MedVision ad

Drug Legalisation (2 Viewers)

Should Drug use be Legalised?

  • Yes, let them whatever they want without approval

    Votes: 13 31.0%
  • Yes, under strict conditions and supervision

    Votes: 13 31.0%
  • No

    Votes: 9 21.4%
  • No, Punishments should be even harsher

    Votes: 7 16.7%

  • Total voters
    42

Galladrim

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
231
Location
On the Wings of Eagles
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
So, lets say your best friend started slitting their wrists, and they won't listen to anything you, or anyone else says. You simply going to let them do that?

I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't.

What people do, regardless of whether like it or not, has consequences beyond themselves. The individual is not the be and end all, as appealing and gratifying as it may sound. A persons actions will have repercussions on those around them. Imagine if you had a child, and they committed suicide. I know someone who has had that happen. The agony this person has had to go through is simply impossible to put into words.
 

Riproot

Addiction Psychiatrist
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
8,228
Location
I don’t see how that’s any of your business…
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Uni Grad
2017
So, lets say your best friend started slitting their wrists, and they won't listen to anything you, or anyone else says. You simply going to let them do that?

I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't.

What people do, regardless of whether like it or not, has consequences beyond themselves. The individual is not the be and end all, as appealing and gratifying as it may sound. A persons actions will have repercussions on those around them. Imagine if you had a child, and they committed suicide. I know someone who has had that happen. The agony this person has had to go through is simply impossible to put into words.
It's their choice. I would have faith in my friend that they would know what they're doing. In fact, I was in this situation a few years back, I realised it wasn't my place to say anything and just be a supportive friend. You can't control what your friend's do you control freak.

Yes, but whether it comes to repercussions on others or not is beside the point. They are an adult in a free world and should be able to do as they please as long as they aren't impending on someone else's freedom. That is why there are no drinking and driving laws and anti-smoking shit, because you can directly kill someone/damage property drinking and driving, or harming someone by 2nd hand smoke by smoking.

If one of my children committed suicide I'd be very surprised, but honestly, if the parent didn't see it coming, they're a shit parent, plus, it's not up to the kid to make the decision at that age because they aren't an adult, their parents are responsible for them and all that shit. Adults would be doing these drugs, like alcohol. It's completely different.
 

abbeyroad

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
891
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
sorry to burst your bubble son but the state is the biggest, most successful and legitimised criminal organisation on earth.

It sounds abhorrent doesn't it? Government control over what you do? Restriction of freedom of speech and liberty!!! How dare they!

Haven't you heard of the alcohol limit? Drink a certain amount, and you can't drive. I'd call that a government telling its people what to consume...

Hasn't it occurred to you that people might stop you from doing stupid things because they might actually care about the consequences, and about you?

Your parents might care where you go out and what's consumed there because they don't want a policeman coming to their door in the dead of night to tell them you're not going to be coming back. Your friends might care if you don't eat and refuse all food in search of some ideal of "beauty" because you're too fat. Are they just going to stand by and let you?

These things can spell life or death for people.
hahahah so?

there's a difference between simply telling someone not to do something 'for their own good' and actively stopping them from doing it.

don't make me quote mill
 

abbeyroad

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
891
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
So, lets say your best friend started slitting their wrists, and they won't listen to anything you, or anyone else says. You simply going to let them do that?

I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't.

What people do, regardless of whether like it or not, has consequences beyond themselves. The individual is not the be and end all, as appealing and gratifying as it may sound. A persons actions will have repercussions on those around them. Imagine if you had a child, and they committed suicide. I know someone who has had that happen. The agony this person has had to go through is simply impossible to put into words.
hahahahah what the fuck? so the only reason you have of infringing someone's individual sovereignty is because their action offends your 'good taste'??? Well I hate people who wear thongs. the agony I have to go through is simply impossible to put into words. Can I then forcibly stop them from wearing thongs? Can I break into their houses, put a gun to their head and coerce them into throwing out the offending articles??? what about the agony they have to go through in having you violate their liberty? anybody who invoke the 'my feelings' argument in order to justify such an encroachment have no justifiable philosophic ground to stand on.
 

Lolsmith

kill all boomers
Joined
Dec 4, 2009
Messages
4,570
Location
Forever UNSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-great-debate-that-no-ones-talking-about-20111203-1ocag.html

So, Drug Legalization - Ye or Nay? Illegal drugs that is - I think you all know the ones I'm talking about. This includes other stuff like injection rooms etc

I have never tried drugs, and have no intention of doing so. I hate that so many people lose themselves to such toxic substances, destroying their lives and bodies, not to mention the impact it has on all the people around them. I understand the rationale behind drug legalization, that consumption is inevitable and that if there is a demand someone will supply it, better the government than criminals.

However, in my opinion this simply makes the government the criminals, as they are actively supporting life destroying habits. It is bad enough that people choose to take up such habits, but to give them a nod of approval in the sight of the law is more than I can stomach. In reference to the article above, I am seriously concerned that someone would push such a view. When someone enjoys something which poses such serious consequences both mentally and physically I become increasingly worried about the state of our society.

Help them overcome it? Absolutely. Encourage them to continue it? No.[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
Your entire argument is pretty flawed

First of all, not every single drug user is an addict that rapes kids whilst high on PCP and crystal meth. It's simply not true. Now I have no basis for this, (yeah, discontinue reading from here on until my next paragraph) but I'd posit that most users of recreational drugs are exactly that. Recreational users. They aren't addicted, they aren't dependent upon it and they aren't (too) destructive to themselves, their loved ones or society at large.

Another thing that you said is that the government should supply it, which is not what users here would support. I would much rather a private enterprise that will be held accountable for its product and its profit and, equally as important, its losses. A private company working in self interest with the profit motive will provide superior narcotics at cheaper prices. You'll probably not have any of the fucking horseshit that goes into pills and junk as well. Of course they will definitely have to follow some pretty stringent guidelines and practices. Like not putting shards of glass in their products.

You're also saying that if something is now legal, there will be a huge flock of demand for it. That's not entirely true. Usually there is no real change in the demand because quite simply the demand is already being fulfilled. People who were using it before legalisation are merely going to continue to do so but the state won't put them in rape cages with violent criminals for it anymore. You might see a small spike in sales, especially since they can actually be recorded now a lot more accurately, but this may be due to current users increasing their short term demand since the price will have dropped so dramatically.

Decriminalisation at the very least is not a thumbs up from the state to go ahead and get high every 30 minutes and then fuck your neighbour's dog. That's not how society works. Society works in a social way (derp), not a coercive way. People won't do drugs because it affects their health, the same way people don't smoke and drink or have unprotected sex with strangers. They will also not do it because they think it is something that is 'beneath' them (or something along those lines) and through the processes of social interaction, people can more or less ween their communities off of drug use if users are ostracised for their actions. Now if there is a choice between merely excluding someone from social gatherings or invading their house, kidnapping them at gunpoint, throwing them into a cage with violent men/women for whatever length of incredulous time, I would choose the former.

It sounds abhorrent doesn't it? Government control over what you do? Restriction of freedom of speech and liberty!!! How dare they!

Haven't you heard of the alcohol limit? Drink a certain amount, and you can't drive. I'd call that a government telling its people what to consume...

Hasn't it occurred to you that people might stop you from doing stupid things because they might actually care about the consequences, and about you?

Your parents might care where you go out and what's consumed there because they don't want a policeman coming to their door in the dead of night to tell them you're not going to be coming back. Your friends might care if you don't eat and refuse all food in search of some ideal of "beauty" because you're too fat. Are they just going to stand by and let you?

These things can spell life or death for people.
I was going to include this part in the first response, but I think it's more fitting here. It's interesting that you harp on and moan about "the consequences" and "hurting people". You know the drug war in America has caused about 36,000 deaths right? You know criminalisation of substances gives root to black markets that enforce their trades with horrendous violence, widespread corruption, extortion, rape and murder right? That's not even including what the state does to people (the same thing). You don't seem to realise that the consequences of legalisation are that, yes substances are more readily available for immediate consumption for people, but that it relinquishes the cartel's vice-grip on force, innocent civilians and allows violence to diminish on a wides scale. It might take a generation to see these monsters die off, but it will be worth the wait. Where would any drug lord who keeps his business in check with widespread violence get his power from if he can't sell his products at a marketable price? Free enterprise would undercut the cartels and we would see freer societies in South American nations because the cartels would lose their footholds in government, because they no longer have the funds for it. Without money, they have no power and without power, we have no violence.

So, as you can see, these things can spell life or death for people.

Alcohol has a terrible long and short term effect on lots of people and it's legal. Why shouldn't all the other drugs be?
That's a really fallacious argument that doesn't mean anything.

"yo so like alcohol has a higher bodycount than anthrax, why can't I shoot that up at central station fuck fascism"
So, lets say your best friend started slitting their wrists, and they won't listen to anything you, or anyone else says. You simply going to let them do that?

I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't.

What people do, regardless of whether like it or not, has consequences beyond themselves. The individual is not the be and end all, as appealing and gratifying as it may sound. A persons actions will have repercussions on those around them. Imagine if you had a child, and they committed suicide. I know someone who has had that happen. The agony this person has had to go through is simply impossible to put into words.
The analogies you're putting forth aren't the same to what you're supposed to be arguing. You're arguing whether the state should coerce the citizenry into following the majority rule on substance use. This is very different to them inflicting very serious, immediate harm on themselves. Before you say "rah rah rah drugs are bad mmkay", someone smoking a joint of marijuana isn't going to die from it, while someone who is opening their veins at the wrist with bladed instruments is very likely to. Like I said before, individuals, in their own self interest, will use social interaction and constructs to keep drug use down. I bet that if you ever have children, you will tell them that all drugs are bad and you should stay away from them (social interaction). That's not the same as putting a gun to their head every step they take throughout their life warning them off it (coercion).

A child committing suicide is not really the same situation dude and it's a pretty poor attempt to draw a connection.
 
Last edited:

Aquawhite

Retiring
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
4,946
Location
Gold Coast
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Uni Grad
2013
I've chosen No, with the provision that 'injection rooms' remain in place but only with another provision that these people are provided with the facilities, help and training to overcome their addiction the correct way.
 

alstah

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
510
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Uni Grad
2016
Back in 1988:

Question: Your solutions, on stopping drug trade, is, give up, give up to world drugs. I say zero tolerance, we use the military for aid, we stop it from getting into the country, we cut it off at the source. Why give up on that fight?

Ron Paul: What we give up on is a tyrannical approach to solving a social and medical problem, and We endorse the idea of voluntarism, self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion, it never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person, it can't make you follow good habits. Why don't they put you on a diet; you're a little overweight, and i think you need government help!


 

Aquawhite

Retiring
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
4,946
Location
Gold Coast
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Uni Grad
2013
I think this is the only anti-libertarianism stance I've taken on any opinion poll. I'm just against the free-use and legalisation of drugs because of the way I've had family members affected.
 

scuba_steve2121

On The Road To Serfdom
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,343
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
but that doesn't make any sense

your family got fucked up when it was illegal so what difference does it make if its legal, lol that's not a real arguement

Example A: My mum died cause dad stabbed her to death with a knife, so we gonna ban knifes or fathers?
 

Aquawhite

Retiring
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
4,946
Location
Gold Coast
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Uni Grad
2013
but that doesn't make any sense

your family got fucked up when it was illegal so what difference does it make if its legal, lol that's not a real arguement

Example A: My mum died cause dad stabbed her to death with a knife, so we gonna ban knifes or fathers?
It's my opinion that the legalisation will provide ease of access and enable people to gain the drugs. My experience (that is, family and friends who have used them) with most illegal drugs have resulted in terrible ways in almost all the cases. I can only forge my opinions and knowledge from what I've experienced. It's also my hope that if current illicit drugs were to become legal, that continued education regarding the dangers of those drugs, and the dexterity of those who avoid using illicit drugs at the current time would prevent attracting people towards their misuse.

I'm not trying to make an argument out of it, that's simply my stance on it. I wouldn't start a flame war over the fact drugs became legal though.
 

scuba_steve2121

On The Road To Serfdom
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,343
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
It's my opinion that the legalisation will provide ease of access and enable people to gain the drugs. My experience (that is, family and friends who have used them) with most illegal drugs have resulted in terrible ways in almost all the cases. I can only forge my opinions and knowledge from what I've experienced. It's also my hope that if current illicit drugs were to become legal, that continued education regarding the dangers of those drugs, and the dexterity of those who avoid using illicit drugs at the current time would prevent attracting people towards their misuse.

I'm not trying to make an argument out of it, that's simply my stance on it. I wouldn't start a flame war over the fact drugs became legal though.
ok... but your whole stance is irrational?
 

Aquawhite

Retiring
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
4,946
Location
Gold Coast
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Uni Grad
2013
ok... but your whole stance is irrational?
I don't understand why you would say my stance on illegal drugs is irrational. My stance is formulated by the risks associated with illegal drugs, and my experience with those who have been impacted by them. That is the same rationale as to why they are currently illegal.

Unless of course you believe the current reasoning by the government is irrational, then of course, you can make that statement. But please, do tell me the alternative rationale that you bear.
 

Blastus

Liberty Matrix
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
961
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I don't understand why you would say my stance on illegal drugs is irrational. My stance is formulated by the risks associated with illegal drugs, and my experience with those who have been impacted by them. That is the same rationale as to why they are currently illegal.

Unless of course you believe the current reasoning by the government is irrational, then of course, you can make that statement. But please, do tell me the alternative rationale that you bear.
The number one risk associated with consuming illegal drugs is that the government will kidnap you at gunpoint because of what you choose to ingest.
 

scuba_steve2121

On The Road To Serfdom
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,343
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
I don't understand why you would say my stance on illegal drugs is irrational. My stance is formulated by the risks associated with illegal drugs, and my experience with those who have been impacted by them. That is the same rationale as to why they are currently illegal.

Unless of course you believe the current reasoning by the government is irrational, then of course, you can make that statement. But please, do tell me the alternative rationale that you bear.
ok so rationally if were banning things that hurt people upon consumption, because of the risks, would you then support a ban on alcohol and fatty foods? If you do then yes your stance is probably rational, but then it just becomes stupid

see what I'm trying to say?
 

SnowFox

Premium Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
5,455
Location
gone
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2009
Cocaine in its purest form isnt even that bad, its the chemicals used to cut that causes most the damage.
 

Aquawhite

Retiring
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
4,946
Location
Gold Coast
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Uni Grad
2013
The number one risk associated with consuming illegal drugs is that the government will kidnap you at gunpoint because of what you choose to ingest.
This is true. I'm at contention with myself regarding the issue as a whole, but my heart says that illegal drugs should remain illegal. My head, however, as left wing as possible says that people should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. I suppose I support the government's banning of certain drugs in order to protect people, but that doesn't interfere with their own choices to do what they want.

You're not really going to be held at gunpoint as a user, ever. You'll be fined, convicted of a criminal act (gaoled if necessary) and that'll be the end of it.

ok so rationally if were banning things that hurt people upon consumption, because of the risks, would you then support a ban on alcohol and fatty foods? If you do then yes your stance is probably rational, but then it just becomes stupid

see what I'm trying to say?
I know what you're trying to say, but this is my exception to the libertarian rule.
 

AAEldar

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
2,246
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Alcohol has a terrible long and short term effect on lots of people and it's legal. Why shouldn't all the other drugs be?
It was essentially currency at one point in time and for that reason and former dependence it is nigh impossible to male illegal.
 

SnowFox

Premium Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
5,455
Location
gone
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2009
It was essentially currency at one point in time and for that reason and former dependence it is nigh impossible to male illegal.
And the tax revenue alcohol pulls in.
 

scuba_steve2121

On The Road To Serfdom
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,343
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
This is true. I'm at contention with myself regarding the issue as a whole, but my heart says that illegal drugs should remain illegal. My head, however, as left wing as possible says that people should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. I suppose I support the government's banning of certain drugs in order to protect people, but that doesn't interfere with their own choices to do what they want.

You're not really going to be held at gunpoint as a user, ever. You'll be fined, convicted of a criminal act (gaoled if necessary) and that'll be the end of it.



I know what you're trying to say, but this is my exception to the libertarian rule.
You can't go in half baked mate just because your emotions and personal feelings are getting in the way

I've seen what drugs have done to individuals it's insane, I despise them

But you can't have that one exception because it undermines that whole idea of being a libertarian

the idea that you cannot tell others what to do on their own property/with their property, and that includes their body.

We all know that one exception soon becomes 20
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top