Which drugs do you think should be legal for personal use?

[MK]

How elitist of you, saying that regular people can't handle personal freedom and libertine social laws.

Stop being unrealistic.

Me being unrealistic? I'm not the one who just posted saying that 'regular people' can't handle social liberalism.

Yes, because "libertine social laws" is unrealistic for our country at this point in time.  Regular people need some government control and regulations ( long as there not unconstitutional).  If the secularist want to have their own orgy of social lust, then theres SF, WA and other libreal basins that they 've pretty much have taken over.

[Matt Damon™]

We have more than enough conformity and state control. The government would do well to disengage more from people's personal lives.

[Earth]

Secularist  are mostly people who are well educated and will be well off.  They don't care about regular people who may have less education, and be more prone to ill effects of secular lifestyles. 

Such as?

...The same ones making the case for drugs are the same ones who advocated  putting children on mind controlling substances...

You can't be serious.

[Matt Damon™]

The government controls drugs now, look at how well that's working.  Government control is NEVER the best option and it does not protect these uneducated people you seem to look down on with such pity.  Drugs are gaining popularity with wealthy suburban teens, those most able to live a safe libertine lifestyle.  Uneducated and impoverished people have been doing those same drugs for decades under the same government scrutiny.  No one type of person is more adept at living a certain lifestyle and it's very narrow-minded of you to assume that you know better.  People can live their own lives, you live your own the way you want, not anyone elses.

Mr. Festoon please refrain from bringing facts into war on drugs arguments.

[MK]

The government controls drugs now, look at how well that's working.  Government control is NEVER the best option and it does not protect these uneducated people you seem to look down on with such pity.  Drugs are gaining popularity with wealthy suburban teens, those most able to live a safe libertine lifestyle.  Uneducated and impoverished people have been doing those same drugs for decades under the same government scrutiny.  No one type of person is more adept at living a certain lifestyle and it's very narrow-minded of you to assume that you know better.  People can live their own lives, you live your own the way you want, not anyone elses.

   Because they live in their gated communities and are able to afford for their doped headed teen to attend colleges.  Poor regular folks don't live in these types of settings, and have to deal with the everyday world of labor and living off of 30-40K a year if even that.  The secularist don't care, the way they see it long has I have the security guard protecting my gated neighborhood making sure the zombies don't come in... I'm fine.   No, really the ones advocated free drugs for everyone are the highly educated secularist who will never have to worry about having to make a trip to the Post office on the bad side of town, and getting mugged by some dope head.  Alot of these drugs have no benefit other then making you more dependent on them.   Hearing the secular progressives talk about this, is like thinking about some of those zombies movies - where upscale rich folks wanted a new drug only for it to backfire. Now that it’s affected the poor folks...” time to keep them out of our community”   A impoverished person gets hooked on drugs and I would like to know how does he or she  keep the  little 25K a year job?

 people can live their lives, but they want Government to look after their best intrests.   Making drugs legal wouldn't be doing that.

[Sbane]

The city of San Fransisco is the precursor of what Secularists want the rest of the country to look like.

What's wrong with San Francisco that isn't wrong with any other big city. In fact SF is much better than other cities. Please give some evidence of why San Francisco isn't a place to emulate. Considering it is the wealthiest metro area in the country, I would guess it would be a good place to learn from.....

[Matt Damon™]

San Francisco would be nice to live in if it wasn't so expensive..

[Sbane]

San Francisco would be nice to live in if it wasn't so expensive..

^^^
This is a valid criticism of San Francisco.

[MK]

The city of San Fransisco is the precursor of what Secularists want the rest of the country to look like.

What's wrong with San Francisco that isn't wrong with any other big city. In fact SF is much better than other cities. Please give some evidence of why San Francisco isn't a place to emulate. Considering it is the wealthiest metro area in the country, I would guess it would be a good place to learn from.....

Ohh give me a break the intellectual secularist are so predictable. No SF isn't the place you want to emulate or atleast in its current form.  You just backed up what I said about the gated rich community. SF has some of the highest HIV rates and you think drugs don't play apart on this?   SF has some of the highest homeless rates ( I hear they travel in packs) and this is what you want my town to become?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I can think of another reason for high HIV rates in San Francisco.

[Sbane]

The city of San Fransisco is the precursor of what Secularists want the rest of the country to look like.

What's wrong with San Francisco that isn't wrong with any other big city. In fact SF is much better than other cities. Please give some evidence of why San Francisco isn't a place to emulate. Considering it is the wealthiest metro area in the country, I would guess it would be a good place to learn from.....

Ohh give me a break the intellectual secularist are so predictable. No SF isn't the place you want to emulate or atleast in its current form.  You just backed up what I said about the gated rich community. SF has some of the highest HIV rates and you think drugs don't play apart on this?   SF has some of the highest homeless rates ( I hear they travel in packs) and this is what you want my town to become?

Both of those are problems associated with big cities. Violent crime is actually lower in San Francisco as compared with other cities. And overall the bay area is a very nice place to live, even though all of us are heathens or whatever.

[MK]

You missed all the points.  One being that you deride the legalization of drugs because the less fortunate would start doing them, yet they're the ones that have been doing them for years.  Another being that they are not the only ones doing the drugs, rich and poor alike are doing drugs.  The biggest one being that the government is in control of drugs right now, yet all this is happening.  If it's happening anyway, why not just let the countless convicts of nonviolent crimes go be productive members of society instead of costing us more tax dollars overcrowding our prisons?

There are plenty of successful families making less than $50,000 a year and it's very judgmental to assume they are too stupid not to do drugs.  Keep in mind drug use rates are not 100% like you're making them out to be (though it is an interesting contrast to your claims that government should keep "looking after our best interests").

Also keep in mind no one is holding a gun to these peoples' heads, they are choosing this.  If they choose to do drugs that's their prerogative and not your right to tell them it's wrong.  There is no direct correlation between drug use and societal failure.  Drugs are not the common denominator and should not be treated that way.

Nonsense.  Family's or households making under 50k a year or in some parts not even 35k a year, do not benefit from the mom or dad hooked on coke, meth, or anyother hard drugs.  Once again this is the line that the secularist use " free will" and they don't understand.... I take that back, they do understand because they are highly educated.  They know that they'll never have to worry about losing their jobs, or not being able to afford healthcare costs because little Jimmy's teeth have now falling out, or dad has become HIV infected by using some dirty needle.   This isn't the wizard of Oz.

[Sbane]

You missed all the points.  One being that you deride the legalization of drugs because the less fortunate would start doing them, yet they're the ones that have been doing them for years.  Another being that they are not the only ones doing the drugs, rich and poor alike are doing drugs.  The biggest one being that the government is in control of drugs right now, yet all this is happening.  If it's happening anyway, why not just let the countless convicts of nonviolent crimes go be productive members of society instead of costing us more tax dollars overcrowding our prisons?

There are plenty of successful families making less than $50,000 a year and it's very judgmental to assume they are too stupid not to do drugs.  Keep in mind drug use rates are not 100% like you're making them out to be (though it is an interesting contrast to your claims that government should keep "looking after our best interests").

Also keep in mind no one is holding a gun to these peoples' heads, they are choosing this.  If they choose to do drugs that's their prerogative and not your right to tell them it's wrong.  There is no direct correlation between drug use and societal failure.  Drugs are not the common denominator and should not be treated that way.

Nonsense.  Family's or households making under 50k a year or in some parts not even 35k a year, do not benefit from the mom or dad hooked on coke, meth, or anyother hard drugs.  Once again this is the line that the secularist use " free will" and they don't understand.... I take that back, they do understand because they are highly educated.  They know that they'll never have to worry about losing their jobs, or not being able to afford healthcare costs because little Jimmy's teeth have now falling out, or dad has become HIV infected by using some dirty needle.   This isn't the wizard of Oz.

I really doubt hard drug use will go up if they get legalized. Like Fezzy said the druggies are already doing the drugs. If you have evidence that shows otherwise then show it.

[MK]

You're not getting it.  They're doing it now.  Government control has not worked.   These things you're claiming will happen are happening.  Legalization is not going to change that.  It's going to bring it out of the dark, saving lives.  My position is the one that takes the safety of the unfortunate into account.  They are addicted.  Instead of having to go into unsafe dark allies, they can go to licensed dealers that won't kill them or rape them or steal from them.  And there will be a much better system for rehabilitation as people will not be as afraid to tell someone their loved ones are addicted.  And there wouldn't be dirty needles if it was legal as there are now.  The problems you list are the problems that are occurring while drugs are illegal.

Druggies are already doing it so lets make it easier to obtain them while we live in out guarded safe communities -  Its the typical secularist line.   Drug dealers have nothing to do with the health benefits of taking hard drugs.  Rehabilitation?  Great, now the tax payers can help pay for some meth head out of work in a center after buying them from a Gov licensed dealer.   Talk about vodo economics, this is vodo social policy.

[Earth]

I think it's official, we're dealing with a troll.

[MK]

What are you talking about?  You keep mentioning these gated secularists.  Who cares about them.  Do you see them here?  No, so talk about them when you're talking about them.  I don't know if you're trying to insinuate that I do drugs and want easier access to them, but that's ridiculous.  You seem now only to be ignoring my points in favor of labeling and dismissing me and my views.

We're paying for meth dealers in prison now, why not turn it around and pay for the people who need our help while making money of the scum we're wasting tax dollars on now?  I want to help these unfortunate people you keep referring to as stupid.  Let's actually help them instead of ignoring them, putting them in jail, or allowing them to continue to enter unsafe situations.  And I never said the taxpayers would be funding the rehab anywhere.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

  Because you are making the same secularistic points that the gated secularists make.


You care nothing about working class people in reality the same way you didn't care for children when your types advocated the "mind control drugs were better for the child in school" - whats worked out good hasn't it?    I'm not saying regular people are stupid ( rather live around them as opposed to secularist in SF) what I'm saying is making hard drugs legal would only make the current drug usage problem worse and it will effect the disadvantaged more then the advantaged.

You guys like to throw that "appealing to traditional fallacy" around.  Ive made up my own secular fallacy is what you are appealing to.

[MK]

I think it's official, we're dealing with a troll.

No you're not.  I'm going to be alot more forcefull in defending the Conservative point of view on this and don't try the "troll" label tactic with me.   Your ideals are secular its that simple.

[Earth]

I think it's official, we're dealing with a troll.

No you're not.  I'm going to be alot more forcefull in defending the Conservative point of view on this and don't try the "troll" label tactic with me.   Your ideals are secular its that simple.

I'm not "trying" anything, you've made it patently clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Post after post, you offer nothing in the way of evidence when confronted, and you keep knocking down straw men you've built, and claim it's the "opposing" argument. You also pick and choose posts that are directed squarely at you, ignoring many of them, probably because you can't refute them.

By the way, you're a 'secularist' too. You watch television, listen to secular music, go to secular schools. There's nothing that sets you apart from the people you're trying to take the moral high ground on, except that when you're confronted with a well thought out argument, you just repeat yourself and say it's "relative". You also cheaply keep playing the victim.

[Matt Damon™]

*gets popcorn*

Please do continue, Mr. Keller.

[MK]

I think it's official, we're dealing with a troll.

No you're not.  I'm going to be alot more forcefull in defending the Conservative point of view on this and don't try the "troll" label tactic with me.   Your ideals are secular its that simple.

I'm not "trying" anything, you've made it patently clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Post after post, you offer nothing in the way of evidence when confronted, and you keep knocking down straw men you've built, and claim it's the "opposing" argument. You also pick and choose posts that are directed squarely at you, ignoring many of them, probably because you can't refute them.

By the way, you're a 'secularist' too. You watch television, listen to secular music, go to secular schools. There's nothing that sets you apart from the people you're trying to take the moral high ground on, except that when you're confronted with a well thought out argument, you just repeat yourself and say it's "relative". You also cheaply keep playing the victim.

Went back and reviewed all of your replies and you haven't posted and plan or numbers of why we should make hard drugs legal other then... "People should be able to do what they want"  

Sorry to bust your bubble, but right now I own a pretty fast car.  1993 mustang cobra 5.0 5 speed with some nice mods done and it runs 11.5's in the 1/4. I would love to take my car and get on the highway and just bang through the gears until I reach 130MPH without getting a ticket, but guess what.... I CAN'T!!
You keep saying I’ve not posted any facts, yet the same is true of you.  It's playing on the ideal that everything in this country should be free and no limits.  My main simple argument for drugs is:  (and please write it down, so I want hear you say I have no stance other than just hot air)   legalizing dangerous drugs will surely lead to increased use and abuse – a trend that could pose problems as severe or worse than those created by the drug war you wish to dismiss. 

One of you said before “There is no correlation between drug use and societal failure” Yes there is
The black community. I remember how the crack wave in the 1980s pretty much dismantled black poor communities.  Your standard reply is going to be:  Well if the drugs were legal there wouldn't have been a problem.   Ok, but you've never explained how your ideal of making drugs legal would help.  Other then "licensed dealers" would sell drugs    As a half black American I can't help but ask  Why do I want the Gov and their "licensed dealers" selling drugs in my already drug riddled community? We are lucky if one of ours is able to make it in school and past gangs, but now Uncle Sam wants dealers selling right up the street like some ABC Store.   Please explain this part?


Let’s talk about some stats on availability:

The percentage of high school seniors reporting they could very easily obtain these drugs. (2007)

Marijuana 83%

Cocaine  47%

Crack 38%




meth 25%

Herion 29%

-According to Bureau of Justice Statistics

This is telling you what % of teens say they can gain access to these drugs.  Here again you’ve never explained should teenagers be able to use drugs under your ideal?  There’s an age limit for beer and tobacco should we also have one for hard drugs if made legal?
The numbers are telling because add your “free society” and I guess access would be in the 90% range of most hard drugs right?

Like I’ve pointed out you have never gave a clear plan of how to go about this, other than flower power  talk and looking for me to oppose, so you and the gang can team up on my view because  you serious backing on this site.  It’s not a knock on anybody, but let’s face it, my view isn’t in the popular. I don’t really mind it because I’m standing for what I believe in. Enough of my jabber  ... let’s get back to more argument.

Another one of my points is on jobs and the workforce and how making drugs legal would hurt those in the lower paying occupations.   Some more interesting stats that back up my claim.
USEAGEThe Most prevalent is in food preparation jobs_  17.4%
Construction and extraction jobs _ 15%
-According to the US dept of health services-
The lowest oddly enough was protective services

This highlights what I mentioned… the cooks and single mom working at the local food joint will be more affected/ tested for use of drugs then any white collier type job that a highly educated college kid working at a firm never has to worry about.   The construction jobs ( and trust me when I say this, they don’t ing play if you test +) I know many people who have been walked to the gate after failing drug tests.  How does this tie to our debate?  Simple you advocate that we should let people be free to do what they feel and drugs should be up to the individual to decide.  Well just because you make drugs legal the construction company isn’t going to throw safety away for your ideals of a “free society”   I once worked at a Basf plant and they are very strict and for good reason.   I agree with you that our war on drugs is a total mess and needs  that big “R” word, but making hard dangerous drugs legal will not be the solution you want.   In grade school we were taught that theres a reaction to every action – cause and effect.  I wish you would think about the effects of making hard drugs acceptable to the public.  This is America and it’s not a utopia of free ideals, theres rules, regulations and limits.  Government shouldn’t violate your rights, but they should look after the public’s best interests. You may disagree, but I’m a strong believer in good Government.  There’s no need to dismiss my views at trollage because you disagree on my views.

[Matt Damon™]

If drugs were cheaply available, the social problems would be no worse than alcoholism is now, that is to say a VAST improvement over the current problems. You can't have perfection so why not simply settle for better?

[MK]

Sorry to bust your bubble, but right now I own a pretty fast car.  1993 mustang cobra 5.0 5 speed with some nice mods done and it runs 11.5's in the 1/4. I would love to take my car and get on the highway and just bang through the gears until I reach 130MPH without getting a ticket, but guess what.... I CAN'T!!

Because driving your car on a public highway that quickly puts others in danger.  Sitting in your basement smoking pot does not.  It's a personal choice that you have no right to make for others.I don't think the tone you're taking with Earth makes any sense.  You are attacking him for weakness in his arguments?  You made one argument in an extended discussion with me on the same thing.

What about the drugged up construction worker who just killed a fellow worker by overturning the Roller because he was high on meth or coke?


You are not taking the debate seriously. It's the same reply of "I do what I want"

Tone?  Look dude if you are going to try to Pigeonhole me by saying I have no facts, then its only fair that I ask the same of you.  None of you have layed out one single plan of how to go about this.  Its pretty much wait and attack the next opposer as a uneducated idiot.  

[MK]

Sorry to bust your bubble, but right now I own a pretty fast car.  1993 mustang cobra 5.0 5 speed with some nice mods done and it runs 11.5's in the 1/4. I would love to take my car and get on the highway and just bang through the gears until I reach 130MPH without getting a ticket, but guess what.... I CAN'T!!

Because driving your car on a public highway that quickly puts others in danger.  Sitting in your basement smoking pot does not.  It's a personal choice that you have no right to make for others.I don't think the tone you're taking with Earth makes any sense.  You are attacking him for weakness in his arguments?  You made one argument in an extended discussion with me on the same thing.

What about the drugged up construction worker who just killed a fellow worker by overturning the Roller because he was high on meth or coke?


You are not taking the debate seriously. It's the same reply of "I do what I want"

Tone?  Look dude if you are going to try to Pigeonhole me by saying I have no facts, then its only fair that I ask the same of you.  None of you have layed out one single plan of how to go about this.  Its pretty much wait and attack the next opposer as a uneducated idiot.  

Are you joking?  READ MY POSTS.  Stop trying to debate someone else, because you're not replying to anything I'm saying.  I never said "I do what I want" about anything, I've been pigeonholed by you the entire time, you've just been complaining about ambiguous problems from drugs that happen WITH strict drug rules, I've laid out several things despite there being no opposition sparking further thought than "I don't want to do drugs so no one should".  You did the same thing in the thread about the auto bailout.  You're a joke poster with nothing to offer.

You are utterly bullsh**t talking now.

You haven't gave any argument other then the typical "free will" and let "people decide" libertarian playbook.   You can't even reply to the workforce argument, or why are you going to sell drugs in my  community?  with a "license dealer" so you say.   Its I smoke dope, so it must be good for everybody else.  Strict laws?   You want lessen the workforce drug rules?   If you are going to say I'm just using the typical anti drug argument, then atleast lay down another way instead of just lay and wait nonsense.

What are you doing bring up the bailout thread?   Stop referring to Franzl tactics and grow some balls of your own.

[paul718]

Because driving your car on a public highway that quickly puts others in danger.  Sitting in your basement smoking pot does not.  It's a personal choice that you have no right to make for others.I don't think the tone you're taking with Earth makes any sense.  You are attacking him for weakness in his arguments?  You made one argument in an extended discussion with me on the same thing.

What about the drugged up construction worker who just killed a fellow worker by overturning the roller because he was high on meth or coke?

Then that drugged-up construction worker gets convicted of reckless manslaughter and goes to jail for a very long time.

My opinion: all drugs should be legal, but regulated under public health laws.

[Earth]

Went back and reviewed all of your replies and you haven't posted and plan or numbers of why we should make hard drugs legal other then... "People should be able to do what they want"

Do you know why? Because my argument doesn't rely on statements like "The facts show...", or "Once the evidence is in". If I reference concrete evidence in order to further my argument, I'll provide links and citations, not silly phrases like the ones you've used.

My argument is hardly based on hedonism, if you've read what I've written, you'll see my point is the way things are working currently, with drugs being illegal, too many people are going to prison for what should be a personal choice. My argument is not about letting everyone do anything they want, it's about the very real consequences of out dated laws.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but right now I own a pretty fast car.  1993 mustang cobra 5.0 5 speed with some nice mods done and it runs 11.5's in the 1/4. I would love to take my car and get on the highway and just bang through the gears until I reach 130MPH without getting a ticket, but guess what.... I CAN'T!!

Comparing no speed limit to freedom to use drugs is cheap. By driving any which you like you endanger other people's lives. By ingesting or inhaling a drug, a person is only responsible for themselves. Maybe you can't grasp this distinction.

You keep saying I’ve not posted any facts, yet the same is true of you.  It's playing on the ideal that everything in this country should be free and no limits.  My main simple argument for drugs is:  (and please write it down, so I want hear you say I have no stance other than just hot air)   legalizing dangerous drugs will surely lead to increased use and abuse – a trend that could pose problems as severe or worse than those created by the drug war you wish to dismiss. 

The difference between our arguments is I don't get bogged down in silly phrases, or simply saying "The evidence". If need be, I'll provide statistics, about chemistry, the economics of the war on drugs, health effects, etc, but I won't simply bring up the idea of evidence without actually backing up my argument.

By misrepresenting, rather dishonestly, my argument as being about "everything being free" it's very hard to take you seriously. I've never once characterized your argument as anything, the only adjective I've used is "conservative". I would appreciate you showing me the same sense of civility as I show you.

As for your second statement, you could believe legalizing drugs would lead to an increase in use, but we wouldn't know until we actually try. Reform will only go so far, unless the actual root of the problem is sorted. Until then, this plague (yes, plague) will continue to exist.

One of you said before “There is no correlation between drug use and societal failure” Yes there is The black community. I remember how the crack wave in the 1980s pretty much dismantled black poor communities.

Meaning exactly what, that inner city blacks are only in the trouble their in because of drugs? On top of their vicious addiction, they have to now put up with being arrested for possession or resorting to dealing, which is also a big problem, combined with addiction. Even the lack of an affordable rehabilitation program is another giant negative. We're at this point because you're not considering the myriad problems, many of which have to do with drug's legal status. 

Your standard reply is going to be:  Well if the drugs were legal there wouldn't have been a problem.   Ok, but you've never explained how your ideal of making drugs legal would help.

No, you're misunderstanding what I've been saying. My point has always been that by simply having drugs be illegal, we are adding to the problem, not that simple legalization would fix the black community's problems. I've explained how making drugs legal helps, it's in this thread.

Other then "licensed dealers" would sell drugs    As a half black American I can't help but ask  Why do I want the Gov and their "licensed dealers" selling drugs in my already drug riddled community? We are lucky if one of ours is able to make it in school and past gangs, but now Uncle Sam wants dealers selling right up the street like some ABC Store.   Please explain this part?

Who said "licensed dealers"? I didn't. I said if drugs were to become legal, anyone could now sell without the threat of imprisonment. A person could now make a legitimate business out of growing marijuana, or producing other drugs.

(I've gone over the post maximum, part II below)