Metanet Forums

Interesting to see this coming out of the right-wing camp.
Also, happy anniversary, booze! Shall we drink to the occasion?

Yes!

Yeah! Let's get baked. Oh, wait.

Okay, yeah, I can go for this idea.

/passes the joint to Dave

I'd prefer keeping my braincells, thank you.

I advocate whatever course of action results in the least number of people taking drugs.

SkyPanda wrote:I advocate whatever course of action results in the least number of people taking drugs.

I agree with SkyPanda. With fewer people using drugs, there will be more for those that really need them.

Fine. I advocate the course of action that results in the least amount of drugs being taken by the least amount of people. Ideally, zero. Happy? :P

I advocate whichever course of action gives the most freedom to control his (or her) own life to the individual while not interfering with the right of other individuals to do the same.

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:I advocate whichever course of action gives the most freedom to control his (or her) own life to the individual while not interfering with the right of other individuals to do the same.

A much better idea.

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:I advocate whichever course of action gives the most freedom to control his (or her) own life to the individual while not interfering with the right of other individuals to do the same.

I propose that you would therefore be advocating the prohibition of drugs. :)
As far as I see it, the only way to protect non-drug users from drug users would involve some sort of separation, and it would be impossible for this separation not to impose on the freedoms of the drug user.

I disagree. Non-drug users do not need to be protected from drug users, innocent people need to be protected from those who impose on the rights of others. If someone hits a blunt in his own house, he is not violating the rights of anyone around him. Law enforcement should only step in if he does this on someone else's property.

Drugs that may be more likely to produce criminal behavior (e.g. crack cocaine) must be more harshly regulated than those that are unlikely to cause very much criminal behavior at all (e.g. cannabis or tobacco).

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:If someone hits a blunt in his own house, he is not violating the rights of anyone around him.

Yes, I considered that.. but then, doesn't that impose upon his freedom to choose to not live alone?

SkyPanda wrote:

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:If someone hits a blunt in his own house, he is not violating the rights of anyone around him.

Yes, I considered that.. but then, doesn't that impose upon his freedom to choose to not live alone?

No. He is still free to choose to live with others, he would just have to stop smoking. He is also free to live with people who have no problem with his drug. He does not have a right to live with others -- he has a right to live with others if they consent to it.

It's important to understand how freedom works. Freedom isn't people doing whatever they want to do and getting whatever they want. Freedom is making every interaction consensual. Coherent freedom requires prohibitions and only negative rights. That is, people aren't entitled to anything, they just have the right to pursue stuff through legitimate means and they have the right to keep what they earn.

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:Freedom isn't people doing whatever they want to do and getting whatever they want.

I define 'freedom' as the absence of restiction or restraint. I was using freedom in its most basic sense, reword it as "doesn't that restrict him from living with others" if you like. gtg

Well, for starters, you were wrong about that particular freedom being restricted (as I pointed out). Your definition and mine are basically the same, except I go a little bit further by saying that I advocate consistent freedom. This means that freedom is good, until people start restricting the freedoms of others.

SkyPanda wrote:

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:Freedom isn't people doing whatever they want to do and getting whatever they want.

I define 'freedom' as the absence of restiction or restraint. I was using freedom in its most basic sense, reword it as "doesn't that restrict him from living with others" if you like. gtg

Sky, I find your argument frail. There's no such thing as a decision that holds true to the absolute definition of freedom. All choice comes with consequence, not just those choices related to the intake of prohibited substances.

Saying this, many people hold beliefs that make them incompatible with others, and the limitations these lifestyle decisions impose would probably only remove choices they wouldn't want to make.

For instance, a fundamental Christian and a staunch atheist have made lifestyle choices that probably make them supremely incompatible, but I doubt the choice lost here is one that would be missed on either side.

Same applies to a user of controlled substances: the freedom to chose living partners who consider recreational drug use unacceptable would
probably not be missed.

As long as our actions are not imposing upon others, we should be free to partake in any practise we want.

SkyPanda wrote:

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:I advocate whichever course of action gives the most freedom to control his (or her) own life to the individual while not interfering with the right of other individuals to do the same.

I propose that you would therefore be advocating the prohibition of drugs. :)

Odd.

It's not often I hear people that claim that a prohibition would create more freedom.

I mean, people use the word "freedom" for everything these days, including jacking up taxes to fund wars and taking away gun rights. I'm certainly not surprised the definition got so blurred for today's youth that now Skypanda figures a "prohibition" is facilitating "freedom" somehow.

Like, honestly, if you have certain opinions, be willing to say that they don't have freedom in mind. Otherwise, you're just mincing words.

"As far as I see it, the only way to protect non-drug users from drug users would involve some sort of separation, and it would be impossible for this separation not to impose on the freedoms of the drug user."

Why do you need to be protected? Just because someone wants to hit the bong or explore their mind with naturally occurring (for you religious people, there is another debate in itself, didn't god create these mushrooms and cacti that are so hated on by the drug war and its' advocates?) substances, that doesn't make them any more likely to pull out a gun and shoot you. The negative overall view on drugs amazes me sometimes. Yes, if you smoke meth 8 times a day your teeth will fall out and you will officially have a problem. If you want to take some LSD or smoke a joint after work, we are talking of not only different drug effects, but a completely different mindset driving the drug use. I think these are important things to consider, especially when there is a precedence for drug use in such proceedings as religious ceremonies and heritage. (Such as the native americans in the american south west who are allowed to take peyote.) There are reasonable conduits for such conduct, it is when irresponsibility enters in to drug use that problems arise. The same goes with alchohol, which is why I am surprised there are so many substances which are still under prohibition. It's always the same argument, eventually weed will be available everywhere, it's only a matter of time. When oil hits rock bottom (oh you think it's good that oil is ~1.50 a gallon right now?!) and then shoots back up, the government is going to need some money. What better way than to start taxing the shit out of weed. Once it is necessary on the money side, it will happen.

w00t, well it's already kinda legal in my countrey :P. and at 16 years old you may drink alcohol :3

Blue_Tetris wrote:It's not often I hear people that claim that a prohibition would create more freedom.

The main thing that I am claiming is that Demonz's suggestion would not work for drugs, the key point actually being "while not interfering with the right of other individuals to do the same".

Demonz wrote:He is still free to choose to live with others, he would just have to stop smoking.

Are you saying that he would legally have to stop smoking? If so, why?

Demonz wrote:He is also free to live with people who have no problem with his drug. He does not have a right to live with others -- he has a right to live with others if they consent to it.

What about children.. how could they possibly consent?
And how would this consent be enforced? What would a drug user be likely to do if they could not get consent?

Clovic wrote:The negative overall view on drugs amazes me sometimes.

Drugs are:
-harmful to the health of the individual in the short and long term
-put the user in a state of mind that could be dangerous to themself and others

Now of course, the same could be said for alcohol and tobacco, as you said. I'm interested in why my government prohibits drugs, but does not prohibit alcohol. Does it come down to what they can get away with? (Because there's far less drug users than alcohol drinkers).
Or is it based on the risk involved with each one?
Something that has also often intrigued me- why does the government not prohibit tobacco, but then pursue policy that actively discourages it, make compulsary anti-tobacco education in school, etc?

SkyPanda wrote:Something that has also often intrigued me- why does the government not prohibit tobacco, but then pursue policy that actively discourages it, make compulsary anti-tobacco education in school, etc?

It would cause mass-hysteria.

"Drugs are:
-harmful to the health of the individual in the short and long term
-put the user in a state of mind that could be dangerous to themself and others

Now of course, the same could be said for alcohol and tobacco, as you said. I'm interested in why my government prohibits drugs, but does not prohibit alcohol. Does it come down to what they can get away with? (Because there's far less drug users than alcohol drinkers).
Or is it based on the risk involved with each one?
Something that has also often intrigued me- why does the government not prohibit tobacco, but then pursue policy that actively discourages it, make compulsary anti-tobacco education in school, etc?"


First off, you broadly identify drugs as being harmful to the short and long term health. Are we talking the pharmacology definition of drugs or just recreational? And if so, why draw the distinction, isn't that unfair? What about synthetic opiates used in severe and chronic pain treatments? I mean really, a lot of this negative thinking is not because they are actually harmful, it's because you have been told they're harmful. You think weed is the devil, but I bet if you saw one of the lesser known types of poppy you wouldn't even recognize it. You also say the mindset is bad, but that's my whole point, responsible use. Yes, if you drink, and then get in your car, bad things will happen. But if you drink, and then sit down and play a board game with your friends, it will probably induce good conversation and atmosphere. It is the same with everything.

Regarding why prohibition is what it is, it is all about money. It's about the money for the governments, and the money for the corporations, and the money and the money and the money. Even the scare campaigns they put in schools nowadays are about the money.

Do some thinking instead of just believing that a joint will kill your brain, I've met some fucking brilliant people who also recreationally use drugs.

Why do you think drug use goes back thousands of years? You think it is just the new generations youth or some such bullshit? The amazonian tribes and elsewhere have been doing psychedelic drugs for many years; exploring the conscious is just something we humans want to do, and what better aid than those presented to us by mother earth?

SkyPanda wrote:

Blue_Tetris wrote:It's not often I hear people that claim that a prohibition would create more freedom.

The main thing that I am claiming is that Demonz's suggestion would not work for drugs, the key point actually being "while not interfering with the right of other individuals to do the same".

Demonz wrote:He is still free to choose to live with others, he would just have to stop smoking.

Are you saying that he would legally have to stop smoking? If so, why?

Demonz wrote:He is also free to live with people who have no problem with his drug. He does not have a right to live with others -- he has a right to live with others if they consent to it.

What about children.. how could they possibly consent?
And how would this consent be enforced? What would a drug user be likely to do if they could not get consent?

Read my post please Sky.

I think, that if we legalise/decriminalise certain drugs, it'll mean more people doing drugs in public. Now, at first, I don't care... but unfortunately some people are just plain arseholes and can't help but smoke (or other methodology that forces itself upon others) in public. We could legislate against this, but if it turns out like smoking, it'd be prohibitive to enforce!

In short, I believe (unless we find a better way of stopping ares-jobs imposing upon others) that prohibition of certain drugs (the smokable ones?) protects civil rights more than it inhibits them.