South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

December 12, 2019, 15:07:50 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Why are drugs illegal?

 (Read 20428 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« on: August 28, 2009, 20:08:34 PM »

Well there are bound to be some conspiracies which are true. For instance, the 9/11 attacks were carried out by a conspiracy of Muslim suicide-bombers.

I generally don't hold with conspiracy theories, but I can't think of a reasonable explanation for why drugs are illegal. Firstly, consider the demand. Surely there are enough people who want drugs? Secondly, the laws are completely ineffective. There is so much money to be made selling drugs that the authorities cannot enforce the laws. Thirdly, the money thus generated is used to empower the violent and the cruel and to subjugate the weak. Fourthly, the government looses all control over quality of the product and is unable collect tax revenue from profits generated.

I'll take a weak stab at it and say that those who stand to loose the most would be the drug lords, and that thus they must somehow be manipulating things. However, even stoned as I am, I find that a little hard to believe. I will leave it up to my fellow skeptics (perhaps more sober?) to provide a more convincing answer.

Thank you. Grin
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2467


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2009, 20:32:23 PM »

Don't have an answer, but it always struck me as odd that tobacco and booze are so freely available, while anything that makes ya see colours and dead ancestors ain't.

Not groovy at all.

Mintaka
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2009, 12:42:38 PM »

Yes, that sums it up nicely. Thanks Mintaka.  Smiley

I have had lengthy conversations with hallucinated dead people and, although I always knew they were no more than creations of my mind, found the experience therapeutic and enlightening nonetheless.

Come on guys! Skeptics should be better than anyone at coming up with conspiracy theories, we spend so much time debunking them...
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2009, 13:26:41 PM »

Okay, how about that the illegality of drugs is the result of Big Pharma not being allowed to copyright or patent hallucinogens, amphetamines and downers because most of them are either folk medicine or in the public domain.  So, Big Pharma can’t make oodles of money from them and doesn’t want anybody else to benefit financially from their sale and distribution, and therefore it has taken it upon itself to convince governments and legislators that such drugs open the door to criminal and civil case pleas of “not guilty by reason of drug-induced diminished capacity.”

If you think that’s implausible, you need to ask yourself what drugs Big Pharma has secretly put into your water supply to make you think so.

Tongue So there. Tongue

'Luthon64
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1551



WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2009, 14:22:01 PM »

If the taxi bosses want to start a war over the BRT program what will happen if all the drug lords and pushers are suddenly without work? World War 3. Better to keep them occupied and wealthy. They spend lots of money, the economy benefits and that is good for me. Grin

But I agree; Government may as well make something out of this, the risk of over dosing will be less (better quality control)and those who want it will get it anyway. I don't think drug use is significantly higher in the Netherlands, were it is sort of not illegal.

Of course I might change my mind if my children were to get addicted.
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2467


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2009, 14:58:27 PM »

A story that I once heard and will repeat here only for its novelty value, is that cultivation of Canabis sativa is outlawed, not so much due to its narcotic properties, but because it is fast growing and an excellent source of paper fiber. Big powerful paper companies (yes I know, there's ALWAYS a big powerful company a-lurkin'), have invested lots of money in the processing of pine and other plants, and will not be able to compete against new companies that will flood the market with cheap-and-easy hemp derived paper.

There, put that in your pipe and smoke it. Cool

Mintaka

« Last Edit: September 03, 2009, 17:24:55 PM by Mintaka » Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2009, 09:52:21 AM »

Okay, how about that the illegality of drugs is the result of Big Pharma not being allowed to copyright or patent hallucinogens, amphetamines and downers because most of them are either folk medicine or in the public domain.  So, Big Pharma can’t make oodles of money from them and doesn’t want anybody else to benefit financially from their sale and distribution, and therefore it has taken it upon itself to convince governments and legislators that such drugs open the door to criminal and civil case pleas of “not guilty by reason of drug-induced diminished capacity.”

If you think that’s implausible, you need to ask yourself what drugs Big Pharma has secretly put into your water supply to make you think so.

Tongue So there. Tongue

'Luthon64

Ah, copyright. That actually seems rather plausible as a contributing factor...
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2009, 09:54:18 AM »

A story that I once heard and will repeat here only for its novelty value, is that cultivation of Canabis sativa is outlawed, not so much due to its narcotic properties, but because it is fast growing and an excellent source of paper fiber. Big powerful paper companies (yes I know, there's ALWAYS a big powerful company a-lurkin'), have invested lots of money in the processing of pine and other plants, and will not be able to compete against new companies that will flood the market with cheap-and-easy hemp derived paper.

There, put that in your pipe and smoke it. Cool

Mintaka


Nice one! I always heard it was the cotton farmers though...
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2009, 21:42:58 PM »

If the taxi bosses want to start a war over the BRT program what will happen if all the drug lords and pushers are suddenly without work? World War 3. Better to keep them occupied and wealthy. They spend lots of money, the economy benefits and that is good for me. Grin

But I agree; Government may as well make something out of this, the risk of over dosing will be less (better quality control)and those who want it will get it anyway. I don't think drug use is significantly higher in the Netherlands, were it is sort of not illegal.

Of course I might change my mind if my children were to get addicted.

If I had kids (thank goodness I don't), I wouldn't necessarily want them to drink or smoke either. But if they did, I'd want it to be legal, and as safe and inexpensive as possible.
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2009, 10:32:10 AM »

Alcohol and tobacco would be illegal as well were it not for the fact that they cause cumulative harm to the system.  The ideal situation for the state is that their citizenry drink and smoke as much as is consistent with their ability to pay taxes on the products, then die of a smoking-induced heart attack or booze-liver explosion at their retirement party.  Then the state does not have to bear the burden of supporting them in their old age.

A smoker of whacky weed, on the other hand, can smoke the stuff every day and still be alive at 105, pinching the nurses backsides and consuming state resources.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2009, 11:20:22 AM »

Well, as long as we're throwing wacky theories out there....

A completely different conspiracy theory I've heard is that they are illegal because of racism back in the day, and to give the police something to do after the end of prohibition in the states.

http://stason.org/TULARC/health/hemp-marijuana/16-How-and-why-was-hemp-made-illegal.html
Logged
Watookal
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2009, 14:55:36 PM »

Might it be that Graham Hancock was correct when he wrote supernatural . The hallucinogens will trigger the junk DNA sequences in our apparantly <a href=http://forum.skeptic.za.org/science-and-technology/quantum-mechanics-and-consciousness/msg3183/#msg3183 > quantum mechanical consciousness [/url] to help us get to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-Circuit_Model_of_Consciousness > 8th model of consciousness[/url].

So in a nutshell, it's illegal because it will allow us a peek down the rabbit hole...
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2009, 15:37:59 PM »

LOL Cheesy Thanks, this is becoming even more entertaining than I expected!
Logged
Irreverend
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 222



« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2009, 22:04:30 PM »

Whaaat, they're illegal!? Wink

Makes perfect sense actually because the politicians and lawmakers don't want people to see through their self-serving BS...
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2009, 08:54:41 AM »

Nice one! Grin
Logged
Lilli
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 435



Lelani Stolp
« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2009, 15:56:41 PM »

Not to be difficult, but not all drugs are illegal - there's some pretty trippy over-the counter stuff available in SA if you know what to look for.
Personally, I dont get high anymore. have done, but got the feeling i was losing control too often. And I suppose thats why mind-altering substances cannot be made legal and freely available: there are just too many people like me who won't necessarily know when to stop. And if the entire nation is tripping all the time, who would ever get anything done?
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 25, 2009, 16:05:56 PM »

Please provide some names or links, I'm always on the look out for new and interesting chemicals. Grin

It could be argued that a large portion of the nation is already tripping most of the time, I don't think legalisation would necessarily convince the rest to join in.
Logged
Owen Swart
Officer in Charge, SciOps
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


Fleet Captain Owen Swart of the Starship Dauntless


WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 25, 2009, 16:12:26 PM »

I don't think legalisation would necessarily convince the rest to join in.

No indeed. The legality of alcohol and tobacco has yet to convince me to join in. Same goes for just about any other psychoactive compound, with the exception of caffeine.
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 25, 2009, 18:28:00 PM »

There, you see! Some people just don't want them, even if you offer them, repeatedly.  Grin
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #19 on: September 25, 2009, 22:49:18 PM »

Not to be difficult, but not all drugs are illegal - there's some pretty trippy over-the counter stuff available in SA
....
there are just too many people like me who won't necessarily know when to stop. And if the entire nation is tripping all the time, who would ever get anything done?

Wait, you're saying drugs are freely available, but if they are freely available, our society can't function? By that rationale, our society should already be in ruin. Not everyone drinks spirits and sniffs glue every night, even though those things can get you really sideways and are freely available. As is DXM. But drugs are not for everyone.... Just like you said.
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2009, 09:54:29 AM »

You know, they actually add poison to methylated spirits. The reason being that they then cannot be accused of selling drinkable ethanol. The fact that some people do still drink it doesn't seem to bother them, or those making the laws.
Logged
Irreverend
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 222



« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2009, 21:04:37 PM »

Thank goodness you can still buy white bread...
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2467


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2009, 21:11:23 PM »

You're familiar with adsorbsion chromatography, huh? The meths producers, of course, also hold major stakes in the national bakeries. Wink

Mintaka
Logged
Irreverend
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 222



« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2009, 21:23:49 PM »

I'm not averse to supporting the occasional bit of exploitative capitalism as long as it has a tasty scientific experiment in its sights. Smiley
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 08, 2009, 00:41:44 AM »

Government drug adviser David Nutt sacked - funny title, but it is rather disturbing when a science advisor gets fired for doing his job.
Logged
Mordred
Proudly skeptic
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 35



« Reply #25 on: October 19, 2010, 09:51:25 AM »

Resurrecting this old dinosaur of a thread but it's a topic I've always found very interesting.

I firmly believe the story about the reason for cannabis being illegal in the states is the cotton industry. Then of course, there are countless medical benefits of cannabis that we need to study but cannot while it remains classified together with things like heroin.

It's not possible to overdose on it, there is considerable debate if it can cause lung cancer (esp. when you use a vaporiser as opposed to a joint) and other than the happy-factor it's a valuable source of fibre and protein.
Logged
Andysor
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 40



« Reply #26 on: October 19, 2010, 10:26:03 AM »

This is a topic close to my heart too.

On the question of government drug control I hold a very firm Libertarian position, namely that if your activity does not directly affect other people society should mind its own business.

Even if one takes a more paternalistic view of society, numerous studies have confirmed what is intuitively obvious: making something illegal, unless the penalties are ridiculously punitive (ie. Singapore), have virtually no effect on consumption. Arguments about the potential damage from a drug are thus moot.

If one still wishes to do a cost/benefit analysis of the drug war the costs are staggeringly high; more than one quarter of prisoners in US jails are there for drug offences. A huge proportion of police and customs resources could be diverted to investigate other crimes.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #27 on: October 19, 2010, 18:26:57 PM »

Remember though, that the moment you don't NEED those officers they'll more likely be downsized than "put to better use".

Money is money, and the state only really cares up to a point. Especially if it could mean tax breaks, something politicians like to give people in return for support.
Logged
thrift
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 37



« Reply #28 on: October 19, 2010, 22:50:44 PM »

In case anyone wants to support a homegrown initiative, I know someone who has started THE DAGGA PARTY (for real!).  You can get him through Facebook, look for eremy David Acton, or Bud Blazer.
Logged
IncenDiary
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2011, 13:16:21 PM »

*Racism
*Fear
*Protection of Corporate Profits
*Yellow Journalism
*Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators
*Personal Career Advancement and Greed

These are the actual reasons marijuana is illegal.

Found this @ http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/
Logged
Superman
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« Reply #30 on: September 11, 2011, 16:53:47 PM »

There is always someone that wants to tell other people what to do.

I strongly believe in individual rights. If I want to take a drug it is none of governments business.

E.g. when I was younger I considered supplementing with testosterone. I did a lot of research and found that when not abused it could be used safely. Anyway my only concern was quality and price. There is no guarantee that the stuff you buy on the black market are what they say they are. Some stuff aren't even human grade but meant for animals. Then there is the huge price.

My skeptical nature got to me. I was to worried that they will sell me the wrong stuff that I eventually decided not to buy the stuff.

Now that I am older I have grown out of wanting to be so very muscular. Sometimes I think it would be nice. I am just not prepared to buy something on the black market.

But does anybody know how we can change this?
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 20:14:25 PM by Superman » Logged
bobilus
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #31 on: September 16, 2011, 02:24:51 AM »

I do believe some drugs should be made legal like dagga, magic mushroom ecstasy ect. Just the income from taxes on these would justify it. There is however drugs I believe should stay illegal were the positives of the drug is greatly out weighted by the negatives like Tik and heroin. These are both highly addictive and very damaging to the human body, exp meth mouth. Cocaine for me is on the line it can go either way legal or illegal.   

I do also believe there is a false sense of the advantages of smoking dagga found within the dagga smoking community. Almost all scientific papers on the advantages found that dagga has no great advantage over placebos. The problem no study have been done on the long term effect(20 years +) of dagga use. Here I think by just looking at all the tar components found in dagga that long term use will be worse than the smoking of cigarettes. One think they always say is you cant overdose on dagga, yes but you cant overdose on cigarettes either but it def not good for you. I believe dagga should be look at the same as cigarettes and alcohol, it is not good for you but in moderation it is great way to relax.

In the words of Tidal Waves, Legalize the HERB.  Grin           
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #32 on: September 16, 2011, 15:10:24 PM »

There is however drugs I believe should stay illegal were the positives of the drug is greatly out weighted by the negatives like Tik and heroin. These are both highly addictive and very damaging to the human body, exp meth mouth.

Some questions:
1. If Heroin were legal, would you take it?
2. If you were a heroin addict, would the current laws prevent you acquiring it?
3. Based on 1 and 2, what effects do laws actually have on heroin usage?

4. What is the difference between carpenter's glue and tik, that justifies the one being an illegal drug and the other not?
5. Based on 4, Should we legislate against all things that could be used as drugs with predominantly negative effects?
6. How about in general, should we legislate away all things that can be harmful, like guns, hammers, knives, rocks, fertilizer (you could make TNT ya know...), etc.
Logged
bobilus
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #33 on: September 16, 2011, 17:45:37 PM »

There is however drugs I believe should stay illegal were the positives of the drug is greatly out weighted by the negatives like Tik and heroin. These are both highly addictive and very damaging to the human body, exp meth mouth.

Some questions:
1. If Heroin were legal, would you take it?
2. If you were a heroin addict, would the current laws prevent you acquiring it?
3. Based on 1 and 2, what effects do laws actually have on heroin usage?

4. What is the difference between carpenter's glue and tik, that justifies the one being an illegal drug and the other not?
5. Based on 4, Should we legislate against all things that could be used as drugs with predominantly negative effects?
6. How about in general, should we legislate away all things that can be harmful, like guns, hammers, knives, rocks, fertilizer (you could make TNT ya know...), etc.

1. No I would not take heroin.
2. No if your an addict it would not really prevent you from acquiring heroin but addict go to extremes to get their hands on what they want laws, personal safety, human life etc mean nothing for them.
3. I believe they have an impact in that they discourage first time users so there is less addicts running around.
4. The level of addiction, tik is much more addictive than glue. Glue has some useful uses whereas tik is only used as a drug.
5. My personal opinion is government should investigate the addictive nature of all chemicals and if there is a problem with its usage it should be legislated much like schedule 7 medicine.
6. No there will always be something harmful out there but for it is the addictive element in these drugs that is the problem, people usually don't kill each other to satisfy there rock addiction. Guns and ammonium-nitrate based fertilizers are legislated, but in the correct hands they can be useful.

P.S. You don't make TNT from fertilizer, the ammonium-nitrate acts as a great oxidizer usually in conjunction with long carbon chain fuel like diesel. It is basically just a greatly accelerated reaction similar to which is found in a diesel engine.     
   
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2011, 18:06:00 PM »

Quote
... but addict go to extremes to get their hands on what they want laws, personal safety, human life etc mean nothing for them.


How about weed smokers? Is their willingness to break the law then a side effect of their total addiction to weed?

Quote
I believe they have an impact in that they discourage first time users so there is less addicts running around.


By your own admission you're actually not going to take heroin for the first time because it's stupid, not because of the law. I would assume bluntly that you have taken weed though, even though the law prohibits it. From which I extrapolate that the legality of weed or heroin has nothing to do with your choice to take/not take it. If you haven't though, I would point out that weed use is very common despite it's illegality. Whereas heroin use is not.

Quote
Glue has some useful uses ....


Methamphetamine is FDA approved for the treatment of ADHD and exogenous obesity.


Quote
My personal opinion is government should investigate the addictive nature of all chemicals and if there is a problem with its usage it should be legislated much like schedule 7 medicine.


Acetone can both be abused as an inhalant and is also addictive. It's also used in nail-polish remover. Should acetone then be a schedule 7 drug? - Look, I'm sure there's at least like, 50 household items I could come up with that can be abused in an addictive manner, but hey lets just settle with 1 for now...

Quote
P.S. You don't make TNT from fertilizer, the ammonium-nitrate acts as a great oxidizer usually in conjunction with long carbon chain fuel like diesel


Fine. Ban diesel and fertilizer. Diesel is doubly bad because it can also be inhaled, as can petrol.



Logged
bobilus
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #35 on: September 17, 2011, 12:19:46 PM »

Quote
How about weed smokers? Is their willingness to break the law then a side effect of their total addiction to weed?

Sorry should have been more specific, I was talking about laws like theft etc that have an affect on other people, not those against drug use.

Quote
By your own admission you're actually not going to take heroin for the first time because it's stupid, not because of the law. I would assume bluntly that you have taken weed though, even though the law prohibits it. From which I extrapolate that the legality of weed or heroin has nothing to do with your choice to take/not take it. If you haven't though, I would point out that weed use is very common despite it's illegality. Whereas heroin use is not.


Yes, I'm not going to take it because I know it is stupid but if I was given the chance when I was 16 or 17 when I smoked weed for the first I might have and probably have ended up in some crack house doing crime to fuel my addiction. The big deference between weed and heroin is accessibility, you can get weed from any car guard basically whereas heroin you have to go and search a bit harder. The reason for this I think is that weed can basically grow anywhere in SA whereas heroin must be smuggled in. I think if it was legal it would be mush easier for kids to get their hands on.

Quote
Methamphetamine is FDA approved for the treatment of ADHD and exogenous obesity.

The wiki article prove my point, there is 5 lines of its medical use and 9 paragraphs of the its negative effects.

Quote
Acetone can both be abused as an inhalant and is also addictive. It's also used in nail-polish remover. Should acetone then be a schedule 7 drug? - Look, I'm sure there's at least like, 50 household items I could come up with that can be abused in an addictive manner, but hey lets just settle with 1 for now...

You seriously compare acetone to meth. I also said we should look at their usage, at this moment in time even though acetone is legal there is an epidemic of meth addiction on the cape flats.

Quote
Fine. Ban diesel and fertilizer. Diesel is doubly bad because it can also be inhaled, as can petrol.


Diesel and petrol addiction are not causing huge social problems at the moment so until they do lets leave them legal. On the fertilizer side you cant buy ammonium nitrate fertilizer over the counter anymore some and these that still contain small amounts of ammonium nitrate contain chemicals that slow down the reaction with other chemicals like diesel so instead of an explosion it will only be a small fire.

Please tell me do you want to live in a world where any child can walk in to the spar and buy tik and heroin from the medicine section next to the disprins and any nutter can go and buy machine guns and components to build bombs from their local mica.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #36 on: September 18, 2011, 12:41:35 PM »

Quote
The big deference between weed and heroin is accessibility


I grew up in a rough spot, people in my school (well I guess these days every school is like this in some way but stay with me..) could get you anything you wanted. I got an education sitting around checking what all kinds of nasty stuff looked like. I mean a dealer has to have a good pitch! But tell ya what, for all that avialability, even HS kids know buying the buttons is prob. a bad idea, as is meth, etc. But weed sold like crazy. And I think it's because people don't associate it with as much dispair and poverty and untimely death as the other drugs. What I'm saying, if you read carefully, is.... it's about education, not prohibition. Prohibition stops no-one. But it's the knowing that makes you think twice.

Quote
The wiki article prove my point, there is 5 lines of its medical use and 9 paragraphs of the its negative effects.


Proves your point how? You sad it had no positive uses, and should be banned because of that. The article points out it DOES have positive uses. My question to you is, should it be regulated as a Schedule X drug, or banned? How about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphine#Adverse_effects

Quote
You seriously compare acetone to meth.


I thought it was obvious.

Quote
I also said we should look at their usage, at this moment in time even though acetone is legal there is an epidemic of meth addiction on the cape flats.


Yes, exactly, my point in a nutshell. One is legal, and (almost) no-one bothers to use it. The other is illegal, and there's an epidemic of use. What does this tell us about the efficacy of prohibition?

Quote
Please tell me do you want to live in a world where any child can walk in to the spar and buy tik and heroin from the medicine section next to the disprins


Do you realise that before drug prohibition this was exactly the case? Fine, tik didn't exist yet... but herion and opium were available over the counter as remedies for all kinds of ailments.

Quote
and any nutter can go and buy machine guns


Buying illegal hand guns and even machine guns in SA is not that hard... If Carte-Blanche can manage to find a bakke filled to the brim with AK-47's, anyone can. FWIW: In the states getting a machine gun legally is not even all that hard. Not in russia either, this dude ONLY uses guns he obtained legally. He is just a normal private citizen: http://fpsrussia.com

... You are very paranoid for someone who is still alive despite the fact that we already live in a world where weapons and drugs are freely available, the law doesn't prevent shit. Security measures in the middle east are on the "batshit insane" side of paranoid, and yet people there still manage to make and set off car bombs routinely. The fact that it doesn't happen here has NOTHING to do with security measures, which are lax in coparison. People here are just not nearly as pissed off, or motivated, to do it. If they were, they would.

Quote
and components to build bombs from their local mica.


This is already the case, as a kid (yes a kid nogal) I read enough bomb recipies to realise the shit under your sink, scattered around your house, bottles of pool chemicals .... almost anything can be made into a bomb with a little ingenuity and the correct information. Which, btw, is also freely available.
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1551



WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 18, 2011, 16:17:57 PM »

My two cents worth. If you can not enforce a law you may as well not have it. In fact it is better not to have it, people will be less confused on what is against the law or not. At the moment drug prices are quite high but that does not stop those who want it from getting it. Who is benefiting? The drug lords of course. The quality of the stuff also vary greatly I understand, from almost no effect to deadly. Will the use go up with it being legal? I don't think so but at least the quality can be controlled. 
Logged
Superman
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« Reply #38 on: September 19, 2011, 18:48:17 PM »

You may not agree but for me:

The role of government is only:
a)to protect from foreign invaders
b)to protect it citizens from harm of other citizens

I do not feel it is governments role to protect me from myself.
Neither do I need to be controlled by society.

If I am not harming anybody why should I not be able to take a drug.
OR if I am in hospital suffering from a terrible illness.
Who gives others the right to tell me that I cannot end my life.
OR who says I should not be able to have an abortion if I am a woman.
What gives them the right?

Superman
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2114



« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2011, 08:06:22 AM »

b)to protect it citizens from harm of other citizens

All fine and well, but Tik in particular, causes very agressive behaviour, so its ok for the kid in the ghetto to take it up until the point that he hacks his mother and siblings to death with a steak-knife?

Prevention is key here, and hence the laws.  Personally, I have no issue with Ms Mary-Jane, and know her well enough, I do however, have had plenty of experience with drug and alcohol addicts to know the absolute devastation it can sow. I've done all my practical and voluteer work at these centres, and its scary, VERY scary. 


Neither do I need to be controlled by society.


We're all controlled by society whether we like it or not, I agree with you on basic personal rights such as abortion and euthenasia, but without control we'd have anarchy. This statement of yours negates this one:

The role of government is only:
a)to protect from foreign invaders
b)to protect it citizens from harm of other citizens


Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #40 on: September 20, 2011, 09:21:02 AM »

To me, the point is about personal liberty. Anyone should be allowed to harm themselves, this to me is one of their "basic human rights". One of the few I view as valid.

Quote from: Faerie
so its ok for the kid in the ghetto to take it up until the point that he hacks his mother and siblings to death with a steak-knife?


Yes. Replace "tik" in your sentence with "alcohol" and you'll see my point. Yes, people should be allowed to drink themselves silly up until they pull out a gun and fire on someone, or smash a beer-bottle over someone's head, drive drunk, etc. In other words, up to the point that they become a direct danger to OTHER people.

Quote from: Faerie
I do however, have had plenty of experience with drug and alcohol addicts to know the absolute devastation it can sow. I've done all my practical and voluteer work at these centres, and its scary, VERY scary.


I have a friend, a good one too, that has lost everything due to an amphetamine/coke addiction. It sucks, it really, really does. I frequently lament his situation. BUT, it is his own doing, and I realise that law or no law, his personality would've (and did) lead to this regardless of who was trying to stop him. I've pleaded with him, we've sat down in a group of close friends and done the "Dude, you're killing yourself" thing. There's very little to help it, if there's any hope for him, it's rehabilitation (if he's willing). But it isn't law enforcement. If anything, getting busted will make his life worse, not better.

Quote from: Faerie
without control we'd have anarchy


I don't believe this is true. There's a concept called "Spontaneous order", which I do buy. I saw an example a while back (you'd have to google) about this dude who lowered accident rates and traffic congestion dramatically at key london interchanges by completely removing traffic signals, signs, lines, etc. from them. What followed was a self-regulating, free flowing, courtesy based system of traffic flow that emerged all by itself. Turns out if your remove the controls, people suddenly start being nice to eachother. To see video of this in action is stunning. You suddenly go, why do we have all these controls?
Logged
Watookal
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #41 on: September 20, 2011, 13:06:15 PM »

Cocaine for me is on the line
  -- pure poetry.
Logged
Superman
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« Reply #42 on: September 20, 2011, 14:05:29 PM »

@Faerie, I really do understand what you are saying and can see that you care about other people.

Please allow me to say this, 'Think of all the christains,muslims,jews and the things they want to protect ourselves and society from'. Where do you draw the line. I am sure that they deem it proper to protect ourselves from quite a number of things.'

Religion = Socialism

Superman
Logged
Superman
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« Reply #43 on: September 20, 2011, 16:24:19 PM »

PS It does seem that the 'public good' is starting to become a religion.
Every infringement of personal liberties are defended for the public good.  Cry


Oops now I am going into taxes, sorry off-topic. Please ignore.(edit)
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 17:41:13 PM by Superman » Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #44 on: September 20, 2011, 18:18:23 PM »

More often than not even the public good can succumb to "think of the children". A special class of citizen that must be protected at all costs.
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #45 on: September 21, 2011, 09:23:56 AM »

The issue of a 'common good' or 'public interest' raises questions about the moralty of a society.
Immoral politicians use the illogical and immoral concept that some political policy or strategy is ‘in the interests of the common good’ or ‘in the public or national interest’. They never define what the public interest is or who the ‘public’ is; neither do they specify at whose cost the public interest is served. Underlying this false argument is the notion that the public interest is superior to the interest of the individual. This of course gives these mystics the power to loot the property of the individual including his or her intellectual property ‘in the public interest’. They are nothing more than common thieves and looters. A practical example of this is where mineral- or water rights of private landowners are confiscated by these looters ‘in the common’ interest. The argument naturally resists questioning and intelligent debate because the ‘common good’ is held to be above debate, above the interests of mere individuals; a non sequitur.
The latest evidence of this in SA is the suppression of information bill the ANC is trying to push through "in the interest of the people" By Whose standards at whose costs? The next move will censorship of 'material unsuitable for public consumption" and so it goes on until the next revolution...VIVA!
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #46 on: September 21, 2011, 10:19:47 AM »

Good.  That’s what libertarians have been saying for a really long time already.  The essential trouble is petty minds put in positions of power.  Given the opportunity, they invariably are unable and unwilling to resist the pull towards ever more pervasive control through regulation, which is the result of a pungent mixture of innate megalomania, paternalism and superiority complex:  We know best what’s best for you.

It’s why politics and religion make dandy bedfellows.

'Luthon64
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.987 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page May 10, 2019, 03:24:29 AM
Privacy Policy