Drugs are bad, mkay?

[ClockHand]

Delp@ Where did you got that scale? Because as far I know Cannabis doesn't gener dependence. Also Anabolics steroids are at the same garmful level than alcohol.

[Delphinus]

Not when alcohol is marked as a 2.0 on the 'dependence' scale it isn't. How many drinkers are alcoholics? Not very many.

@Clockhand: The image is from Wikipedia, the study is here. And cannabis still causes dependence, just so little as to be (mostly) negligible.

[Saith]

Well you get psychological dependance.
You won't get the shakes, but you'll cry a lot.

[CypressDahlia]

There are varying degrees of drinking, Delphinus. I drink once in maybe 6 months. I'm not sure if that qualifies me as a drinker. But, in that case, then you could say well over 80% of Americans are drinkers. Whereas Alcoholism is based on extremely specific criteria. So the percentage of drinkers who are alcoholics is extremely diluted (hawhawhaw) by "casual" or "social" drinkers like myself.

But, statistically speaking, Americans drink 8 litres of alcohol yearly per capita (over age 15). Considering 15 isn't even legal, you can imagine the bulk of that 8 litres //per capita// falls in the 21 and above age group, who have legal access to alcohol. Beyond that, this is averaged out among the entirety of the 15+ age group, which constitutes roughly 80% of the American population (245,605,240 people) according to census, which further dilutes the number. So, despite not meeting the criteria for being an ALCOHOLIC, per se, we can safely say that Americans drink an //unhealthy// or even harmful amount of alcohol.

Besides, the harmful effects of alcohol extend far beyond alcoholism. Even a non-alcoholic can pay with their life due to one night of reckless drinking. Again, addressing personal responsibility.

[Delphinus]

I understand the whole point you're making vis a vis personal responsibility, and I agree. But it's not really relevant when discussing dependency on a drug, psychological or physical. Do most Americans require alcohol? I mean could they go tee-total instantly without any real loss?

[CypressDahlia]

Responsibility has everything to do with dependency. What do you mean it's not relevant? Maybe you mean responsibility doesn't affect the chemical breakdown of a drug. That's true. But psychological dependency is just a make-believe diagnosis for normal, self-indulgent behavior. It's not really a dependency at all. Just a term we coined to describe an otherwise completely average lack of self control. And physical dependency can be avoided if you are //responsible// enough to take whatever drug in moderation. For those who are too-far-gone, it takes self motivation and an equally large if not greater amount of responsibility to climb out of the hole.

And Americans don't //require// alcohol. Likewise, Americans don't //require// (recreational) marijuana. I don't think that's really an argument. Recreational marijuana is just another one of those "why not" issues. "Why legalize marijuana?" is just a good a question as "Why NOT legalize marijuana?" The best argument you've got for marijuana is 1.) keeping kids out of jail (where they shouldn't be anyway, if they were //law-abiding// citizens) and 2.) medical purposes. I actually support the latter, which is now legal in 16 states and growing. But, in the end, people just wanna get high. That's all. They have no other reason for supporting weed legalization than just being self-indulgent potheads. If anything, this should be a "Legalize MEDICAL Marijuana" thread. Now, if it was a bunch of breast cancer patients undergoing chemo at the vanguard of the "legalize weed" movement, I would be all for it. They're the ones who //need// it. But it's just a bunch of college shitheads who think it's some kinda necessity to get high.

And, addressing a previous point: I'm down for abolishing alcohol and cigarettes. Shit is bad for you.

Besides, imagine if Marijuana was legalized and went commercial. We'd have another corporation to deal with (because "big bad tobacco companies" aren't enough to bitch about), kids would still go to jail, considering weed would probably still have to be FDA approved (as it is classified as a Schedule I Drug), therefore personal growing/selling would probably //still// be illegal. Beyond that, it's gonna make parenting a HELLUVA lot harder, what with another drug sitting on the shelves. And, even if it was legalized, we still have a lot of procedures regarding things like job licensing and, you know, public safety, that require people to test negative for THC. Do we really want to legalize something that would interfere with peoples' ability to do their jobs? As if alcohol didn't produce enough DUIs alone, we're going to let people get //more// stuff that they could be arrested for in a separate context.

And, in the end, it all comes back to one question: "Can we trust people not to fuck themselves over with Marijuana?" Hell, we can barely trust people with Freedom of Speech. Look at the internet.

[Delphinus]

And, in the end, it all comes back to one question: "Can we trust people not to fuck themselves over with Marijuana?" Hell, we can barely trust people with Freedom of Speech. Look at the internet.

Since the crux of your argument essentially rests on this, I'd like to attack it head-on.

What gives the state the right to dictate to people what they can or cannot do to themselves? Why should we give the state, which is after all a mere organ of the people who comprise it, power to overrule individual citizens and their decisions when those decisions do not, in and of themselves, harm anyone whatsoever? If you argue that the state has the right to remove individual rights to ensure the medical health of the citizen they are protecting - then damn, why do we allow the roads to remain open, when road accidents alone cause more deaths than any other single non-natural cause of death? Every time you get in your car you take a gamble with your life - should the state ban cars?

NOTE: ^ the above only apply when arguing about a citizen being allowed to take actions that may harm himself, not applying to his actions harming others, that's a different matter entirely.

You place emphasis on personal responsibility and self-control - why will you not allow people to determine their own lives through their exercise or lack thereof of that self-control? Why do you demand that the state prohibits a particular substance when you believe that people deserve or rather should be blamed for their exercise of free will? In short, your views are contradictory, hypocritical, rife with cognitive dissonance, and expound the worst sort of authoritarianism.

[Fenn]

Since the crux of your argument essentially rests on this, I'd like to attack it head-on.

What gives the state the right to dictate to people what they can or cannot do to themselves? Why should we give the state, which is after all a mere organ of the people who comprise it, power to overrule individual citizens and their decisions when those decisions do not, in and of themselves, harm anyone whatsoever? If you argue that the state has the right to remove individual rights to ensure the medical health of the citizen they are protecting - then damn, why do we allow the roads to remain open, when road accidents alone cause more deaths than any other single non-natural cause of death? Every time you get in your car you take a gamble with your life - should the state ban cars?

NOTE: ^ the above only apply when arguing about a citizen being allowed to take actions that may harm himself, not applying to his actions harming others, that's a different matter entirely.

You place emphasis on personal responsibility and self-control - why will you not allow people to determine their own lives through their exercise or lack thereof of that self-control? Why do you demand that the state prohibits a particular substance when you believe that people deserve or rather should be blamed for their exercise of free will? In short, your views are contradictory, hypocritical, rife with cognitive dissonance, and expound the worst sort of authoritarianism.

I second this. If it doesn't hurt anyone else, it's their choice. If not, let's ban extreme sports.

[PWhit]

We shouldn't be banning anything, we should be allowing more everything in moderation.

[CypressDahlia]

What gives the state the right to dictate to people what they can or cannot do to themselves?

To protect the people. People are really selfish, if it isn't highly apparent. When the government looks out for their good, they bitch about "limiting rights". When the government doesn't babysit them enough, they complain that nobody is protecting them. It wouldn't be a huge deal if people would make up their goddamn minds already. But they just ride the wave of whatever suits them; anarchy one day and policing the next.

If you argue that the state has the right to remove individual rights to ensure the medical health of the citizen they are protecting - then damn, why do we allow the roads to remain open, when road accidents alone cause more deaths than any other single non-natural cause of death? Every time you get in your car you take a gamble with your life - should the state ban cars?

Not a good question. Cars are are main mode of transportation, and are essential in today's fast-paced world, not to mention essential to our economy. The government understands that, but also goes far, //far// out of their way to ensure the safety of the people, while not limiting their convenience to an extreme. Road signs, street renovations, state-funded driving schools, licensing procedures, the AAA; they all exist, you know. You can blame anything bad that comes out of it on the stupidity of the people themselves. See, we can't even trust an extremely well-regulated road system to "the people". My point. Besides, even when given an inch, people want the whole ruler. Cigarettes and alcohol are actually also very well-regulated (without being invasive), yet how many dumbasses kill themselves and others due to their abuse?

You place emphasis on personal responsibility and self-control - why will you not allow people to determine their own lives through their exercise or lack thereof of that self-control?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because the purpose of a government is to ensure the safety of its citizens. Are you saying we should continue to let the fuckups kill themselves on booze and nicotine? Or, better yet, other people? People don't magically come back to life, Delphinus. This is one of those problems that has to be nipped in the bud. A drug addict isn't going to Overdose, die, realize he's lacked self control and come back to life a better man. That's like saying we should let forest fires burn until they ember out, then reflect on why shit died. It's not the meaning of responsibility nor self-control by any stretch. Now, if it were the case that we DIDN'T have as many drug related deaths or injuries, DUIs or drug-related crimes, then okay, you make a valid point. But we do, and I'm glad the government isn't just sitting back saying, "Naw, it's fine, they'll learn eventually." It's quite apparent that people HAVEN'T learned, despite all of the government funded anti-drug propaganda, programs, all of the ad campaigns, tight regulations and taxes they push on vendors. People have already expressed a lack of responsibility and self-control, over the span of many decades, and the figures are just getting progressively worse. Isn't that more than enough reason to tighten regulation? Or should the government just sit back and wait for a better reason? Or, maybe, by some miracle, everyone will suddenly become "responsible". You know how ridiculous that is.

Why do you demand that the state prohibits a particular substance when you believe that people deserve or rather should be blamed for their exercise of free will?

I didn't realize that "lack of self responsibility" = "need for more regulation" was contradictory. I'm not sure if you have your head on straight. If you can't be responsible for yourself, you need someone to be responsible for you. Understand that the government has already given people an inch, and they fucked up--BAD. So why let them continue?

Responsibility is not about fucking up, then falling over and dying because of it. It's about fucking up, and realizing you fucked up and doing what's in your power to fix it. I just don't see that kind of promise in our people.