Conquer Club

Dekloren wrote:If you want real information, don't go to wiki.

You're right, people should be going to unbiased non-agenda sites such as loosechange.com and frothingconspiracytheoriesrus.org

EDIT: Goddam... fastposted

khazalid wrote:

greenoaks wrote:
have medical staff/scientists assess the damage that those drugs do. have actuaries calculate the cost of future medical services that need to be provided because of said damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

what point are you trying to make ?

You guys are pathetic.

heavycola wrote:
As Snorri said, I never said MDMA was benign. You should have read my post, really. I have known a few heavy E users and they knew they weren't doing themselves any favours. But the vast majority of users I know do so ocasionally and with full knowledge and responsibility, and it hasn't harmed any of them one iota.

When you say 'the opium problem in china' what do you mean? Lots of people are addicted? Again, read my post. Heroin, in itself, is a benign drug. To suggest otherwise is wrong.

there are two poles of opinion on this subject, neither of which is entirely correct. dont subscribe blithely to the latter just because its anti-authoritarian. if you ever tried coming down real heavy you'll know its neither A nor B. sincerely, a casual partaker

I am not subscribing blithely to anything. And i can't be patronised that easily, so please do not put words or motives in my mouth.
My argument was to legalise these drugs and bring them under regulatory control. That's all. i couldn't give a f*ck about anti-authoritarianism, but I do think that taking one's moral guidance from a government is pathetic.

its a reflex action to the wave of anti-authoritarianism on the internet i think. it has become a cliche of itself in too many ways, im sick of seeing people talking about chomsky pretending they actually grasp the theories and bringing the rest of us down with them. but judge not lest ye be judged as the saying goes.

see this link for some of schaffer's work on the history of opium in china

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/om/om15.htm

and the exponential growth in numbers etc. he casts the emperor as a little more philanthropic than he most likely was, but the crux of the intonation is clear.

see also the netherlands suffering in the wake of decades of permissiveness and lax policy re: heroin and opium use.

greenoaks wrote:

khazalid wrote:

greenoaks wrote:
have medical staff/scientists assess the damage that those drugs do. have actuaries calculate the cost of future medical services that need to be provided because of said damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

what point are you trying to make ?

That you're an utilitarianist.

Snorri1234 wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

khazalid wrote:

greenoaks wrote:
have medical staff/scientists assess the damage that those drugs do. have actuaries calculate the cost of future medical services that need to be provided because of said damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

what point are you trying to make ?

That you're an utilitarianist.

yes, that what you said was essentially a classical utilitarian argument and has been chewed over for the last 100 years

Dekloren wrote:You guys are pathetic.

And the same to you good sir.

ok, i got excited and read it but could not find any mention that he had already done the research.

my position is that people are doing these drugs and placing an ever increasing demand on our medical resources but are not contributing to them.

i consider myself a 'user pays' guy. that if possible the user of the services provided should pay for those services. or at least contribute to them.

Whatever you say, clown!

Go dance with your mustard!

its a fine stance to take, the problem lies in actually calculating how much 'heroin costs society' and whether criminalisation is a net + or -. mill believed that everything could be given a social value and that society should function according to what was the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

khazalid wrote:see also the netherlands suffering in the wake of decades of permissiveness and lax policy re: heroin and opium use.

This would be a good point if it wasn't so far from the truth. The amount of new heroin-addicts has been decreasing every year. It's perceived as a drugs for losers, due to the fact we've had extensive teachings about the effects of drugs in highschool. It's the same effect that our extensive sex-ed has had on us, since the Netherlands has one of the lowest teen-pregnancy rates in the world.

Also, heroin and other opiates are illegal here. You get big sentences for smuggling them still. The drug-policy in the netherlands is pretty retarded anyway. I can buy weed, smoke weed and shit, but I can't grow it for something else than personal use and I can't smuggle it. This still leaves open the door for the criminals, as normal people do not want to risk the sentences.

The amount of 18-year olds who have smoked marijuana in their lifetime in the netherlands is lower than in the USA, as is the amount of regular users. The fact that it's basically legal here has taken away the rebellious aspect of it. Kids don't do it to look cool anymore

Marijuana is illegal????

Snorri1234 wrote:

khazalid wrote:see also the netherlands suffering in the wake of decades of permissiveness and lax policy re: heroin and opium use.

This would be a good point if it wasn't so far from the truth. The amount of new heroin-addicts has been decreasing every year.

in recent times owing to tightening both of government policy and social attitudes towards it. i suggest you research how long it has been decreasing for and then tell me if that time frame correlates with any particular government policy

I really don't get the mindset behind keeping marijuana illegal. To make it illegal is to say that anything mildly dangerous, no matter how fun, should not be allowed.

Napoleon Ier wrote:I would support legalization of drugs if and only if semi-automatics were legalized and drugs with hallucinogenic effects were banned from public places.

why do you have a dixie flag as your avatar?

that's incredibly offensive.

oh, and by the way, the south lost the war, because the south is weaker, more pathetic, and full of worthless racists who were so lazy they wanted other people to do their work for them, without being paid.

and go so upset when those of us in the North said they shouldn't anymore, they were willing to fight a war over it.

you lost the war. take down your damn flag, you racist.

khazalid wrote:its a fine stance to take, the problem lies in actually calculating how much 'heroin costs society' and whether criminalisation is a net + or -. mill believed that everything could be given a social value and that society should function according to what was the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

i don't care about what gives the greatest good for the greatest number of people. my views are a bit different.

in my country the taxes on alcohol, tobacco & petrol are much higher than is put on other products. that extra tax revenue is then used to fund roads, schools, hospitals, etc. i don't see why we can't legalise and tax it like we do those products.

i think we can all agree that there is a lot of money in illegal drugs so why not milk it for public infrastructure.

Khaz, I must ask whether you've read the article hc posted?

khazalid wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

khazalid wrote:see also the netherlands suffering in the wake of decades of permissiveness and lax policy re: heroin and opium use.

This would be a good point if it wasn't so far from the truth. The amount of new heroin-addicts has been decreasing every year.

in recent times owing to tightening both of government policy and social attitudes towards it. i suggest you research how long it has been decreasing for and then tell me if that time frame correlates with any particular government policy

Your point was that the netherlands is suffering from some perceived drug-problem due to not enforcing drug-policy enough. It doesn't.

However, it also fails to address the actual question in this thread. i.e. would it be better to legalize all drugs instead of banning them?

^^ exactly.

People take heroin, people become addicted to heroin. It IS physiologically benign, although fiercely addictive. It is also widely and easily available to anyone that wants it. The 'war on drugs' has failed and will always fail.

The point:
Would it be better therefore for addicts to get their heroin from state-regulated sources? Yes. Obviously. The same goes for every recreational drug.

So, why legalize more harmful substances to the general populace? Almost sounding like "Brave New World." Everyone takes drugs, of one caliber or another, just to feel "good." So, no thanks.

And here I was thinking that Socialism was supposed to take care of people (from your points of view anyways), not put them into harms way that much more. Sure, some people may use it in "moderation," but not very many.

And no, I don't do alcohol or tobacco. The only drug that I do is one for my allergies, which is kind of in a different category.

Cola's absolutely right about the criminalisation of society.
You don't see too many pub landlords killing each other in drive bys, do you?
If ALL drugs were legalised, the crime ravaged streets of Brixton, Tower Hamlets (and I guess the whole of the North ) would be a hell of a lot safer.

The only problem I really see is that current research on addiction is still in its infancy.Would legalising drugs create more addicts? Some say no, and after all an awful lot of people in the UK don't do any drugs at all-they would be unlikely to start now.
But I think of myself when I was younger-if I could have bought ecstasy in the shops, then I would have been fucked 24/7.

Thinking about it...

As Cola said, the really important thing though is to have a rational debate, and really educate people as to the pros and cons.
Cannabis should definitely be legalised, as (I'm guessing) prob. around 1/5th of the population are slightly stoned as we speak.
Got to eat crumpets.

muy_thaiguy wrote:So, why legalize more harmful substances to the general populace?

Because:
A.) Not all of them are actually harmfull. In fact, many of them would be less harmfull if legalized.
B.) They're already here anyway. I can get a big bag of cocaine or xtc with just a single phonecall, so "The War on Drugs" has failed. Legalizing will give the government more money as they won't spend anything on fighting against drugs and they can earn it by selling it (or at least put taxes on them).

Almost sounding like "Brave New World." Everyone takes drugs, of one caliber or another, just to feel "good." So, no thanks.

Why would everyone use drugs? They don't now, and making it legal won't change it.

And here I was thinking that Socialism was supposed to take care of people (from your points of view anyways), not put them into harms way that much more.

It is not harms way!
Besides, we're not communists. We actually believe in personal freedom. If anything, you should support this as it guarantees the government has less of a say in what you do to your own body.

Sure, some people may use it in "moderation," but not very many.

Other way around. Most people use heavily addictive drugs (alcohol and pot) in moderation, while some will not.

good point snorri: The experiment has laready been run. We all have unlimited, legal access to one of the most destructive and addictive drugs of all; and while it is the cause of many social porblems it is also a huge revenue generator and used in moderation by the majority.

So how will people respond to legalisation? Well, look at booze today.

Making drugs illegal is one of the stupidest things any Congress of the U.S. has done on social issues, next to Prohibition. My view on it is that if people want to go ahead and destroy their lives go right ahead and let them. Of course we'd have to have safeguards for other people's safety, just like we do with drunk driving, but what's wrong with having opium dens where someone can go and get high for a few hours. The outlawing of drugs has only made the prices of them go higher because the smugglers suddenly have to avoid the law, which in turn makes addicts get involved in crime so they can pay for their next fix.

snorri, my point was that the hard drug problem in the netherlands has only eased in recent times due to policy reform. it is misguided to say that it is now non-existent too. population of 16.5 million with an estimated 50000 confirmed heroin addicts. further to this, a brief saunter round de Wallen will reveal to you quite how easy it is to procure, lest you are in the backwater part : P