How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 The legalization of recreational drugs   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The legalization of recreational drugs

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Caelestis
Junior Member
since 12-10-2002
[First Post] 14
Canada


0 posted 12-10-2002 02:55 AM       View Profile for Caelestis   Email Caelestis   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Caelestis

What is it about our country that sets it apart from others in the world?  Freedom, many would say.  Our citizens have the right to make their own decisions, without being oppressed by the government.  This is not entirely true.

It is obvious that every society needs a government in order to function, and every government must pass laws in order to maintain the society and to ensure that the rights of its citizens are not violated.  Surely, each law that has been passed by our government was done so in with the intent of inhibiting the violation of one citizen by another?  Not so!
While many of our laws were made for this purpose, there are undoubtedly such things as victimless crimes.  I will focus on the topic of recreational drugs.

I will separate recreational drugs into two categories: the first,  the contents of which I believe should be legalized, contains drugs that have been proven not to be highly addictive, physically.  Some examples are cannabis and “magic mushrooms”.  The second category, of course, contains the drugs, such as heroine and cocaine, which have been proven to cause extreme physical addiction.

When a person, who is of appropriate age and mental ability to rationally decide whether or not the benefits of recreational drugs (the obvious benefit being pleasure) outweigh the potential health risks, decides to consume one of these substances, there is no victim created.  The rights of another citizen are not violated – is it the government’s place to protect these individuals from themselves?  Ideally, our noble protectors, the government, should thoroughly research the long term effects of these drugs, make the information accessible to everyone, and then give it’s citizens the right to make their own decision, rather than treating everyone in the country like a  child.  

Why, then, should we not also have the right to consume physically addictive drugs?  I believe a fairly accurate comparison would be to the concept of legalizing intoxicated driving.  In each case, while it is rarely the intention of the individual to cause harm to others, this is too often the case.  The drug addict may turn to crime in order to fund their habit, and the drunk driver may accidentally kill another person.

I would love to have the freedom to make my own decision on recreational drugs. However, I would gladly give up my right to consume physically addictive drugs in order to moderate the crime rate.

[This message has been edited by Caelestis (12-10-2002 03:00 AM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


1 posted 12-10-2002 11:18 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

While I might agree that drugs should be legalized - and then regulated - I'm not sure I'm willing to accept your classification system. A drug is a drug is a drug, and I've seen no conclusive evidence that the psychological addiction of marijuana is any less dangerous to society than the physical addiction of heroine. In both instances, I've seen people do "really bad things" to support their habit.

Should governments protect people from themselves? Within limits, yes. That's why 12-year-olds can't go bar-hopping, you can't drive a hundred miles an hour even if you're the only car on the road, and no one can legally commit suicide. It's not so much a matter of "should" the government as it is "when should" the government. Personally, I have a bigger problem with seat belt laws than I do with drug laws.

In my opinion, the problem with current drug laws isn't that they're unjustifiable, but rather that they're unenforceable. It's at least reasonably difficult for a 16-year-old to buy whiskey in the Western world because the supply of whiskey is highly regulated. There's no black market to speak of because there's no high profits to justify the risk. Until we control the supply of ALL recreational drugs in a similar manner, the law is impotent to stop drug use in the home, and what happens in the home inevitably spreads outside the home. Any law that can't be enforced weakens even those that can.

Oh, and BTW, I would most certainly classify alcohol right up there with marijuana and heroine, but would cite current practice as only the BEGINNING of the regulation we need for recreational drugs. In other words, I don't think legalization should necessarily make it easier to get wasted. Just more controllable.
Caelestis
Junior Member
since 12-10-2002
Posts 14
Canada


2 posted 12-10-2002 05:19 PM       View Profile for Caelestis   Email Caelestis   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Caelestis

"When a person, who is of appropriate age and mental ability to rationally decide" -- therefore 12 years olds are excluded from my arguement.  Obviously people who are that young are not wise enough to make a lot of decisions for themselves. However, do you believe that you need to be protected from yourself, being an adult (I assume) of reasonable intelligence, by the government?

You mentioned that you believe marijuana addicts may be as dangerous to society as heroine addicts.  I disagree.  First of all, marijuana, because it causes no physical withdrawl symptoms, is far easier to quit than drugs such as heroine or nicotine.  It's also a lot cheaper, and therefore an addict is less likely to need to resort to crime in order to feed their addiction.  Finally, you cannot become more addicted to a drug like marijuana than you can to a favorite food, or a video game.  If one person turned to crime to support his lobster addiction, would you support the criminalization of sea food?

I would place alcohol on the list of drugs which I believe should remain legal, because although it can cause physical addiction, and studies have shown it is in fact more damaging to your health than cannabis, it is no where near as addictive as heroine or cocaine.

[This message has been edited by Caelestis (12-10-2002 05:24 PM).]

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


3 posted 12-10-2002 05:34 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

What this all boils down to is the difference between legislating actual actions and potential reactions.

I had this argument with my boyfriend the other day.

In regards to the seat belt thing- he made a very good point. What about the un-belted person in the backseat who flies forward and snaps my neck?

What about the potential risk to others?

I also feel that drugs should be legalized and regulated... but it opens a whole can of worms. Where do regulations end? Should a single mother of two be allowed to take herion, considering the possibility of addiction, negligence, and irrational actions?

What about the same concerns, with alcohol?

There's no question that anybody can get drugs.

There's also no question that our government allows the sale of addictive and unhealthy drugs- tobacco being one, alcohol being another.

There's also no question that people can easily bypass regulations on controlled substances- it's not hard, for example, to ge oxycontin prescriptions from several doctors and take them to several different pharmacies. It's also not hard to mix and match Rx drugs with alcohol, other Rx, or OTC's to enhance a desired effect.

Laws just make it a little more tedious.

While I agree that it makes infinite sense to legalize, control, and eliminate the black market, there are also questions that I can't answer, making me question my own position:

What about children of drug users? By legalization, do we condone negligence? Is it better to condemn something that we can't enforce, or simply say that it's okay to do?

Is it okay for the government to legalize drugs that are severely addictive, and very harmful to our bodies? If we legalize one, do we legalize them all?

Do we draw lines?

What about national morality? Can we justify legalizing something if a majority of Americans is morally against it?

?
Caelestis
Junior Member
since 12-10-2002
Posts 14
Canada


4 posted 12-10-2002 05:56 PM       View Profile for Caelestis   Email Caelestis   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Caelestis

If a parent's use of recreational drugs negatively affects their children, then their right to raise children should be taken away, as in such a case, victimization does in fact occur.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


5 posted 12-10-2002 06:48 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Caelestis, when you agree that a 12-year-old doesn't fall under the mandate of "appropriate age and mental ability," you only open a new can of worms. You're admitting that "some people" can't make their own decisions, but apparently assuming we can agree on which ones. In my opinion, a twenty-something person who has yet to come face to face with his own mortality is as poorly equipped to make those decisions as the 12-year-old. I can say that because I used to be twenty-something and thought I would live forever. How's this sound for a compromise? You're old enough to make those decisions AFTER you've watched your parents die from the bad decisions they made?

Again, I actually agree with your conclusion, but not with your logic. Marijuana is easier to kick than heroin? Sure. And for the same exact reasons, it's also easier to completely avoid. But people do neither. And yes, if I saw as many people addicted to lobster as I do to pot, I would definitely think it needs to be better controlled. Especially if I knew it affected the way they did their jobs or drove their cars.

Hush, most of the scenarios you outline are, indeed, the difference between actual actions and potential reactions. Should a single mother of two be allowed to take heroin? I've often asked myself if a single mother of two should be allowed to work two jobs - until I met one that did and still managed to spend more time with her kids than most stay-at-home mothers manage to do. If a mother is negligent, we need to regulate the negligence and not what we perceive to be the cause of the negligence. 'Cause you know what? Take away a mother's heroin and I have a sneaky suspicion she'd find another reason to neglect her kids. In my experience, drugs influence decisions. They do NOT influence morals.

Again, I'm not suggesting that the legalization of drugs should make getting drugs easy. On the contrary, it should make it a whole lot harder. We can do that, I think, by simply making it cheaper. Take the profit out of the black market and the black market will disappear.

"Can we justify legalizing something if a majority of Americans is morally against it?" Absolutely! The law should exist only to protect its citizens, not to dictate morality. I know it doesn't always seem like it, but sometimes that principal actually prevails, too. When was the last time you saw class in a public school start with a prayer? That's one of those all too rare instances where protection of the citizens has superceded the will of the majority. As it should.
Caelestis
Junior Member
since 12-10-2002
Posts 14
Canada


6 posted 12-11-2002 12:52 AM       View Profile for Caelestis   Email Caelestis   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Caelestis

When I say that a 12 year old is not capable, I mean on average. Surely, there are some exceptions, as there would be to any age limit.  However, the age of 18 is required here in Canada to consume alcohol, and that seems like a good place to draw the line.
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


7 posted 12-11-2002 03:01 AM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

Having been 18, I can say that's not old enough to start making life-affecting decisions. Of course, I didn't believe that when I was 18, and I think most don't.

Of course, I'm almost 29 now and sometimes still feel I'm not old enough.
Jaime
Unregistered


Purgatorial Incarceration


8 posted 12-11-2002 09:20 AM       Edit/Delete Message     View IP for Jaime

Just thought I'd say.. it's pretty easy for me to get my hands on weed, E, and heroine - all of which are sold at my school or the schools near by. (There's deinately more, but I don't know of them because I don't use drugs. My friend Sheena could give you a list though.) When I was 14 I was temporarily selling E to help a friend out.

My point is that you say that it'd be for people of an appropriate age, but there's nothing that says people who aren't at that point won't get their hands on it. It seems like legalizing it would make it even easier... I could get a few of my older friends to hook me up the way they have in the past with cigarettes and alcohol.

I'm not arguing one point or another, but I just thought I'd bring that up. As a kid I thought perhaps I could offer something from this perspective. I'm not good at this arguing stuff anyway.  

Oh, and for kids.. I hope we're counting psychological damage too. If I saw my mother snorting and injecting something... well, I have enough of a problem seeing them drunk. Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but I don't think that's something a kid needs to deal with. Their friends may do it, but their parents are.. well, their parents.


i was here

[This message has been edited by Jaime (12-11-2002 09:32 AM).]

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


9 posted 12-11-2002 10:21 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

'In my experience, drugs influence decisions. They do NOT influence morals.'

Ron, you are absolutely right. But in the case of the negligent mother, her primary reason for being negligent (in this scenario) is that she's too strung out to know anything from anything. You can't demand that a woman who is sky high (not that I know what it's like to take heroin, but that's always been the impression I get) cook a decent meal for her kids, if she has trouble even standing.

The same, of course, applies to a drunk-as-a-skunk mother swigging rum and telling her kids to throw some easy-mac in.

How can you properly regulate negligence without regulating the 'perceived' cause of it, even when the direct effect of that cause is negligence?

And, Caelestis, how do you know what recreational drug use negatively affects children? Sure, you could say ask them, but you could get the answer that they know lets them stay with their mother... adn what about kids that are too young to ask? How do you legislate that?

Back to Ron-

'"Can we justify legalizing something if a majority of Americans is morally against it?" Absolutely!'

Then why aren't gay marriages allowed in all 50 states? Because a majority of people think it's amoral. Why is prostitution illegal? People perceive sexually provocative women as amoral.

'The law should exist only to protect its citizens, not to dictate morality.'

I agree with you, but it still boils down to how dangerous drugs are, and whether the government should just be protecting other citizens from you, or you from yourself.

Chris,

'Having been 18, I can say that's not old enough to start making life-affecting decisions.'

Ironic, because I think that choosing a college major is (practically speaking) much more life affecting than deciding to have a few drinks.

Jaime-

you make a good point about psychological damage- but in a society where that kind of behavior is legal, would is affect you the same way? In a society where drugs aren't stigmatized, the actual act of our parents doing them probably wouldn't traumatize us so...

But what about the kid who's stuck wiping up their parents' vomit? The kid who has to call 911 when their parents overdose? The kid who has to put school on the backburner because they are so preoccupied with taking core of parents that makes themselves (and keep themselves) sick?

[This message has been edited by hush (12-11-2002 10:22 AM).]

Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


10 posted 12-11-2002 10:56 AM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

Hush - I don't disagree with you for a second. I've come to believe that many things we ask an 18-year-old to choose are things they're not ready or equipped to do.

I can't even count the amount of people I know who either didn't know what they wanted to do with their lives when they were 18, or changed it multiple times afterward, or regretted what they did choose at a later time in life when they were 'stuck' in the midst of the results from those choices.

18 is the arbitrary age of an adult drawn from older times when life held fewer choices and responsibilities differed.
Jaime
Unregistered


Purgatorial Incarceration


11 posted 12-11-2002 07:44 PM       Edit/Delete Message     View IP for Jaime

There'd still be a transition period. No one wakes up one morning and suddenly has no problem with drugs/alcohol/smoking/etc. Whether something is common or not it can still be psychologically damaging. It was common for me to be sexually abused when I was younger.. does that mean if suddenly older people were allowed to molest young children we wouldn't be damaged by it?

And as for those kids who have to wipe up their parents vomit and such.. yes, what about them? I think it just pushes the point further. Shouldn't we be dealing with these problems instead of trying to find idealistic ways around them?

I'm sorry, but I just think that legalizing drugs would make the problem worse. I see the points made about the black market and such, but I feel that no matter what the motives are of the government the majority of people will handle it differently. The individual perhaps is capable of making rational decisions. The majority? No. I just don't trust the majority.


Life is where you look for it.

[This message has been edited by Jaime (12-11-2002 07:48 PM).]

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


12 posted 12-11-2002 09:58 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

'I'm sorry, but I just think that legalizing drugs would make the problem worse. I see the points made about the black market and such, but I feel that no matter what the motives are of the government the majority of people will handle it differently.'

Jaime, I think one of the main points here is that anybody can get drugs. Anybody can get on the internet and become an expert. People can order drugs online- I'm not sure about more standard illegal drugs making it through, but I now people can order Rx (like narcotics) from the internet.

The question I'm posing is whether it is better for our government to condone the negative aspects of drugs, but hold some control, or to stick to laws they can't effectively enforce.

'The individual perhaps is capable of making rational decisions. The majority? No. I just don't trust the majority.'

But the decision-making still falls on the individual. A people doesn't do drugs- individuals do.
Jaime
Unregistered


Ohio, USA


13 posted 12-12-2002 12:28 AM       Edit/Delete Message     View IP for Jaime

I just don't think legalizing drugs would make laws regarding drugs any more effective.

I feel that if you want to correct something then you take it piece by piece.. you don't throw in the towel.

Throwing in the towel.. yeah, that would be the majority.

Life is where you look for it.

fractal007
Member Elite
since 06-01-2000
Posts 2032


14 posted 12-12-2002 12:29 AM       View Profile for fractal007   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for fractal007

I think we might like to turn to the original poster's counterargument.  He/she reminds us that there is indeed a danger that the drug addict might choose to pursue crime in order to support his addiction.  Legalized or not, drugs will always have that problem attatched to them.  Perhaps we could emulate the crime associated with drug addiction by obtaining funding for the procurement of drugs for the citizenry of Canada through taxes.  That way the general populous could suffer equally instead of just the unfortunate few who are victims of crime.

As far as the party line about the government being oppressive is concerned, I think that those who make statements like that might like to visit a country in which there exists a real oppressive government.

I have been reading this thread and found it quite interesting.  I hadn't thought of the problems associated with parents being drug users before.

"If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh"

-- Magus

Jaime
Unregistered




15 posted 12-12-2002 12:36 AM       Edit/Delete Message     View IP for Jaime

When I said majority I meant that in terms of a society. Society is shallow, plastic, and cold. The government may have good intentions, but as a society those intentions would be lost. Something less ideal would take it's place.

Life is where you look for it.

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


16 posted 12-12-2002 01:33 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Jaime

'I feel that if you want to correct something then you take it piece by piece.. you don't throw in the towel.'

But you have to think about it this way- there are two sides to this fight. It's not universally accepted that drugs are bad- or else so many people wouldn't do them. Some people don't think the 'correction' of the 'drug problem' is the cessation of drug use.

I don't think drugs are a bad thing, I think, if used responsibly, that it's perfectly acceptable.

The problem that I personally see is this- how do you legislate responsible? And, once again, is this responsibility in terms of how you affect others, or your responsibility to yourself?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


17 posted 12-12-2002 02:09 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

"I don't think drugs are a bad thing, I think, if used responsibly, that it's perfectly acceptable."


Hush,

Can you realistically concieve PCP, Heroine, or Crack Cocaine being used "responsibly"?


Stephen

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-12-2002 02:11 AM).]

Caelestis
Junior Member
since 12-10-2002
Posts 14
Canada


18 posted 12-12-2002 03:08 AM       View Profile for Caelestis   Email Caelestis   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Caelestis

Christopher:
While I agree that many 18 year olds are not responsible to make these sort of decisions, I do believe that many, including myself, are very capable.
The appropriate age, however, does not seem to be the issue, it’s whether or not an appropriate age exists.

Jaime:
You’re right, if an age limit were set, people under the age would most likely be able to acquire drugs through those who are older than the minimum.  However, these people would probably still manage to get their hands on these drugs illegally, otherwise.  The difference is that if the drugs were legal, they’d almost certainly be safe (not laced or anything of that nature), and the money would go to the government rather than gangsters.

Hush and Jaime:
In my country, Canada, we have a government organization called Child and Family Services.  I’m sure the USA has a similar organization.  It’s the responsibility of these people to ensure to the best of their ability that children receive proper care.  If a parent is neglectful, then they will have their children taken away.  People who would neglect their children would do so for another reason if they could not blame recreational drugs.  Are we to prohibit the entire population from drug use because their legalization may slightly increase the incidence of child neglect? I don’t believe it would make enough of a difference, and if I did, then I would believe we should also ban alcohol.

Fractal007:
I would be very strongly opposed to the government providing drugs to people using tax dollars.  If someone wants to consume recreational drugs, they should pay for them at their own expense, and if it can be proven that it affected their health, then they should have to pay for their own health care (in Canada health care is free for anyone – just a note for anyone who didn’t know that).
I’d imagine the number of drug users would dramatically increase if the government gave drugs away for free.

“As far as the party line about the government being oppressive is concerned, I think that those who make statements like that might like to visit a country in which there exists a real oppressive government.”

While I believe the governments of Canada and the USA are much better and less oppressive than those of the majority of the world’s nations, this does not mean that they could still not be improved, and that we should just be happy with what we have, and not try to make our country better.

Stephanos:
I can't see many people using such drugs responsibly.  However, I do believe it is possible to use these drugs occasionally and in moderation, without causing harm to others.  I'm not saying that I necessarily believe it's a good idea to experiment with drugs as dangerous as those listed.

[This message has been edited by Caelestis (12-12-2002 03:10 AM).]

fractal007
Member Elite
since 06-01-2000
Posts 2032


19 posted 12-12-2002 09:14 AM       View Profile for fractal007   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for fractal007

"While I believe the governments of Canada and the USA are much better and less oppressive than those of the majority of the world’s nations, this does not mean that they could still not be improved, and that we should just be happy with what we have, and not try to make our country better."

Indeed, we should be trying to make our country better.  My only opposition to the legalization of, at least, Marijuana is the crime factor.  We need to improve our country both by finding some way to allow people to indulge in this drug while at the same time curbing the crime committed by some of its users.  Government isn't always the only thing responsible for making a country worse off than it ought to be.  

"If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh"

-- Magus

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


20 posted 12-12-2002 10:02 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Stephan-

My whole point throughout this post has been that if drugs were legalized, the regulation of drug use would be very messy.

Can I conceive of herion, PCP, or crack being used responsibly? I guess if there were isolation booths to protect others from one's potentially violent actions, yes. This, of course, is without considering after-effects, addiction, and withdrawal...

Do people who use these drugs illegal use them responsibly?

I never said that legalization is the east answer- but drug laws are inneffective. Drugs are easy to get. Why perpetuate a 'war on drugs' that can't be won, and furthemore, maybe shouldn't even be fought?

Caelestis-

I know plenty of children that I grew up with, and people I know now, who were neglected or even abused as children, but not 'taken away.' Why? How many kids do you know that are willing to call the authorities and ask to be taken to some remote foster home, essentially volunterring to be orphans? A lot of neglected children still love their parents, and the line of 'neglect' is a fuzzy one... how about latchkey kids? Should they be taken from their parents? How do you draw that line? How do you enforce it?

'People who would neglect their children would do so for another reason if they could not blame recreational drugs.'

I'm not so sure I agree with this. Sometimes drug use starts out mild, but as addiction takes over, the person would be essentially disabled as a parent. I truly don't believe most people intend to neglect their kids, or even believe that they are doing so.

And what about older kids, when it's not so much an issue of neglect? Or what about when it becomes an issue of health, and a parent becomes physically incapable of caring for themselves?

To play the I-lived-this card, which I usually avoid, when I was 16 I had to call 911 for my mother who had overdosed on Darvocet she had ordered from overseas (I forget where). Do you know what it's like to be told, in the span of a few seconds, "I've been abusing drugs for years, and now if you don't pick up the phone to save me from myself I'm going to die." Do you know what 28 Darvocet does to a person? My mother has never been neglectful, and I love her dearly, but do you have any idea how that feels? How it feels to tell her doctors what happenned, and be reprimanded by my uncle for potentially getting her in trouble? What it's like to have to sign papers and make decisions for my parent when she codes and lands in ICU for two weeks on a respirator?

Do you know what it's like when this is a monthly occurence? Do you know what it's like to eyeball a parent suspciously, noting her dry mouth and her level of coherence constantly? To rummage through sock drawers and closets like a cop raiding a junkie's place? To deal with the role reversal, and the worry, and juggling a job and hospital trips and school without even the time to concern yourself with yourself? To check your bank account and see 600 dollars missing? To sit there helplessly when your belligerent and oxygen-deprived mother rants about things only she sees, and throws a fit about going to the hospital? What it's like to try to drag an addict away from oxycontin? To find drugs she'd smuggle into the hospital? Do you know what it's like to listen to her lie to her doctors about her habits, to listen to her lie to you about quitting, only to find another stash the next time around? What it's like to want to believe someone when you know you can't?

Her drugs of choice were all legal. I say were because I'm in a phase of believing her. Because I haven't found drugs in her room for a long time, and because she really seems to have quit smoking. But, do you know what it's like to this day to bite my tongue when I see that her doctor has prescribed her oxycontin for pain? What it's like to wrestle with whether her pain legitimately rationalizes the use of narcotics she's addicted to? Whether, even if her use of them is legitimate now, it will become abuse again?

Replace Darvocet with legally obtained heroin. My problems sound like child's play.

But, then again, replace Darvocet with illegally obtained heroin.

So, where's the solution? Do we condone this, or legislate against it in vain?

[This message has been edited by hush (12-12-2002 10:05 AM).]

Dark Enchantress
Senior Member
since 07-27-99
Posts 1460
meet Morgana


21 posted 12-12-2002 05:29 PM       View Profile for Dark Enchantress   Email Dark Enchantress   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Dark Enchantress's Home Page   View IP for Dark Enchantress

quote:
"But you have to think about it this way- there are two sides to this fight. It's not universally accepted that drugs are bad- or else so many people wouldn't do them. Some people don't think the 'correction' of the 'drug problem' is the cessation of drug use."


But the fact remains that drugs are/can be harmful to a person's health. It's not about morals. It's about respecting your body. (I'm not complaining about piercings or tattoos with that little statement either.)

I think that if the government truly could regulate and control drugs then go for it. I definately do think that a more aggressive action needs to take place.

Hmm.. didn't mean to use this screen name. Whoops.

Jaime


Sanity is in itself enough to make you insane.

[This message has been edited by Dark Enchantress (12-12-2002 05:31 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


22 posted 12-13-2002 12:11 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Just wondering if anyone knows statistically...

Since Alcohol is legal and Heroin is not... Are there more alcoholics than Heroin addicts?  Has the law in the least curbed the incidence of people trying Heroin?  I wonder if alcohol were illegal if we would have less alcoholics though a black market might still exist.


I have a hard time believing in "Victimless Crimes", and where I stand now, is that drugs should not be legal.  The same line of reasoning could be given for embezzling money from well-to-do corporations.  If they are rich, is it really hurting them?  Drugs hurt family members, friends, neighbors and society in general.  Just because laws aren't completely effective is not a sufficient argument for me.  Anti-homicide laws are not completely effective at stopping murders either.




Stephen.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


23 posted 12-13-2002 12:41 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Following that logic, Stephen, we should have laws against golf. There are a lot of men I know who use golf to neglect wife and family. It can even lead to divorce and broken homes.

The truth is, there are a whole lot of "things" that hurt people and society in the same way that irresponsible use of drug and alcohol abuse do. Peripherally. In fact, just about ANYTHING that is used irresponsibly is harmful to society. Golf, for sure. McDonald's is a prime candidate, as well as any other fast food outfit (fat kills more people every year than alcohol and cigarettes combined). We definitely should consider getting those cars off the road, don't you think? Come to think of it, if you haven't been to the gym this week you should probably face a stiff fine or something?

Unless you intend to stick a needle in someone else's arm, the drugs you buy will hurt no one but yourself. That's a victimless crime. If you believe the use of drugs contributes to, say, child abuse, I think you're wrong. Drugs and alcohol do NOT impair morality. The driver who is willing to drive drunk tonight is the same driver you'll see tomorrow morning with a cell phone or putting on makeup. The addict who abuses her children would still abuse her children even without the drug. We need to make the crime illegal, not our perceived cause of the crime. Or at least, if we're going to go that route, let's start at the beginning of the chain rather than in the middle. Let's make low self-esteem illegal.
fractal007
Member Elite
since 06-01-2000
Posts 2032


24 posted 12-13-2002 01:13 AM       View Profile for fractal007   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for fractal007

"If someone wants to consume recreational drugs, they should pay for them at their own expense, and if it can be proven that it affected their health, then they should have to pay for their own health care"

I would be rather careful with that one.  People smoke and overeat.  Should we then require them to pay their own medical bills for their irresponsible behaviour?  

As for paying for drugs at their own expense, we're back to the addiction resulting in crime thing.  It would be ironic if Canada decided to tax marjuana[which it would(hopefully) do in the event that our government decided to legalize the substance] and found itself racking in all sorts of sleezy crime money.  

To be perfectly frank, I'm all for people legalizing marjuana.  Just keep me and my loved ones out of it.  The minute people who indulge in that stuff start resorting to crime to feed their addictions they involve myself, my family, and every other citizen of this country who is just trying to live a decent life.  Then it becomes another of our concerns.  Will I come home to find my house robbed and my various posessions sold for drug money?  Will I find my bank account mysteriously empty one day?  That's why I scoff at the claim that marjuana promotes peace on earth.  If anything, it promotes an increased sense of insecurity and a tendency toward irrational acts in order to feed addictions.  But then, I don't have the statistics in front of me.  Maybe there's a place out there somewhere where everyone lives in peace and harmony worshipping the loving dubie.

But in any case, legalized or not, marjuana, along with other drugs, will always have the problem of crime associated with it.

"If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh"

-- Magus

[This message has been edited by fractal007 (12-13-2002 01:15 AM).]

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> The legalization of recreational drugs   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors