Leaglize drugs - say what u want

soph · 2002-12-26 20:13:07

switzerland is a lot easier to run because the world doesnt hate them, and they have a FAR smaller population...but they have a more democratic system, i think thats what auqakah is getting at.

AltToWar · 2002-12-27 09:43:25

1: Cal, your too young to vote.

2: America is not a democracy. We are a democraticly elected Republic.

3: When it comes to a president, the president is appointed by the electoral college, not elected by the voters. The electotral college is not bound to follow the populas vote of their state. Each state has different rules as to how it's votes are applied.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-27 20:30:05

You guys have so little faith in the American system of government. If Switzerland is so good, why aren't you living there? I'm tired of everyone riding America's ass about everything, and then sitting there in your New York apartment enjoying all of this country's benefits. And, contrary to your paranoid dilusions, the American public does have a great deal to do with our politics, considering that the average person can run for elected office (hell, an Austrian immigrant is probably going to run for California governor in 2004, and the Senate majority leader was a surgeon).

Aquakah, I could swear that you said earlier you were Brittish.

soph · 2002-12-27 20:34:36

I have plenty of faith in our government. i dont have faith in its ability to make real progress where it counts. congress has become too concerned over what will get them re-elected. this is why nasa gets very little funding, and trent lott got his state contracts to build naval vessels the navy said it will never use. anything they can use in their next campaign.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-28 01:03:18

Cal, elective eligibility is hardly a gauge of American interest, and activity, in politics. Only a little over half of voters actually vote, and some 36% of eligible voters don't even register.

http://www.census.gov/population/socdem … /tab01.txt

Pretty pathetic, considering some (yes, non-dictatorial) countries have 99% turnout.

But soph is largely correct. Congressmen don't care about real issues (unless it's in their interest, obviously), because they want to get reelected. We live in a plutocracy.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-28 22:04:23

Politicans on both ends of the spectrum have always put re-election over getting things done. The authors of the Constitution didn't put term limits on congressmen because they thought that normal people would run for office, get their bills passed, and then return to their normal lives.

soph · 2002-12-28 22:24:30

they should have put congressional terms limits when the put presidential term limits. but congress isnt about to limit its own power ???

clark · 2002-12-30 10:23:19

Democracy cannot work without the free flow of information and an educated society.

What we have seen in the last 50 years is the destruction of our basic educational system, K-12 and the creation of a tierd socio-economic secondary educational system. This tierd system will lead to class stratification around economic-educational level lines. This will limit the ability and opportunity for social mobility, which is the basis of american social stability.

What we are now seeing is the slow disolution of the free flow of information within our society. Under the new secrecy laws, our government is now poised to declare that it must keep "certain sensitive information" secret for national security. Case in point, a presidents papers are to be released 12 years after they leave office- Our current President has prevented the release of Regans papers. It should also be noted that FCC rules regarding the ownership of multiple venues for reporting information (print, TV, radio, etc) are being relaxed. Telecommunications is controlled by a few corportations, or a few individuals- this IS the press. Our opportunites for information from multiple sources is being reduced- which creates the opportunity for historical abuses.

The war on drugs is senseless. Using drugs is senseless.

Listening to those who wish to have unfettered access to drugs is like listening to a child whine becuase they are not allowed candy in the candy store.

Listening to those who wish to prevent access to drugs is like listening to a self-elected mother who provides advice without prompting.

Both are foolish stances to take.

The former is an argument of "Hey, I have a right to be stupid and self destructive and there is nothing anyone can say about it!"

The latter is an argument of "Hey, I know what's best for you and you and you, even though your choices do not affect me... they might."

Here is soemthing to mull over:

We do away with drug restrictions. You want it, you got it- as long as you don't hurt anyone else.

Now, a woman is preganant, in her first trimester, and is fairly certain she will have an abortion, but is still undecided.

She is at a party and is offered several drugs, which she takes.

The party is raided by the cops and they arrest the woman for endangering the life of the fetus.

Do you feel that the woman should be convicted or not charged?

The basis of the legitmacy of drug control laws stems from a basic argument of "Can a free man voluntarily enter into slavery?" If you can legitmately answer that question, you will have your answer to the drug laws.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-31 01:37:25

We do away with drug restrictions. You want it, you got it- as long as you don't hurt anyone else.

I've been in favor of that all along, but unfortuately they always end up hurting the people who don't use drugs. Steal a VCR, a car, kill someone for their change... all come back to hurt those of us who don't abuse drugs in the first place.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-31 04:02:03

And yet, the fact still stands. If you can outbid the black market, the black market won't exist. Simple economics.

clark · 2002-12-31 10:27:06

All true Josh, it is a "simple matter of economics". Yet look at what you argue for.

Free use of Heroin.
Free use of PCP.
Free use of GHB.
Free use of LSD.
Free use of crack or cocaine.

Have any of you been to parts of the world where drug use is legalized? Do you know what LIFE is like for people that live there? I am not talking statitcs.

Statistics do not capture life on a Tuseday and being accosted by drug abusers- or never escaping the smell of certain drugs.

We can do away with black market murder for hire by instuting controlled markets for the service- but do we really want that? Sure, an extreme example, but it serves to demonstrate the fallacy of "simple economics" to solve soical issues.

Drug laws exsist much for the same reason we have saftey belt laws: people are idiots. Sure, some drug use can be tolerable, even beneficial in some instances. Yet there are those who abuse it, and the cost to society, and the prospective threat to our security require that we have such laws in place.

You don't need drug laws if people are inherently able to self-moderate, but people do not by and large self-moderate when it comes to drugs.

And as for any drinking or caffinee analogy, it is weak. Acceptable social drinking does not predicate itself around getting "drunk". Drug use is all about getting "F-uped". Caffinee is not used to power through your day- it is not a narcotic.

I personaly think that drug laws are stupid, but I also believe people are stupid. When enough people wise up, then maybe we can repeal them as a society- when we have reached the point where we can govern ourselves.

Cobra Commander · 2002-12-31 17:23:16

I personaly think that drug laws are stupid, but I also believe people are stupid.

Then perhaps the real question is whether it is the responsibility of society to look after stupid people.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-31 18:05:13

Not free, clark, very very regulated, and very very cheap. Drugs that don't affect you any worse than alcohol, like marijuana (THC), and arguably GHB, ought to of course be as regulated as alcohol and no more. Of course, GHB becomes dangerous when used with alcohol (so to does any drug, really), so we'd need lots of warning labels, and, of course, education.

Heavy drugs could be prescribed in small doses. Pharmaceutical heroin has shown very promising drops in crime over testing periods.

I think that, overall, we need to make it difficult to get drugs. But being caught with drugs shouldn't land you in a huge jail sentence. There would be places to acquire drugs for cheap, once you have been evaluated, and proven acceptable by whatever standards, and so on.

The main demon is marijuana, though. More people go to jail for having a few pounds of this plant than any other drug. And they spend a long as time there. If we're going to unban any drug, marijuana ought to be the first. The rest can wait until we've done studies, and determined how to implement heavy drug regulation, safely, without getting people unnecessarily addicted.

PaganToris · 2003-01-01 11:09:33

I Thank i have a better idea why dont we all just say
ANARCHY
that solves all government problems i say screw the government and leave them in the desert. Why?
becuse they are stupid on rules they try to brain wash us in to liking bush which aint gonna happen so the main 3 words i like to say wh ni see a government aficial is.......

CHAOS AND ANRCHY!

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-01 19:22:02

As long as we have really good literary programs.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-01 22:26:28

And a high-power rifle

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-02 00:15:44

We're not talking archno-capitalism, or rather, Libertarianism.

Anarchy isn't a stupid mob state which is unable to function for any reasonable period of time.

AltToWar · 2003-01-02 03:33:34

The first thing Anarchists do is form a commitee.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-02 06:30:06

Hmm, isn't that a quote from somewhere? Sounds familiar... and it's mostly true.

clark · 2003-01-02 09:48:42

And the second is choose a committee chair...

Actually, it sounds like a pretty funny Python skit.

And Josh, I understand your point, in essence, I agree with it. The drugs you wish to decriminalize you view as mild, or "safe". This is of course true in most instances, but the problem arises from the lack of moderation.

Drinking as an example- when we have a drink, is it solely to get drunk? Is that the purpose of drinking? Most adults would agree that, no, it is not.

Now, GHB? Pot? Any other myriad of drugs, do people take them to enjoy the social atmosphere of checking out on reality, or is it just the "checking out on reality" that is the point of taking drugs?

Psychadelics are arguably "safe" and have very little addictive qualities, but are they really a good thing in a mass-consumer society?

Imagine a McVersion of drug distribution in the states. Cheap and everywhere. Sure, we can tax it- and use those funds to create educational programs like we have for alcohol abuse and nicotine cessation- but is it wise to unleash yet another set of damaging vices into our society?
I fully believe that adults should be left to make their own decisions- that as adults, most people exercise some modicum of good judgement, whatever they decide that is. However, I also firmly believe that there are a lot of people who are less inclined to control themselves or exercise good judgement.

I also think our society is a bit immature to deal with drugs like some other countries- look at the problem with the discussion of sex as an example.

Palomar · 2003-01-02 12:01:33

You guys have so little faith in the American system of government. If Switzerland is so good, why aren't you living there? I'm tired of everyone riding America's ass about everything, and then sitting there in your New York apartment enjoying all of this country's benefits.

*No system of government is above criticism and being questioned. Thomas Jefferson said the rebellious spirit is good for a nation, and the overall spirit of the founding of the U.S. was predicated on asking questions, making criticisms, and making changes.

The U.S. isn't about licking boot and mewling up to authority. It's also not about the "ours is not to question why, ours is just to do or die" attitude.

Yes, the U.S. has its good points -- and many of them. It also has its bad points. The healthiest society is the society that can identify, ADMIT, and examine its faults and then seek to change them -- for overall improvement.

The old "head in the sand" mentality serves no one and can only lead to greater harm.

--Cindy

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-02 14:17:03

That discussion came about because everyone was whining about Gore losing the election to Bush through the 230 year old method set forth in our Constitution, that nobody thought was bad up until now.

clark · 2003-01-02 14:49:30

People have always thought the electoral college was a bad idea- the most recent election only allowed for a more vocal dicussion on reconsidering the merits of such an antiquated system.

I'm all for checks and balances, and i haven't a suggestion for improvement, but I question the sense in a system that allows for one group to overturn the will of another group.

If you look at who voted for who, the counties and areas with less ubanization voted fro bush- the urbanized areas voted fro Gore.

If we look at the population of America, notice that a majority of Americans live in a urban setting. A majority of Americans voted for Gore. The electoral college of course is a compromise devised for a system of american democracy where the States were considered independant nations, so they each had to be represented equally- the Senators were elected by State Senates or Govenors- to represent the State as an independant nation- now we elect our senators.

Our method of electing leaders is always changing, and the entire american democratic experiment is evolving over time. It may be the time to reevaluate how the electoral college works, or even if it is neccessary.

I for one don't like my leaders being appointed by judical decree. But hey, power to the people, right.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-02 15:14:39

If you look at a majority of the nation, we elected Republican leaders in Congress. That means American is a majority Republican nation. If you want to abolish the electoral college, use your majority vote to elected democrat congressional leaders who will get rid of the system instead of crying about losing the race to me.

I don't know why we're argueing about this in the "Legalize Drugs" thread. Let's get back on topic.

soph · 2003-01-02 17:10:17

but the democrats won the presidential election. if it werent for bush throwing the war card out every few weeks, the republicans wouldnt have been voted in. look at bush's horrendous domestic policy. his economic policy has failed...1.2 trillion dollars would be nice right now. his policy on the environment sucks...one of few countries that didnt sign kyoto. His policy on power sucks...oil oil oil (only redemption is support of nuclear power). His policies on freedom suck...anti-abortion, curtailing the freedoms of americans, closest thing to a dictator america has ever had.

war comes, approval rating goes up. its a statistic fact. bush sr lost because the war ended too early in his first term to cover up his economic screw-ups. george w flounders when it comes to anything but war. when our leader doesnt know the names of key foreign leaders, theres a problem.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2002-12-26 20:13:07

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#77 2002-12-27 09:43:25

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#78 2002-12-27 20:30:05

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#79 2002-12-27 20:34:36

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#80 2002-12-28 01:03:18

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#81 2002-12-28 22:04:23

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#82 2002-12-28 22:24:30

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#83 2002-12-30 10:23:19

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#84 2002-12-31 01:37:25

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#85 2002-12-31 04:02:03

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#86 2002-12-31 10:27:06

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#87 2002-12-31 17:23:16

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#88 2002-12-31 18:05:13

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#89 2003-01-01 11:09:33

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#90 2003-01-01 19:22:02

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#91 2003-01-01 22:26:28

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#92 2003-01-02 00:15:44

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#93 2003-01-02 03:33:34

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#94 2003-01-02 06:30:06

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#95 2003-01-02 09:48:42

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#96 2003-01-02 12:01:33

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#97 2003-01-02 14:17:03

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#98 2003-01-02 14:49:30

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#99 2003-01-02 15:14:39

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#100 2003-01-02 17:10:17

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

Board footer