Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The argument against marijuana, and other drugs legalization

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The argument against marijuana, and other drugs legalization

    I'll play devils advocate here for a bit, but what are some of the arguments AGAINST legalizing marijuana, and all the other illegal drugs.

    Marijuana


    1) It is a psychotropic substance that creates paranoia, relative incapacitation with higher doses, and emotional/cognitive problems.

    2) Highly popular with youth, which hurts their ability to learn a basic education at an important part of their early lives.

    Other drugs: Speed, Cocaine, LSD, Heroin etc...

    1) Opiate based drugs like Heroin are highly addictive and deadly, and should be kept out of the public's hands, and should be treated as a public safety issue. 'Opium dens' start to pop up again all over the country. Homeless addicts will become a much more regular sight, and a ultimately a burden to taxpayers.

    2) Others can cause unstable and violent behavior, resulting in more domestic abuse crimes and burdens on health systems, especially if fully legalized.

    3) The government would be unable to protect the public effectively against putting harmful and addictive drugs in foods/drinks. They already have a hard enough time avoiding salmonella outbreaks. The FDA would be heavily burdened.

    4) A society that is more prone to escaping reality, than trying to fix it and improve it. If drugs are legalized (especially harder ones), it will consume the lives of many people that will not fulfill their potential, and promote a culture of irresponsibility for the youth.
    Like the server? Become a regular! TGNS Required Reading
    Answers to every server question? Yes! TGNS FAQ

  • #2
    Re: The argument against marijuana, and other drugs legalization

    I believe in consistency: The same laws that apply to "hard drugs" should apply to alcohol, and beer should be treated just like MJ. (I'm not a big drinker, enjoying an occasional half martini or 1/4 glass of wine. I mostly use alcohol to cook with.)

    Objecting to opium dens is like objecting to a pub from a different culture. It smacks of racism. (Not saying anyone here is, but that's the way it reads.) It's like saying cocaine causes jazz joints. Each drug (including beer) has its own culture surrounding it, but be careful not to condemn the culture along with the drug, unless you really think that culture should be suppressed.

    I question that opiates are "highly addictive". Isn't that just media hype? Beware of opinions formed based on Reefer Madness type propaganda.

    It's true that opiates have a higher LD50, but is that reason to ban them? There are plenty of recreational activities that can have deadly consequences. Should we ban them all?

    I took my 82 year old mom to the doctor the other day, and one problem she has is retaining weight. She's down to 100 pounds, and running a calorie deficit on a good day. We asked about appetite stimulants, and we got something prescribed that would cost $143 for a month's supply. The doctor broached using MJ, but the social stigma is I think what put my mom off it. (Had it been a gin martini, my mom would have been all over that! ;)) And this is something that can be ingested, so feeding my mom pot brownies would probably be the best thing for her right now.
    Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

    snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

    Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The argument against marijuana, and other drugs legalization

      Originally posted by aeroripper View Post
      2) Highly popular with youth, which hurts their ability to learn a basic education at an important part of their early lives.
      "American Idol" is popular with youth and likely causes enough of a distraction to affect their school work. You're really just saying "teenagers are stupid." Besides, it's pretty evident kids rely more on their parents for a moral compass rather than local/federal laws.

      1) Opiate based drugs like Heroin are highly addictive and deadly, and should be kept out of the public's hands, and should be treated as a public safety issue.
      Says who? You base this assertion off what? Alcohol kills so many young kids a year as to boggle the mind. Smoking does as well. The problem is it's very difficult to overdose on something inhaled (with fire, mind you) without passing out or just vomiting like it's no one's business.

      Most ODs are an issue with ignorance of the effects of a substance and general stupidity on part of the user: two things you cannot legislate.

      'Opium dens' start to pop up again all over the country. Homeless addicts will become a much more regular sight, and a ultimately a burden to taxpayers.
      Because it happened when alcohol was legalized. Can you cite any figures on this?

      You incorrectly assume, like most people, that the legality of something and it's addictive quality automatically lead users to addiction without any evidence to back it up. Many people will experiment with a substance, but those that develop addiction likely have other issues that helped lead to that addiction.

      2) Others can cause unstable and violent behavior, resulting in more domestic abuse crimes and burdens on health systems, especially if fully legalized.
      Once again: where are your facts to back this assertion up? Drugs make people violent? Like guns and video games?

      Or could it be people in a living situation where drug abuse (not use) would be as common as seeing/provoking violence would not be adverse to using violence to maintain their lifestyle?

      3) The government would be unable to protect the public effectively against putting harmful and addictive drugs in foods/drinks. They already have a hard enough time avoiding salmonella outbreaks. The FDA would be heavily burdened.
      What?

      Besides, at least with the FDA involved there's some form of protection. As it stands right now, you have no idea what your kid is ingesting.

      4) A society that is more prone to escaping reality, than trying to fix it and improve it. If drugs are legalized (especially harder ones), it will consume the lives of many people that will not fulfill their potential, and promote a culture of irresponsibility for the youth.
      Define "harder." And you assume that the majority of people use illicit drugs to escape reality, rather than as a recreational tool to have fun or relieve some stress.

      In fact, if you look at addiction vs recreational use of cocaine (a "harder" drug), you find it's around 20% addiction (on par with alcohol).

      The real argument is that people have been lied to for so long by D.A.R.E and the government that they've forgotten that the average person doesn't go out and look for something to get addicted to.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The argument against marijuana, and other drugs legalization

        Originally posted by TheFeniX View Post
        Says who? You base this assertion off what?
        Confrontational responses serve no one. They simply place criminalization advocates on the defensive, where they will be unreceptive to any arguments favoring re-legalization.

        Aero was playing devil's advocate. These are (presumably) not his own positions. The objective here is to identify the objections to re-legalization, and then calmly show how those objections are not valid.

        With that in mind, I suggest rewording your response as if you were writing a brochure for parents. You make good points, but they need to be phrased in a way that gets those on the fence to listen. Remember that those with a vested interest in criminalization are not your audience. It's the "silent majority" you need to focus on.
        Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

        snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

        Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The argument against marijuana, and other drugs legalization

          Originally posted by TheFeniX View Post
          The problem is it's very difficult to overdose on something inhaled (with fire, mind you) without passing out or just vomiting like it's no one's business.
          Heroin is very rarely smoked since most of it is wasted that way, when it is it's called "smoking the dragon." If it is china white is a white/tan powder and is snorted or injected. If it is Mexican black tar it is injected.

          Originally posted by TheFeniX View Post
          Most ODs are an issue with ignorance of the effects of a substance and general stupidity on part of the user: two things you cannot legislate.
          ODs are mostly caused by the unknown potency of street drugs. A user never knows how much it's stepped on, so they never know how much to use. Another aspect of ODs is it is often cut with harmful substances especially when it's weak to begin with.


          Originally posted by TheFeniX View Post
          Because it happened when alcohol was legalized. Can you cite any figures on this?
          With the legalization of alcohol you had the re-opening of bars, if heroin is legalized there will be a coming out/ proliferation of opium dens that are now in abundance in the underground known as "shooting galleries."


          Originally posted by TheFeniX View Post
          You incorrectly assume, like most people, that the legality of something and it's addictive quality automatically lead users to addiction without any evidence to back it up. Many people will experiment with a substance, but those that develop addiction likely have other issues that helped lead to that addiction.
          Yes it is an assumption, but only since it hasn't happened. An increase in use will happen at least at first with legalization. Maybe for the duration. One example is most people who use heroine for 5 days in a row cannot resist using it on the sixth day, then the seventh, then the eighth etc. There is no binge heroine shooting, as there is binge drinking.

          Originally posted by TheFeniX View Post
          Once again: where are your facts to back this assertion up? Drugs make people violent? Like guns and video games?
          Most domestic abuse police calls have at least one intoxicated participant.

          People who are intoxicated say and do stupid things that get them in dangerous situations. This is why firearms are prohibited in places that serve alcohol.

          Originally posted by TheFeniX View Post
          Or could it be people in a living situation where drug abuse (not use) would be as common as seeing/provoking violence would not be adverse to using violence to maintain their lifestyle?
          This depends on how much drugs will cost. And how much government subsidy there will be. Addicts will do whatever to get their fix and they are adverse to work. If we legalize it better be cheap or free.

          As for sellers. I believe it will sharply decrease the opportunity for a fast buck and many will be forced to get jobs.


          Originally posted by TheFeniX View Post
          Besides, at least with the FDA involved there's some form of protection. As it stands right now, you have no idea what your kid is ingesting.
          One of the top reasons for legalization.


          Originally posted by TheFeniX View Post
          In fact, if you look at addiction vs recreational use of cocaine (a "harder" drug), you find it's around 20% addiction (on par with alcohol).

          The real argument is that people have been lied to for so long by D.A.R.E and the government that they've forgotten that the average person doesn't go out and look for something to get addicted to.
          This is the problem, nobody plans to get addicted. It requires an introduction to the right person at the right time. That introduction will be made much more often to many more people if dope is legalized. So if your 20% cocaine figure is correct, it will be 20% of a larger portion of the population. Comparing cocaine and alcohol may be useful in some instances, but the path left in the wake of cocaine/crack addiction is 10x more destructive then that of alcohol in most cases and happens much quicker.

          With all the problems of drug addiction, I still strongly feel that the benefits of legalization heavily outweigh the disaster we have now.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The argument against marijuana, and other drugs legalization

            Originally posted by ScratchMonkey View Post
            Confrontational responses serve no one. They simply place criminalization advocates on the defensive, where they will be unreceptive to any arguments favoring re-legalization.
            Sometimes you have to call someone's position "stupid" when it is. You can play nice all you want, but anyone who thinks the war on drugs is accomplishing anything other than being a huge waste of money and criminalizing a lot of harmless behavior, all the while alienating our youth* is someone that has some serious issues with critical thinking.

            Imagine arguing with someone who thinks women shouldn't have the right to vote due to them not having the ability to use force effectively (since voting is a type of force). Would you ask for people to "play nice" and "respect their opinion." If so, bravo because I'm calling that person an idiot because that's what they are.

            People need to realize the insanity and lies behind the war on drugs and I'll let someone else play softball with their argument.

            * a by-product of the "War on intelli.... Drugs" is officials strip searching and expelling kids for possessing drugs that are basically "over the counter" medications." Yet, no tolerance policies do not apply to teachers or staff. Way to teach our kids about double-standards early.

            Aero was playing devil's advocate.
            Since he said it in his original post, I kind of picked up on that. Does that mean I shouldn't attack weak arguments?

            With that in mind, I suggest rewording your response as if you were writing a brochure for parents.
            Most parents are completely irrational when it comes to their kids. Sometimes you have to tell them: "You're being an idiot: stop it" to get their attention away from "WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE think of the children!?" "No tolerance" policies were born of parents screaming at the government to "DO SOMETHING." Way to go. Maybe when I have kids, I'll act the same way. But I damned sure won't be defending that attitude.

            Originally posted by Hambergler View Post
            That introduction will be made much more often to many more people if dope is legalized. So if your 20% cocaine figure is correct, it will be 20% of a larger portion of the population.
            Which would put it on par with alcohol and other legal (yet regulated) drugs. Further, it's likely these types of people are already addicted to other destructive activities. Addicts are addicts.

            Comparing cocaine and alcohol may be useful in some instances, but the path left in the wake of cocaine/crack addiction is 10x more destructive then that of alcohol in most cases and happens much quicker.
            I always hear this argument, yet it ignores the millions of successful Americans who use cocaine recreationally and as a "pick me up," all without ending up homeless or robbing liqueur stores. Just because 20% of users end up as addicts, does not mean they are non-functional addicts. And you can't ban crack, but not cocaine just as you can't ban shotgunning beers or keg stands.

            Hell, my grandfather was an alcoholic for 30 years. Didn't stop him from holding down a high-paying job for that period of time.

            With all the problems of drug addiction, I still strongly feel that the benefits of legalization heavily outweigh the disaster we have now.
            It's an economics thing really. But even more so, with how pathetic the US prison system is, throwing non-violent offenders in a box for mandatory minimums and likely making them into violent re-offenders serves no one but the DEA, lawyers, and prison-guard unions.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The argument against marijuana, and other drugs legalization

              Originally posted by Hambergler View Post
              Heroin is very rarely smoked since most of it is wasted that way, when it is it's called "smoking the dragon." If it is china white is a white/tan powder and is snorted or injected. If it is Mexican black tar it is injected.
              How much of that is caused by the high price due to criminalization? Alcohol and tobacco are relatively cheap, and hence convenient to ingest rather than inject.
              Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

              snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

              Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The argument against marijuana, and other drugs legalization

                Originally posted by TheFeniX View Post
                Which would put it on par with alcohol and other legal (yet regulated) drugs. Further, it's likely these types of people are already addicted to other destructive activities. Addicts are addicts.
                What I hear you saying is the same people who are addicts before legalization would be the same addicts after. And there would be no new addicts cultivated. Cocaine/crack is very seductive. Many people who ordinarily would never come across cocaine are going to try it if it became legal and thus creating addicts. So 20% of all the new people who try it is a large number.

                Originally posted by TheFeniX View Post
                I always hear this argument, yet it ignores the millions of successful Americans who use cocaine recreationally and as a "pick me up," all without ending up homeless or robbing liqueur stores. Just because 20% of users end up as addicts, does not mean they are non-functional addicts. And you can't ban crack, but not cocaine just as you can't ban shotgunning beers or keg stands.
                If someone can use cocaine without getting addicted, that's great. I am only referring to people that become addicted. The duration of a "functioning" cocaine addict is very short. And I would say their are no functioning crackheads. Just by definition.

                After this we are getting into personal opinions of what functioning addiction is. Everyone is going to have their own ideas. Most addicts think their lives are manageable where you or I would strongly disagree.

                Originally posted by TheFeniX View Post
                Hell, my grandfather was an alcoholic for 30 years. Didn't stop him from holding down a high-paying job for that period of time.
                It's terrific that he was able to hold down a good job, but it makes me wonder if he and those around him would have been happier without the addiction. I can assure you, if it were cocaine/heroine it would be a very diffrent story.

                Originally posted by TheFeniX View Post
                It's an economics thing really. But even more so, with how pathetic the US prison system is, throwing non-violent offenders in a box for mandatory minimums and likely making them into violent re-offenders serves no one but the DEA, lawyers, and prison-guard unions.
                Truly barbaric. Making addiction a legal issue makes no sense.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The argument against marijuana, and other drugs legalization

                  Originally posted by TheFeniX View Post
                  Imagine arguing with someone who thinks women shouldn't have the right to vote due to them not having the ability to use force effectively (since voting is a type of force). Would you ask for people to "play nice" and "respect their opinion." If so, bravo because I'm calling that person an idiot because that's what they are.
                  So when an opponent calls one of your sources an idiot, that's likely to change your mind? I know it doesn't work very well with me.

                  In any case, I'm not interested in converting the hard-core drug warrior, because they'll require a "coming to Jesus" moment to convert, and I don't see myself providing that. My objective is to convert the onlookers, and they're not going to be convinced by ad hominems. They're going to need either reasoned argument against the issues or they're going to need marketing.

                  People need to realize the insanity and lies behind the war on drugs and I'll let someone else play softball with their argument.
                  Be prepared to be ignored, then.

                  Mind you, I once thought it best to attack front-on, when discussing libertarian principles. I thank Marshal Fritz for awakening me to the damage this does. Check out the Ransberger Pivot, an interesting technique that should be applicable to the drug debate.

                  Since he said it in his original post, I kind of picked up on that. Does that mean I shouldn't attack weak arguments?
                  Absolutely attack the arguments. But don't attack the person. I find that when I've written the word "you" in my argument (referring to my opponent), that's a warning sign that I'm losing focus on the argument and that I'm about to lose my audience. Hence my quote in my previous post.

                  Another technique I've found useful is to play dumb and draw out the opponent to say something attacking me for "being an idiot". Americans love the underdog, and you can swing an audience this way.
                  Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

                  snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

                  Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The argument against marijuana, and other drugs legalization

                    Originally posted by ScratchMonkey View Post
                    How much of that is caused by the high price due to criminalization? Alcohol and tobacco are relatively cheap, and hence convenient to ingest rather than inject.

                    Very true, methadone is not injected.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The argument against marijuana, and other drugs legalization

                      Originally posted by Hambergler View Post
                      Many people who ordinarily would never come across cocaine are going to try it if it became legal and thus creating addicts. So 20% of all the new people who try it is a large number.
                      What do you base this assertion off of? Does the fact that absinthe and everclear is legal mean I'm going to try it? Further, does the fact that I try it mean, if I didn't enjoy it, I'm going to try it again and get addicted.

                      This is verbatim the argument people use against video games. Violent games make kids violent which completely ignores that some people just don't like violent games and no amount of playing them is going to change that.

                      I haven't talked to a single person who enjoyed the first cigarette they smoked or really liked the taste of beer all that much. They either didn't touch the stuff again or peer pressure (an outside factor) shamed them into doing it more.

                      But is the decision to turn to addiction a person's choice or the government's? Should we continue to criminalize behavior that only affect the end-user? We allow alcoholics to function without consequence until they get behind the wheel or neglect their kids.

                      What makes cocaine so special? It's higher addiction rate? Which has no basis. It's label as a "black drug." It doesn't affect us white-folk(untrue). That it kills people faster? Once again, where is the data?

                      If someone can use cocaine without getting addicted, that's great. I am only referring to people that become addicted. The duration of a "functioning" cocaine addict is very short. And I would say their are no functioning crackheads. Just by definition.
                      Unlikely. Statistics are very hard to come by due to the nature of the drugs being illegal, but crack is merely a derivative of cocaine so I doubt you could find out which the person is ingesting without them telling you directly.

                      After this we are getting into personal opinions of what functioning addiction is. Everyone is going to have their own ideas. Most addicts think their lives are manageable where you or I would strongly disagree.
                      A functioning addict is anyone who can continue to support themselves while dealing with their addiction. Just because we don't like the way they "function" is irrelevant.

                      It's terrific that he was able to hold down a good job, but it makes me wonder if he and those around him would have been happier without the addiction. I can assure you, if it were cocaine/heroine it would be a very diffrent story.
                      I'm not really concerned if things would have been better or worse. My concern is that after the government has failed miserably to curtail the amount and use of drugs in the country over the last 50 years, would the average person be a better judge on what substance they would like to use/abuse? This isn't a cure-all solution. But I always prefer the lesser of two evils, especially when it conforms to the ideas this country was founded on: personal freedom and responsibility.

                      Originally posted by ScratchMonkey View Post
                      So when an opponent calls one of your sources an idiot, that's likely to change your mind? I know it doesn't work very well with me.
                      Considering, somewhere along the line people started getting the idea of "respect everyone's opinion, no matter how idiotic it is," I actually do respect someone who can call my argument out for it's idiocy (if it's stupid).

                      My objective is to convert the onlookers, and they're not going to be convinced by ad hominems.
                      List an ad hominem in my last post. Hint: there isn't one.

                      Let me explain an ad hominem to you:
                      "Bill beats his wife"
                      "Bill says the earth orbits the sun"
                      "Bill is wrong because he's a wife beater."

                      Now, look at this:
                      "Bill says says women are incapable of using force, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote"
                      "Bill is wrong for obvious reasons like women in combat and combat sports.
                      "Bill is an idiot."

                      That's called "an insult." An really, my post wasn't that bad: calling someone's argument or position stupid is not an attack on that person. Claiming so is a dishonest tactic I found out about in debate class in high school. It's also a huge deal in politics.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The argument against marijuana, and other drugs legalization

                        heh.....heated debate, I really don't care to share this information, I'm more ashamed of it than anything, but in support of keeping the laws Strict against the harder drugs, Here's my experience;

                        about a year and a half ago I was hanging out with friends just looking to get baked, weeds never hurt anyone, but generally people don't benefit from it I have no opposition to its use.

                        Called the Weed dealer - no go he's out waiting for another shipment
                        Called a chick who sells lots of X - Again no go.... im like wtf? at this point, nobody wants to sell me drugs?

                        Discussed it for a while, and Danny, says we could get some cocaine, I'm like ehhhh im not sure, but said to hell with it, lets buy it........Coke dealers flat out, argh.....

                        we're desperate to not be board out of our F'ing minds that evening *live in the mountains of colorado* and so we drive down to Denver and keep calling people.....

                        Well what Danny's never informed us is that he's a Crackhead, 2 other people in our group have smoked the stuff before but I've never pushed past weed or ecstasy *besides LSD and shrooms*..... they all agree not a bad idea, stuff's nice, so I say well lets do it.

                        we go out and buy an 8-ball *eigth of an ounce for those unaware* for 120 bucks.

                        we go buy the brillo, the Rose, and danny starts making the pipe as we drive back up the mountain, we get to the house pipes ready, he pulls out a nice bag, they take their hits, Danny shows me how to take mine, and I remember breathing in and holding my breath for about 30 seconds, sat their holding my breath feeling normal besides the faint lightheadness of holding my breath. let go of my breath.....

                        5 Seconds later I Understood what it means to be high.... Weed doesnt make you high, Like high is....

                        Energy - Massive amounts
                        Thought process- you feel as if you're thinking about things 100 miles a second
                        Body feeling - something like having an orgasm, but no Private organs involved and the feelings constant........

                        Here's the bad part... your "Crash"

                        Energy - Gone
                        Thought process - who cares
                        Body feeling - entirely gone with the energy

                        Crack keeps you high 15 minutes on the first hit, and if you smoke it all night you've killed your seratonin levels So Much that a hit lasts your high five seconds

                        People overdose on it because they've been "Recreationally" Enjoying themselves, but when it comes to the end of the night and they have all this crack left It feels entirely Wrong body/thought wise not to stop, you feel so horrible when you're down that you keep going - you overdose, and you die.


                        After that night I called danny back, I would spend 150 bucks of my paycheck a Week for Crack, and i'd have maybe 30 bucks left over for whatever...I lost my job after 2 months *got lazy from being "Low" at work* and then moved to "Alternative methods" of Getting Money, kept taking money from mom/dad. Danny was Bi, the first week after I lost my job I *Seriously...* thought about Blowing him to get my rocks.....I'm glad i didn't, but the fact that that sort of thing went through my mind in that situation makes me sick.


                        I spent the next 5 months like that, I went to jail and spent two weeks off the stuff....I realised who I was becoming and How much I didn't want to be who I was.

                        been off it for a year, and a year later I still Think about Crack on ocassionally, I remember the high and life feels empty when you don't feel like that *it does....* but I had some discussions with my ex co workers about it, and they said glad your off it, been there and nothing good came of it.... I can't say those words aren't the truth... Nothing good ever came to me over it besides the high.. that was probably the only "Good" thing.

                        Legalising a drug such as Cocaine would be a mistake, Cocaine by itself isn't coherently... Addictive unless you do lots of it, all the time.
                        Crack will grab you in the week or two... and its the easiest stuff to make ever if you have a Pot, a Spoon, Some cocaine, some water, and some baking soda....

                        it made me laugh when someone said Inhaling things isn't nearly as effective as Injecting things, Inhaling is behind injecting, the quickest way to get something into your blood stream *the moment it enters your lungs it goes into your blood*. Small amounts have large effects when Inhaling.

                        to the skeptics...


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The argument against marijuana, and other drugs legalization

                          Seriously, I don't know where to begin to counter the argument of "We got bored one night and decided to smoke some crack because we were desperate to get high." Huffing spray paint would have been a lot cheaper.

                          The fact that you were so desperate to obtain some kind of chemical high is superfluous next to crack's overwhelming addiction? I don't buy it. I'm not saying this to question your character or anything, but the guy in your story looks like an addict seeking an addiction. Addiction is a powerful force and can make people's judgment suspect, but addiction itself does not absolve someone of responsibility. And obviously, the illegality of crack didn't stop you from easily scoring some.

                          And if the after-effects of a drug is a mark against it then sign me up to ban beer. The one time I got wasted off beer, I woke up with a combination of nausea and headache that had me close to tears. My first though wasn't "I need more beer" either.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The argument against marijuana, and other drugs legalization

                            Originally posted by TheFeniX View Post
                            Seriously, I don't know where to begin to counter the argument of "We got bored one night and decided to smoke some crack because we were desperate to get high." Huffing spray paint would have been a lot cheaper.

                            The fact that you were so desperate to obtain some kind of chemical high is superfluous next to crack's overwhelming addiction? I don't buy it. I'm not saying this to question your character or anything, but the guy in your story looks like an addict seeking an addiction. Addiction is a powerful force and can make people's judgment suspect, but addiction itself does not absolve someone of responsibility. And obviously, the illegality of crack didn't stop you from easily scoring some.

                            And if the after-effects of a drug is a mark against it then sign me up to ban beer. The one time I got wasted off beer, I woke up with a combination of nausea and headache that had me close to tears. My first though wasn't "I need more beer" either.
                            Well Fenix, you don't have to believe me, It's a situation of bored kids with Money looking to have "Fun", it was a ****ty night, we couldn't find anything.

                            Chemical high isn't what Crack is, Crack is just cocaine mixed with Breath freshener *Baking soda* and boiled down to a "Rock", the baking soda will melt/vaporise at a much lower temperature than cocaine, so the baking soda will Turn into Vapors and be inhaled, carrying the Cocaine with it.... Burning cocaine wastes your time, Evaporating it through a "Base" and carrying into your lungs gets you High. Cocaine is a Natural substance extracted from the Coca leaf, incase you didn't know

                            Beer/weed are depressants, Cocaine is the exact opposite. the last thing I was looking for was an addiction, Infact after the first time it really wasnt addictive it didnt feel that way, and so I went after it again because the feeling Was great, and because I hadnt smoked much the Crash wasn't heavy at all, barely noticeable infact, but unlike cigarettes that took me maybe 5, 6 months? to get hooked on, Crack took a week or two.

                            I've never "Huffed" Anything, I hear it gives more headaches than anything.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The argument against marijuana, and other drugs legalization

                              Fenix , I can see where a reasonable person would make the assertions that you do. However, most of the knowledge available on this subject has come through experience and it is very obvious that you have non or very little. Your arguments make little sense to anyone who has had experience with drugs and addiction. Your basic stance is that there is no data available so there is no evidence to say drugs are a detriment. Spend some time at a rehab, or the salvation army, or at a halfway house. After you talk to the people there. If you still assert that these are marginal cases making the whole drug thing look bad. Then try smoking some crack or shooting some dope for a month or two. Then get back to me and let me know how things are going. Otherwise it's like having a conversation about walking on the moon with someone who has never been off the ground.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X