Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Ending the Drug War
I Read This
November 19, 2018, 04:06:01 EST *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Lupinia Hosting Community, which hosts I Read This, is supported by donations!  Please contribute if you're able, click here for details.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 16
  Print  
Author Topic: Ending the Drug War  (Read 37312 times)
Bringerofpie
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1485



« Reply #45 on: January 25, 2009, 18:16:02 EST »

Sure, but if you have never tried any drugs then you really should not be trying to make the harmless stuff illegal, as is far too often the case.

You can tell what's harmless and what's not just from biochemistry and from studying what it does to other people. Absolutely no need to try anything on yourself.
Blue boy gets a headache from sugar. Meanwhile i dont get headaches from drinking until i pass out. You very much do need to try this sort of thing for yourself before you can have a halfway decent idea what is and is not safe.

Once again, I agree with Ibian. I am not condoning the use of illicit drugs, but I am saying that you don't know what it's like until you try it. Trust me. You may think you do, but you don't.
Logged

Set a new standard
Defy the odds
Step up.

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

Does anyone else get more liberal every time they take the political compass test?
Hephaestus 16
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 426


« Reply #46 on: January 25, 2009, 18:52:28 EST »

Woden, for your arguements I see that you are not going to except the legalisation of drugs of libertarian grounds.  As your arguement is based off minimising human suffering, I will explain how legalising drugs reduces it.

The most obvious may to do this is to minimize use of the drug, the first instinct will be to ban, however that is shown to have no effect, to quote johann hari - independent - 12/07/07
Quote
IDS Error Three: Relaxing the law makes more people use drugs. Between 1972 and 1978, eleven US states decriminalized marijuana possession. So did hundreds of thousands of people rush out to smoke the now-legal weed? The National Research Council found that it had no effect on the number of dope-smokers. None. The people who had always liked it carried on; the people who didn't felt no sudden urge to start.


So if people are going to puff no matter what you do you should make sure they are puffing things that cause at little harm to them as possible - for this regulation or at least labeling is needed - for which the product has to be legal, referrences Johann Hair once again - same article
Quote
IDS Error Two: cannabis 'causes' psychosis. A major study at the University of Cologne and King's College, London published this May showed a much more complex picture, with different chemical constituents of cannabis having different effects. The researchers found that although tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the ingredient that produces a high, giggly feeling, can trigger psychosis in a very small number of users, another chemical component to cannabis, cannabidinol (CBD), actually inhibits and supresses psychotic symptoms in people suffering from them. CBD is so good at supressing psychotic symptoms that it proved to be more effective than any of the major anti-psychotics currently prescribed by doctors.

Professor Jim van Os suggests a solution: legal cannabis could be easily grown and marketed with high CBD levels, ending the psychotic effect. Indeed, such a drug would actually be helpful for psychotics to smoke. Obviously, it's impossible to do this while cannabis remains in the hands of gangsters and organised crime syndicates - a certainty under prohibition. So it is actually more accurate to say cannabis prohibition causes cannabis psychosis - and legalisation would end it.
Also on that note it its legal they can sign up of rehab without fear of arrest, and rehab will be able to get funding a lot easier as drug addicts are seen as human again.

With harm to the self reduced, no onto harm to others in the community, i.e. crime, if the drug they've gone and got themsleves addicted to is avaliable legally, they will able to get their fix with out having to steal to get the money, because a. they will be able hold down a job and b. drug dealers won't be able to change whatever they want knowing he government has arrested their competition.  Criminals gangs will find themselves devoid of there biggest revenue steam.  Crime will go down. For example (same article again)
Quote
The Cheshire Drug Squad found in the 1980s that the presence of a rare heroin-prescribing clinic on their patch caused an incredible 94 percent drop in theft, burglary and property crimes.

On a national level a useless expence of government will be replace by a gain through taxation of the products. This can be used for tax cuts or welfare spending depending on ideology.

On the international level, the effects of the anti drugs war are even worse, see the latter part of the this article
Quote

I conclude this by saying I in no way condone the taking of any mind altering substances, and accepting that they do exist and will continue to do so no matter what action is taken against them, I propose whatever action will reduce the amount of suffering caused.
Logged

"There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings, to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise: if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death." - Bertrand russell
please click these
DavidLeoThomas
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3255


WWW
« Reply #47 on: January 25, 2009, 22:49:14 EST »

Woden, for your arguements I see that you are not going to except the legalisation of drugs of libertarian grounds.  As your arguement is based off minimising human suffering, I will explain how legalising drugs reduces it.

He said from the outset that he wasn't opposed to legalization if it reduces harm - he's just opposed to use.
Logged

"America means civil liberties.  Patriotism means protecting them."
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #48 on: January 26, 2009, 00:09:57 EST »

Woden, for your arguements I see that you are not going to except the legalisation of drugs of libertarian grounds.  As your arguement is based off minimising human suffering, I will explain how legalising drugs reduces it.
He said from the outset that he wasn't opposed to legalization if it reduces harm - he's just opposed to use.
Did I ever say I opposed legalization?  I stated quite clearly that my only concern is the minimization of human suffering.  I also stated that I lacked the knowledge to argue on the specific consequences of legalization, but agreed that most likely if done properly it would result in minimization.  So, if you want to continue arguing with a position that I've never upheld, by all means, continue.

Let me summarize.  If allowing freedom of choice will lead to more net happiness than prohibiting people from doing bad choices, then I support freedom of choice, and vice-versa for prohibition.  Note that for such a calculation regarding prohibition, I believe it important to consider ALL the ramifications that it will have, both with regards to people without choices being less happy, it leading to a slippery slope, and it being overall ineffective at actually prohibiting.

I am a realist, not an idealist.  I go with what works, and have no concern for any alternative.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Ihlosi
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 232


« Reply #49 on: January 26, 2009, 03:17:42 EST »

What we have here is a so called logical fallacy and they annoy the bloody hell out of me.

I should have started that game, but before I get to the logical fallacies in your arguments I'd have discuss the holes in them that are big enough to drive an aircraft carrier through.

And, please, where's the fallacy and what's the exact type? "You don't have to try drugs on yourself to see why taking them is a bad idea, studying their effects on other people (that includes biochemistry and case studies) is enough to make a qualified statement about that. Just like for pretty much everything that has harmful effects."
Logged
Ibian
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 483


« Reply #50 on: January 26, 2009, 03:24:27 EST »

Look closer. That reply was not to you.
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #51 on: January 26, 2009, 08:32:50 EST »

So what do you do if you live in a rough neighborhood and you really wish people would stop beating you up all the time? You move. Very simple and straightforward and anyone can do it.

Lies. I have no capacity to move from my current dwelling. Contract law currently limits my finances such that escaping my lease would likely result in starvation.

Alcohol brings out peoples true natures without all the mental blocks we have built up over the years. If he hadn't been drinking he would probably still have abused you, but then it might have been psychological abuse instead. Pick your poison.

This little paragraph tells me all I need to know regarding your expertise with drugs.

You have none. Please stop pretending otherwise.

Quote
Do you have a choice about whether or not to feel sad when a relative wastes away in front of you?
Yes. You do. Thats the whole point. The only one who can control how you feel, is you.

You might be a robot, but few of the rest of the world have emotions that can be turned off like a tap. "Works for me" isn't a good basis for making socially acceptable decisions.

Sure, but if you have never tried any drugs then you really should not be trying to make the harmless stuff illegal, as is far too often the case.

You can tell what's harmless and what's not just from biochemistry and from studying what it does to other people. Absolutely no need to try anything on yourself.
Blue boy gets a headache from sugar. Meanwhile i dont get headaches from drinking until i pass out. You very much do need to try this sort of thing for yourself before you can have a halfway decent idea what is and is not safe.

Once again, I agree with Ibian. I am not condoning the use of illicit drugs, but I am saying that you don't know what it's like until you try it. Trust me. You may think you do, but you don't.

The funny thing is that use of most illicit drugs actually decreases your ability to know "what it's like" in all aspects. Sure, you know what the internal conscious experience is like, for the most part. But you rarely, if ever, know what it does to your personality, and exterior dealings. The more you're affected, the less likely you are to notice even massive changes.

So, no, I don't have to have first hand experience with mind-altering substances. I've got second hand experience enough. "Harmless" pot has scrambled at least one friend of mine, to the point where conversing with him requires the skills to hold five simultaneous conversations, to keep on top of all the tangents he spins out. It's not psychosis, as Hephaestus might argue against, but a relatively minor disorganisation of the mind. Closer to ADD than schizophrenia.

The fact that he used to be a motor mechanic, and is nearly incapable of such work now, colours my stance quite heavily as you might imagine.

What we have here is a so called logical fallacy and they annoy the bloody hell out of me.

I should have started that game, but before I get to the logical fallacies in your arguments I'd have discuss the holes in them that are big enough to drive an aircraft carrier through.


He's suggesting that the "You have to be stabbed to know what it feels like" line is a fallacy of false analogy.

He's suggesting wrong, though. Unless, Ibian, you care to show reason why you're right?
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #52 on: January 26, 2009, 11:17:03 EST »

Ditto to what Medivh said.  If you honestly think that people in a rough neighborhood have the available resources and power to move out, or that alcohol brings out people's true nature, you really don't know much of anything.

As for the issue of knowing "what it's like" there is a difference between experience and awareness.  Taking drugs disrupts your ability to think coherently about what you did while taking drugs, ergo you are less likely to understand what happened under such a circumstance.  A scientist observing the physiological effects of the drug will get far better and more accurate evidence.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Bringerofpie
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1485



« Reply #53 on: January 26, 2009, 15:16:17 EST »

Ditto to what Medivh said.  If you honestly think that people in a rough neighborhood have the available resources and power to move out, or that alcohol brings out people's true nature, you really don't know much of anything.

As for the issue of knowing "what it's like" there is a difference between experience and awareness.  Taking drugs disrupts your ability to think coherently about what you did while taking drugs, ergo you are less likely to understand what happened under such a circumstance.  A scientist observing the physiological effects of the drug will get far better and more accurate evidence.

But someone experiencing it knows whether or not it makes them unhappy. Heroin addicts tend to be unhappy (although, besides overdose, heroin actually has no adverse effect on the body). Occasional marijuana users or occasional social drinkers, much less so.
Logged

Set a new standard
Defy the odds
Step up.

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

Does anyone else get more liberal every time they take the political compass test?
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #54 on: January 26, 2009, 17:15:55 EST »

But someone experiencing it knows whether or not it makes them unhappy. Heroin addicts tend to be unhappy (although, besides overdose, heroin actually has no adverse effect on the body). Occasional marijuana users or occasional social drinkers, much less so.
Whether or not they are happy has nothing to do with whether or not they can stop their behavior, which means that they have no control as to whether or not they will end up taking more drugs, which will eventually lead to circumstances that are entirely unhappy.

Also, you'd be surprised at how good people are at convincing themselves that they are happy when they are not.  I just read two 10 page articles on the subject for class, for that matter.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Bringerofpie
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1485



« Reply #55 on: January 26, 2009, 18:07:52 EST »

But someone experiencing it knows whether or not it makes them unhappy. Heroin addicts tend to be unhappy (although, besides overdose, heroin actually has no adverse effect on the body). Occasional marijuana users or occasional social drinkers, much less so.
Whether or not they are happy has nothing to do with whether or not they can stop their behavior, which means that they have no control as to whether or not they will end up taking more drugs, which will eventually lead to circumstances that are entirely unhappy.

Not all drugs are physically addictive by any means. And for people who are psychologically addicted, I feel to see how that's different from any other addiction.

Quote
Also, you'd be surprised at how good people are at convincing themselves that they are happy when they are not.  I just read two 10 page articles on the subject for class, for that matter.

What's the difference?
Logged

Set a new standard
Defy the odds
Step up.

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

Does anyone else get more liberal every time they take the political compass test?
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #56 on: January 26, 2009, 18:33:01 EST »

Not all drugs are physically addictive by any means. And for people who are psychologically addicted, I feel to see how that's different from any other addiction.
I'm concerned with drugs that are chemically addictive, and those that inordinately addictive on a psychological level.




Quote
Also, you'd be surprised at how good people are at convincing themselves that they are happy when they are not.  I just read two 10 page articles on the subject for class, for that matter.
What's the difference?
Experience and awareness are not the same, we are just used to assuming that they are.  As for evaluating past feeling accurately, that's even more problematic.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #57 on: January 26, 2009, 19:30:26 EST »

Ditto to what Medivh said.  If you honestly think that people in a rough neighborhood have the available resources and power to move out, or that alcohol brings out people's true nature, you really don't know much of anything.

As for the issue of knowing "what it's like" there is a difference between experience and awareness.  Taking drugs disrupts your ability to think coherently about what you did while taking drugs, ergo you are less likely to understand what happened under such a circumstance.  A scientist observing the physiological effects of the drug will get far better and more accurate evidence.

But someone experiencing it knows whether or not it makes them unhappy. Heroin addicts tend to be unhappy (although, besides overdose, heroin actually has no adverse effect on the body). Occasional marijuana users or occasional social drinkers, much less so.

No they don't. I've, as a child, assumed that when I've stayed up late that I was happy about it. Turns out that the lack of sleep was clouding my judgement, and that my mood was brittle to the point of snapping at everything and everyone.

I no longer assume that I know everything about my own state. I do have a fair guess, due to the fact that I can work environmental factors in to my analysis. Analysing one's current internal state is not something that drug users are known for, meditating on how we're all part of a universal consciousness notwithstanding.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Ibian
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 483


« Reply #58 on: January 26, 2009, 19:53:50 EST »

So you dont even know how you feel. No wonder you are such a jerkass. Meditation might be worth trying, but blueboy can probably tell you more about that if you care.
Logged
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #59 on: January 26, 2009, 20:23:09 EST »

So you dont even know how you feel. No wonder you are such a jerkass. Meditation might be worth trying, but blueboy can probably tell you more about that if you care.
At least we know that we don't know.  You don't know that you don't know, and that puts you in a significantly less enviable position. 

It has been shown that people will label the exact same physiological phenomena as being one emotion in one context and a different emotion in another context.  See people experience instinctive feelings in reaction to certain situations, but they aren't aware of what they are, and use the context of the situation to establish them.

In short, there is a difference between feeling something, and believing you feel something, and yes, this can be tested scientifically.

Another experiment had people dip their hands in painfully cold water for a while, then 1 group got to remove their hands, while the others had to shift their hands to another pool of water that was marginally less cold, but still painful, and for a significant amount of time as well.  The second group would label the experience as less painful, even though when both groups were asked about the pain felt throughout, the second group reported more total pain.

In short, people are not able to properly evaluate past experiences, tending to evaluate them based on the pain at the peak and end, rather than the total pain inflicted.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 16
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!