If something is broken, why replace it with something unrelated?

"If something is putting you into a frame of mind under which you cannot operate logically or legally, the usage of such a substance should be illegalized."

And yet, we can freely acquire alcohol.

Last time I checked, drug dealing/taking was a voluntary transcation, whether we're talking alcohol, nicotine, weed, coke, or meth. No one's "putting" anyone in a frame of mind they themselves don't wish to be put under: your argument doesn't hold up.

Enjoy the Inferno...

Yes, we can still procure alchol, where it's legal to purchase it (in the case of my county, we're dry — and in others, they're dry on certain days. Dumb, but the law.).

However, it is still illegal to consume the alcohol to the point of being intoxicated and then perform certain actions that put others into harm's way (driving, working, posessing a firearm, etc...).

Can we all agree that this would be the ideal situation for any substance? Because personally, I don't care if you want to chill in your house and zone out on a handful of oxys. I care when you do and then start driving your car at mine, around my child's school zone or around other people in my neighborhood that I like to barbeque with.

I don't mind that you want to destroy your dental records with meth. I care when I haev to see it destroy families like it did my best friend's. I don't care if you want to smoke meth all day in your garage, I start to care when my tax dollars have to pay for your prison sentence duration, your children's welfare or the police to clean your drug-addled splat off of a person's lawn, because you broke into the house of a well-armed stranger looking for more pain medications (as was the case with my boss's daughter — which, might I add, was totally expected by the family, but nontheless devestating.)

I don't see any problem with a person using or abusing drugs. I have a problem when any aspect of their use begins to adversely affect my life, my family's life, my money or my freedoms. If you're going to use, make sure you're responsible. Make sure you're not adversely affecting someone else's life. Sadly, no one lives in a vacuum.

In times of change, learners inherit the Earth and the learned find themselves perfectly equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists

"Last time I checked, drug dealing/taking was a voluntary transcation, whether we're talking alcohol, nicotine, weed, coke, or meth. No one's "putting" anyone in a frame of mind they themselves don't wish to be put under: your argument doesn't hold up."

Last I checked, no user wants to suffer from dementia, paranoia, schizophrenia, and other unfortunate effects of hard drugs. Maybe you've met a few amazingly masochistic ones? Drinking alcohol has foreseeable results. With psychoactive substances, you're gambling with your sanity.

edited 5th Apr '11 11:56:03 AM by kashchei

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

what we should be asking is whether we gain more from enforcing a ban or from taxation and regulation. Certainly marijuana decriminalization would alleviate a lot of issues and bring in some sweet tax money in the short term but I don't have much historical basis for what happens in the long term. Do we end up with alcohol 2.0?

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

I'm pretty sure folks who take illegal drugs generally know there's risk, just like the folk to take 'em legal.

Are you proposing to save people from themselves? Sounds rather maternalistic to me.

Enjoy the Inferno...

I was specifically responding to this point of yours:

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

So you've actually gone out and surveyed the entire drug using populace? Either that or your saying that nobody wants to do something simply because you don't like it.

Fight smart, not fair.

Deboss, this is one of those things that we take for granted, much like how we assume that no one tries to get laid in order to get AIDS.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Then you have those son of a bitch bugchasers who should all be executed..

Wouldn't it be easier to just let them continue in their pursuits? Anyway, it's giftgivers that are guilty of the spread.

Aww, did I hurt your widdle fee-fees?

Why should we replace something that's "broken" with something unrelated?

Sometimes issues need an altogether new approach. Maybe policy ideas have changed. Maybe the concept of a "problem" has changed entirely. Perhaps X is not regarded as a problem anymore, and the new priority needs to be Y. I'm not sure what the OP is referring to specifically, however.

edited 5th Apr '11 5:38:21 PM by Shichibukai

Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]

"Then you have those son of a bitch bugchasers who should all be executed.."

I'd like to think these comments of yours are hyperbole... Are they?

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Which is the issue. Warn them. If they still want to do it, then they have accepted the risk.

Fight smart, not fair.

I'm aware of this. The largest chunk of the problem, save for flat-out ignorance, is people believing that these things are so negligibly rare that they may as well not happen. However, knowing the risks still does not mean that their effect is desired.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

It's still accepted.

Fight smart, not fair.

Shichibukai: I guess it is my fault for the bad topic tittle.
If you have an idea for what the replacement is, then you have a replacment. The "observation" i have seen is that people suggest remove something, without even suggesting something to replace it.
For instance: Removing taxes without removing the rest of the goverment machine, or suggesting that something "needs to be replaced", when there is not suggested anything to replace it with.

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

^^ What is?

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

On the, um, topic of this conversation: I think in at least some instances the question is looking at it from the wrong side. It's not that people see something broken and decide to get rid of it; people who want to get rid of something for philosophical reasons claim it's broken to justify it.

The child is father to the man —Oedipus

Of course, if something does more harm than good, flat-out removing it is a net benefit.

edited 11th Apr '11 8:25:11 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

: I think you just proved the topic?

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.