Legalize All Drugs!

[Decaf]

emotion is for the weak minded (no matter what anyone tells you...or what you believe)

Not trying to hijack the thread, but this is the kind of bull that makes type theory an important tool for INTPs especially. We worship the power of our minds, but we are so afraid of falling under the irrational control of our emotions that we shun them completely. WE ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE IRRATIONAL EMOTIONS, NOT THEM. The other types (obviously predominantly feeling types) don't because they have more experience with them. They understand that emotions are the guide that tell you about yourself, what you want, what makes you happy. Feelers aren't ruled by their emotions, or at least the well balanced ones aren't. They coexist with them. That's a skill that we INTPs don't tend right away if ever.

Don't underestimate the personal strength that comes from an understanding of oneself beyond analytical skills and creative problem solving. Or an empathic understanding of others, which I'm sure most of us would admit is a big blind spot.

 

[IfloatTHRUlife]

-A conscious mental reaction subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body.

This is the definition by which i describe emotion... There is no MBTI descrimination about it.. just plain old emotion which you can plainly see is weak minded... no matter what emotion you describe with this definition..(happy, sad, angry, etc.) its no good..

 

[Decaf]

Here's the problem with that. You have them regardless and just like pain and fear, they tell you things about yourself and your surroundings. As much as we pride ourselves on our conscious minds, our unconscious is by its very nature much more powerful, like the kernel behind a GUI interface. Ignoring them is limiting your perceptions, limiting your instincts about a situation or a choice you have to make. To rely on emotion for decision making is foolish, but to ignore it is not better.

 

[IfloatTHRUlife]

"As much as we pride ourselves on our conscious minds, our unconscious is by its very nature much more powerful, like the kernel behind a GUI interface. Ignoring them is limiting your perceptions, limiting your instincts about a situation or a choice you have to make."

The definition says and i quote(yet again),"A conscious mental reaction" meaning you are thinking about what your doing. i still dont think you know where im going with this.. your thinking i am talking about feelings..emotion and feeling are different.

Feeling- the undifferentiated background of one's awareness considered apart from any identifiable sensation, perception, or thought.

Emotion is defined above.

 

[eudemonia]

This is interesting. I love Damasio's book: The Feeling of What Happens. Its complicated and I can't remember it all now but he distinguishes between emotions: 'essentially automatic reactions to a stimulus in the world or in one's mind.' and feelings: 'composite perceptions about things, situations, or people' (my emphases).

Emotions are automatic particularly what are called the basic emotions (which are found in every culture in the world and denoted by immediately recognisable facial expressions and body language). These are fear, disgust, anger, joy, surprise, sadness (though there is some disagreement here). We have no control over these emotions and we tend to react automatically when experiencing them.

Feelings are how we bring emotions to mind and our subjective experience of them. I agree with DeCaf - since we all experience emotions, if we do not face them, acknowledge them (especially the unpleasant ones) and understand them, we will be driven by them without our conscious awareness. This often leads to defensiveness - we feel fear, the amygdala is stimulated and the fight/flight mechanism is triggered and the next thing we know we are attacking someone, or withdrawing into our shell and doing the very opposite of what would be helpful to manage that
situation. We all have preferred defense mechanisms - I can list them if you like - and its important that we become aware of what they are. Mine is withdrawal - so when I go quiet, you know you have offended me! Others are aggression, denial, humour to deflect criticism etc.

Emotions and feelings can both block rational thought (particuarly when fight/flight is triggered) and facilitate thought e.g. excitement, optimism, humour, fun are important components of creativity.

 

[eudemonia]

PS its important to note that thoughts lead to feelings too. INTP's are prone to having negative thoughts which generate negative feelings which generate negative thoughts and the next thing you know you have a fully blown depression. You can't really separate thinking and feeling!!!

 

[FusionKnight]

I don't really think most people have the intelligence required to look after themselves. That's why laws are there in the first place, isn't it? To stop stupid people from doing stupid things? Ideally, they could be legal and no one would take them. Everything could be legal and everyone would behave properly nonetheless. That'll never happen, though.

This sort of thinking really gets me riled up. No offense to Jordan~, but I'm going to tear into this.

It is not the state's job to keep stupid people from doing stupid things, and in the United States anyway, such perversion of government power is strictly forbidden by the constitution (see 9th and 10th amendments).

To take Jordan's comment to it's logical conclusion, we should put parenting in the hands of the state, we should ban anything that could be considered remotely dangerous in the hands of someone "stupid" (like matches, plastic bags, or water), and we should definitely not let any private citizen decide how to spend his own money. I doubt many of us would want to live in such a society.

Laws are not created to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things. Laws are created to keep people (smart or stupid) from infringing upon each other's liberty through force or fraud. This is the core of the libertarian philosophy.

To bring this back to the thread topic, if people are stupid and wreck their bodies with drugs, then the law has no philosophical basis on which to interfere. Certainly private parties (like churches, rehab organizations, friends, family, etc.) can try to influence this individual towards better choices, but the choices are theirs to make.

Crimes committed while under the influence of chemicals are already illegal. There is no legal difference between a driver who kills a person because they were impatient and ran a red light to get to work faster, the driver who hits and kills someone because they were drunk, or the driver who kills someone because they were high and didn't notice a pedestrian. Vehicular homicide is already a crime. It doesn't matter if they were high, drunk, or talking on their cell phone. The criminal action was the same; the reason doesn't matter.

 

[Decaf]

I agree completely Fusion. The argument of using laws to keep stupid people from doing stupid things is a logical fallacy in itself. Most individuals are smart people, but we look at them and say, "Their politics/religion/choices don't make sense to me... they must be stupid." That's what Myers-Briggs is for. To help us understand that people can have completely different conclusions and they can all make sense.

The base assumption of the "stupid people" argument is that you know what's best for other people. Can you see how that kind of thinking inevitably leads to Socialism? Now, if you're all for socialism maybe you think that's a good thing (like the folk on intpcentral) but I'm not a believer in "The Greater Good". The ends do not justify the means.

YouTube- The Greater Good

 

[Decaf]

I agree completely Fusion. The argument of using laws to keep stupid people from doing stupid things is a logical fallacy in itself. Most individuals are smart people, but we look at them and say, "Their politics/religion/choices don't make sense to me... they must be stupid." That's what Myers-Briggs is for. To help us understand that people can have completely different conclusions and they can all make sense.

The base assumption of the "stupid people" argument is that you know what's best for other people. Can you see how that kind of thinking inevitably leads to Socialism? Now, if you're all for socialism maybe you think that's a good thing (like the folk on intpcentral) but I'm not a believer in "The Greater Good". The ends do not justify the means.

YouTube- The Greater Good

 

[FusionKnight]

Have any of you ever seen this video? I think it does an excellent job of explaining, from first principles, the libertarian philosophy, and how it relates to modern politics.

http://thepolymathreview.blogspot.com/2007/06/philosophy-of-liberty.html

 

[eudemonia]

I understand the libertarian argument, but no-one has answered my query about younger kids. You say Fusionknight that: 'if people are stupid and wreck their bodies with drugs, then the law has no philosophical basis on which to interfere' But we're all stupid at different times of our lives. As I said on a previous post,the brains of teenagers associated with assessment of risk and impulse control, do not develop until their mid twenties (boys are later than girls). The pressures on kids to fit in and be cool are tremendous. Actually, its not so much the INTPs that succumb to this pressure but the extroverted feelers are more vulnerable. Even my daughter (ENTP) has crumbled in the face of the mass media, stupid fashionista, peer pressure. So have her friends - one who has lost a parent another who has very low self esteem. I don't care if an intelligent, independent, privileged individual decides to do whatever. I do care that young people, who ARE vulnerable, need to be protected from certain powerful interests who would have them eating out of their hands if they could. I don't think you can talk about drugs unless you talk about power, the media and societal/cultural brainwashing at the same time. I know that a lot of people disagree about this but you have to balance freedom to with freedom from. How can you ensure that kids who take drugs (and dangerous ones) are exercising their freedom to rather than simply succumbing to psychological peer pressure which they are not equipped to handle? I would like to help kids be free from cultural brainwashing and dangerous exploitation.

 

[Decaf]

That's a good point eudemonia. This isn't a counter argument, but rather an alternative (though I agree there is still some room that should be filled in with something).

Freedom from drug pressure vs. Freedom to understand what drugs are. You know those advertisements against marijuana? Those are terrible. The work off the basis that fear is a healthy means toward the ends they want. Rebellious people don't rebel against things they agree with, they rebel against control and trying to scare kids away from drugs is control, just like trying to convince them to take them is. The problem is that kids recognize control through fear much earlier than control through deception.

I think it would be an interesting experiment to take a school district and institute a program where all the kids are taught about drugs to the level of rudimentary version of what scientists understand about them. Instead of saying, "its too complicated, lets teach them something else," say, "maybe they won't understand it all, but hopefully a little real knowledge will help them make the decisions they want to make." Some kids want to destroy themselves and will do drugs... is there a system that is really going to prevent them from doing that? We want to help the kids that don't know what's going on... they just know that adults are lying to them. They know adults are trying to scare them away from something and they don't know why.

Stop telling the horror stories. No one sees or hears a horror story and thinks "Oh my god, that could be me." You know what got me to decide never to take drugs? My dad used to take drugs and it didn't do him any good. He's fine now, never got arrested or anything. Nothing bad really happened to him, it just didn't do him any good. That's all the convincing I needed.

Maybe if we were being honest with kids the lies wouldn't have such potency.

 

[Dissident]

I think that kids have to be prevented from geting drugs at all cost until they are adults, since they are not mature anough to completely understand the consecuences of what they are doing. Meanwhile, you give them all the information possible so they have the tools to make a conscius informed decision. Once they are not underage anymore they can decide, if they choose to do drugs anyway then fine, suit yourself.

 

[Decaf]

How about making 18 the official age of accountability? After that point everything becomes legal that doesn't adversely affect the rights of others.

 

[FusionKnight]

That's not a terrible idea, but it lacks a fundamental truth backing it up. To me, and I suspect to most INTPs, if a rule or decision is going to be made, it has to be made in a specific way for specific reasons. Those reasons have to be cohesive with the reasons for all of the other decisions being made. There can't be contradictions.

So my question is this: why 18? Why not 19? Why not 16? Why not 30 or 40? The problem with this sort of "top-down" approach to law-making is that you always end up drawing an arbitrary line. This really bugs me. That's why I am so attracted to the libertarian philosophy; it is a system of emergent government, rather than a system imposed on us for largely arbitrary reasons.

As far as the "age of consent", it seems to me some measure other than age ought to a better indicator of when a person is ready to accept responsibility for their own actions. I have an idea of my own to propose...

What if we treat children as property of their parents (or legal guardians) until they are capable of "buying out" their contract. As soon as a child is capable and willing to provide for themselves, they can essentially claim sovereignty over their life by leaving the umbrella of their parents and earning their own money, having their own job and possessions.

I think this basic idea is a "bottom-up" emergent system of determining personal sovereignty. As soon as your are willing and able to be sovereign over your own life, you are sovereign over your own life. This way we don't write any arbitrary line in the sand, we don't disenfranchise those who may not fit into our "one-size-fits-all" legal mentality.

I actually think this sort of system of enfranchisement could work to solve a number of social ills we face, but I'll leave the discussion open at this point.

 

[Dissident]

Thats good, but what if an 11 years old feels like droping out of school and getting a job? Should his parents let him when they know that he is making a mistake because of his narrow understanding of the world? Either a line has to be drawn or a judge would have to see case by case if it should be allowed.

 

[Decaf]

<gasp> are you accusing me of picking 18 randomly? I would never...

Ideally speaking 25 would be the age of consent, because that's the age when most psychologists believe the brain finally stops its development stages. But then having a mix of underage and overage people in the work environment can be confusing and seem arbitrary (anyone who doesn't believe the whole 25 years old bit would ignore the law). So I chose 18 because up until the end of high school there is a stark contrast between underage and overage that is usually easily identifiable to people that need to be able to check ages.

Also, waiting till kids reach 25 to be able to sign contracts puts undue risk on family as cosigners. At that point they should be able (or well on their way to learning how) to take care of themselves. I'm much more concerned about things like contracts and youthful miscreant behavior than I am about drug use.

That's what went through my head before I typed those two sentences.

 

[FusionKnight]

Thats good, but what if an 11 years old feels like droping out of school and getting a job? Should his parents let him when they know that he is making a mistake because of his narrow understanding of the world? Either a line has to be drawn or a judge would have to see case by case if it should be allowed.

If an 11 year-old is able to move out, earn a living, buy their own food, rent their own apartment, etc. then why not? There's no reason an 11 year-old can't be a productive member of society. Obviously, if they are not old/mature/developed enough to deal with moving out, then they won't succeed, and they'll end up back in their parent's care.

Also, a narrow understanding of the world is best cured by experience. Obviously parents want to keep their kids safe and well provided for, but at some point a person needs to claim sovereignty over their own life and decisions (right or wrong), and provide for their own needs. Assigning an arbitrary age for this doesn't make any sense to me. Allowing each person to decide for themselves (sometimes through trial and error; that's how we all learn) when it's time to claim independence is the only non-arbitrary way I can see.

 

[Kuu]

I agree with Fusion. Society needs to stop "protecting the kids".....

 

[Decaf]

And that sounds great, but we're talking about evolutionary leap in society. We would need to rework our prison system to rehabilitate instead of institutionalize, rework the education system to teach kids useful skills instead of nationalistic propaganda, rework the media that glorified crime as a means of getting attention.

If we were able to start over with people who agreed with us, we could grow that kind of society, and I would like to live in it, but not here, not now.

 

[Dissident]

But dont parents have the right to choose how to raise their children? if they want him to study, and the 11 years old in rebellion and hormone desequilibrium says that he doesnt want to, dont the parents know better? Its not right for a kid to decide important stuff like that, most of them will choose not to study. If you ask a kid if he would rather drink the horrendous bitter medicine or get ill he will most likely choose not to drink the medicine, would you wait for him to get ill so he does?

 

[eudemonia]

I think the question is, are kids any different from adults? In the Victorian era, kids were sent out to work from as young as six or seven. The idea of childhood was a luxury. In upper class homes, kids were kept out of the way until they were considered adult enough to emerge into society. Now, we worship youth. We think youth have the answers. They certainly have more power than they have ever had in world history - but, the fact remains, that as Decaf says, their brains do not mature (particularly with regards to risk, and decision making) until their twenties. At the same time people want to exploit that and make money out of their naivete. At the same time, kids as young as 11 think they understand and know everything. Parents no longer have control over their kids. I can't tell my daugther not to.......she will do whatever she wants to do behind my back but with the immaturely developed brain of a 15 year old. There are some things that society has to protect. We can't carry on as if young teens are the same as 25 year old adults. But at the same time we can't restrict people based on their age - you are a mature 16 year old so you can take drugs, but you are an immature 19 year old so you can't Unfortunately, I think we sometimes have to give up freedoms to help the vulnerable. That is what society is about - rights and responsibilities. freedoms and sacrifices.

 

[FusionKnight]

And that sounds great, but we're talking about evolutionary leap in society. We would need to rework our prison system to rehabilitate instead of institutionalize, rework the education system to teach kids useful skills instead of nationalistic propaganda, rework the media that glorified crime as a means of getting attention.

If we were able to start over with people who agreed with us, we could grow that kind of society, and I would like to live in it, but not here, not now.

I can think of a few simple things we could do that would bring us leaps and bounds closer to a society like that.

1. Encourage home-schooling/private schools - allow parents who home-school or send their kids to private schools to opt out of double-paying (once though taxes, and once to tuition or home-school materials, etc). This encourages competition in education, and makes sure education aligns with actual market need, i.e. teaching marketable skills.

2. Repeal child labor laws - There is nothing wrong with kids working. In fact, kids get benefit not only be learning marketable skills, they also expand their world view, meet potential mentors, contribute to society, and earn money! How is this bad? I'd like to point out here, that the reason we even have child labor laws isn't due to sympathetic concerns over child exploitation. Child labor laws were introduced by labor unions who faced increased competition from the young workforce during the industrial revolution. Child labor was outlawed by greedy labor unions, not by saintly mother-theresas (sp?).

3. Try any criminal regardless of age as an adult unless they are considered a "dependent" of another person, i.e. not yet claimed their personal sovereignty.

4. Transition from a "punishment" based legal system to a "reparations" based legal system. Criminals are liable for all the damages they inflict on the victim, as well as funding their own encarceration. If the crime is something where assigning a dollar value is difficult (like murder), do something like "the criminal is liable to pay the survivors of the victim the victim's wage at time of death for the likely lifetime of the victim had they not been murdered". This essentially eliminates "victimless" crimes (like drugs), and makes sure criminals are not a drain on society.

I'm sure there are more I could think of, but I'm going home now. Time for dinner!

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

I can think of a few simple things we could do that would bring us leaps and bounds closer to a society like that.

1. Encourage home-schooling/private schools - allow parents who home-school or send their kids to private schools to opt out of double-paying (once though taxes, and once to tuition or home-school materials, etc). This encourages competition in education, and makes sure education aligns with actual market need, i.e. teaching marketable skills.

2. Repeal child labor laws - There is nothing wrong with kids working. In fact, kids get benefit not only be learning marketable skills, they also expand their world view, meet potential mentors, contribute to society, and earn money! How is this bad? I'd like to point out here, that the reason we even have child labor laws isn't due to sympathetic concerns over child exploitation. Child labor laws were introduced by labor unions who faced increased competition from the young workforce during the industrial revolution. Child labor was outlawed by greedy labor unions, not by saintly mother-theresas (sp?).

3. Try any criminal regardless of age as an adult unless they are considered a "dependent" of another person, i.e. not yet claimed their personal sovereignty.

4. Transition from a "punishment" based legal system to a "reparations" based legal system. Criminals are liable for all the damages they inflict on the victim, as well as funding their own encarceration. If the crime is something where assigning a dollar value is difficult (like murder), do something like "the criminal is liable to pay the survivors of the victim the victim's wage at time of death for the likely lifetime of the victim had they not been murdered". This essentially eliminates "victimless" crimes (like drugs), and makes sure criminals are not a drain on society.

I'm sure there are more I could think of, but I'm going home now. Time for dinner!

Wow. I don't think I could disagree more with all 4 of those issues. Couldn't disagree more with a lot of things said on this thread but I'll just pick on you since yours is last

1. First, home schooling: I don't really have too much of a problem with it in priciple but the practical applications of it do bring up troubling concerns. Are there any "universal" standards at all? I assume a child will have to pass some high school equivalency test but just like the application of "No Child Left Behind", that only requires a parent to teach a bare minimum in order for the child to pass. Also the parent may overvalue his or her abilities as a teacher(s). What if neither parent is particularly good at teaching math to a child who is naturally inclined to excell at the discipline? The parent may stunt (inadvertantly I'm sure) that childs natural ability. Also, what if the method by which the child learns is somehow incompatible with methods taught if that child goes on to college? How are colleges supposed to gauge whether or not a home school student is prepared to to succeed at their institution for that matter?
Private school: What you are basically describing is the voucher system. The voucher system looks fantastic....on paper. Again, troubling concerns arise. First of all, it would basically kill off the public school since tax money which pays for it will be taken out of systems. Ok, fine but let's look at the possible ramifications of that. Suddenly, there is a lot of money going into the private school sector which means there is profit to be made. Again, sounds fine but this means a lot of schools will have to open. Who can afford to open so many schools? Corporations? Perhaps and that is a HUGE red flag. Are we going to see chain schools nationwide? I live in a very small town. 1 elementary school, 1 middle school and 1 high school. There isn't a market here competition. So what if only one of these private schools open up around here and the parents both need to work to make ends meet? Where's the choice then? Too many troubling questions to ask about this to list here but needless to say, I forsee a host of potential problems.

2. Repeal child labor laws......SAY WHAT!?!? Children, no matter how intelligent, are rather naive creatures. They are more gullible and easy to manipulate. Employers WILL take advantage of it. Just look at the treatment of child the child laborors that make most of what you will find in your local Wal-Mart. That was just one of the myriad of reason such laws were repealed.
Also, I highly doubt Chris Hanson of Dateline NBC has caught all the child predetors out there just yet. If he does someday, then all a child will have to worry about is muggers and theives. An eleven year old would make quite a tempting target I'd imagine. Bottom line is they are just too vulnerable and ignorant of the world to make a choice to emancipate himself.

3. This basically relates to number 2. I'll just add that children lack the emotional maturity make good decisions. Maybe....MAYBE a precious few are that wise beyond their years but it is far more likely that they just think they are. A kid decides he doesn't like the rules his parents set for him and makes the rash decision to go out on his own. There's a disaster waiting to happen.
Also, I believe you made the argument in this thread somewhere that if a child strikes out on his own and doesn't make it, he can just go back home to live with the parents. Easier said than done. For one thing, what if the parents don't want the child back? Are they required to take him back? What if they decide to make the child miserable for leaving in the first place? There are some pretty crappy parents out there.

4. A reparations based criminal justice system sounds good....IF the criminal in question had the means to "pay the survivors of the victim the victim's wage at time of death for the likely lifetime of the victim". Most criminals don't, so what then? I propose going back to the humiliation approach for most criminals. Bring back the stockades!! Of course serious crimes like murder, rape etc. require harsher measures.

 

[ElectricWizard]

Critical thinking is not a marketable skill.
Anyways, drugs currently hardly have anything to do with 'personal responsibility', poor people will probably be more likely to take drugs, even though their poverty is not their fault. Then they get fucked over. However, at least legalizing drugs means that they could then be regulated to make sure they're safe, and not mixed with random impurities to increase their volume.

 

[lightspeed]

1: "Adderall is a brand-name psychostimulant medication composed of amphetamine and dextroamphetamine, which is thought to work by increasing the amount of dopamine and norepinephrine in the brain.[1] Adderall is widely reported to increase alertness, libido, concentration and overall cognitive performance while decreasing user fatigue. It is available in two formulations: immediate release (IR) and extended release (XR).[Note 1] The immediate release formulation is indicated for use in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy,[2] while the XR formulation is only approved for use in ADHD.[1] In the United States, Adderall is a Schedule II drug under the Controlled Substance Act due to having addiction potential and potent effects on blood pressure." source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adderal ---
---
"In North America it is most commonly known as the brand name Ritalin, which is an instant-release racemic mixture, although a variety of brand names and formulations exist,[2] many in its dextrorotatory preparation as dexmethylphenidate. MPH is a potent CNS stimulant derived from amphetamine,[disputed – discuss] and is thought to exert its effect by increasing dopaminergic stimulation in the brain." source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritalin


2: "Levomethamphetamine, other names include l-methamphetamine, levodesoxyephedrine, l-desoxyephedrine, and levmetamfetamine (Vicks Vapor Inhaler), is the levorotary (R-isomer) of methamphetamine, levomethamphetamine is a sympathomimetic vasoconstrictor which is the active ingredient used in some over-the-counter nasal decongestants including Vicks Vapor Inhaler." from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levomethamphetamine




Sorry...here's the article ladies and gentlemen:

Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?
click here to read full story: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

Portugal's case study is of some interest to lawmakers in the U.S., confronted now with the violent overflow of escalating drug gang wars in Mexico. The U.S. has long championed a hard-line drug policy, supporting only international agreements that enforce drug prohibition and imposing on its citizens some of the world's harshest penalties for drug possession and sales. Yet America has the highest rates of cocaine and marijuana use in the world, and while most of the E.U. (including Holland) has more liberal drug laws than the U.S., it also has less drug use.

"I think we can learn that we should stop being reflexively opposed when someone else does [decriminalize] and should take seriously the possibility that anti-user enforcement isn't having much influence on our drug consumption," says Mark Kleiman, author of the forthcoming When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment and director of the drug policy analysis program at UCLA. Kleiman does not consider Portugal a realistic model for the U.S., however, because of differences in size and culture between the two countries.

But there is a movement afoot in the U.S., in the legislatures of New York State, California and Massachusetts, to reconsider our overly punitive drug laws. Recently, Senators Jim Webb and Arlen Specter proposed that Congress create a national commission, not unlike Portugal's, to deal with prison reform and overhaul drug-sentencing policy. As Webb noted, the U.S. is home to 5% of the global population but 25% of its prisoners.

 

[Robert]

We have to remember laws exert a massive psychological effect. I don't want to become another INTP saying 'all people are stupid', but society certainly does have a crowd mentality (to which no types are completely immune, as arrogant as many INTPs seem to get about this), and that crowd-mind adopts its society's laws whole-heartedly. You only have to see the effect the smoking ban and the associated ad campaign has had in the UK. The way smokers are viewed has changed immensely. I know even many smokers who have absolutely no intention of quitting and who enjoy smoking very much constantly putting themselves down and saying what a terrible habit they have, which they never did before. They go on to thank the smoking ban as it's 'helping them quit' (even though it's not). It's not that the ads have given them anymore knowledge, and now they suddenly know their habit is self-destructive; it's just a difference in the crowd mentality towards it, to which they are as susceptible as any other member of society, in a simple desire to 'fit in'.

If you legalized all drugs, which I personally think is an awful idea, one of the mass-psychological effects will be that drugs no longer will be seen as something 'prohibited'. At first there would not be much difference, as the crowd-mind of this generation quite rightly fears hard drugs. But eventually, through the younger generations, this will inevitably change.

As has already been said, this will exert its largest effect on children, but it will also exert an effect on adult members of society who are bored, depressed, or trying to prove something. You'd be bound to see a massive increase in heroin- and cocaine addicts, and addicts cannot function as normal members of society.

Libertarianism is one of several brands of stupid extremism, which thinks that all the problems of society can be solved by adopting their particular brand of insanity. Libertarianism thinks all government is evil and individuals should be allowed to act exactly how they like. The fact is the safety and comfort of society is based on stopping individuals from doing exactly what they like most often with threats, whether literal or pyschological.

 

['slinger]

Call it stupid extremism if you will, but freedom>everything else put together. Comfort, security, even survival.

What gives anyone the right to use force to keep another in line? What gives anyone the right to decide what's good for society? This is tyranny without question.

People can't take care of themselves? Fine, but what has any government ever done well? They are all either incapable or (as I suspect) have no interest in the benefit of their citizens. If you can't take care of yourself, what on earth would make you think that an impersonal bureaucracy will do a better job?

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Let's try this question: If marijuana and similar drugs suddenly ceased to exist, what would you do with your time?

Hmmmmmm this is a good question. Most of my weed smoking was done in college- I guess drinking. Or contemplation. More of the same of what I do actually- I would toke and then do my everyday evening activities (read books, watch TV, eat, IM people).

Eudemonia and Robert (and others) are assuming this: When drugs are legalized, more people will use them. I don't believe this is the case. The Portugal study has shown this, as well as when Vancouver, BC essentially legalized marijuana. (In Vancouver there was a small uptick of marijuana use in the first three months, but then it went back to the levels it was at before.) I know kids who, in 10th grade, were smoking weed daily in the parking lot. (Although... I've only learned this after the fact, I was oblivious to drug use during high school. *sigh INTP*)

I believe that if people want to use drugs, they will use drugs, no matter the legal status of them.

I also believe that there is life after drug abuse. If we treat drug abusers like criminals it makes it harder for them to get treatment and will restrict their development when they are put in prison.

Safety:
There's a strong argument for safety: But legalizing & regulating the drug industry we'll be able to better guarantee the products of the drug market. The vast majority of Ecstacy in the street has additions of Meth, Caffiene, and other stimulants. Cocaine is cut with a lot of fillers.

In the budding Research Chemical market there has been a recent tragedy- a RC manufacturer tested 2-C-B-FLY and died (at a dosage that would have usually been safe). Some contamination in his chemical process made it lethal. Maybe this entrepreneur would have gotten killed anyway, but I think that in a legalized & regulated environment there would have been alternative ways to test the drug.

Additionally, to get drugs now you have to go to drug dealers. I've known a lot of passive, happy, friendly pot dealers, but I imagine that at some point the drug dealers have to be vicious and ready to deal with criminal elements. (My dealers were mostly serving a university crowd.) It's dangerous. If it was legalized, we could buy drugs from a pharmacy in a well-lit area.

Finally, if we legalized drugs the money would go to entrepreneurs, pharmacies and companies, instead of drug cartels! Even though my friendly pot dealer wasn't part of a cartel, his supplier may have been- if not for his weed, then for his other substances. Drug cartels in Mexico are destroying the government and creating instability. The Taliban receives $70 - 400 MILLION in opium profits. If we legalized the product we could actually have a chance at winning the war in Afghanistan! Right now Afghan opium farmers have no choice but to work with the Taliban, but if it was legalized they could come to the nationalist side.

Legalizing drugs would also lower the prices of them. One of the leading problems with cocaine users isn't the cocaine- it's when the coke heads run out of money. My friend R. was using ghastly amounts of cocaine, but her real problem started when she ran out of money. She still needed her fix, and turned to Meth, the cheaper & more dangerous alternative. Her physical well-being deteriorated, and she eventually went to rehab (twice). I'm happy to report that she's recovered, and is now engaged to a very supportive fiance.

I skimmed the CATO paper that lightspeed's Time article reference. It's free to download. http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

Here's the most shocking graph:
[BIMG]http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/3157/portugalsecondaryschool.jpg[/BIMG]

*phew* I'm going to leave my post with this.

 

[Yellow]

I think most drugs should be legalized. There are so many benefits. One, it would take money out of the hands of more traditional drug salesmen because they could be sold in 'drug stores' (gives that a whole new meaning!). Second, it would result in a standardized regulation of drug quality which would serve to cut down on deaths related to impurities and include health/side effect warnings on the packages. Thirdly, there could be set age limits (after all, as it is, children have an easier time getting pot than booze). Finally, the governement could tax the hell out of them and *hopefully* be able to cut down on things like income and sales taxes. Ha! Imagine: "those drugs you just bought are helping to pay for the new school!".

However, a few drugs should remain illegal and be more heavily pursued by law enforcement. Meth, crack, and flunitrazepam (roofies) come to mind. There is nothing even remotely justifiable about their existence.

 

[Toad]

I think the main question is: Would legalizing a drug make more people use it? My opinion is that people who want to use drugs will use it no matter if it is legal or not. Would any of you guys use cocaine if it was legal? I probably would, but that's because I'm fucked up. Fucked up people will always get the drug so why not legalize it, that way the government can regulate it. It will be illegal for minors to buy it, the quality will be consistent (so no overdosing on impurities), and more people will have access to truthful information about it.

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean people will use it.

 

[Cogwulf]

I've heard people say that if heroin was legalised, the only people who would still buy it would be people who were already addicted, no addicats actually choose to start taking it, they're pushed into it by dealers and the world of drug taking generally

 

[Invoke Ninja's True Power]

legalizing would make drugs safer. The streets would probably be a bit safer as well. Provide designated places to do said drug. I would like to see the return of the opium bar, maybe even an upper bar, a hallucinogen bar, etc.... and better classification of drugs. I hope this will come to pass in my lifetime.

 

[Latro]

To make your own alcohol, you often end up with methanol in the mix which makes you blind.

As I recall that happened because unscrupulous moonshiners cut their ethanol with methanol. If it was easy enough to gain appreciable amounts of methanol via fermentation we would use that instead of being dependent on fossil fuel sources of methanol.

 

[Decaf]

As I recall that happened because unscrupulous moonshiners cut their ethanol with methanol.

While I agree there was probably some unscrupulous behavior involved, I assure you that the process of distilling alcohol generates an unhealthy level of methanol as well as trace amounts of isopropyl alcohol. Both of those are dangerous to consume, but the latter much more so. Quality filtration removes them, but bootleg operations often can't afford the equipment necessary to do a thorough job of it.

One thing often done to take care of the more dangerous component is called "concentration", which is just that. You boil it and collect the vapor, thus concentrating the desired product. Ethanol boils at a lower temperature than isopropanol, so as long as the boiling process is carefully regulated, you can eliminate the unwanted material almost entirely. Unfortunately methanol boils at a lower temperature than ethanol. That means to remove all the methanol from the reaction you would need to "concentrate" it once, throw all the collected liquid away, then "concentrate" it again to collect the good stuff.

Most bootleggers were not chemists, and either did not fully understand the process (you could stay in business selling alcohol with methanol traces in it, even though it was risky) or they didn't care (careful filtration extends the time frame it takes to distill alcohol by at least 50%).

 

[bananaphallus]

While I agree there was probably some unscrupulous behavior involved, I assure you that the process of distilling alcohol generates an unhealthy level of methanol as well as trace amounts of isopropyl alcohol. Both of those are dangerous to consume, but the latter much more so. Quality filtration removes them, but bootleg operations often can't afford the equipment necessary to do a thorough job of it.

One thing often done to take care of the more dangerous component is called "concentration", which is just that. You boil it and collect the vapor, thus concentrating the desired product. Ethanol boils at a lower temperature than isopropanol, so as long as the boiling process is carefully regulated, you can eliminate the unwanted material almost entirely. Unfortunately methanol boils at a lower temperature than ethanol. That means to remove all the methanol from the reaction you would need to "concentrate" it once, throw all the collected liquid away, then "concentrate" it again to collect the good stuff.

Most bootleggers were not chemists, and either did not fully understand the process (you could stay in business selling alcohol with methanol traces in it, even though it was risky) or they didn't care (careful filtration extends the time frame it takes to distill alcohol by at least 50%).

I know this sounds arrogant, but I couldn't help but laugh, worrying about unintentionally rendering a dangerous substance while trying to make an enormously potent batch of alcohol - which is also not good for you.

 

[Toad]

America is currently trying to ban Vicodin and other opiate painkillers.

 

[Cogwulf]

as in ban doctors prescribing them?

 

[Toad]

As in making it illegal to produce, prescribe, possess, and/or use them.

 

[Robert]

Toad, that's not really the point. Yes, people who want to use drugs will still use them in today's climate, as there's always ways of getting hold of them. But if drugs were legalized, made OK to use in the eyes of the public, people who otherwise would never have used them would start using them, without a doubt! Children who'd want to be seen as 'bad' or 'daring' would start doing harder drugs (which would be far more easily available to them even if they were banned for people below a certain age) and would peer pressure other youths into it ... once you're a heroine or cocaine addict it's not exactly easy to stop. There would be a massively negative backlash.

It's only really stoners and people who take Bill Hicks too seriously who lie back and imagine a world where all drugs were legalized as a good thing. Anyone who seriously considers the social consequences at large cannot really think that.

Consider for example in America where y'all have the right to own guns ... gun crime is MUCH MUCH higher over there than it is in the UK. Allowing people access to whatever substances and objects they want irregardless of how they're likely to be used is bound to have negative effects, which is what libertarian morons cannot accept and will attempt to refute with the most illogical arguments imaginable.

 

[Cogwulf]

It would prevent overdoses, but it would also rob many thousands of people of a drug which allows them to have normal lives.

And besides, if you take away one thing that people overdose on there's still a plethora of other drugs which can be overdosed

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Toad, that's not really the point. Yes, people who want to use drugs will still use them in today's climate, as there's always ways of getting hold of them. But if drugs were legalized, made OK to use in the eyes of the public, people who otherwise would never have used them would start using them, without a doubt! Children who'd want to be seen as 'bad' or 'daring' would start doing harder drugs (which would be far more easily available to them even if they were banned for people below a certain age) and would peer pressure other youths into it ... once you're a heroine or cocaine addict it's not exactly easy to stop. There would be a massively negative backlash.

It's only really stoners and people who take Bill Hicks too seriously who lie back and imagine a world where all drugs were legalized as a good thing. Anyone who seriously considers the social consequences at large cannot really think that.

Consider for example in America where y'all have the right to own guns ... gun crime is MUCH MUCH higher over there than it is in the UK. Allowing people access to whatever substances and objects they want irregardless of how they're likely to be used is bound to have negative effects, which is what libertarian morons cannot accept and will attempt to refute with the most illogical arguments imaginable.

Did you even read what I posted?

 

[Latro]

*snip*

Yep. At the end of the day emotions are essentially the axioms of the logic of human interaction, for the most part. Without axioms you do not have logic, which indicates a blatant flaw in logic worship.

Consider for example in America where y'all have the right to own guns ... gun crime is MUCH MUCH higher over there than it is in the UK.

Correlation not causation. Statistics surrounding violent crime after the UK and also local areas in the US banned guns indicate a large increase, if I remember correctly. In the case of the US having guns legal and having more gun crime vs. the UK you are not keeping track of the cultural etc. differences between the two countries, thus leaving you with an "uncontrolled experiment", while implementing gun laws in a given location that didn't have them before and making observations is a relatively controlled experiment.

 

[Enne]

On that note, I was just wondering ... this mass loosening of the neckties - can it be applied to gun control as well? Please?