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, 10:50 PM   #81

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Regarding the trading of drugs, if that shall be prohibited, then how can the people use them in the first place? Someone must sell it before users can obtain them.
They could be provided by the government, or, if one dislikes the idea, by the medical association, or by a humanitarian organisation. Free of charge and clean of admixtures. This way the crime drug cartels would be out of business, drug users would not risk their lives because of added poisons, and they will not have to resort to crime themselves (which is often the case, further destroying their family ties) to get the money to buy them.

The procedure could be something like an application followed by a medical examination. Addicts could have their drug usage monitored by experts, medical help ready to save them from potential harm, and people ready to help them and prompt them into quitting, should they too wish to do so. Experts that have absolutely nothing to gain from the misery of their fellow human being and thus not actively promoting it, and whose only goal is to ensure the well-being of drug users.
Solidaire is online now  
Remove Ads
Old November 12th, 2012, 12:00 AM   #82

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,272

^That is absolutely beautiful idea, my friend.

However, I do not think of any humanitarian organization that shall manufacture recreational drugs like E, coke or hash. It must be some kind of private entity, that shall engage in business, but, if what you stated shall happen, then it shall be far more better that the drugs sold by business people.
dagul is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 05:15 AM   #83

Yōḥānān's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,151

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidaire View Post
Why should they? I don't see the point. Honestly, what does this have to do with drugs?
Gambling and other vices should not be underestimated. Gambling can destroy a persons life and lead a person to crime and prostitution. It is very difficult to abandon.
There are many dangerous addictions, some we don't even consider as addictions or dangers, from addiction to sugar to addiction to a cult or a guru. Some might seem innocent but can actually kill and destroy people's life all the same.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidaire View Post

but ten cigs a day haven't killed anyone.
You might want to consider this:

Quote:
Lung cancer occurs at non-smokers in 3.4 cases per 100 000 population. At people smoking 0.5 packs of cigarettes a day this figure rises to 51.4 per 100 000, 1-2 packs - up to 143.9 per 100 000 and if the intensity of smoking is over 2 packs a day - up to 217.3 per 100,000 population.[citation needed] Tobacco smoke can combine with other carcinogens present within the environment in order to produce elevated degrees of lung cancer.[84]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidaire View Post
Besides, what I'm saying is that it's the trading that should be illegal, not the use. Where's the restriction of 'civil liberties' in this? Unless you consider the selling of drugs a 'civil liberty' and a 'right'.
If consuming drugs is a civil right and liberty, selling them is also a civil right and liberty, otherwise it is an hypocrisy. What you are saying is that criminals should be the only ones who can produce a certain service which is highly lucrative and gives criminal organizations enough power to foster other kinds of violence and corruption, and that the tax payers money and law enforcers lifes, along with innocent people who are victims of these criminals, should be sacrificed with the only objective of keeping drug prices high.
Yōḥānān is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 05:25 AM   #84

Yōḥānān's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,151

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidaire View Post
They could be provided by the government, or, if one dislikes the idea, by the medical association, or by a humanitarian organisation. Free of charge and clean of admixtures. This way the crime drug cartels would be out of business, drug users would not risk their lives because of added poisons, and they will not have to resort to crime themselves (which is often the case, further destroying their family ties) to get the money to buy them.

The procedure could be something like an application followed by a medical examination. Addicts could have their drug usage monitored by experts, medical help ready to save them from potential harm, and people ready to help them and prompt them into quitting, should they too wish to do so. Experts that have absolutely nothing to gain from the misery of their fellow human being and thus not actively promoting it, and whose only goal is to ensure the well-being of drug users.
I understand your point but this would raise some issues. First tax payers would be forced to sustain the vices of other people which might be considered immoral. Second this would promote the use of drugs since once people consumed enough drugs to become addicted they would have them for free. And to be honest drug dealers might loose a share of the business but they would still have a large market. It might ease the problem but many effects you suggest would not happen.

Last edited by Yōḥānān; November 12th, 2012 at 05:40 AM.
Yōḥānān is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 10:33 AM   #85

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,394
Blog Entries: 6

What about second hand pot smoke? Cigarettes are bad enough, why
should we subject kids to breathing the threat of second hand smoke?
tjadams is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 12:41 PM   #86

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,272

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
What about second hand pot smoke? Cigarettes are bad enough, why
should we subject kids to breathing the threat of second hand smoke?
Smoking it is not the only way of obtaining high, and one can ingest it to avoid that and to also protect oneself from lung cancer.
dagul is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 06:54 AM   #87

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
What about second hand pot smoke? Cigarettes are bad enough, why
should we subject kids to breathing the threat of second hand smoke?
Certainly a good point.. With the exception of a bar or a club, people do not usually drink in public.

Pot smokers are used to smoking surreptitiously and only once or maybe twice a day in a few minute interval. There are exceptions but it doesn't rise to the level binge drinking..

I was a pot smoker in my 20's and somewhere along the line, I just left it behind. If my state made it legal. I would not run out and buy some except for the novelty of it.

On the other hand, I was a cigarette smoker for twenty years. I smoked a bit more than a pack and had to restrain myself to keep from smoking continuously. Nicotine is a crappy high and incredibly addictive. We were tricked by advertizing and movie stars.

Pot doesn't compare in the least. From my experience, it tends to provoke a contemplative state of mind.

Last edited by larkin; November 13th, 2012 at 07:04 AM.
larkin is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 07:57 AM   #88

Chancellor's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: The far North
Posts: 882

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
What about second hand pot smoke? Cigarettes are bad enough, why
should we subject kids to breathing the threat of second hand smoke?
That's not the question. The question is; should it outrightly be banned, i.e. me sitting in an airtight safe and get high?

An even better objection; should it be legal to blow heroin smoke in the face of a policeman (on duty)? There are many regulations that should be considered, but they are relevant only once the fundamental issue has been resolved in favor of legalization.
Chancellor is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 02:50 AM   #89

Yōḥānān's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,151

Another thing is that the potency of drugs seem to have increased with prohibition. This may also be attributed to the development of techonology. But I'm under the impression that if they were legal the tendecy of the market would be to make them softer.
Yōḥānān is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 03:00 PM   #90

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,272

^That is correct, because of the quality control over them and due to the government regulation.
dagul 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.