Should all drugs be legalized?

[Tomas]

Should all illegal drugs be legal?

Hmmm. Beings i gotta be to an engagemnent in a few minutes - i'll jot some short sentiments to gnaw on...

In America, that's a tough sell. The Mad Moms Against Everything will be brought from their glass cages, then be set upon the State Legislature's with horror stories of 10-year-old Jimmy who died after ingesting some meth in a baggie - that was found on mom's bedside stand.

Nevermind the needle, spoon, straw, pipe - mere distractions.

Nothing sells better for the controlled evening news than the hysterical 'arm-waving' parent that speedily cries on cue.

The Revolving Reverends will be sweating in the pulpits over the drug-crazed degenerate who is selling weed near the local grocery store to support his $500-per-day heroin habit.

No, better to stay on Soma drugs and chill out "legally" with the pharma readily available outside your elementary schools.

A little Ritalin does the body good.

The Hell with the naturally-occurring drugs found in Nature.

God made grass - Man made booze n' pills - who do you trust?


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

16th Degree
Prince of Jerusalem
Scottish Rite Mason

[suergaz]

La Verdad, can you address the point I made earlier, or is it safer you ignore it in the interests of your position purported to be 'philosophically just'? My point was merely philosophical, you may take it in moderation, or excess, as you see fit.

[suergaz]

The Hell with the naturally-occurring drugs found in Nature.

Stick to your booze and pills. Are you scared that nature is not as merciful as man? I'll see you in Hell.

[R. Steven Coyle]

-6.

0.

5!

[La Verdad]

La Verdad, can you address the point I made earlier, or is it safer you ignore it in the interests of your position purported to be 'philosophically just'? My point was merely philosophical, you may take it in moderation, or excess, as you see fit.

missed it. If you mean this:

Everyone draws the line at loss of consciousness, or someone draws it around them, yes?

:D

As an older deader relative would have said, one mans food is anothers intoxication.

The first point would include coma-inducing head trauma into the 'drug' category and the second I agree with - although I don't see how either would undermine my opinion.

[suergaz]

This:

Freedom to use drugs is not freedom to use them while freedom to buy/sell them exists. The argument that the latter freedom lessens once the former is instituted---is no argument against this.

[MKFaizi]

Should all drugs be legalized?

I don't give a shit.

I thought all drugs were legalized.

Faizi

[La Verdad]

Freedom to use drugs is not freedom to use them while freedom to buy/sell them exists.

rephrase this please, for the life of me I don't see how the latter freedom impinges on the former.

[suergaz]

Oh, I see the freedom you're after is a modest one. I'm almost tempted to say it's unassuming. Freedom from fear of incarceration, recrimination etc.

Your new law would be novel for a while. Your society could revel in its philosophically advanced position while dismissing all psychological casualties as necessary collateral damage. Seizures in your labour forces could be arrested by innovative robotics funded by the sudden surge in various crop production. Pioneering a truly orgiastic society could really benefit the rest of the world, a collection of cultures could find it in themselves to evolve from playing with eachother rather than fighting eachother for domination, but would quite honestly, where we are at present, result in the sacrifice of your society as it succumbed to an inevitable subsumation by the decadence fuelling it (look up psychological casualties) In other words, it would be a fine candle, but would wax a little too lyrical.

Just an opinion.

Who knows? I mean, poll the electorate. Pull out your hardest party member, stick yourself in, shake it all about and come christmas you'll have the hokey pokey you've been looking for all along.


:D

[Pye]

.
LaVerdad asks:

rephrase this please,

suergaz: Freedom to use drugs is not freedom to use them while freedom to buy/sell them exists.

for the life of me I don't see how the latter freedom impinges on the former.

$

.

[Leyla Shen]

La Verdad wrote:

I believe they should in any society that honestly insists it values freedom. Control over what you do with or to your consciousness is one of your highest rights, it is inalienable.
The government has no right (or real ability for that matter) to protect people from themselves.
~
The government has no right decide whether a person decides to use drugs (unless they're in public, or pregnant of course), they should be subject to the same scrutiny as every other commodity: the buyer's personal opinion about whether he can afford a purchase and the drawbacks of using said item.
~
I put up that guys position since because it is wise, and it largely summarizes my own. Letting people over the age of 18 take drugs is the philosophically just (not to mention practical) thing to do.
~
([you] haven't responded to my position for that matter).

I have indeed responded to your position--you just didn’t like that response.

If the government does not have these rights, why do you seek to have them legalise all drugs?

What do you mean by “philosophically just”?

[La Verdad]

La Verdad wrote:

Quote:
I believe they should in any society that honestly insists it values freedom. Control over what you do with or to your consciousness is one of your highest rights, it is inalienable.
The government has no right (or real ability for that matter) to protect people from themselves.
~
The government has no right decide whether a person decides to use drugs (unless they're in public, or pregnant of course), they should be subject to the same scrutiny as every other commodity: the buyer's personal opinion about whether he can afford a purchase and the drawbacks of using said item.
~
I put up that guys position since because it is wise, and it largely summarizes my own. Letting people over the age of 18 take drugs is the philosophically just (not to mention practical) thing to do.
~
([you] haven't responded to my position for that matter).

I have indeed responded to your position--you just didn’t like that response.

La Verdad, I will get back to you later.

I was just under the impression it'd be deeper than "NOSTALGIA. LAWL!"

If the government does not have these rights, why do you seek to have them legalise all drugs?

If they don't have they right, then they have no basis to make them illegal.

What do you mean by “philosophically just”?

I mean legalizing all drugs is the morally right thing to do.

[La Verdad]

Oh, I see the freedom you're after is a modest one. I'm almost tempted to say it's unassuming. Freedom from fear of incarceration, recrimination etc.

Your new law would be novel for a while. Your society could revel in its philosophically advanced position while dismissing all psychological casualties as necessary collateral damage. Seizures in your labour forces could be arrested by innovative robotics funded by the sudden surge in various crop production. Pioneering a truly orgiastic society could really benefit the rest of the world, a collection of cultures could find it in themselves to evolve from playing with eachother rather than fighting eachother for domination, but would quite honestly, where we are at present, result in the sacrifice of your society as it succumbed to an inevitable subsumation by the decadence fuelling it (look up psychological casualties) In other words, it would be a fine candle, but would wax a little too lyrical.

I think the real decadence lies in trying to protect people from the consequences of their actions - not in giving them freedom.

I don't see why legalizing drugs would lead to societal collapse or anything of the sort.
Most of the societal woes associated with the drug problem are in fact direct of our 'War' on Drugs.
Hard drugs were legal throughout the West prior to the First World War, and before that disaster the West governed (directly or otherwise) 19/20ths of the surface of the Earth - a far cry from 'collapse' and socities racked by psychological casualties.

:P

[suergaz]

You don't think I also think "The War on drugs" is idiotic? If you want to see how idiotic it can get, legalize all drugs.

:D

[Leyla Shen]

La Verdad wrote:

I think the real decadence lies in trying to protect people from the consequences of their actions - not in giving them freedom.

Nice platitude. Let’s have a look at it in light of your overall position.

~

Protecting individuals is best done through legalization. The bulk of drug fueled crime (i.e. prostitution and stealing to fund addiction, gang violence commited deciding who will capture a bigger share of the market) is the result of the high profits to be made off being able to consitently supply such heavily restricted goods. Once they are legal, the value will plummet, and virtually all drug-fueled crime will come to a halt. Society will be safer and the individual will too, since he will not have to fear legal punishment for seeking treatment. *

I think the real decadence lies in trying to protect people from the consequences of their actions - not in giving them freedom.

Then why are you trying to protect these people--prostitutes, thieves/addicts and gang members from the consequences of their own actions by legalising drugs rather than advocating their right to control what they do with their own consciousness.

So, you must be saying that the problem is that these conditions are the consequences of someone else’s actions, like, for example, the fact that the use of drugs is illegal. If that’s the case, and given your assumption below, what actual control of their consciousness have you actually given them that they did not have prior to legalisation--especially if the government (and, therefore, the law) has no real ability to protect people from themselves?

I believe they should [bestow the unfettered freedom to use drugs by legalising all drugs] in any society that honestly insists it values freedom. Control over what you do with or to your consciousness is one of your highest rights, it is inalienable. The government has no right (or real ability for that matter) to protect people from themselves.

Your “morality” leaves a lot to be desired. Do you still not see your own contradictions?

Bottom line: does legalisation equal “the protection of individuals from the consequences of their actions” or “freedom”?

I can extrapolate from your reasoning here that the attempt to protect individuals by legalising all drugs is decadence rather than freedom. On this, we most exactly agree.

*Are you really suggesting that those incarcerated for possession or trafficking were seeking treatment at the time they were nabbed?

[Jamesh]

I would not legalise drugs. The woe's of the western world stem from the widespread availability of things that are desired.
Take fatness. I am certain that if the variety of food available now was limited like it was last century, then we would have less fat people. It is just too easy to move from one desire to another as you get bored with the former desire.

Constant entertainment provided by others also increases desires - one must be constantly entertained these days, and some people if they are not being entertained will turn to food as a form of entertainment.

Exactly the same sort of thing will occur with drugs if they are legalised. We are simply far too immature and non-masculine to be able to deal with drugs.

Amsterdam is now the drug capital of Europe, and they export to other countries around the world - why? - because drugs were more or less legalised some time ago.

[Cory Duchesne]

Steven Coyle wrote: Did you read any of the literature I posted? -- Eight Circuit Consciousness, Erowid, Deoxy?

Did you have very bourgeois controlling parents? And were you a bit of a hyperactive emotional kid, with minor symptoms of Attention deficient disorder? Were you a bit spoiled, mainly due to your mothers incistence and misguided self indulgent sympathy?

People of that sort who end up being pulled into personalities like Timonthy Leary, terrence Mckenna, websites like Erowid, Deoxy and Fusion and then end up being diagnosed with Bi-polar are not all that uncommon.

If you think i'm totally being mean spirited and arrogant, it might help for you to know that between the age of 20-23 I followed a similar tragectory. You and I are probably a bit alike.

After highschool I was Depressed and disapointed at how I was unable to maintain a romantic relationship, apathetic towards people who were disrepectful to me, as well as apathetic towards my self for being a buffoon towards others, I had squandered a great deal of my health and potential for the sake of fitting in by being this idiosyncratic form of entertainment (mindless rebeliousness is the new conformity) -

- and then, the desire for omnipitence and genius emerged. A very typical sort of phenomenon with western youth.

All of this + Internet/Information + American Counterculture = biopolar man who wishfully thinks a significant part of what caused his bipolar, heals his bipolar.

Terrence Mckenna's actually not too bad. But you'll do your self some good if you realize that no matter how many weird and wonderful experiences you have, you'll still be utlimately ignorant, craving for more, and depressed that not everyone understands you or is like you.

the desire for greater, and greater experience, as well as the aggrandizing of your personal uniqueness, must come to an end.

As for whether or not drugs should be legalized. I'm not an idealist, so I just deal with what is.

'What is' is indeed corrupt. But influencing the population to drop out and tune in hasnt changed things before, so why should it now?

People who want to experiment with drugs will, those who dont, wont. People who claim doing psychadelic drugs connected them more deeply with nature, already liked nature to begin with, and already had an inherent desire to be less convential/domesticated and more wild and special anyway.

You drug enthusiasts tend to fight against the way things are, rather than just learn to work with them. Your desire to do more drugs to evolve further will ultimately degrade you completely. The only virtue i see to your drug use, is that, by making you more aestheticly preoccupied, idiosyncratic, emotional and feminine, you'll become weaker and more anti-social. Eventually this will either totally destory you, or it will force you to take philosophy more seriously (and thus you will lose your enthusiasm for drugs).

[R. Steven Coyle]

Did you have very bourgeois [very] controlling parents? And were you a bit of a hyperactive emotional kid, with minor symptoms of Attention deficient disorder? Were you a bit [very] spoiled, mainly due to your mothers incistence and misguided self indulgent sympathy?

Yes.

Terrence Mckenna's actually not too bad. But you'll do your self some good if you realize that no matter how many weird and wonderful experiences you have, you'll still be utlimately ignorant, craving for more, and depressed that not everyone understands you or is like you.

I've come to realize [most of] this. I've only ever smoked marijuana, but still consider it a good tool for uncovering how the mind works.

'What is' is indeed corrupt. But influencing the population to drop out and tune in hasnt changed things before, so why should it now?

I think enlightenment should be the goal. But I still believe, for certain individuals, intelligent drug use can be used to rapidly open mental blocks, and even enhance creativity.

You drug enthusiasts tend to fight against the way things are, rather than just learn to work with them. Your desire to do more drugs to evolve further will ultimately degrade you completely. The only virtue i see to your drug use, is that, by making you more aestheticly preoccupied, idiosyncratic, emotional and feminine, you'll become weaker and more anti-social. Eventually this will either totally destory you, or it will force you to take philosophy more seriously (and thus you will lose your enthusiasm for drugs).

You drug enthusiasts? The only drugs I take: dose of Zen, and a good shot of the Infinite.

[Leyla Shen]

The only drugs I take: dose of Zen, and a good shot of the Infinite.

That would be an achievement!

Since when do you no longer take your prescription medication, Steven?

[R. Steven Coyle]

The only drugs I take: dose of Zen, and a good shot of the Infinite.

That would be an achievement!

Since when do you no longer take your prescription medication, Steven?

Oh, you caught me, you caught me.

Do you consider "depakote" a recreational drug?

That would be an achievement, wouldn't it...

[Leyla Shen]

Do you consider "depakote" a recreational drug?

Sure, if you consider Zen and the Infinite so--why not?

[R. Steven Coyle]

Why must you be so literal, to prove your point, Mrs. Shen?

[Jason]

I'm not an idealist, so I just deal with what is.

Yeah me too. I'm a realist, and so I just deal with what is: that I am an idealist.

Althought sometimes I am a total idealist, and my ideal is to be a realist.

[Leyla Shen]

Mrs Coyle,

Obviously, we share an entirely different sense of humour--let alone the difference between our conception of truth.

You still come across as a little fairy sprinkling magic dust in a flower garden, to me.

Cory: Did you have very bourgeois [very] controlling parents? And were you a bit of a hyperactive emotional kid, with minor symptoms of Attention deficient disorder? Were you a bit [very] spoiled, mainly due to your mothers incistence and misguided self indulgent sympathy?

Steven: Yes.

Get over it, for God's sake!

[R. Steven Coyle]

You were being humourous?

I don't believe you.

Thanks.

Nothing can touch, Leyla . . . La, la, la.