Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Usd says a lot of stupid stuff but his point is valid and descending to elementary school insults underscores that you don't have an equally valid response.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Oh, dear sweet merciful baby Raptor Jesus in the manger eating sheep, it's finally happened. I'm on Bizzaro World.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Yeah what the fuck?

No.

I think you already know why. But if you want to hear me say it:

Theft is either illegitimate force or fraud, depending on the type of theft. Sometimes even both.

Drug use is neither. Since drug use on it's own is only potentially harmful to the user, it shouldn't be criminalized outright.

I could write an entire book as to why historically, practically and philosophically banning drugs is a bad idea, but there's already a ton of those.

No. Opium Wars. Ignorant and wrong.



And like any such book, it would be written with a total ignorance of history.

I mean, are you actually claiming to know anything about the history of drugs, or anything, for that matter? I'm serious, Weena - is that your claim? That you know what you're talking about?

Or do you really just mean that you've developed an ideological position and are working backwards to justify it by assuming that the history agrees?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

China puts in the Canton system, causing Britain to be at a trade deficit, Britain makes up for this by sending opium to China, who clamps down on it and shit hits the fan.

Did I get that right? For your ego's sake, I hope not. Because if China had legalized and taxed, there probably would have been no such thing.


How well did prohibition work out?
How well is the current war on drugs going?

You seem to have, 'willfully ignored' that history though.

No you didn't. Go read something other than Wikipedia.
(Note that cute little part of the article about "some of the advisors wanting to legalize" is completely unsourced and non-specific.)

The issue was the surge in addiction and the disruptive effect this had on Chinese society. The very fact that the British decided to become drug dealers demonstrates clearly the incredibly dangerous power of legalized drugs: they could push drugs when they couldn't sell anything else.

The proof that you are wrong is that those who clearly remember and understand the incident (the Chinese) have some of the strictest (and most successful) drug laws in the world. You may also go read the contemporaneous Around the World in 80 Days, part of which is set in China at the time and describes the hugely destructive effects of legalization.



Alcohol isn't comparable to hard drugs and the problem wasn't an increase in addiction, the problem was a rise in crime related to trafficking.



If we were losing the "war on crime", would your answer be to legalize crime?

That said, I agree a change in perspective is necessary. Drug abuse shouldn't be taken in a vacuum. It is a small facet of larger social and economic issues.



I know what the history is and it is not what you want it to be.

You didn't answer my question. Do you know what you're talking about or do you just assume history agrees with your beliefs in the here and now?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Prohibition is absolutely a valid case to bring up here. Alcohol is a drug...and you say it's not comparable to hard drugs...fine, how does it compare to Weed, currently an illegal substance???

Also, I had a thought "did making alcohol illegal lead to a rise of alcohol related deaths in the United States" So I hunted around and found some places that seem to corroborate this:

Between 1920 and 1925 the death toll from liquor poisoning rose from 1,064 to 4,154 deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_du ... rohibition

I'd like to do more research...but it makes sense from a logical perspective. What do many people do when you tell them NOT to do something? They do it, and they may even do it in excess.



Furthermore, if you legalize, and regulate the sale of banned substances you can also put in quality controls that makes them less dangerous. You can also tax them. You also destroy a significant amount of crime since drug cartels are no longer necessary.

I'm not sure legalizing EVERY drug is the answer...because Aestu you are right, there are some very harmful drugs out there...Meth is one of the first that comes to mind that I don't think should ever be legal.

I think, however, hallucinogens and non-addictive substances should be legalized. A significant portion of the money spent fighting the drug war could then go to treatment programs and getting users the help they need.

I want to legalize it all. Tightly control it and sell it in an ABC-like store and tax the hell out of it... then find some way to track who uses it and forfeit their right to certain public services (welfare, medicare, medicaid, etc.) if they buy too much, are caught distributing it to others, are charged with a crime while under the influence of one of these legal drugs, etc.

Junkies get their fix.
The states get their taxes.
The system wouldn't be encumbered with expense of treating people who willingly hurt their bodies with these drugs.
The poor will be penalized if they decide to spend money they can't afford to spend on recreational drug use.

Win/Win

It's less dangerous. Apathy is an enormously socially destructive force.



The data you linked directly contradicts your position and establishes beyond doubt that drinking decreased during prohibition.

Again, as so often, I ask: why didn't you notice that? Clearly, you've formed an ideological position and are working backwards from there, assuming all facts must be in agreement with what you in your ignorance have decided must be true.

You need to read, not just Google/Wikipedia and post a link.



Six-year-olds maybe, most people, no.

You yourself are living proof this is untrue. The truth is, most people run with the herd, and accept predominating social values as universal.



Drugs are a social evil and making them safer does not change that.


Weed is addictive. Any argument to the contrary is pure propaganda. Anyone who knows a pothead, and I'm pretty sure everyone here does, knows firsthand what a lie that is.

Chemical escapism is a social evil because it breeds apathy and undermines morality. People should not be allowed to escape from reality by popping pills because it disincentivizes changing it. That is a cost paid by everyone, not just the user.

The drug war is not expensive compared to other programs and activities, and it is not for want of money that social evils such as homelessness and dependency are not addressed.

Linking social work with drug money is very dangerous because it creates a shared interest between the medical/social work community and drug pushers.
This alone is all the argument that is needed against what you are suggesting.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Only in your own bigoted mind are drug users mostly poor or more expensive to the state than people like you.

The truth is that stringing people out on drugs is pretty damn cheap compared to education, access to public services and military welfare, and the social impact of drugs rests at least as heavily on the middle and upper classes who ruin their lives and those of their children with cocaine and tranquilizers.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/ ... lide44.jpg

"According to an NIAAA Surveillance Report on liver cirrhosis mortality in the U.S. (Saadatmand, Stinson, Grant & DuFour, 1999), the mortality rate for all types of liver cirrhosis was high between 1910 and Prohibition. Prohibition period rates were not estimated, but the rate of cirrhosis gradually increased after 1931 (post- Prohibition), and peaked during the 1970s. The mortality rate slowly declined through the 1980s and became steady in the 1990s. The reported rate is consistently higher for men (Saadatmand et al., 1999)."

Of course use is going to rise after something is legalized, but in this case it peaked and then leveled off.

What's interesting is that most drugs are made illegal if they have no addictive or injurious properties but lack a medical value that is known at the time. Even if they are proven to have medical value later, like with weed and LSD, it's harder to get the drug legalized again. Both drugs have yet to be linked with any serious long term health effects but are stigmatized and shoved under the rug for the most part.

s^ | Kay

I swear, for someone who thinks they're so damn smart because they read so many books, you're pretty fucking bad at comprehending little strings of words. How you get anything from pages of a book is beyond me.

No where did I say drug users were mostly poor. I said the poor would be penalized because they're the ones spending money they can't afford to spend... because... they're poor. I guess the rich people on medicare, medicaid and welfare could be penalized by forfeiting benefit programs they don't really need... because... they're rich? (The point is rich people aren't likely on those programs, therefore, forfeiting your privilege to those programs would naturally affect the poor.)

PS: I'm a bigot... because you know me so well?

Being called a bigot by a bigot isn't a big deal.

Social costs aren't a function of money.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.