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!
see people who choose to use "these drugs" are supporting terrorism, etc. by making it in house (lolwut) true it wouldn't support cartels and al qaeda, but it'd also not be illegal anymore so people using them wouldn't be labeled as criminals and locked up (anymore). ... yeah.
If roofies are legal for personal use, you can bet they'll be used as a date **** drug. Many other drugs can send the user into a manic state, causing them to become dangerous to those around them. They can also force you to make bad decisions that could harm others, such as Driving While Intoxicated.
And therefore it should be illegal to:
See above. Basically, you're restricting personal freedom with no good reason.
The reason is that the use of the drugs effects their judgement, causing them to make bad decisions (i.e. DWI). And when I say DWI, I don't mean them using the drug while in a vehicle. I mean them using it anywhere and then the drug causing them to lack the judgment to decide not to drive while intoxicated. So it's not the user being irresponsible, it's actually the drug causing it, albeit indirectly.
So they should not be able to do these drugs because of what they might do after taking the drug? That sounds a little paranoid. Regardless of the legal status of the drug, those who wish to use it will find a way to obtain it. There is no issue until the safety of others is at stake. The drug is not to blame, the person is.
I explained these points in the post above yours. If need be, I can further clarify.
It's harder to do when it's illegal. The fact that they could be thrown in jail for taking said drugs is a deterrent for many people. And also, keeping them illegal allows people to be punished for taking part in an action that puts others around them at risk.
But remember, having drugs illegal is exactly what the drug lords want! They're happy at the moment, because keeping them illegal means that they can charge ludicrous prices for them, so they get rich! It's ironic isn't it....
Not very convincing...
not surprising considering:
besides...
methadone's no walk in the park.
I don't follow. Our efforts should be used to try to eliminate the problem, not to punish severely those who perpetuate it. If it is the case that decriminalization decreases drug use as well as allowing (helping) more users to seek treatment, then that is the best course of action. I don't know why you seek vengeance against these users. Justice in this case does not require incarceration. If they have done independent crimes on account of their use, then they should be incarcerated based on those actions, but why should there be the added fears of incarceration and fines for drug use alone? If fear is ineffective, we should look for better alternatives.
I've shown that making the drugs legal isn't the best way to tackle this problem. And since when should we not punish people for breaking the law?
While I agree with the sentiment here, there's no proof that decriminalization would decrease drug use.
Because they're putting the public at risk when they use those drugs.
Nah, because they make they're money because they're illegal. The reason Mexico is a country with such a problem, is because drugs are illegal.
Because that would be stupid. Legalising drugs actually makes sense. It stops the Drug wars, it stops the gangland wars, it crushes criminal networks, it makes drug use a whole lot safer, it allows the drug addicts to seek help, it allows the government to regulate the prices and the selling of it all. In short, many of the problems created by drugs are created because they're illegal.
Not really, the root of the problem is actually that there is a significant demand for these substances, and it won't go away. Trying to stamp it out doesn't really work, we've tried that and it's still here.
You're brushing off my points with no evidence. Want evidence the Mexican police force is corrupt and inefficient? Search "Mexico police force corruption" on google. Ever wonder why the drug trade is much less worse in america than in Mexico? Our police force is much more organized, efficient, and regulated. If drug lords make money just because drugs are illegal, why doesn't the US have problems that are just as bad?
There's a reason drugs are illegal you know. They put others at risk, as I've stated many times with nobody refuting it. Legalizing drugs stops the drug wars but causes lots of drug related crime, whereas improving law enforcement stops the drug wars for the most part and also reduces drug related crime. Drugs become slightly safer if legal but are still not by any stretch of the imagination safe for the user or those around them. I'm sorry people can't get help, but they made a stupid and illegal decision and I'm not going to coddle them for it.
The reason Mexico is in such strife, is because drugs are illegal in the US. That's how all the money comes in to the drug rings.
Drugs don't become safe, they become safer when legalised. The government can regulate them and ensure that they are pure, (as opposed to laced with concrete powder or something crazy like that) and help those that have picked up habits. Intravenous drugs use can become much safer, with clean needles as opposed to ones which are tainted with AIDS and Hepatitis B.
Between 1/5 and 1/3 armed robbery offenders do it for money to pay for drugs.
Basically, there are 3 types of armed robbery offenders. High-end professionals that attack high risk targets like banks, and plan it out properly, and then there are guys who attack low risk targets like the local convenience store who do it in desperation, often without planning. Then there are the guys in the middle. The low-end and the guys in the middle generally do it to pay for drugs.
Yeah, it's stupid but there are plenty of stupid things that people do.
It's really as simple as switching to another primary business, such as firearms dealing. It's pretty easy in Mexico due to their police force's corruption and inefficiency. Which is exactly what I'm trying to say. You're putting out one illegal business and in turn making another one flare up. It's not helping society in general. Improving Mexico's law enforcement cracks down on both businesses.
My point is that yes, they are safer and more pure when legalized, but they are still a danger to those around the user.
Regardless of how expensive they are, these crimes will still happen. People addicted to alcohol commit these crimes as well, often because they're homeless and have no real income. Also in the crack outburst in the 1980s, there were a lot of these sorts of crimes, and crack was a pretty cheap drug. And this is where law enforcement should step in. These people shouldn't be able to get illegal drugs in the first place. Making it legal would only cause more people to but them and get addicted, often with no income to support their habit, and commit crimes to get money. Also it will most likely increase DWI's and other such actions.
It's a stupid action that puts people other than the user at risk. And that's why it's illegal.
Sure, improving law enforcement would lower rates of drug use. But legalising drugs would pretty much ruin their source of income. Guns aren't addictive, you don't consume them and then want more. Drugs are though, and there's probably more demand for them.
So is Tobacco and Alcohol.
If drugs were legalised, then they'd be a lot cheaper, people wouldn't need to commit such crimes to pay for their drug habits. They'd probably be able to pay for it out of their wage instead of having to resort to holding up gas stations. Sure this happens with legal drugs, but I really doubt it'd be as prevalent as with illegal drugs.
Then why are Tobacco and Alcohol legal?
That's true, but all it proves is that having a heroin habit requires lots of money, often more than they can afford, so they resort to armed robbery. If heroin were cheaper, then it wouldn't be necessary to do such things to pay for the habit.
If weed helps you drive carefully, why are there so many DWI deaths due to weed every year in the United States?
Hallucinogens may have medical purposes, but should not available for recreational use. Obviously you could understand how they can be a problem when driving.
Why should cocaine be decriminalized but crack illegal? Because crack is cheaper?
They should be put in jail but also put through rehab to help get through their problem. But they're putting the public at risk, so they deserve the punishment. Why should we coddle people who do stupid, dangerous activities that put innocent people at risk? Everyone always says "oh, putting them in jail would be so mean; why don't we just help them?". They made the conscious decision to put innocent people at risk, so they deserve punishment. I do agree they should be forced to go to rehab, but punishment should happen as well.
There's almost no evidence that drug killing was less prevalent because statistics were not collected in ancient times. And yeah, you couldn't DWI back then. Heh, chariot riding under the influence, lol.
Most people already know about the dangers of drugs and use them anyway.
Agreed.
The arms trade is huge; if you're going to make the bold claim that drug lords can't make a lot of money off of arms dealing, you'd better back it up with a source.
True, and they should be illegal.
People who commit crimes for drug money are generally people who have little or no consistent income, and can't afford to have an addiction anyway. As I've already pointed out, crack was a cheap drug yet it was the cause of massive amounts of crime in the 80's.
They shouldn't be, but if I had to take a guess, it's that they're so ingrained in our everyday lives that there would be an angry outburst by the public if they were banned. Want evidence? Look up the prohibition amendment in the United States.
No, it proves that when less people have access to heroin, less crimes get committed. Therefore, it follows that when more people can access heroin (i.e. if it's legal), crime will increase.
I just don't believe that illegal firearms trade would be as large as the illegal drugs trade.
Actually, I've done some research and found that ironically, law enforcement doesn't really help all that much.
In the words of the Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform. So, basically, more cops don't help. It's funny though, but it seems like the softer approach of harm minimisation works better than piling on the police. The same document continues to say:
So, basically getting the addicts into treatment lowers crime rates. I think if we legalise these drugs we'd be able to get more of the addicts into treatment, and reduce the crime rates.
Okay... I'm not so sure on this. I found a graph depicting crime rates in the USA and Canada from the 1980s to 2000. It seems that crime peaked in the 1990s as opposed to the 80s.
Funny you talk about prohibition. See, look violent crime increases when you make drugs illegal. I think this is the homicide rate in the USA, during prohibition. Prohibition ends in 1933 and from then on, there is a massive drop in the murder rates.
Yeah, when heroin is illegal. When the addicts can get treatment and help, crime rates decrease, it's odd isn't it. Legalising the drugs would help the addicts receive the treatment they need.
I'm not saying it makes you a better driver. I am saying that it makes you driver slower and more cautiously. The impairment is not nearly as bad as alcohol with even extremely high doses of marijuana. You are more likely to get into an accident, but you are less likely than if you are talking on a cell phone, or drinking, or too focused on a passenger, or texting, or checking your GPS, or any of a multitude of distractions we experience as drivers in a modern era (I really hope we get to the point where cars drive themselves soon).
Good, so we should give people access to them, but make sure that to get them, they can't be driving. Sounds like observation with a trained clinician for hallucenogenic experiences fits the need perfectly and would serve to severely shrink the black market in this area. Really though as long as you aren't driving though hallucinogens are pretty safe. (really are we going to ban every drug just because people have access to cars?)
Because crack is more harmful than cocaine? Its more potent, and the chances of being overwhelmed by the sensation and becoming hooked is greater than with cocaine. Coca leaves themselves are no worse for you than chewing tobacco (and probably less cancerous). And while cocaine is a powerful stimulant, its route of ingestion and lower potency makes it much safer than crack.
Facilities for treatment maybe. Jail no. Jail will put them into contact with more unsavory characters. The last place you want drug users making friends is with the drug dealers and gangs in prisons. If you could incarcerate them into a system where they are among like minded individuals (say other people who need to kick their drug habit only) then you might get some progress. But throwing drug users into the prison system we have now really only makes the drug problems of the people entering it even worse.
A good point, in fact its social conditions that tend to drive people to drugs in the first place, poverty is one for certain. Its not the drugs themselves though that lead to the problems relating to them, its the social circles they are used in that will either cause problems related to those drugs or keep them off the streets and safely at home when they choose to become intoxicated.
Well, you've provided no compelling reason for me to agree with you. So I don't.
You're talking about Australia, a country with an at least decent police force. I don't know much about it, but it's probably a heck of a lot better than Mexico's. Mexico's police force is as corrupt and inefficient as any in the world (except for some African nations, but we won't go there). Corruption is the key word here. Mexican police allow all sorts of thing to slide, ESPECIALLY drug trafficking. I'm not saying to add more police, I'm saying to make sure they are less corrupt. Make sure they enforce the laws and get drug lords in jail.
They should be forced to get treatment. That has nothing to do with whether they should be legal or not. They should be sent to jail and forced to get help.
Yeah, the epidemic carried on into the early 90s as well. Then abortion was legalized and crime rates dropped.Okay... I'm not so sure on this. I found a graph depicting crime rates in the USA and Canada from the 1980s to 2000. It seems that crime peaked in the 1990s as opposed to the 80s.
Yep, crime rates went way up. But that's because alcohol is so unbelievably ingrained in our culture that it was an outrage when it was banned. A lot of the crime was due to protesting. It'd kind of be like the government saying "ok, cell phones are illegal now." It's not nearly the same with illegal drugs. People choose to ignore the fact that alcohol is a dangerous drug to them and those around them. With the illegal drugs already illegal, people aren't in denial like they are with alcohol. They accept the dangers of illegal drugs. If alcohol weren't so ingrained in our culture, it would have been made illegal long ago with no problem, just like all the other drugs.Funny you talk about prohibition. See, look violent crime increases when you make drugs illegal. I think this is the homicide rate in the USA, during prohibition. Prohibition ends in 1933 and from then on, there is a massive drop in the murder rates.
They should receive treatment, but it should still be illegal. (By the way, do I seem mean? Sorry if I do. I've just been reading through my posts and they're a bit harsh sounding.)
Auto-pilot cars ftw.
Good point, a lot of them may have drank as well, but I highly doubt everybody in the study did. Not to mention that higher weed concentrations made the accident more likely to happen, indicating that weed was indeed a factor. And they also mention that weed can slow reaction time among other things.
Yeah, there's lots of conflicting reports about weed. It's hard to know which one to believe. And yeah, my first source was biased as well, so I tried to use a less biased ones this time. Anyway, it's clear that there's no conclusive evidence to believe marijuana doesn't impair driving, and I think it should be kept illegal as long as we don't really know if it could hurt society or not. "Better safe than sorry" is my motto here. Don't get me wrong, I don't just hate weed for the sake of hating it. If I could make tobacco/alcohol illegal and weed legal, I would do it. But it's not safe considering we don't know enough about it to determine whether it will harm society or not.
I just use cars as an example. There are other things as well, such as drugs that can make you more aggressive or sexually attracted towards people, but I just stick to DWI often because it applies to pretty much all drugs and is one of the most dangerous examples.
Ah I see. Thanks for the clarification. Cocaine and coca leaves are still very dangerous though, especially when driving (source).
This is a good point. But I'm not saying put them into jail with drug dealers. Yeah, you're probably right that they should be put in with other drug abusers. I'd advocate that. But the fact is that they deserve punishment.
I thought we were talking about the legalisation of drugs in developed countries like Australia and the USA.
If drugs are illegal, and we adopt a zero tolerance policy, how often are people are going to come out and seek help? Virtually never. When there's a massive penalty for doing the right thing, people aren't going to do it.
Okay...
So you think the increase in homicide rates was due to protest crimes? It doesn't have anything to do with the mob and the birth of gangland warfare and organised crime? I think it's more down to the fact that with alcohol being made illegal, organised crime rings flourished, and so they came into more competition with each other. As a result killing ensued.
Ironically, we have many drug dealers that are drug users. They sell drugs to finance their drug habit. It's like one massive pyramid scheme, that really wouldn't happen if many drugs were made legal.
I'm not offended. But I know that drugs can be done responsibly. And that just like you have to learn to be responsible about other things you do that can endanger others (like driving, some business practices would fall under this (especially environmental ones), and using any kind of drug that produces a noticeable intoxication). Yes it is incredibly stupid to take drugs and drive, some more stupid than others, but all in all its never a good idea, the fact that enforcement itself (and certainly when you take into account all the violence related to distribution now) probably damages more lives irreparably than the drugs themselves would do when people are incredibly stupid and do not use them in a safe manner. In that sense I justify a position for legalizing drugs as being less harmful to society and people (because everyone is a person, even the drug users who may be breaking the laws, we kind of have to go back to the natural state and then work forward for this).
If you feel that the statement "Much like sexual orientation, I don't give a **** what you do in the privacy of your own home. Just don't blow smoke in my face..." deserves a counter, then make one. Saying "that's a SC argument" is okay, but as a point alone is irrelevant, unless you're saying that SC arguments should be considered fallacies.
Let's be fair, where did you actually do that?
