7 ms·

While I do not condone the use of mind altering substances, I believe that the externalities of the illegal drug trade are far worse than what the drugs do to t

by Osiris 12y ago

While I do not condone the use of mind altering substances, I believe that the externalities of the illegal drug trade are far worse than what the drugs do to the users (e.g., the number of murders is Mexico is currently unknown and is somewhere between 20k and 250k a year). A second argument in favor of regulation over an outright ban is personal liberty. Our social contract is about protecting ourselves from each other, not from ourselves. Drug use that negatively impacts the lives of someone other than the user should be illegal, much like banning second-hand smoke. Outside of that restriction, we should value personal liberty and freedom to make choices about ourselves.

sneak 12y ago
Who are you to condone what others do or don't do to their own bodies and minds? That's like not condoning execution-altering software. It's none of your business what I do with my hardware.
- Osiris 12y ago
  It doesn't sound like you read the second part of my post. My point was exactly that while I hold a personal belief about the use and effects of the use of certain substances, that doesn't mean that I have a right to enforce that belief on others.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - phaemon 12y ago
    I think the problem is with your use of the word "condone". I'm sure you meant it in the sense of "like", but it sounds as though you meant "give permission". I suspect the reply is basically saying, "I didn't ask your permission for anything." :-)
    - Osiris 12y ago
      Merrian-Webster defines "condone" as "to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable". That's exactly how I meant it.
      - phaemon 12y ago
        I almost typed "acceptable" in both the first and second usages, which is why I avoided it as equally ambiguous. It's also worth noting that ~99.9% of the English speaking world doesn't have a copy of Merrian-Webster and, frankly, wouldn't care what it said even if they did. I'm no doubt biased, but the OED is a much better dictionary anyway, though I wish they'd reduce the prices on their personnal subscription: they'd get 100 times the number if they'd reduce the price by 1/10th!
      - sneak 11y ago
        What you find acceptable is not relevant to the bodies of others. This is why "condone" is inappropriate. It is simply classless and rude to insinuate that your notions of what is or is not acceptable have any relation whatsoever to the bodies of other people.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Don't attack people who are mostly on your side. Pro-legalisation needs all people - those who take drugs and those who think taking drugs is stupid - to pull together to work to their common goal - legalisation. The enemy is not someone who wants to legalise drugs but advises against taking those drugs. The enemy is the police state that imprisons people, at great expense, for very long times for drug crimes.
  - sneak 11y ago
    My side? Where did I align myself with a "side"?
- JupiterMoon 12y ago
  I guess it comes back to a very basic legal and moral issue. I.e. should the law assume that everything that hasn't been specifically legislated for is illegal or assume that everything that hasn't been specifically legislated against is legal? Or to put it more simply should we whitelist or blacklist? In the whitelist scenario one has to condone drug taking to legalize it. Meanwhile in the blacklist scenario one has to merely not condemn it. Personally I prefer a blacklist situation.
  - seunosewa 12y ago
    Were already blacklisting. Blacklisted acts are called "crimes".
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  >Who are you to condone what others do or don't do to their own bodies and minds? That has been a large part of law since forever. Take contract laws that prevents a person from signing away certain rights. Are we in the right restricting their ability to sign away some of their rights? What about preventing those under 21 from drinking or those under 18 from entering into contracts? Having laws that ban others (often under the reason of protecting them even though often the law predates or stands against scientific evidence of such a fact) is the norm.
peteretep 12y ago
> While I do not condone the use of mind altering > substances Why not? Also, you should try beer, it's AMAZING.
- thret 12y ago
  And coffee! Seriously, you don't know what you're missing!
  - kristopolous 12y ago
    Or why not just sleep and have some dreams? People act like losing consciousness to hours of vivid hallucinations is unnatural. We have rooms and furniture dedicated to it. "This lovely house has 2 bathrooms and 3 hallucinations chambers - to prepare you for work!" Make sure to get 8 hours of delirium in darkness every day to promote a healthy lifestyle.
    - seanp2k2 12y ago
      But if the chemical which induces this state is produced outside of your own body, we'll put you in prison / execute you in other countries.
    - Cthulhu_ 12y ago
      The acts themselves aren't; introducing external, man-made chemicals to invoke those are usually unnatural though - as in, the body doesn't make them themselves in such quantities. You know what I mean. Recreational drugs shouldn't be a problem though, as long as the user is aware of its effects and doesn't go overboard. Heavier stuff like heroin should remain illegal though.
      - simplexion 12y ago
        Why should heroin remain illegal? People consume heroin like crazy in hospitals and very few become addicted. Why keep it illegal? Why not heavily control it. Do something along the lines of; if you want to use heroin recreationally you must also attend 10 counselling sessions at your own cost to reduce the possibility of addiction.
gadders 12y ago
>>Our social contract is about protecting ourselves from each other, not from ourselves. Drug use that negatively impacts the lives of someone other than the user should be illegal I kind of agree with you there, but where do you factor in healthcare and other costs that need to paid by all due to addicition? How should they pay for their treatment?
- Nursie 12y ago
  With proper regulation we should expect some of the negative consequences to go down. Heroin deaths (for example) are largely related to illegality - unknown quantities and ingredients, contaminated equipment etc. Cannabis is considered a less harmful alternative to alcohol by many people. In a social system like the one in the UK, I don't think drug users should be penalised over anyone else - taking ecstasy has roughly the same harm profile as horse riding. Do we tell equestrians we won't treat them?
- snowy 12y ago
  If you take the $300 billion spent on drug enforcement that would do it...
- DanBC 12y ago
  Prisons are fantastically expensive. Just by diverting people out of the criminal justice system you save a bunch of cash that you can use for health care. People engage in stupid stuff every day. We provide treatment for the jaywalker who didn't look before they crossed the road; we provide treatment for the clumsy window cleaner who falls off a ladder; we provide treatment for the school children injured in poorly supervised school sports; we provide treatment to people who've smoke tobacco; we provide treatment to people who are addicted to alcohol (and also the drunk people who fall over); we provide treatment to obese people; so providing treatment to people addicted to drugs fits in with providing treatment to people who've made all those other unwise choices.

by Osiris 12y ago

sneak 12y ago

Who are you to condone what others do or don't do to their own bodies and minds? That's like not condoning execution-altering software. It's none of your business what I do with my hardware.

Osiris 12y ago
It doesn't sound like you read the second part of my post. My point was exactly that while I hold a personal belief about the use and effects of the use of certain substances, that doesn't mean that I have a right to enforce that belief on others.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- phaemon 12y ago
  I think the problem is with your use of the word "condone". I'm sure you meant it in the sense of "like", but it sounds as though you meant "give permission". I suspect the reply is basically saying, "I didn't ask your permission for anything." :-)
  - Osiris 12y ago
    Merrian-Webster defines "condone" as "to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable". That's exactly how I meant it.
    - phaemon 12y ago
      I almost typed "acceptable" in both the first and second usages, which is why I avoided it as equally ambiguous. It's also worth noting that ~99.9% of the English speaking world doesn't have a copy of Merrian-Webster and, frankly, wouldn't care what it said even if they did. I'm no doubt biased, but the OED is a much better dictionary anyway, though I wish they'd reduce the prices on their personnal subscription: they'd get 100 times the number if they'd reduce the price by 1/10th!
    - sneak 11y ago
      What you find acceptable is not relevant to the bodies of others. This is why "condone" is inappropriate. It is simply classless and rude to insinuate that your notions of what is or is not acceptable have any relation whatsoever to the bodies of other people.
DanBC 12y ago
Don't attack people who are mostly on your side. Pro-legalisation needs all people - those who take drugs and those who think taking drugs is stupid - to pull together to work to their common goal - legalisation. The enemy is not someone who wants to legalise drugs but advises against taking those drugs. The enemy is the police state that imprisons people, at great expense, for very long times for drug crimes.
- sneak 11y ago
  My side? Where did I align myself with a "side"?
JupiterMoon 12y ago
I guess it comes back to a very basic legal and moral issue. I.e. should the law assume that everything that hasn't been specifically legislated for is illegal or assume that everything that hasn't been specifically legislated against is legal? Or to put it more simply should we whitelist or blacklist? In the whitelist scenario one has to condone drug taking to legalize it. Meanwhile in the blacklist scenario one has to merely not condemn it. Personally I prefer a blacklist situation.
- seunosewa 12y ago
  Were already blacklisting. Blacklisted acts are called "crimes".
Lawtonfogle 12y ago
>Who are you to condone what others do or don't do to their own bodies and minds? That has been a large part of law since forever. Take contract laws that prevents a person from signing away certain rights. Are we in the right restricting their ability to sign away some of their rights? What about preventing those under 21 from drinking or those under 18 from entering into contracts? Having laws that ban others (often under the reason of protecting them even though often the law predates or stands against scientific evidence of such a fact) is the norm.

peteretep 12y ago

> While I do not condone the use of mind altering > substances Why not? Also, you should try beer, it's AMAZING.

thret 12y ago
And coffee! Seriously, you don't know what you're missing!
- kristopolous 12y ago
  Or why not just sleep and have some dreams? People act like losing consciousness to hours of vivid hallucinations is unnatural. We have rooms and furniture dedicated to it. "This lovely house has 2 bathrooms and 3 hallucinations chambers - to prepare you for work!" Make sure to get 8 hours of delirium in darkness every day to promote a healthy lifestyle.
  - seanp2k2 12y ago
    But if the chemical which induces this state is produced outside of your own body, we'll put you in prison / execute you in other countries.
  - Cthulhu_ 12y ago
    The acts themselves aren't; introducing external, man-made chemicals to invoke those are usually unnatural though - as in, the body doesn't make them themselves in such quantities. You know what I mean. Recreational drugs shouldn't be a problem though, as long as the user is aware of its effects and doesn't go overboard. Heavier stuff like heroin should remain illegal though.
    - simplexion 12y ago
      Why should heroin remain illegal? People consume heroin like crazy in hospitals and very few become addicted. Why keep it illegal? Why not heavily control it. Do something along the lines of; if you want to use heroin recreationally you must also attend 10 counselling sessions at your own cost to reduce the possibility of addiction.

gadders 12y ago

>>Our social contract is about protecting ourselves from each other, not from ourselves. Drug use that negatively impacts the lives of someone other than the user should be illegal I kind of agree with you there, but where do you factor in healthcare and other costs that need to paid by all due to addicition? How should they pay for their treatment?

Nursie 12y ago
With proper regulation we should expect some of the negative consequences to go down. Heroin deaths (for example) are largely related to illegality - unknown quantities and ingredients, contaminated equipment etc. Cannabis is considered a less harmful alternative to alcohol by many people. In a social system like the one in the UK, I don't think drug users should be penalised over anyone else - taking ecstasy has roughly the same harm profile as horse riding. Do we tell equestrians we won't treat them?
snowy 12y ago
If you take the $300 billion spent on drug enforcement that would do it...
DanBC 12y ago
Prisons are fantastically expensive. Just by diverting people out of the criminal justice system you save a bunch of cash that you can use for health care. People engage in stupid stuff every day. We provide treatment for the jaywalker who didn't look before they crossed the road; we provide treatment for the clumsy window cleaner who falls off a ladder; we provide treatment for the school children injured in poorly supervised school sports; we provide treatment to people who've smoke tobacco; we provide treatment to people who are addicted to alcohol (and also the drunk people who fall over); we provide treatment to obese people; so providing treatment to people addicted to drugs fits in with providing treatment to people who've made all those other unwise choices.