Legalisation of drugs: yes or no?

[Mariamosis]

(Desolation and Mariamosis, I can understand that it may appear so, but I think you're rationalising Scientifically it's not very sound to suggest that pot sharpens your senses)

I don't believe that pot necessarily sharpens yours senses (with the exception of your sense of taste ), but it definitely had a relaxing effect when test time came, hence, I didn't let the stress overwhelm me.

Regarding driving: I am sure that I was less aware than I believed myself to be, and would never do it again, but at the time it sure seemed like I was a better driver.

[PeterL]

How is it not my business? Do you think that just because I don't use drugs I have nothing to do with them? So I'm only allowed to have a say on that issue if a toxicodependent mugs me so that he can feed his addiction. Or when a cousin becomes addicted and makes my uncles go bankrupt. Or when my child ODs. Your idea of 'free for all so long as there's no interference with others' is fine by me, but for you apparently it's not my business if I don't use. If that's what you think, I must say you're wrong. It has everything to do with me as well.

There are several issues there, but you can make your statement on anything that you wish. The bankruptcy of your uncles would be caused not by addiction but by the illegality of the drugs to which your cousin became addiction, a cost that skyrocketted when the drugs were criminalized. The same would be true, if your were robbed by a "toxicodependent", assuming that means someone who is assisting a drug addict in gaining money although he or she is not also addicted. If your child OD's, that would be a personal tragedy, but it would not be an issue for me. You seem to think that the world should be set up to save you from any possible unhappiness, even at the expense of the unhappiness of many other people.

It seems that you favor nanny government. I don't think that anyone has the wisdom to determine how others should live their lives.

[Mariamosis]

Yes, I just remembered how much more closely children are being controlled by their parents these days. I think that children should be allowed to act as they wish within some reasonable restrictions.
In the last few years parents have been trying to dictate the activities of their children for everry minute of every day. If that's what you think is proper, then your dictatorial comments make more sense.

Mr. Endon, are we about to practice Godwin's Law or utilize Occum's Razor with this one? (only kidding)

Yes, parents are imposing more strict methods of restraint (all of which I do not agree with), but to use this as an argument for children consuming alcohol freely? Children have always imitated their elders regardless of how constraining the rules became for them.

[Mr Endon]

Haha!, but wouldn't that be a shame, this discussion is so interesting.

No, I wouldn't like a 'nanny government'. But I would like some degree of regulation. Is regulating dangerous substances like drugs so as to protect children from them being a nanny? Then yes, I want a nanny government. I must say I don't understand the kind of world you want. Anarchy? I understand that personal choice and personal responsibility are important, but with no regulation at all (and I infer from your posts that that would be optimal to you) chaos would ensue. Like you said, history teaches, and I'm sure history says, that's just not viable.

[Thanks for the quotation marks, just done a quick search and realised that 'toxicodependent' exists in my mother tongue but not in English. You live, you learn!]

[PeterL]

Yes, parents are imposing more strict methods of restraint (all of which I do not agree with), but to use this as an argument for children consuming alcohol freely? Children have always imitated their elders regardless of how constraining the rules became for them.

I consider the excessive restrictions on children to be a reasonable argument in this matter.

Iagree that children tend to imitate their parents. Children also tend to rebel against their parents and against rules.

No, I wouldn't like a 'nanny government'. But I would like some degree of regulation. Is regulating dangerous substances like drugs so as to protect children from them being a nanny? Then yes, I want a nanny government.

Just keep in mind that many people are quite cabable of living a perfectly good life without getting orders from some government.

I must say I don't understand the kind of world you want. Anarchy? I understand that personal choice and personal responsibility are important, but with no regulation at all (and I infer from your posts that that would be optimal to you) chaos would ensue. Like you said, history teaches, and I'm sure history says, that's just not viable.

There is a huge distance between excessive government control and chaos. Governments have never been good at anything except negotiating differences between or among people. Governments get regulations of individual behavior and business behavior wrong every time, and gavernments always get war wrong. Remember that governments are run by people who aren't as bright as you, and they don't understand the information that they have, so they just do something, and that something is usually wrong.

[Mariamosis]

I consider the excessive restrictions on children to be a reasonable argument in this matter.

Iagree that children tend to imitate their parents. Children also tend to rebel against their parents and against rules.

Children tend to rebel once puberty begins... at a more advanced age.
(okay now I am just splitting hairs)

[PeterL]

Children tend to rebel once puberty begins... at a more advanced age.
(okay now I am just splitting hairs)

So you waited that long before you tried getting away with breaking the rules!! You missed a lot of fun.

[Mr Endon]

PeterL, I'm honestly curious about the sort of society you envision. Apparently, it's one where people are absolutely free and there's no government in the modern usage of the word. Does it have a name, this theory, or is this just a vision of yours? Could you elaborate on your idea of what a government should do, or why there shouldn't be regulation at all?

[JBI]

Yes legislation - legislation giving full power of distribution to the government, as is similar to the laws here for distribution of cigarettes and alcohol. People will smoke and snort no matter what - if the government monitors it, a) crime will be shot in the foot, as there won't be any more drug smuggling or dealing, and b) the taxpayer will get a chop from the profits, instead of just some underground gro-ops making cash and not paying any taxes, or some thugs smuggling the stuff in through the borders.

[Mariamosis]

So you waited that long before you tried getting away with breaking the rules!! You missed a lot of fun.

This is getting a little off topic, however:

I did break rules, but in elementary school and early middle school I was not getting drunk and handling narcotics. When hormones began pumping through my veins things became a little different.

[PeterL]

PeterL, I'm honestly curious about the sort of society you envision. Apparently, it's one where people are absolutely free and there's no government in the modern usage of the word. Does it have a name, this theory, or is this just a vision of yours? Could you elaborate on your idea of what a government should do, or why there shouldn't be regulation at all?

I envision a society where people will live their own lives and let others live their own lives without interference. This is the traditional American ideal that has been around for hundreds of years. These days it is referred to as Jeffersonain Democracy. In the past it was called by a number of names, depending on who was talking.

Has it ever existed? Pretty much in the early 1800's.

"The government that governs least governs best." The purpose of government is to do those things that individuals can't do for themselves and to adjudicate disputes.

Governments make big messes of little messes, as anyone who has studied history knows. It is nice to have people available to settle disputes, and to build and maintain roads, but governments waste little time in poking into things that do not need regulation.

Thomas Jefferson once famously stated 'my right to swing my fist ends at the other man's nose.' I paraphrase to fit this discussion: My right to impose my opinions ends where another person's life begins.

[Mariamosis]

I am a little unsure of where I stand when separating mild drugs from harsh drugs.

I think everyone here agrees that marijuana would be considered mild. Where does everyone stand with heroine, cocaine, crack, crystal meth, ecstasy, PCP, mushrooms, & etc?

...and what about legal drugs such as salvia, red dawn, whip-its (nitrous oxide), & etc?

[PeterL]

I am a little unsure of where I stand when separating mild drugs from harsh drugs.

I think everyone here agrees that marijuana would be considered mild. Where does everyone stand with heroine, cocaine, crack, crystal meth, ecstasy, PCP, mushrooms, & etc?

...and what about legal drugs such as salvia, red dawn, whip-its (nitrous oxide), & etc?

I don't see why any intoxicants should be treated differently from others.

[Mariamosis]

I don't see why any intoxicants should be treated differently from others.

Certain drugs have different health risks that are associated with them, and some are more likely to materialize into problems than others.

[PeterL]

Certain drugs have different health risks that are associated with them, and some are more likely to materialize into problems than others.

The health risks vary as much from person to person as they do between substances. Cocaine is an excellent example: about 20% of people are not affected by it, but others are affected to a great degree. Tolerances to opiates and alcohol also vary widesly. What would get one person a minor buzz would kill others.