Alma;3222754 said:
I know that even God accorded us free will. But He endowed man with a conscience, to think before doing something wrong and, eventually destroying lives: their own, as well as others. Yeah, others, for many don't wanna die and have reasons not to want to die, especially at the hands of others with drugs in their blood. Since when drugs (not including medication, though abusing them is just as dangerous) have ever done anything good to people? Besides taking them to another world, for they're not ready for the one they're living in. Drugs are fueling a man's weakness and can take him away, even saying you don't care about them, as that was their choice, but what about their family, who may well have been a good family to them, does their hurt of losing their offspring to drugs not matter, is not that a terrible thing to have to live with? If people still can find drugs to get high in the streets or at a club, how would legalizing them altogether be a thing one should be indifferent about? This doesn't make sense, no matter how selfish and amoral the person being indifferent is.
Religious wordings. Will ignore, because it's completely a vain quest to make something rational out of religion, in my humble opinion. Drugs are just that--drugs. They, by themselves, are neither good or bad. They're a tool to be used to suit one's purposes, whatever those may be. One has the freedom to choose what to do with oneself--what substances to put into one's body, et cetera. One simply must accept action and consequence. As for a dying addict's grieving family--well, they die every day, even now whilst we have the strictest drug policy in the modern world. Therefore, the problem is clearly not the legality of the drugs themselves--but rather the reason behind addicts' desire to pursue these drugs and have these addictions. The misanthrope in me wants to say that they're better off without them anyway, but I won't say that--I will say, however, that there is choice and subsequent consequence in all things--and as we are all born with the freedom to choose, we are all born with the responsibility to bear our consequences.
Hmmm. Well, I'm clearly not being selfish in wanting to legalize drugs--I don't do drugs, and probably never will, since the experience is simply not something which appeals to me. Therefore, I personally have nothing to gain either way, so how would this be a selfish thing to do? I simply support peoples' right to pick their poison, and the states' right to capitalize off of it, in place of the drug cartels. There's a very large profit to be made, and it's all going to the criminals.
PBS.org said:
What keeps the drug industry going is its huge profit margins. Producing drugs is a very cheap process. Like any commodities business the closer you are to the source the cheaper the product. Processed cocaine is available in Colombia for $1500 dollars per kilo and sold on the streets of America for as much as $66,000 a kilo (retail). Heroin costs $2,600/kilo in Pakistan, but can be sold on the streets of America for $130,000/kilo (retail). And synthetics like methamphetamine are often even cheaper to manufacture costing approximately $300 to $500 per kilo to produce in clandestine labs in the US and abroad and sold on US streets for up to $60,000/kilo (retail.)
As you can see, the prices are so high despite the cheap production cost <i>because</i> drugs are illegal in most developed countries. This means that the addicts can only have <i>one</i> source to get drugs from--and that's the drug cartels. Therefore, they feel entitled to charge whatever they please for a drug which was cheap to make, and line their pockets nicely with the addicts' money, in order to fund terrorist organizations in their own countries and abroad, not to mention, expand their drug empire. So, by making drugs illegal, we are ironically being counter-productive and <i>giving</i> these people more money with which to operate. With more money, they can make and sell more drugs to a wider market, overseas, in other countries, to younger clients, and even bribe police officers into cooperating with them for a nice sum of cash.
Were drugs to be legalized, we would <i>still</i> have the same drug problem (I never claimed otherwise), but we would also have a diminished or eliminated influence of drug cartels over time. That, like I said, is a high and worthy goal.
Like I said many times in posts prior to this, my interest in making drugs legal is to take the money away from the cartels, and put it in use in our country. They're <i>our</i> addicts, after all--why shouldn't we get their profits, if we're the ones who have to put up with them?
Alma said:
But you don't like it either, don't care about it, you call it an asyllum (sp.) already, or else the things you say wouldn't quite come off quite like the way they do and would counter my conclusions, for instance. Since we're living in a crazy place, how is nurturing it a good thing? If the rest of the 'inmates' should all have a choice, most would be able to put their fantasies and anger and disgust into action, they'd steal and beat and kill without a care in the world, for the law wouldn't interfere. As it wouldn't if drugs were legalized, the law would favor them. How is that a good thing, again? If we all put our choices into action, we'd all perish under the weight of our own actions and go to hell (not theologically speaking, as some freak out when that happens...). It's the very same if many suddenly got easy access to drugs, some don't know how/when to stop, and it ultimately falls on the head of others, too, saying that from a selfish point of view, those who are innocent and who Don't deserve to be hurt. The hopeless addicts will do whatever it takes to get their next rush who is their god, nothing else matters. If we all were animals without a conscience, and that still would've been crazy. ..... And inhumane.
I call it an asylum, you call it a "crazy place." Tomato, tomato, don't you think? (That comes off much better when spoken rather than written.) Like I said, you seem to under-estimate humanity more than I do-- you think the great lot of them would go off on a homicidal rampage if the law wasn't agent to stop them. I simply don't think that's true--the law deters a few people, a tiny minority of "on the fence" people, but in the end it is not what deters truly good individuals, and it does not stop those who truly wish to cause harm to themselves or to others (see murder, rape, assault, etc. throughout history.) The law is more useful to organize than to truly teach people a lesson, in my opinion. Like I said in my previous post--making drugs illegal doesn't help an addict in the least (you're sending him to a place with other addicts, who have gang connections, and thus facilitating his access to the drug--counterproductive.)
Now you seem to be contradicting yourself--first, you say (I think) that the law serves to keep addicts at bay and that's why we should keep drugs illegal, and now you're saying addicts will do whatever it takes to get the next rush (which is true.) So, then, making drugs illegal was useless in the end?
Alma said:
That's such a long shot, such make believe, considering the state of the world, which is more precarious by the day. And more keen with the unleashing of the unconscious mind. And say the economy will get fixed, esp. when depopulation is on many world governments' agenda. Even if you don't care about the world's population or about your own person, they're gonna keep on stealing from the people, from you, increase their taxes and incomes, yours too, and legalize other taxes for the people to pay, and they end up with their pockets full, after all, they're withdrawing money from the disadvantaged ones' funds quite a lot. Is that a fixed economy, really?
It is neither a long-shot, nor make-believe. It's a thing which takes time, obviously, but it is possible. Looking at how much profit the drug industry makes per year (billions) we could fix our debt to China in no time, or at least make enough money so that we're on our way to paying that debt. Depopulation?? I say, you've been listening to too much David Icke.
If that's so--then, these are the same governments which fund the police which you hope will deter potential addicts. So, tell me if that sounds logical to you--the evil government is going to help us fight drugs how? Who do you think makes the laws which make drug use illegal? Ah, the government, that's who. So, if they're so evil, why would they bother with that in the first place? If the illuminati or whoever you think is running the government behind the shadows were so keen on depopulizing the Earth, then, why would they even bother to uphold laws and institutions, et cetera? Maybe, just maybe, it's because they're secretly working with the drug cartels, making drugs illegal, so that they can get a share of that inflated profit for themselves?
Irrelevant note: depopulation isn't such a bad idea. Have you seen what happens to species which suffer from overpopulation problems? They generally don't fare too well--too many of them, too little food. The most common reaction is cannibalism, and then, the world would be too crazy for us, no?
Alma said:
If child pornography gets to one day be legalized, which is not delusional at all to fathom it could/will happen, would it look less illicit, if more exposed, or would the ancient legal porn on the market be beating purchasing child porn too, thus eventually removing them from the market? Really? The media is a too well known tool of mass brainwashing, they love propaganda and love to play mind games which they're too effective, without one having to even grow aware of that. It's often the case. If child porn gets legalized, it'll be considered a normal thing, so the weaker population would be fed with sickness like that and okayed, okayed to look at a child in a sexual manner. Not gonna put words in your mouth, that you would show indifference about child porn being legalized, but it was a serious question nonetheless, given everything that's been said. You've said before how you were quite amoral, but even by being that way... I don't know what else to say or how to finish what I meant to say...
Child pornography has a specific clientèle, though--that one being pedophiles. They're a small albeit dangerous minority in the general population, who are better serviced if sentenced to prison time and counseling, etc. The biological phenomenon of pedophilia is not as of yet fully understood--however, it is clear that this is unacceptable behaviour because it is biologically illogical (pre-pubescent children are not fully developed, thus not prepared for sexual intercourse, etc.) The practice is easily condemned on basis of biology alone. As for the market--the child sex slavery market is actually directly connected to the illegal drug trade, as I have mentioned before. The people who run those drug cartels don't only sell drugs--they use the money the drugs make to fund terrorist organizations, sex slavery of women and children around the world, in addition to other things, which I feel I've mentioned earlier. Therefore, not legalizing drugs actually gives these people even more room to make more money and to further fund these activities.
Alma said:
And how would legalizing drugs fix the users'/abusers' pshychological state, if drugs were to be found in most pharmacies? They always find ways to obtain some, but, really, laying it all for them And others, who may have never tried drugs before, but they certainly must think (some of them, but many) that since they're legalized, like cigarrettes and alcohol is, than it's okay to try those too, and use them on a regular basis. ... Why need a therapist in that case, when you got the drugs waiting for you just around the corner?
They should have a warning label like cigarettes and alcohol do. The information on the harmful effect of drugs isn't exactly hidden--it's readily available all over the internet, and in hospitals, et cetera, so the fact that they're not good for you isn't exactly a secret. If people are too dull to research into what they're putting in their bodies, that's neither the states' nor my problem. Like I have said before, it's all about individual priorities in the end--those who are curious about drugs or want to try them will find a way to do so (and, even though it's technically illegal, obtaining drugs isn't exactly difficult. Guess where they are--schools!!
) So, yeah, would I rather have the drugs be handed out by a qualified drug store, with warning labels, etc. attached, or would I rather have them being dealt by some adolescent delinquent in a high school bathroom? You don't know what that kid did to the stuff you're buying--at least if the drugs are legalized, you can sue the pharmacy if your stuff "ain't right."
Alma said:
And I'm asking again: how is legalizing drugs to help those people or minimizing their drug use? Since they're legalized, legal, no longer prohibited, if others wanna help them and take them to the rehab, even if taken by force, the legality of drugs, just like any other medication out there, would still make them return to their destructive refuge, so how can somebody ever hope helping these weak beings, Especially when the legal system itself is encouraging them to consume them, for yes, that's what they do, the pharmacy industry is too big right now, and their agenda is in favor of depopulation, they got cures they don't wanna put out, but promote alleged anti-flu vaccines, so for sure, legalizing drugs will be their final hammer hitting the nail on people's coffin.
Like I said many times before, I never claimed it would. How is making drugs illegal going to help people minimize their drug use? It takes a simple compare/contrast between the US and Holland (one country in which cannabis is illegal, the other in which it isn't) to see how effective the law is in preventing drug use:
WHO said:
The World Health Organization's survey of legal and illegal drug use in 17 countries, including the Netherlands and other countries with less stringent drug laws, shows Americans report the highest level of cocaine and marijuana use.
For example, Americans were four times more likely to report using cocaine in their lifetime than the next closest country, New Zealand (16% vs. 4%),
Marijuana use was more widely reported worldwide, and the U.S. also had the highest rate of use at 42.4% compared with 41.9% of New Zealanders.
In contrast, in the Netherlands, which has more liberal drug policies than the U.S., only 1.9% of people reported cocaine use and 19.8% reported marijuana use.
As you can see, the one country where the drug laws are the least liberal, is the one in which drug use is the highest problem. Ironic?
Alma said:
You keep saying that. And your following repeated explanation for this, which I truncated, as the essence is clear:...
"People still do this, regardless of whether drug use is legal or not. Making drugs illegal has yet to stop an addict from selling their house. The truth is, it happens all too often, and the law is truly useless against it."
... It simply just can't, it doesn't justify legalizing them, and I've explained above in detail. It's not a good thing, it's crying out in the sky for all the reasons stated.
Hmm, no. You have yet to truncate it, or offer any rational reasons without some sort of religious or moral undertone with which to really disprove my argument. It justifies making a profit off of another person's problem, certainly. Morality is not a part of the equation in my rationale, nor should it be. Perhaps it doesn't justify it in your eyes (and those of some others), however, it is the logical thing to do.
Alma said:
*Sighs..* Like I said before, this world is chaotic as it is, I only hate it when severely depressed, then I'm bound to grow a bit irrational. I'm not depressed when I call it chaotic, however, for it's how it is. By showing concerns, which at the end of the day, are human, doesn't make me underestimate the world more or less. And I'll never say all people are chaotic, nor will I say all people are weak. But those who are weak are many, and legalizing and giving them the 'ok' to drugs will be most of these weak people's hell. And saying things like "Oh, they'll find their drugs and use them anyway" simply doesn't justify this means.
They already have the OK to do it in their heads, though. Whether it is legal or not is clearly irrelevant to them--since they already do what they do. It's not the most difficult thing in the world to find drugs, if you really want them. Making them illegal only seems to facilitate access to them, actually. Go to any high school or college, and therein you will find at least one drug dealer. They know where to go. Legalizing it would at least allow the government to regulate the production of these drugs, so as to keep your precious addicts relatively safe from toxic concoctions which some dealers sell in order to cut costs and pocket more profit.
Alma said:
With them legalized, for the millionth time, they will still be out of money from buying the drugs, - the abusers of drugs - and would still have to hit and eventually rob, and kill, so as to get their money for their daily dose. With drugs legalized, it's the same as taking/abusing medication is concerned, so not sure how these people who're abusing them will get tracked down easier and arrested for something that's so available for them in all pharmacy stores. Like medicines are. They'd get arrested for the illicit deeds they do while under the influence, same as is the case with alcohol. It's not like saying one DUI'ed, but although he didn't hurt others and/or himself, he still was in the wrong, for he could indeed have died in a car crash and taken other people's lives.
And, for the millionth time, with them illegalized, they would still be out of money from buying the drugs, at an even faster rate (see cost of drug production in contrast to street price.) That would make them lose their house even faster, etc. So, it would seem, your approach would lead them to ruin even faster. I don't even consider the addicts' personal problems to be a cause for concern, whether drugs are legal or not, their lives will just be one sad trainwreck (crashing at a faster rate if drug use remains illegal due to drug costs, et cetera.)
To be perfectly honest, you lost me with the DUI example. Driving under the influence of anything should be barred--it's completely different to just stay in your house and get high till the cows come home, than to go out and drive, etc. They make driving under the influence of alcohol illegal--but not the alcohol itself. Therefore, I fail to see what you're trying to prove with that example.
Alma said:
I'm not really being coherent anymore, sorry... have gone tired from trying to make so much sense...
Trying is a noble cause.
Alma said:
So, what are you saying?... That you admit to being selfish and irrational?... Your words... Or that you are simply subjective? I know what depression can do, how it makes one wanna resent almost all, how it heightens one's already radicalist and/or nihilist a nature, am still struggling with it, but something very real and powerful like God who makes me change my mind every time. Not pushing anything religious to you, but I am really trying to understand what you are trying to say, and I can't justify it unless some deeply-rooted long-time depression is somehow involved in how you perceive things, people, principles, the world....
Nope. I just put that there because you put it in your previous post, and I wanted to make you smile.
I am being neither selfish, nor irrational. Like I said at the beginning of this post, I have nothing to personally gain from the legalization or lack thereof of drugs. I don't plan on doing, or selling, drugs--so the entire thing is a non-issue for me personally. Therefore, it can't really be selfish, if there's nothing in it for me. Irrational? I beg to differ. My arguments are based on logic and reason--not unscientific things like morality, religious beliefs, and conspiracy theories, therefore, I would say I'm being pretty rational.
I'm plainly objective. In order to be subjective, you have to apply personal beliefs, etc. to your argument, which would not stand by reason alone, and by inflicting religion and all sorts of other creeds into your argument, you are indeed being subjective. I back up my arguments with facts, logic, and sources which prove my points. There's nothing subjective about that--it is the generally accepted academic manner of argument.
Well, from what you have posted, I would say that you have a far dimmer view of the world than I do. I think most people are plainly average--neither capable of great nor terrible things. There are a small number of people who are "weak" (as you call them), and a few who are "strong." Most people fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum--so no, I do not believe that, were we to legalize drugs, we would go into a state of utter and complete pandemonium. That seems to me to be a rather negative estimation of most peoples' abilities to reason--an estimation which you, not I, made. My hypothesis is that drug use would either slightly decrease or increase were we to legalize drugs--however, one thing for certain is that, were we to compete with the cartels in a capitalistic market, we would either bankrupt them or cut off the majority of their incoming wealth in the long-term. That's just basic business.
As for my viewpoint--there's no need to justify it. It is what it is--a product of observation and research, very much like nihilism itself. The only ones who view nihilists as "depressed" people are romantics and idealists who wish to hold on to their irrational ideals for dear life, in my humble observation.
In any case, I would like to say that it's been a great pleasure to debate with you. It's certainly been an interesting debate, and I have enjoyed reading everyone's viewpoint regarding this and various other matters. We must keep in mind that we're just having theoretical arguments, and none of us are probably going to change policy any time soon.
