If weed was also legal you would most certainly multiply the problems (1-4) as a cross-section of society who don't currently drink may take up weed. Or drinkers that don't smoke weed, may start taking both or just weed! Does this make sense?

The net results: An increased use of drugs.

I can't agree. Take Holand for example. Cannabis use is actually lower there than in many other european countries (my own home of Ireland being one, I'll dig out the stats later - wikipedia quotes Drug policy of the Netherlands).

Use of cannabis is safer due to the regulation of suppliers and the surroundings in which it must be sold and the legalised sale also generates useful tax revenue. All of this without resulting in a run-away drugs problem. Some of this must be due to the Dutch attitude towards drugs but it does make interesting reading.

---

I'm reading with interest this thread, and I personnaly think that marijuana it's not dangerous if youre mind is sane and if you don't smoke more than 10 joins a day.
In fact the problem, I speak for Europe, is that the drugs are falcificated; the mafia deals poisoned shit, with burnt engine oil and batery acids and chemicals, and whatever you in fact.
Young people smoke this poison thinking is less dangerous than tobacco : but it's not!
Finaly, grow your own weed, stop depending on mafia, stop insuflate narco dollars and take pleasure to see your "girls" day after day bringing you sunshine...

---

Le ciel est beau étoilé...

I'm reading with interest this thread, and I personnaly think that marijuana it's not dangerous if youre mind is sane and if you don't smoke more than 10 joins a day.
In fact the problem, I speak for Europe, is that the drugs are falcificated; the mafia deals poisoned shit, with burnt engine oil and batery acids and chemicals, and whatever you in fact.
Young people smoke this poison thinking is less dangerous than tobacco : but it's not!
Finaly, grow your own weed, stop depending on mafia, stop insuflate narco dollars and take pleasure to see your "girls" day after day bringing you sunshine...

10 joints a day? If you smoke that much I'm surprised you remember to get up in the morning!

---

Reality Internet Personality

Don't worry about me! I get up everyday, in the morning if i work all day long or in the afternoon if i work all night long.The most important it's how you live your addiction.
By the way life is also an addiction...

---

Le ciel est beau étoilé...

And do not forget: DON'T MAKE THE GAME OF THE MAFIA§

---

Le ciel est beau étoilé...

If weed was also legal you would most certainly multiply the problems (1-4) as a cross-section of society who don't currently drink may take up weed. Or drinkers that don't smoke weed, may start taking both or just weed! Does this make sense?

The net results: An increased use of drugs.

I can't agree. Take Holand for example. Cannabis use is actually lower there than in many other european countries (my own home of Ireland being one, I'll dig out the stats later - wikipedia quotes Drug policy of the Netherlands).

Use of cannabis is safer due to the regulation of suppliers and the surroundings in which it must be sold and the legalised sale also generates useful tax revenue. All of this without resulting in a run-away drugs problem. Some of this must be due to the Dutch attitude towards drugs but it does make interesting reading.

This is excellent, i was hoping that my post would attract someone from europe or better yet holland ( i struck gold) !

The point i was trying to make is that there would be a net increase in drug usage (Alcohol + Cannibus >= Alcohol) i could be wrong, but it seems logical (in a simplified way).

However treating the issue as a "public health problem" rather than a "criminal" problem is a far more progressive solution. It's a pity alcohol is not treated the same way.

Regardless i think the use of drugs of any kind (except those required for medical conditions) should not be promoted socially. ALso, the sale of alcohol should definately be more regulated.

(----> Cut from WIKIPEDIA --->)

The use of soft drugs in general is not prohibited, on the general principle of self-determination in matters of the body. Specifically, that it is not illegal to hurt yourself; however, you remain liable for the consequences of your actions. Because of this, users are not prosecuted for possession of small quantities of soft drugs ("for personal use"). Driving under the influence of drugs is nevertheless prohibited, as is being under the influence in public (of either alcohol or other drugs), mainly from a public nuisance perspective.

(----> Cut from WIKIPEDIA --->)

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

Given that EITHER Alcohol or Cannabis cause the following to a lesser or greater degree collectively (ie. an individual may expereience one or more of the following when taking them)

1. Anti-social behavior (individuals or groups)
2. Addiction
3. Directly contribute to increased fatalities of innocent people
4. When used to excess cause bodily harm (and a burden on the health system)

Do we know (medically speaking) the long terms affects of cannabis on a broad cross-section of society??

What are you, a Borg socialist?

It doesn't matter why someone initiates force against another. They can be drunk, or high, or angry, jealous, greedy, driving too fast, negligent, bitter, mentally ill, hallucinating, et cetera ad infinitum.

There's no reason to outlaw pot (or any drug, really) because people might go out and hurt someone--that is a normal (and sad) part of life that people do every day when they are stone cold sober and is/should be dealt with in the court system. If you initiate force and hurt someone, you should be punished. Punishing those that have not hurt someone is just silly.

Using your arguments, cars should be the number one thing to be outlawed, people use them in anti-social ways, they directly contribute to increased fatalities of innocent people, and directly cause bodily harm and are therefore a burden on the health system.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I think that all aircraft pilots, truck drivers, air traffic controllers and surgeons, should be given special training to operate while impaired. There's a matter of public safety involved here.

---

What are you, a Borg socialist?

What are you, AMERICAN?

I'm just someone that thinks that drug-induced antisocial behavior and general insanity should not be allowed to be self-inflicted via the use of legalised drugs.

It doesn't matter why someone initiates force against another.

Gee, who do you sound like.... let me think (give me a nonosecond or two).... aha ROBERTB. Perhaps if more people looked at the WHY we may actually have a beter understanding..... we may even begin to understand the human species (yes, US) a little better! And there may be less of this voilence....

They can be drunk, or high, or angry, jealous, greedy, driving too fast, negligent, bitter, mentally ill, hallucinating, et cetera ad infinitum.

Every behaviour you have mentioned here is intensified in different people at different times through the use of drugs. Do you realise this? And you think this is okay?

There's no reason to outlaw pot (or any drug, really) because people might go out and hurt someone--that is a normal (and sad) part of life that people do every day and is/should be dealt with in the court system. If you initiate force and hurt someone, you should be punished. Punishing those that have not hurt someone is just silly.

Yes, litigation is a perfect system and a wonderful way of spending tax dollars (<------- insert sarcasm here).

Of course cure is ALWAYS better than prevention. (NOT!)

Using your arguments, cars should be the number one thing to be outlawed, people use them in anti-social ways, they directly contribute to increased fatalities of innocent people, and directly cause bodily harm and are therefore a burden on the health system.

[/quote]

Yes of course, scissors should also be outlawed because someone can kill someone with those too....Cmon man, put your thinking cap on for a moment. You are talking about consuming substances which are KNOWN to induce abberative behavior.

Does my normative behavior change when i get in a car?! Or when i wield a pair of scissor to cut paper?? Umm No. Lets compare that to..... 10 beers, or 1/2 Bottle of Wisky or .....(insert drug of choice here).

Using your argument, anarchy and major civil unrest is only a few generations away. Hell yeah, lets let everyone take heroin and cocain and speed and eccys and whatever othe JUNK we can pump into our systems and really go insane!

Let the legal system sort it out, its already doing such a bang-up job. More litigation!

Now would be a good time for your injection(s).

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

What are you, AMERICAN?

I'm just someone that thinks that drug-induced antisocial behavior and general insanity should not be allowed to be self-inflicted via the use of legalised drugs.

We don't "allow" it, people choose to do it. Sometimes they are under the influence of drugs, overwhelmingly they aren't.

The verb "to allow" does not apply in this situation. The state does not "allow" something even when they have taken steps to forcibly prevent something.

Gee, who do you sound like.... let me think (give me a nonosecond or two).... aha ROBERTB. Perhaps if more people looked at the WHY we may actually have a beter understanding..... we may even begin to understand the human species (yes, US) a little better! And there may be less of this voilence....

There wouldn't be. There never has been. There is no control over illegal substances anywhere on earth. They are even available in Federal Prisons, just like handguns are available in the UK. Illegal substances are, for the most part, readily available and mostly affordable to anyone who wants them.

The fact that they are illegal is what drives the costs associated with them up.

Every behaviour you have mentioned here is intensified in different people at different times through the use of drugs. Do you realise this? And you think this is okay?

I think that initiating force is wrong, regardless of the reasons. Jeebus, Bayer used to sell "Bayer Heroin" legally and oddly enough the world didn't collapse.

Yes, litigation is a perfect system and a wonderful way of spending tax dollars (<------- insert sarcasm here).

Of course cure is ALWAYS better than prevention. (NOT!)

We aren't talking about litigation, we're talking about the enforcement of criminal laws that are already on the books. There has been no prevention, the substances you complain about are available everywhere. Professional athletes, high school body builders, ephedra fanatics, heroin addicts, crack heads, po-theads (go Homer!), all of them are readily available. Making them illegal hasn't "prevent[ed]" anything.

Yes of course, scissors should also be outlawed because someone can kill someone with those too....Cmon man, put your thinking cap on for a moment. You are talking about consuming substances which are KNOWN to induce abberative behavior.

The overwhelming majority of people who use illegal substances never do anything illegal (other than get/consume the drug). Those dealing in them--because they are illegal, the profit margin is enormous and they wish to avoid being caught--on the other hand, commit most of the crimes of aggression and anti-social behavior.

Does my normative behavior change when i get in a car?! Or when i wield a pair of scissor to cut paper?? Umm No. Lets compare that to..... 10 beers, or 1/2 Bottle of Wisky or .....(insert drug of choice here).

You seem to think that there is a difference in, for example a stabbing, the motivation of the stabber. It doesn't matter whether they are angry or on pot.

Using your argument, anarchy and major civil unrest is only a few generations away. Hell yeah, lets let everyone take heroin and cocain and speed and eccys and whatever othe JUNK we can pump into our systems and really go insane!

Let the legal system sort it out, its already doing such a bang-up job. More litigation!

Now would be a good time for your injection(s).

I'm not discussing anarchy, I never have. People that do the above as you suggest will simply die. They won't live long enough to hurt anyone else. Their choice.

And again, we aren't discussing litigation, we are discussing the enforcment of criminal laws. Oh, by the way, even with those laws, people still hurt other people. Ever consider why that is? Do you think it is because the state "allows" them to?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Imagine that we are designing a restaurant. This restaurant will serve steak. Because we are going to be serving steak, we will have steak knives for the customers. Because the customers will have steak knives, they might stab each other. Therefore, we conclude, we need to put each table into separate metal cages, to prevent the possibility of people stabbing each other.

What would such an approach do to our civil society? What does it do to human kindness, benevolence, and a positive sense of community?

When we reject this design for restaurants, and then when, inevitably, someone does get stabbed in a restaurant (it does happen), do we write long editorials to the papers complaining that "The steakhouse is inviting it by not only allowing irresponsible vandals to stab anyone they please, but by also providing the weapons"?

No, instead we acknowledge that the verb "to allow" does not apply in such a situation. A restaurant is not "allowing" something just because they haven't taken measures to forcibly prevent it a priori. It is surely against the rules of the restaurant, and of course against the laws of society. Just. Like. Drugs. If someone starts doing bad things in a restaurant, they are forcibly kicked out and, if it's particularly bad, the law can be called. I do not accept the spin that the state "allows" anyone to hurt others just because we do not metaphysically prevent it by putting people in cages.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

No, instead we acknowledge that the verb "to allow" does not apply in such a situation. A restaurant is not "allowing" something just because they haven't taken measures to forcibly prevent it a priori. It is surely against the rules of the restaurant, and of course against the laws of society. Just. Like. Drugs. If someone starts doing bad things in a restaurant, they are forcibly kicked out and, if it's particularly bad, the law can be called. I do not accept the spin that the state "allows" anyone to hurt others just because we do not metaphysically prevent it by putting people in cages.

You are arguing semantics.

Drugs aberrate human behaviour, when the state condones usage of drugs, there will be an increase in aberrative behaviour which induces crime.

Why? Because there is no longer a moral contract of any kind "it's okay to do this" -> 'it's allowed by the state'. It is allowed in the sense that it is condoned. You may say people choose to (and they do) but the choice is a whole lot easier when you know its legal. Any individual with an ounce of ethics will think twice. The net result of legalised drugs will be simply more abberated individuals and more crime.

This legalisation promotes 'No moral obligation or No social responsiblity'.

Have you ever observed how basic human morals and ethics disappear while people are under the influence of drugs??

If you legalise it, then the guys pushing the junk would become "legitimate business men" (or would the state product it! - wonderful) the "recreational heroin/opium/crack drug industry) and it may even be 'regulated', how quaint.

Talk about lowering moral and social standards, 'hey its okay to be flaky and drugged out'

When you look at reasoning behind the dutch legislation, there were very specific reasons why it was only Cannabis (and derivatives of). You also need to consider the Dutch demographic as well.

People steal, and you will never be able to stop it no matter how many laws you have, but we don't decide to make it 'legal to steal' and hence morally acceptable.

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

You are arguing semantics.

Drugs aberrate human behaviour, when the state condones usage of drugs, there will be an increase in aberrative behaviour which induces crime.

Most crime caused by drug use is due to it's illegality. ie: Heroin users stealing to feed their habit. Marijuana users aren't really responsible for a great deal of crime because they can't be bothered.

Why? Because there is no longer a moral contract of any kind "it's okay to do this" -> 'it's allowed by the state'. It is allowed in the sense that it is condoned. You may say people choose to (and they do) but the choice is a whole lot easier when you know its legal. Any individual with an ounce of ethics will think twice. The net result of legalised drugs will be simply more abberated individuals and more crime.

Actually, statistics show that the opposite is the case.

This legalisation promotes 'No moral obligation or No social responsiblity'.

Have you ever observed how basic human morals and ethics disappear while people are under the influence of drugs??

It entirely depends on what drug is being taken. Personally I've never committed a crime just because I'm on aspirin.

If you legalise it, then the guys pushing the junk would become "legitimate business men" (or would the state product it! - wonderful) the "recreational heroin/opium/crack drug industry) and it may even be 'regulated', how quaint.

Talk about lowering moral and social standards, 'hey its okay to be flaky and drugged out'

Absolutely, if people are flaky and drugged out they cannot be exploited properly. This would undermine the whole capitalist system...sorry, still trying to see a negative here..

When you look at reasoning behind the dutch legislation, there were very specific reasons why it was only Cannabis (and derivatives of). You also need to consider the Dutch demographic as well.

People steal, and you will never be able to stop it no matter how many laws you have, but we don't decide to make it 'legal to steal' and hence morally acceptable.

I still don't get your argument for saying that taking drugs is immoral.
Why is it immoral?

---

Reality Internet Personality

**Sits back, taps all five fingers together several times and in an evil tone, says "exceeeeelllleeent....."**

To address the discussion between Enigma and Rush (and es99)....

Rush - In reference to committing violent acts, you said "It doesn't matter whether they are angry or on pot." In law, it can. Someone who stabs someone to death when angry can potentially be charged with first degree murder depending on the circumstances. Someone who stabs someone to death when high on a drug is much more likely to be charged with second/third degree murder, and even manslaughter depending on several things - It would be next to impossible to charge that person with first degree murder. At least in Canada.

Enigma - You said "Every behaviour you have mentioned here (drunk, or high, or angry, jealous, greedy, driving too fast, negligent, bitter, mentally ill, hallucinating, et cetera ad infinitum) is intensified in different people at different times through the use of drugs. Do you realise this? And you think this is okay?" It sounds to me like you are one of the several million people who have been "programmed" by government to believe certain things about certain drugs. Marijuana, from my experience and observation of many, many others, never makes you angrier, in fact it's quite the opposite. Jealousy and greed are odd examples, but again pot does not seem to affect these emotions. Driving too fast? I'm not dumb enough to drive high, but I know people who do it all the time (much to my dismay) and they all tell me they NEVER drive too fast, in fact, they are always more careful (and some swear they drive better although this is unlikely). Smoking pot may temporarily make you more negligent but we're talking more about being too lazy to get up and lock the door more than criminal negligence. It's true that some mental illnesses like most neuroses may be amplified temporarily by pot (and in some cases, over the long term like schizophrenia), but in my opinion, exposing one's disease and expediting treatment is a positive, and even if you don't agree, these pot-induced amplifications of mental disorders rarely, rarely lead to criminality. There's more I'd like to address but I'll wrap this up by disagreeing with you that pot use will dramatically increase with legalization: It is SO easy to get it now, that anyone interested in smoking it will most likely be able to get their hands on it anyway. Legalizing it will make it harder for younger kids to obtain it, as commercial-level grow-ops will no longer be a prudent enterprise and of course, drug dealers mostly won't bother with trying to deal pot - Do you know of anyone who sells tobacco on street corners?

I'm immensely enjoying this thread - Thank you everyone for chiming in!

---

You are arguing semantics.

Wrong again, I'm discussing philosophy--which, just like the Myth thread, is the basis for all of these discussions.

Drugs aberrate human behaviour, when the state condones usage of drugs, there will be an increase in aberrative behaviour which induces crime.

You have missed the point. The behavior happens ANYWAY. It happens when people are stone cold sober, it happpens when they are mad, it happens when they are jealous, it happens when they are mentally ill. It is the initiation of aggression that is wrong, criminalizing the reason has been utterly ineffective. We don't criminalize anger, or mental illness, or insane jealousy because once in a while someone under that influence initiates force against someone else. We don't criminalize car usage because once in a while (and overwhelmingly more often) someone kills other people with it.

Why? Because there is no longer a moral contract of any kind "it's okay to do this" -> 'it's allowed by the state'. It is allowed in the sense that it is condoned. You may say people choose to (and they do) but the choice is a whole lot easier when you know its legal. Any individual with an ounce of ethics will think twice. The net result of legalised drugs will be simply more abberated individuals and more crime.

This legalisation promotes 'No moral obligation or No social responsiblity'.

Have you ever observed how basic human morals and ethics disappear while people are under the influence of drugs??

The moral contract remains the same: do not initiate force against your fellow man. It doesn't disappear. No, basic human morals and ethics do not disappear when people are under the influence of drugs, any more than they disappear when people drive cars, or are filled with a murderous rage. Why? Because drug laws do not prevent the use of drugs. They never have, they never will. The massive majority of drug users use them quietly, within their homes or at the homes of friends, and happily continue with their lives. They don't lose basic human morals and ethics--they do drugs, and then they go to work and raise their families. Just like those that are filled, for whatever reason, with a murderous rage or insane jealousy. They sit down, they get past it, and they go on with their lives, never initiating force against those around them.

If you legalise it, then the guys pushing the junk would become "legitimate business men" (or would the state product it! - wonderful) the "recreational heroin/opium/crack drug industry) and it may even be 'regulated', how quaint.

If you legalise it, it will be produced by Smith-Kline and Bayer, it will be pure, clean, safe, cheap, and taxed. It will be regulated. No one will be standing on corners to get it, no one will be killed over turf, the majority of gang-related activites will simply disappear. The prisons will lose 2/3 - 3/4 of their inmates.

Talk about lowering moral and social standards, 'hey its okay to be flaky and drugged out'

To you maybe. "Hey, its okay to be drunk and angry and mentally ill." Frankly, legalizing the drug doesn't mean legalizing drunk and disorderly conduct.

When you look at reasoning behind the dutch legislation, there were very specific reasons why it was only Cannabis (and derivatives of). You also need to consider the Dutch demographic as well.

Those specific reasons are the same that alcohol is legal and drugs aren't.

People steal, and you will never be able to stop it no matter how many laws you have, but we don't decide to make it 'legal to steal' and hence morally acceptable.

That is an entirely different discussion. Stealing is the initiation of force or fraud against another, it is not victimless, and involves property rights.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Oh dear god! I keep finding my self in absolute agreement with Rush. I can only assume that my evil influence is rubbing off on him. It's made even more confusing by the fact that he is wearing Robert Brooke's avatar.

(ah, solution. put Robert on filter..then no more confusion!)

---

Reality Internet Personality

To address the discussion between Enigma and Rush (and es99)....

Rush - In reference to committing violent acts, you said "It doesn't matter whether they are angry or on pot." In law, it can. Someone who stabs someone to death when angry can potentially be charged with first degree murder depending on the circumstances. Someone who stabs someone to death when high on a drug is much more likely to be charged with second/third degree murder, and even manslaughter depending on several things - It would be next to impossible to charge that person with first degree murder. At least in Canada.

That's not what I meant by that, sorry if I was unclear. My point was that it is the initiation of force or the ACT that should be illegal, not the motivation behind it. During criminal enforcement is where this is played out, for example, a drunk driver is going to get a significantly higher penalty for killing someone in a car than a harried mother who loses control of the minivan on a icy highway.

This is a proper role for the courts and the reason we have 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, et cetera.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

In reference to committing violent acts, [Rush] said "It doesn't matter whether they are angry or on pot." In law, it can. Someone who stabs someone to death when angry can potentially be charged with first degree murder depending on the circumstances. Someone who stabs someone to death when high on a drug is much more likely to be charged with second/third degree murder, and even manslaughter depending on several things - It would be next to impossible to charge that person with first degree murder. At least in Canada.

Which is totally bogus IMO. I see it as part of a general trend of abrogating personal responsibility for one’s actions, along with the burglars one hears about (admittedly some such stories are ‘urban myths’) winning huge settlements from their victims who left something lying around in the house, the criminal having tripped over it while skulking about in the dark and thereby injuring himself. A reductio ad absurdum of this attitude makes having a drink or a toke effectually a licence to commit any antisocial act whatsoever without significant repercussions. The attempts governments (and the medical/pharmaceutical industry) have been making, over the past 75 years or so, to demonize recreational drugs have only contributed to this problem, while being quite ineffectual at achieving their purported aims.

---

You are arguing semantics.

Drugs aberrate human behaviour, when the state condones usage of drugs, there will be an increase in aberrative behaviour which induces crime.

Most crime caused by drug use is due to it's illegality. ie: Heroin users stealing to feed their habit. Marijuana users aren't really responsible for a great deal of crime because they can't be bothered.

Why? Because there is no longer a moral contract of any kind "it's okay to do this" -> 'it's allowed by the state'. It is allowed in the sense that it is condoned. You may say people choose to (and they do) but the choice is a whole lot easier when you know its legal. Any individual with an ounce of ethics will think twice. The net result of legalised drugs will be simply more abberated individuals and more crime.

Actually, statistics show that the opposite is the case.

Some stats please? And what exactly are these stats showing, less crime??

Even if this is the case then this is in direct conflict with your statement above that “they cant be bothered” I would like to see stats on places where heroin or other hard drugs are illegal (they don’t exist).

This legalisation promotes 'No moral obligation or No social responsiblity'.

Have you ever observed how basic human morals and ethics disappear while people are under the influence of drugs??

It entirely depends on what drug is being taken. Personally I've never committed a crime just because I'm on aspirin.

Again, may argument is based on Rush’s assertion ALL DRUGS SHOULD BE LEGAL.

Perhaps you should try some heroin... if you get hooked well sorry, you can try Methadone...or....

If you legalise it, then the guys pushing the junk would become "legitimate business men" (or would the state product it! - wonderful) the "recreational heroin/opium/crack drug industry) and it may even be 'regulated', how quaint.

Talk about lowering moral and social standards, 'hey its okay to be flaky and drugged out'

Absolutely, if people are flaky and drugged out they cannot be exploited properly. This would undermine the whole capitalist system...sorry, still trying to see a negative here..

Conversely if people are too stoned to care (complete apathy) this is a wonderful form of control (more powerful than that of religion of old I would say).

When you look at reasoning behind the Dutch legislation, there were very specific reasons why it was only Cannabis (and derivatives of). You also need to consider the Dutch demographic as well.

People steal, and you will never be able to stop it no matter how many laws you have, but we don't decide to make it 'legal to steal' and hence morally acceptable.

I still don't get your argument for saying that taking drugs is immoral.
Why is it immoral?

Lets look at it three ways

1. What social utility do drugs offer? None.
2. How do drugs help you perform your duty? They don’t
3. What are the consequences of using drugs? <insert every possible harm here that would occur when you take them, it’s a long list!>

Utilitarian, Deontological and Just Consequential moral arguments…. You put these things into your body and you are unpredictable and potentially dangerous to yourself and others.

Explain to me how it's morally correct to legalise ALL DRUGS.... please?

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

Why? Because there is no longer a moral contract of any kind "it's okay to do this" -> 'it's allowed by the state'. It is allowed in the sense that it is condoned. You may say people choose to (and they do) but the choice is a whole lot easier when you know its legal. Any individual with an ounce of ethics will think twice. The net result of legalised drugs will be simply more abberated individuals and more crime.

This legalisation promotes 'No moral obligation or No social responsiblity'.

Have you ever observed how basic human morals and ethics disappear while people are under the influence of drugs??

The moral contract remains the same: do not initiate force against your fellow man. It doesn't disappear. No, basic human morals and ethics do not disappear when people are under the influence of drugs, any more than they disappear when people drive cars, or are filled with a murderous rage.

You cannot be serious?? Rush, this would have to be the most absurd statement I have read this month. You go straight to number #1. Have you ever actually studied the impact of drugs on human behavior??
It is scientific fact that alcoholism (lets not even go near all the hard drugs) induces some of the most abberant behavior imaginable with people living in regret for years afterwards. Drugs affect brain chemistry its that simple and brain chemistry directly controls human behavior.

Why? Because drug laws do not prevent the use of drugs. They never have, they never will. The massive majority of drug users use them quietly, within their homes or at the homes of friends, and happily continue with their lives. They don't lose basic human morals and ethics--they do drugs, and then they go to work and raise their families. Just like those that are filled, for whatever reason, with a murderous rage or insane jealousy. They sit down, they get past it, and they go on with their lives, never initiating force against those around them.

So by your line of reasoning

1. Drug laws do not prevent drug use
2. People use illegal drugs at home
3. Therefore drugs should be legal

Do you know what ‘social ethics’ are?? (it appears not) You are saying its socially acceptable to take any drug you like, the laws don’t work so we should let everyone do it. In a totally depraved society yes, this is probably acceptable. You have politely ignored the facts of what affect drugs have on individuals and family units and the overall social strata (keeping it nice and simple).

If you legalise it, then the guys pushing the junk would become "legitimate business men" (or would the state product it! - wonderful) the "recreational heroin/opium/crack drug industry) and it may even be 'regulated', how quaint.

If you legalise it, it will be produced by Smith-Kline and Bayer, it will be pure, clean, safe, cheap, and taxed. It will be regulated. No one will be standing on corners to get it, no one will be killed over turf, the majority of gang-related activites will simply disappear. The prisons will lose 2/3 - 3/4 of their inmates.

I cannot say much on this point as you think drug-use although it degrades all human sense and reason is ethically acceptable. Please take a look at the impact pharmaceutical drugs are having on the children of the U.S. Ritalin, Prozac, etc, etc (now add heroin, cocaine, crack, opium etc etc) wonderful.

Talk about lowering moral and social standards, 'hey its okay to be flaky and drugged out'

To you maybe. "Hey, its okay to be drunk and angry and mentally ill." Frankly, legalizing the drug doesn't mean legalizing drunk and disorderly conduct.

This may be true, but the Dutch are still having a problem with this. Large numbers of stoned people hanging out in certain areas.

[quote]
People steal, and you will never be able to stop it no matter how many laws you have, but we don't decide to make it 'legal to steal' and hence morally acceptable.

That is an entirely different discussion. Stealing is the initiation of force or fraud against another, it is not victimless, and involves property rights.

It’s the equivalent of your ridiculous “cars should be outlawed example”. You have made it quite clear you believe that taking drugs does not impair one’s ability to make decisions, think, take action and impact his fellow man and society at large.

What a wonderful world you must live in.

But let me summarise your argument so we are clear. Make corrections as necessary.


IT IS CONSIDERED PUNISHMENT IF IT IS ILLEGAL TO DO WHATEVER YOU LIKE WITH YOUR BODY
TAKING DRUGS IS EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER YOU LIKE WITH YOUR BODY

THEREFORE ALL DRUGS SHOULD BE LEGAL

AND

ANY PERSON CAN COMMIT A CRIME
PEOPLE ON DRUGS COMMIT CRIMES
CRIMES ARE PUNISHED BY THE COURT SYSTEM

THEREFORE ALL DRUGS SHOULD BE LEGAL


Note that this is surmised from your statement of

---------------
There's no reason to outlaw pot (or any drug, really) because people might go out and hurt someone--that is a normal (and sad) part of life that people do every day when they are stone cold sober and is/should be dealt with in the court system. If you initiate force and hurt someone, you should be punished. Punishing those that have not hurt someone is just silly.
----------------

---

Belief gets in the way of learning