[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Zanardi--Uh...look at the rest of the world dude.[/QUOTE]
He means the immediate, short-term effects of lowering the drinking age. You'll have a LOT of people from the ages of 18 through 20, specifically those who did drink illegally, go out and get drunk. Not just any drunk, but starting to walk the line of alcohol poisoning. I mean, if tonight you knew you could go out and buy all the booze you wanted, wouldn't you? I know I would. I wouldn't get wasted, but a lot of people would.

Not only that, but the drugs can be monitored just like any other foodstuff or product, so the quality of drug will be far more reliable.

No-one really dies of heroin overdoses; what they die of is the adulterants, the cutting agents mixed in. Sometimes, the heroin will be cut half-and-half with adulterants at every level of the drug chain, so the end product that the user on the street gets is awful stuff that kills them instantly. If heroin were legalised, it could be sold in government-liscensed shops and quality controlled, and the deaths from quinine and the like would be a thing of the past.

Drug addiction is a problem, not a crime. What the government should be doing is offer help and services, not just throw them all in jail. What might also be actually sensible is look at why users feel the need to rely on drugs in the first place..

Alcohol and drugs are NOT the same.

Few people find alcohol morally objectionable. They got prohibition in through dishonest methods.

Most people find drugs morally objectionable. You can say otherwise, but most people don't do drugs.

Mom and Pop will not start selling heroin in their shop. Fiddy Cent junior won't stop just because it is legal, now he can gang bang with greater ease since they can't just arrest him for drug posession.

You want the government to control it? How is that different. They won't sell for low prices, they won't sell the 'good stuff' much like people complain about getting low % alcohol here in Utah, so they go to Wyoming. Illegal drug trade will NOT stop because people will not get as great of a high from the government.

Ever notice that lots of people who do drugs a lot are all about anarchy, tear down the government? You think those people will just buy from the feds? No, sorry.

It's not as cut and dry as everyone makes it sound.

You haven't explained how they're different, though. You just re-stated the stigma attached to them. But they ARE the same, when it comes down to it. There is no property of alcohol itself that really sets it apart, in terms of effects, than the majority of drugs.

With out alcohol, I don't think we could live. And why don't we let people decide whats in the best interest for them? Because if we did we'd all be high druken gay communist thieves that play from time to time JK. Thats why!

You make no real sense.

I'd like to take everyone who is as conservative as you are, put them on a planet, give them a utopean society, [and air] and watch them argue over how to ruin it.

Either that's the worst example of humor and/or sarcasm that I've ever read, or Gold's finally gone off the deep end.

...



CASE CLOSED.

I am not talking about the effects of the substances, I am talking about them and their relation to illegalness.

Their legality is irrelevant, though. That's the whole point. We were pointing out the hypocrisy of having alcohol be legal and other drugs not by saying "why distinguish between them legally? They're not different."

Then you came along and said "Sure they're different! One's legal and one isn't!"

:p

dont forget nicotine!

Drugs don't kill people, spe kills people

I've seen the proof.

You're still not getting what I am saying.

A majority of people don't think alcohol is bad even in moderation.

A majority of people think drugs are bad even in moderation.

shouldn't [moderation] = Excess?

Are you saying that whatever the majority thinks is true? That's a weak argument. :p

Not really, no. I just wouldn't be scared about parties getting busted up and going on probation for a good 2 years.

Here's another way to look at it...By not letting them get married, we're sparing them from having to pay alimony in the event of divorce. So in a way, we are doing them a favor.

I think you've overlooking how many people have tried or do drugs regularly. From students to junkies to businessmen, the drug culture applies different drugs to different people. As it should; if you need to wake up, you drink coffee. If you have a headache, you take aspirin. If you need to sleep, you take sleeping pills. If you need to mellow down, you smoke cannabis. If you need to perk up, you snort some coke. The 'problem' with narcotis, as with all drugs, isn't the actual taking of the drugs, but the addiction to them.
Had some restless nights, perhaps high pressure weather making it hard to sleep? Pop some sleeping pills, you'll have a good nights' sleep. There's clearly nothing wrong with that. But people can, and do, get addicted to sleeping pills, and go into rehab. Similarly, feeling stressed out, need to smoke a joint or two? Clearly nothing wrong with that either. But similarly, people can and do get addicted to cannabis (or rather, get addicted to the high that it gives, it isn't a chemical addiction). The difference is that the dude addicted to sleeping pills can get help, the dude on cannabis can't.
So, don't take cannabis, don't take sleeping pills, avoid both problems, yes? Well, no, you'll still be having restless nights, you'll still be stressed out, and you'll suffer all that entails from that.


This whole puritan idea that complete abstinence from everything will cure all problems is niave, simplistic, and most of all utterly boring. Why not abstain from life in its entirety? In life you have to take risks, and one of those risks is that you'll discover something about yourself that you never knew before.

How many of you actually read the entire article? :p

The article is fine and all, prohibition doesn't work with the current laws, but people don't seem to mind when laws are made from loopholes and such. I say anyone stupid enough to get caught smoking the thing deserves to get caught. You learn tips as you go on. Stupid drugs users go to jail. Good drug users you talk to everyday without noticing.

Which is entirely determined by the society.

Uh...wow. You know, my friends consider me to be the resident alcoholic, and even I'm not to this point. You might want to meet some friends of mine.

Lol.... I love the more intellectual buuuuuurns

Sorry, it's not anymore clearly not wrong as it is clearly wrong. Looking back at my posts it looks like I've been trying to say why it's wrong for other people. No, I know for myself why I don't do drugs in the usual fashion. Caffeine? I drink it because root beer is tasty. What I'm saying is that legalizing it right now is not as cut and dry as you want it to be.




Again, I have to apologize to you for your overly simplistic view. I don't need these things to have a good time, I don't need them to sleep, I don't need them because I have so many other things that give me greater enjoyment without the crashing afterwards.

I fail to see how your view is any less naive, simplistic, or boring. Well, maybe not as boring, those mornings after and hours after are pretty exciting. Some people might need these things, that sucks for them because when they can't have these things, what happense then? I want a high? I'll do pushups or go downtown and look for something to climb. I'll go running or bake a cake. I'll go shoot my rifle or find someone to have a conversation with. I'll play my guitar or maybe play a video game.

Okay, do not call me some sort of puritan. I HAVE BEEN THERE I know exactly why I don't believe in this through firsthand experience. Drugs are a small part of the world, they don't cure all that ails you.

I don't care if other people do drugs. Actually, not true, I don't let my friends do drugs. Asprin, caffeine, yeah, a different level of drugs. But when my cousin is doing heroin, when my friend is smoking marijuana every day and my ex girlfriend is hoarding all the crack she can find, there is going to be something done. Know why? Because I've seen what happened. It all started out as just something to help them out.

Take my friend, he'd take bennes so that he could have energy when he was playing shows. How does that usually turn out? Let's take some famous examples, hmm....

Hendrix

Cash

Both got screwed up from drugs that lots of people don't even consider 'hard'.

Then again, I have, in the past, had a rockstar or two to help me go to sleep. My doctor has put me on anti-deppressants and ADD meds, allergy meds, and many others. I'll take anti-biotics sometimes, I'm not some nutjob celebrity who doesn't believe in medication at all, but I don't like being out of my mind, in a different state.



That's my point, of society determines that they want drugs outlawed, so should it be.

The question is, of society wants to make drugs mandatory, is that okay?

Well, my point is this: there are no known (to me at least) arguments that put actual drugs in category B, bad, and alcohol in category G, good.

It's like fashion. If I'd walk around in town with a giant furry tophat, people would look weird at me and blame me for having no sense of fashion. But people don't look funny at dudes with military pants.

Why is that? Is it because furry tophats are "bad", while military pants are "good"? Hell no. It's just mass psychology's flavor of the month thing. Society tells you 'thing A is good, while thing B is bad', but can't actually give reasons why. Just because.

Same with the non-existent drugs/alcohol distinction. I'm not a fan of drugs, but I think, through rule of consistency, a society that allows alcohol should also allow drugs. Or ban both. There's nothing in between.

1) If you haven't had first hand experience with drugs, tell me how the hell you're at all qualified to make a decision on them? I'm not saying all drugs, just ANY (other than your daily ones). My friend who is cool with us doing drugs but doesn't do drugs says there's no difference between mushrooms and methamphetamines. Anyone who has done one or the other will be able to tell you YES there is a difference. Stop making uninformed judgements please.

2) No, drugs do not heal everything, nor is that why people (well most people) take them. But they do make things easier to deal with (anxiety pills, aspirin), they do make you feel good (long, long list), and they give you different outlooks on the world (hallucinagens). There's a number of different reasons to take drugs, none of them you would know, so why are you allowed to criticize those who do take drugs? So someone does heroin. As long as they're not addicted (you'd be surprised how easy it is NOT to get addicted to heroin, especially if you're not bangin it), it's fine with me. Even if they are addicted, if they keep their addiction under control why should I have a problem? Crack really isn't that bad. A lot of people smoke it once or twice then never again. Weed isn't really all that addicting unless you're just weak-willed and want that high.

3) Cash was addicted to amphetamines and barbituates, both of which are VERY hard. What the eff are you on? Hendrix (if I remember right) banged heroin, did coke, did PCP, and died after OD'ing on sleeping pills and choking on his own vomit. None of those drugs do I not consider hard.

4) Society is ignorant about drugs. This is the reason they made the electoral college in the first place--let those who are more informed about the issue make decisions on it.

Haha, just like the manager who said he wasn't giving raises to his employees because he liked them and didn't want to push them into a higher tax bracket. :p

drugs are good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick for one.

lets learn somethig about drugs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use
or,
this book. a good read. and what you find out is, you can go to your mom's spice rack, take a heaping table spoon of nutmeg, down it with a glass of water, 45 minutes later puke your guts out and then for the next 4 to 5 hours go on the halucinogenic ride of your life.
also what you find out is there are a lot more drugs than the ones that constantly come up in these threads that are fun, and people are doing them all the time.

there's nothing like having your own light show at an outdoor festival trippin' on shrooms and every hour or so topping it up with some really nice blonde sheesh from a bottle. or chillin' at a party with some house music cranked, lots of people and some lsd laced with pcp and a bit of rat poison for effect. a packed club, tequilla, and a blunt makes for a good saturday night.
good times! don't knock it 'till you've tried it.

I have no problem with people doing drugs....as long as they don't harm others while they are doing those drugs. When deciding whither a drug should be illegal or not you need to say to yourself "is it reasonable to think that the majority of people on this drug aren't going to cause harm to others?" If no harm came from drugs, I wouldn't mind at all if wild drug use sprung up everywhere. They would just end up screwing themselves up and make it easier for myself to progress up the ladder.

[QUOTE=Darth Evad]there's nothing like having your own light show at an outdoor festival trippin' on shrooms and every hour or so topping it up with some really nice blonde sheesh from a bottle. or chillin' at a party with some house music cranked, lots of people and some lsd laced with pcp and a bit of rat poison for effect. a packed club, tequilla, and a blunt makes for a good saturday night.
good times! don't knock it 'till you've tried it. ;)[/QUOTE]

eeeew, house

geez. for a reply that was looking for some flames (although i meant what i said) all i get is a 'eeeew, house'?!?

Yes. :p

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]1) If you haven't had first hand experience with drugs, [/QUOTE]

Starting your post by saying you didn't read mine isn't good.

I read the rest of yours but found it annoying and self-righteous.

Gay partnerships are more stable than heterosexual pairings. And I'd choose all the rights that come with marriage over the risk of a divorce, anyway.

[QUOTE=Vincent Valentine]Gay partnerships are more stable than heterosexual pairings.[/QUOTE]

That's only because there are less 'guess why I am mad' and 'pick up my insanely subtle hints' games.

No, I read yours, and all you said was "I HAVE BEEN THERE". For all I know that means you've gotten drunk once. Elaborate if you really have been, please.

A collective decision about what's in the best interest of individuals? How droll.

If laws are the only thing keeping the entire population from going out and shooting their veins full of heroin, I can't imagine there's much hope for humanity anyway.