Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


View Poll Results: Do you support the legalization of heavy drugs?
Yes 29 47.54%
No 32 52.46%
Voters: 61. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 11th, 2012, 06:24 AM   #61

bartieboy's Avatar
.
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: The Netherlands
Posts: 6,238
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidaire View Post
My friend, drugs are the most enslaving substances around. A person should be free to destroy his own life, but not allowed to destroy the lives of others; hence the need to legalise drug use, but crack down on drug selling and distribution. Drugs should be totally cut-off from the profit incentive and become a state controlled and heavily supervised health sector.

Many people compare tobacco and alcohol, as well as other habits damaging health, with drugs. This is a superficial comparison, as the latter are incomparably more addictive and damaging. It takes just one or two shots to get addicted to heroin, and it is extremely difficult to break away from it. Other drugs are also extremely addictive, many cause permanent brain damage and paranoia, as well as general health issues. The pace that drugs enslave and destroy, is simply not comparable with that of any other addiction. Therefore we cannot equate their handling with that of other vices.
Solidaire your entire argument hangs on the idea of a fixed line on hard drugs and soft drugs.
You collect the all the types of drugs under one name: drugs.
This is just short sighted since there are hundreds of types of drugs, all different in terms of addictiveness, hallucinating effects, and health consequences.
In my opinion putting marijuana and heroin in one category is simply naive.
bartieboy is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 11th, 2012, 07:34 AM   #62

Aulus Plautius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Florida
Posts: 1,447

This is the only hard drug that should be legal:


Last edited by Aulus Plautius; November 11th, 2012 at 07:58 AM.
Aulus Plautius is offline  
Old November 11th, 2012, 07:52 AM   #63

Cavanboy's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,714

http:// http://www.historum.com/phil...legalised.html
Cavanboy is offline  
Old November 11th, 2012, 08:25 AM   #64

Solidaire's Avatar
ou solitaire
 
Joined: Aug 2009
From: Athens, Greece
Posts: 3,879
Blog Entries: 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by The merchant of Venice View Post
You're a bit incoherent here imho - first you say that one should be allowed to destroy oneself, then say that this should only be allpied within a certain level of "destruction".
I would be glad to explain, but I'm afraid I cannot understand what is it you don't understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bartieboy View Post
Solidaire your entire argument hangs on the idea of a fixed line on hard drugs and soft drugs.
You collect the all the types of drugs under one name: drugs.
This is just short sighted since there are hundreds of types of drugs, all different in terms of addictiveness, hallucinating effects, and health consequences.
In my opinion putting marijuana and heroin in one category is simply naive.
That's because I was being lazy in my last post to repeatedly add 'hard' in front of the word 'drugs'. I did the distinction in my previous posts, and please apply the correction here too. Besides, the discussion is about 'heavy' drugs to begin with, as defined by the OP.

I agree that there are myriad of drugs, quite different from each other. Even 'hard' drugs are not the same. Each should receive a different approach, according to its addictiveness and harmfulness.
Solidaire is offline  
Old November 11th, 2012, 08:32 AM   #65

Zeno's Avatar
l'esprit de l'escalier
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: ♪♬ ♫♪♩
Posts: 12,797

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidaire View Post
My friend, drugs are the most enslaving substances around. A person should be free to destroy his own life, but not allowed to destroy the lives of others; hence the need to legalise drug use, but crack down on drug selling and distribution. Drugs should be totally cut-off from the profit incentive and become a state controlled and heavily supervised health sector.

Many people compare tobacco and alcohol, as well as other habits damaging health, with drugs. This is a superficial comparison, as the latter are incomparably more addictive and damaging. It takes just one or two shots to get addicted to heroin, and it is extremely difficult to break away from it. Other drugs are also extremely addictive, many cause permanent brain damage and paranoia, as well as general health issues. The pace that drugs enslave and destroy, is simply not comparable with that of any other addiction. Therefore we cannot equate their handling with that of other vices.
Tobacco and alcohol are both drugs too. It isn't the substance being legal or not which make it drugs. Tranquilizerrs, painkillers - all are drugs.
Furthermore, it is a known fact that nicotine is more addictive than cocaine. nicotine changes the brain structure from the very first puff and creates a physical dependency. Not so with cocaine. In fact one doesn't get physically dependent on coke. Not to downplay the mental addiction or anything, but your post was just not well informed. Cannabis is nowhere near as addictive as alcohol, let alone as tobacco.

Smoking in any way is bad for you, but some drugs - like cocaine or cannabis - can be taken without smoking, via the digestive system for example. This renders them a lot less harmfull than even a simple cigarette.
Zeno is offline  
Old November 11th, 2012, 08:37 AM   #66
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Italia
Posts: 1,844

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidaire View Post
I would be glad to explain, but I'm afraid I cannot understand what is it you don't understand.
If you support the idea that one should be allowed to destroy himself, then it's incoherent to put lines on which destructive thing is fine and which isn't.
The merchant of Venice is offline  
Old November 11th, 2012, 08:57 AM   #67

larkin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,583
Blog Entries: 5

Heroin is mostly dangerous to the individual and warnings against this drug should be matter of fact, honest and common place in school and media.

During prohibition, the drug culture attained an air of hip and cool and created an alluring excitement that was irresistible to many people that might not normally take drugs. It also became a job opportunity for the very poor who then filled the prisons.

Removing this prohibition would change society's attitude of the addicted person to that of a sick person and not one to want to emulate.

Laws or no laws there will always be a small segment of the seriously addicted (around 1% or 2%) Better that they should be in their apartment contemplating their situation than running the streets in desperation looking for their fix.



Amphetamines (Meth, Crystal) are much more dangerous because it can provoke really dangerous behavior often towards others.. I hear very little specific accurate information about the nature of the damage that it causes. It is very simple, methamphetamine raises your heart rate from 70 beats per minute to over 200 beats per minute. It is like putting the gas pedal to the floor all the time.

A heroin addict may live an almost normal and long life if maintained with the drug, but a meth addict will self destruct in a few short years.

If the information is out there, and help for recovery is available, who are we to control someone else's life and behavior?

Prisons, police and the damage that they also cause, don't get any results and 30 years later, the cost is a trillion dollars.

You keep your kids off of drugs by loving them and involving them in your life..
larkin is offline  
Old November 11th, 2012, 09:34 AM   #68

Solidaire's Avatar
ou solitaire
 
Joined: Aug 2009
From: Athens, Greece
Posts: 3,879
Blog Entries: 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeno View Post
Tobacco and alcohol are both drugs too. It isn't the substance being legal or not which make it drugs. Tranquilizerrs, painkillers - all are drugs.
Furthermore, it is a known fact that nicotine is more addictive than cocaine. nicotine changes the brain structure from the very first puff and creates a physical dependency. Not so with cocaine. In fact one doesn't get physically dependent on coke. Not to downplay the mental addiction or anything, but your post was just not well informed. Cannabis is nowhere near as addictive as alcohol, let alone as tobacco.

Smoking in any way is bad for you, but some drugs - like cocaine or cannabis - can be taken without smoking, via the digestive system for example. This renders them a lot less harmfull than even a simple cigarette.
I already said that I was referring to heavy drugs, as is the predefined by the OP discussion, and even those are not all similar to each other (previous post). Geez, so many people are so touchy about 'soft drugs'.

I have a university degree in pharmacology, and I assure you I am very well informed about chemical substances. There are hellish drugs (heroin, angel's dust, crack, and others), and milder ones. Tobacco and alcohol can be considered soft drugs, too. Cannabis is not as innocent as you might think. It is a very complex pharmacological molecule, with various attributes. It can be used as a very strong painkiller and is being researched for many other promising uses. However, when used in excess, it may cause permanent brain damage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The merchant of Venice View Post
If you support the idea that one should be allowed to destroy himself, then it's incoherent to put lines on which destructive thing is fine and which isn't.
This is what I said, referring to heavy drugs:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidaire View Post
Yeah, let's legalise them and open the door for multinationals to promote and sell them making billions out of killing people.

Why should something that is so addictive, crippling and deadly be allowed to enter the market as a commodity? The purpose should be to discourage drug use and limit its spreading as much as possible.

What should be done is the abolition of legal punishment for the user, and extremely heavy punishment for the dealer. The state should distribute drugs to the addicted for free, under medical supervision, and until they are helped to break free. This way, the incentive for profit will be eliminated for drug dealers, their potential customers taken from them, and their interest in creating future addicts diminished, since this will become a 'market' with no future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidaire View Post
My friend, drugs are the most enslaving substances around. A person should be free to destroy his own life, but not allowed to destroy the lives of others; hence the need to legalise drug use, but crack down on drug selling and distribution. Drugs should be totally cut-off from the profit incentive and become a state controlled and heavily supervised health sector.
As I said, heavy drugs should be used with no punishment from the law, but they should be illegal to sell. Drug addicts should get their heroin, for example, by doctors working for the state, and for free.

One has to understand that there are two factors that contribute to the wide-spreading of heavy drugs. One is the free will and curiosity of a person to try them and experience them. This should be legal, although discouraged.
The other crucial factor is the economic gain of a whole multinational network that actively ensnares, lures and traps people in the use of heavy drugs, beyond what would have been a choice of free will. And of course, there is the issue of 'not clean' drugs, which is the main reason for the high death toll, especially regarding heroin use.

The profit incentive will have to be cut-off from heavy drugs' use. If this was done there would have been far less deaths and less addicted people.
Solidaire is offline  
Old November 11th, 2012, 09:56 AM   #69
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Italia
Posts: 1,844

Well I can second that , though I'm not sure the state would be able to sustain a enough production and distribuition of drugs. I don't agree that they should be provided for free, though.

Personally I don't really care to what happen to drug addicted people, my main interested is hitting criminality.
The merchant of Venice is offline  
Old November 11th, 2012, 10:06 AM   #70
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Italia
Posts: 1,844

Also, Solidaire, what do you think of gambling? should casinos and such be statalized too?
The merchant of Venice is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
drugs, heavy, legalization


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The legalization of marijuana in the USA bartieboy Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 158 November 26th, 2012 09:19 PM
will our aging population lead to legalization of Euthenasia Zarin Speculative History 13 September 8th, 2012 09:59 AM
History and Drugs (Not On Drugs) Robespierre General History 17 June 17th, 2011 01:43 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.