6 ms·

> Drugs, sex, gambling, bigamy, etc; basically laws based on Christian morality I'm curious what you say to the argument that manufacturing and profiting off e

> Drugs, sex, gambling, bigamy, etc; basically laws based on Christian morality I'm curious what you say to the argument that manufacturing and profiting off extremely addictive and harmful drugs (ie meth or heroin) is a victumful crime? Many people get "hooked" on drugs like this, and it often ruins them both physiologically and financially. How can you justify ignoring such people as victims? Especially if they were young or even children when they started?

gnaritas 13y ago
OK, first, leave children out of this discussion. That's a play on emotions and doesn't belong in a discussion about what consenting adults should or shouldn't be allowed to do. As with all things children related, we can have different laws for them; giving children drugs is victimizing them as they're not capable of making those choices legally or emotionally. Now, to your point. No one forced anyone to try drugs; I reject any notion that you're your own victim. If you choose to put something in your body, that's a choice, you were not victimized by anyone. That it can and does often ruin people both physiologically and financially are called consequences of your actions. No one forced you, there is no victim here.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  You didn't leave religion or sex out of the discussion, so getting ticked off at someone else's pandering seems a bit hypocritical.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    I didn't get ticked off, and religion and sex are relevant, children are not as I've been clear about "between consenting adults" for precisely this reason.
- jcalvinowens 13y ago
  > OK, first, leave children out of this discussion. That's a play on emotions I'm not meaning to play emotions; however, I don't think you can just write it off: if all drugs were legalized, you would see use among youth increase (just as you would likely see an increase in any other subset of the population). > If you choose to put something in your body, that's a choice, you were not victimized by anyone. For me, very physiologically addictive substances are a different category: in that case, you have somebody with full knowledge of the danger and addictiveness of the drug knowingly enticing others to start using it with the end goal of causing them to become addicted and making a lot of money off of them. I see that as a very low form of extortion. I will not try meth because, despite whatever curiosity I have about the drug's effects, I know I am probably not capable of willing my way out of a very real physical addiction. Somebody less educated and rational is much more likely to say, "Sure, I'll try it once", and go downhill from there. For me, that person is being victimized. Sure, they made the decision, but it was an uninformed one. Now, I have no idea how to solve that problem. I think that the US's ridiculous drug policy probably ruins more lives than the drugs would if they were legal. But whenever I think about blanket legalization, I can't escape feeling uneasy about the above.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    Then offer medical help, but outlawing drugs is a failed solution and that applies to all drugs. Prohibition creates more problems than it solves and it makes the state an enemy of its own citizens. Prohibition doesn't work, it does not work. That uneasy feeling is called cognitive dissonance, you're realizing the propaganda you've been fed is wrong but you haven't yet accepted its complete failure even though you know it intellectually.
MaysonL 13y ago
So, you're advocating putting cigarette manufacturers in jail? If not, why not?
- jcalvinowens 13y ago
  Hell yes. For life. That we as a society allow groups of men to make billions selling a tremendously addictive product that has unequivocally been shown to kill its users is, for me, absolutely heinous.
  - pstuart 13y ago
    What about brewers and distillers? Alcohol is responsible for 10s of thousands of deaths in the U.S. alone. Or maybe you like a drink now and then....
    - jcalvinowens 13y ago
      > Alcohol is responsible for 10s of thousands of deaths in the U.S. alone. Nope: _Abuse_ of Alcohol is responsible for 10s of thousands of deaths in the U.S. alone. You don't have to abuse cigarettes: you just use them, and they kill you.
      - pstuart 13y ago
        The _abuse_ of anything is bad. Alcohol is still a societal danger. If you really want to protect people you should make it illegal. But I bet you like a drink now and then, so you're willing to let other people die so you can get a buzz on. Edit: can't reply to your reply so I'm appending here: Your non reply confirms my guess. Because you like your drug of choice you are ok with it being legal, but other people can get fucked. Do you really think people are protected from drugs by making them illegal? Have you ever given a moments thought to the death and destruction that comes from the War on Drugs itself? Do you have any notion of what a powerful weapon it has become in the war on humanity? Or are you just a sanctimonious narcissistic nanny-stater? This madness continues because of support from people like you, you twit.
pstuart 13y ago
> extremely addictive and harmful drugs Like alcohol? Should we make it illegal again to protect its victims?
- jcalvinowens 13y ago
  > Like alcohol? Should we make it illegal again to protect its victims? It is very possible to use alcohol recreationally without becoming physically dependent on it. You can't say the same for drugs like heroin or meth.
  - nine_k 13y ago
    Actually, you have to use heroin regularly for months to become physiologically addicted. The time is shorter than for alcohol but not instantaneous. What catches people is a psychological addiction: heroin high just feels incredibly good (disclaimer: I did not try it so I translate other peoples' opinions). But the same can be said about alcohol, sugar, games like the infamous 2048, and great many other things. Of course there are substances that would kill the user quickly and harm even from one use, like PCP or the infamous krokodil. But the same can be said about methanol, or sulphuric acid, or many other hazardous substances. These substances are appropriately packed, abundantly labeled with warnings — but their use is not banned.
    - jcalvinowens 13y ago
      > Actually, you have to use heroin regularly for months to become physiologically addicted. I don't think I'm remiss in saying that most who start using heroin do in fact get to that point, am I? > These substances are appropriately packed, abundantly labeled with warnings — but their use is not banned. Comparing sulphuric acid to heroin is a huge stretch for me. Sure, injecting sulphuric acid into your arm is definitely going to be a lot more harmful than heroin... but heroin is intended to be used as a drug, and is harmful when used as intended. The acid is not.
      - nine_k 13y ago
dethstar 13y ago
Not only that, people consuming illegally acquired drugs are empowering drug cartels and here's the kind of situations it leads to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3nIfE0AUys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3nIfE0AUys P.S The video contain very explicit images and commentary. Here's a roughly translated quote to give you an idea: "During December there were 14 girls between 11-12 year old raped"
- angersock 13y ago
  If those drugs were legal those bastards would never be able to compete with Merck or Bayer, and would go away forthwith.

gnaritas 13y ago

OK, first, leave children out of this discussion. That's a play on emotions and doesn't belong in a discussion about what consenting adults should or shouldn't be allowed to do. As with all things children related, we can have different laws for them; giving children drugs is victimizing them as they're not capable of making those choices legally or emotionally. Now, to your point. No one forced anyone to try drugs; I reject any notion that you're your own victim. If you choose to put something in your body, that's a choice, you were not victimized by anyone. That it can and does often ruin people both physiologically and financially are called consequences of your actions. No one forced you, there is no victim here.

humanrebar 13y ago
You didn't leave religion or sex out of the discussion, so getting ticked off at someone else's pandering seems a bit hypocritical.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  I didn't get ticked off, and religion and sex are relevant, children are not as I've been clear about "between consenting adults" for precisely this reason.
jcalvinowens 13y ago
> OK, first, leave children out of this discussion. That's a play on emotions I'm not meaning to play emotions; however, I don't think you can just write it off: if all drugs were legalized, you would see use among youth increase (just as you would likely see an increase in any other subset of the population). > If you choose to put something in your body, that's a choice, you were not victimized by anyone. For me, very physiologically addictive substances are a different category: in that case, you have somebody with full knowledge of the danger and addictiveness of the drug knowingly enticing others to start using it with the end goal of causing them to become addicted and making a lot of money off of them. I see that as a very low form of extortion. I will not try meth because, despite whatever curiosity I have about the drug's effects, I know I am probably not capable of willing my way out of a very real physical addiction. Somebody less educated and rational is much more likely to say, "Sure, I'll try it once", and go downhill from there. For me, that person is being victimized. Sure, they made the decision, but it was an uninformed one. Now, I have no idea how to solve that problem. I think that the US's ridiculous drug policy probably ruins more lives than the drugs would if they were legal. But whenever I think about blanket legalization, I can't escape feeling uneasy about the above.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  Then offer medical help, but outlawing drugs is a failed solution and that applies to all drugs. Prohibition creates more problems than it solves and it makes the state an enemy of its own citizens. Prohibition doesn't work, it does not work. That uneasy feeling is called cognitive dissonance, you're realizing the propaganda you've been fed is wrong but you haven't yet accepted its complete failure even though you know it intellectually.

MaysonL 13y ago

So, you're advocating putting cigarette manufacturers in jail? If not, why not?

jcalvinowens 13y ago
Hell yes. For life. That we as a society allow groups of men to make billions selling a tremendously addictive product that has unequivocally been shown to kill its users is, for me, absolutely heinous.
- pstuart 13y ago
  What about brewers and distillers? Alcohol is responsible for 10s of thousands of deaths in the U.S. alone. Or maybe you like a drink now and then....
  - jcalvinowens 13y ago
    > Alcohol is responsible for 10s of thousands of deaths in the U.S. alone. Nope: _Abuse_ of Alcohol is responsible for 10s of thousands of deaths in the U.S. alone. You don't have to abuse cigarettes: you just use them, and they kill you.
    - pstuart 13y ago
      The _abuse_ of anything is bad. Alcohol is still a societal danger. If you really want to protect people you should make it illegal. But I bet you like a drink now and then, so you're willing to let other people die so you can get a buzz on. Edit: can't reply to your reply so I'm appending here: Your non reply confirms my guess. Because you like your drug of choice you are ok with it being legal, but other people can get fucked. Do you really think people are protected from drugs by making them illegal? Have you ever given a moments thought to the death and destruction that comes from the War on Drugs itself? Do you have any notion of what a powerful weapon it has become in the war on humanity? Or are you just a sanctimonious narcissistic nanny-stater? This madness continues because of support from people like you, you twit.

pstuart 13y ago

> extremely addictive and harmful drugs Like alcohol? Should we make it illegal again to protect its victims?

jcalvinowens 13y ago
> Like alcohol? Should we make it illegal again to protect its victims? It is very possible to use alcohol recreationally without becoming physically dependent on it. You can't say the same for drugs like heroin or meth.
- nine_k 13y ago
  Actually, you have to use heroin regularly for months to become physiologically addicted. The time is shorter than for alcohol but not instantaneous. What catches people is a psychological addiction: heroin high just feels incredibly good (disclaimer: I did not try it so I translate other peoples' opinions). But the same can be said about alcohol, sugar, games like the infamous 2048, and great many other things. Of course there are substances that would kill the user quickly and harm even from one use, like PCP or the infamous krokodil. But the same can be said about methanol, or sulphuric acid, or many other hazardous substances. These substances are appropriately packed, abundantly labeled with warnings — but their use is not banned.
  - jcalvinowens 13y ago
    > Actually, you have to use heroin regularly for months to become physiologically addicted. I don't think I'm remiss in saying that most who start using heroin do in fact get to that point, am I? > These substances are appropriately packed, abundantly labeled with warnings — but their use is not banned. Comparing sulphuric acid to heroin is a huge stretch for me. Sure, injecting sulphuric acid into your arm is definitely going to be a lot more harmful than heroin... but heroin is intended to be used as a drug, and is harmful when used as intended. The acid is not.
    - nine_k 13y ago

dethstar 13y ago

Not only that, people consuming illegally acquired drugs are empowering drug cartels and here's the kind of situations it leads to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3nIfE0AUys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3nIfE0AUys P.S The video contain very explicit images and commentary. Here's a roughly translated quote to give you an idea: "During December there were 14 girls between 11-12 year old raped"

angersock 13y ago
If those drugs were legal those bastards would never be able to compete with Merck or Bayer, and would go away forthwith.