses to give them their fix, there are drug dealers to fill the void.

Are you really reading my post? It looks like you only take in what you want to take and block out the rest. How can you place addicts in rehab when you wouldn't know who are the addicts. Sure, some might come voluntarily or relatives could send them, but what about those that don't go to rehab? By keeping check of the people that come and go we could register who comes in to try it out and who depends on the drug.

Have you even tried quitting smoking? It's not as easy as just stopping smoking and that's that. You need to wean the amount of nicotine little by little until the body no longer needs the substance. Actually if an addict is deprived of drugs in one blow he could very well suffer and even die.

Drug dealers would be pretty much broke, since the gov. would give them out free. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.

There is no way to build a concentrated and controlled environment where addicts can do drugs to their hearts content. The government has more priorities to put their money into than one so selfish.
You know, like; building houses, paying for homeless shelters, welfare, feeding hungry children foster care for orphans or children of unfit parents, and yeah--prison, I'd gladly allow my hard earned money to go to keeping serial killers and rapists far away from my loved ones.

What can possibly deter this project from being unattainable? Don't exaggerate please. Selfish? How so?

So you'd gladly allow to keep some goons from your loved ones but abstain from keeping them away from drugs, drug dealers, addicts who resort to violence and crime, and the possibility of getting AIDS? That's logical.

Why don't we let the government pay for sex doll clinics so all those rapists have something to unleash those violent hormones on!
And why stop there!? Let's have the government pay for a grocery store simulator, so all those people with an itch to rob an establishment can do so in a "safely controlled area".

Yeah I said it sounded stupid, but made sense when you thought about it. This part of your post is just plain stupid.

You don't quench a flame with fire! Am I getting through to you.
It won't work. There are no logical means in which that idea would be possible. Drug addicts are impulsive, they would do anything to get their fix, in or outside a clinic. Your idea is only going add to a place for druggies to waste their lives away.
Stupid/uneducated people are to be educated and informed, not left to their own self-destructive devices.
If a child is unaware of drugs, would you just kick back and let him start using? Or would you try to keep him away from them, while telling him what they can do to him? At least try.

AGAIN, ignore my post. They would get their fix, inside the clinic, where it is free. The clinic would have a rehab to attend the people that show more possibilities of being addicted to a drug. They would get help.

So how come there are so many drug addicts as it is? Where is that "education"? Education alone won't solve this problem.

Children would not be aloud inside the clinic. It'd be for people over the age limit.

I am not saying your wrong, but there is a place in seattle where people use clean needles, so people don't get infectious or sexually transmitted diseases while doing their drugs. They also have help to get off the drugs and people claim it is working, but I am not too sure myself.

So there are already clinics somewhat similar to these. This just proved that it is possible.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Skrah, GSUB posted a very similar suggestion earlier in this thread, and here's what I would say to the idea:

i meant designated areas for more of the hardcore drugs. Like maybe some kind of facility.

Hmmm... interesting idea. So then the person would have to stay in the facility until they were deemed to be no longer intoxicated? How could that be accurately determined? How could you insure the safety of the other people in the facility?

If it could work, that would be great, but I'm just not sure how realistic it would be to build facilities all across the country where intoxicated people would be wandering around for hours.

And, a fourth question, why would taxpayers be willing to fund the government to distribute free drugs to a bunch of people who want to get high and build special clinics for them? It seems to me like this is a big waste of money and there are much better things the government could do with money.

 

[Skrah]

Drugs take some time for the effects to wear off, much like alcohol. So we could more or less estimate the time, run some tests, such as balance and coordination, depending on what senses does the drug muddle. Obviously there'd be guards that keep the patients in check. The other staff would also have to be somewhat capacitated. The addict would be placed in a room with no dangerous objects while being intoxicated.

More than anything it would also build a safe environment for the people that want to try it out. Things like fresh needles and supervision would keep the patient to contract AIDS or to cause himself more harm than the drug already does to him. Drug dealers would be broke, and this could be a big advantage where drug dealers are causing a lot of trouble. There wouldn't be accidents or theft caused by drug addiction since the drugs would be free, so no need to steal money to buy them, and since people using the drug would be kept within the facility and wouldn't be able to harm others.

 

[kingdomofthehearts_snucas]

Drug dealers would be broke, and this could be a big advantage where drug dealers are causing a lot of trouble.

Well, then they resort to violence to get their money. Once you take away customers, then the new ones come as well, you cant take every addict to a clinic. Drug dealers will always have customers, unless the drug dealers go extinct (metaphorically speaking)

-KOTH

 

[KrazyGlue]

Drugs take some time for the effects to wear off, much like alcohol. So we could more or less estimate the time, run some tests, such as balance and coordination, depending on what senses does the drug muddle. Obviously there'd be guards that keep the patients in check. The other staff would also have to be somewhat capacitated. The addict would be placed in a room with no dangerous objects while being intoxicated. More than anything it would also build a safe environment for the people that want to try it out. Things like fresh needles and supervision would keep the patient to contract AIDS or to cause himself more harm than the drug already does to him.

This is getting more and more strange. So we'd essentially be doing the following things:

1. Keeping a bunch of intoxicated people locked up in a clinic for hours
2. Spending tax money and wasting "guards" that could be used better elsewhere


Questions:
1. Again, why would anybody want to fund this instead of simply keeping them illegal?

2. Would this place have rooms essential like an insane asylum where the rooms would all be puffy, inmates (or whatever you want to call them) would be separated, and guards would roam around?

3. Wouldn't the people get addicted and essentially end up living there?

Drug dealers would be broke, and this could be a big advantage where drug dealers are causing a lot of trouble. There wouldn't be accidents or theft caused by drug addiction since the drugs would be free, so no need to steal money to buy them, and since people using the drug would be kept within the facility and wouldn't be able to harm others.

KOTH is pretty much right. Either that, or the dealers would change to some other illegal business to get money.

 

[Sukai]

Okay, Skrah, you issue a suggestion to the government and see how that fares.
Go ahead.

 

[Skrah]

This is getting more and more strange. So we'd essentially be doing the following things:

1. Keeping a bunch of intoxicated people locked up in a clinic for hours
2. Spending tax money and wasting "guards" that could be used better elsewhere


Questions:
1. Again, why would anybody want to fund this instead of simply keeping them illegal?

2. Would this place have rooms essential like an insane asylum where the rooms would all be puffy, inmates (or whatever you want to call them) would be separated, and guards would roam around?

3. Wouldn't the people get addicted and essentially end up living there?





KOTH is pretty much right. Either that, or the dealers would change to some other illegal business to get money.

1) Because it would help them. Apart from the fact that it would remove addicts from the streets when their intoxicated or craving for more drugs and thus mugging people, it would actually help them get over the drug. It would conduct studies and then create better programs to help the needed. Drugs staying illegal won't change anything. Possibly it won't get worse, but it will not get better.

2) Think about it as a hotel, not like prison cells. They'd have surveillance and some guards. I don't think all of the addicts would go crazy at the same time.

3) They'd only visit the clinic when they're going to get high. After the effects wear off, they are free to go.

Sadly, organized crime will always find a way. They'll always have something to smuggle or people to extort, I know what you mean. But things need to get done. Weed out every thing they could use to their advantage. This is another topic altogether though, so I don't want to stray away from this one.

Okay, Skrah, you issue a suggestion to the government and see how that fares.
Go ahead.

So you agree now? It's an online debate, we're not actually going to make this happen.

 

[kingdomofthehearts_snucas]

Weed out every thing they could use to their advantage.

Like weed? lol.

-KOTH

 

[KrazyGlue]

1) Because it would help them. Apart from the fact that it would remove addicts from the streets when their intoxicated or craving for more drugs and thus mugging people

Those people are not that common and it would probably be a much better use of money to fund education so that kids don't think drug dealing is the only way to get money. If someone were to run a survey on this, I doubt many taxpayers would fund people getting high rather than more on education, health care, etc.

it would actually help them get over the drug. It would conduct studies and then create better programs to help the needed.

We already have rehab centers.

Drugs staying illegal won't change anything.Possibly it won't get worse, but it will not get better.

Well of course it won't change anything! But that's no reason to make them legal. Using this logic, one could say:

"Murdering people should be legal, it's not like keeping it illegal will make it any better!"

The point is by keeping them illegal we're keeping people from getting hurt and not wasting money.

2) Think about it as a hotel, not like prison cells. They'd have surveillance and some guards. I don't think all of the addicts would go crazy at the same time.

Hotels cost a lot of money to run. You'd have to have:

1. "Guards" (int this case)
2. Janitors/maids to clean the rooms
3. Doctors and nurses, in case anyone overdoses or gets hurt

3) They'd only visit the clinic when they're going to get high. After the effects wear off, they are free to go.

My point was that some of them will get addicted and end up staying in the place indefinitely to get a continuous supply of the drug.

Even those who aren't begging for more drugs as soon as they're cleared to leave will be trapped in the building for a large portion of the day and will have to be guarded an watched.