Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on August 15, 2011 at 12:32pm

What do you mean by not seeing the benefits in legalizing hard drugs?

It's the menace of addiction to "hard drugs" that is actually the greatest scourge to society (especially the underclass) and to the addict. It is these drugs, the expensive crap, for which addicts will just about do anything to retrieve it that needs to be distributed, clean and safe at cost prices by the government to utterly destroy the trade and create the necessary access to contain the problems.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob MacVay on August 14, 2011 at 10:25pm

First I will apologize to Eric for rushing to judgement on his obviously pristine character. Artor asked what I knew about Eric that everyone else didn't ? I have to say his initial statements that he was"a major advocate for ending marijuana prohibition" felt that "opium and cocaine should be legal" and the "FDA should spend their time approving recreational drugs"  obviously gave me the mistaken impression that Eric had more than a passing interest in the area of the recreational use of drugs. Obviously he was expressing his opinion about other people that use drugs, not himself. Eric's scorn for anyone with a distaste for the non-medical use of drugs (like that was a bad thing) certainly makes him appear somewhat judgemental as well. Artor states that even athiests moralize and that brings me to the point. It appears that a lot of contributors to the site seem to be seeking other common character traits, likely similiar to their own, to associate with athiesm. I don't think they will find them. The only true thing athiests have in common is their non belief in matters of religion.Can athiests be homophobic? Yes. Can athiests be judgmental? You bet they can.Don't look for athiests to be anything but athiests and you won't be disappointed. Judging from some of the postings, athiests can be assholes too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on August 15, 2011 at 2:57pm

Well said.  Atheists merely mean we share the common understanding of there is no god.  We can differ on other issues but you know, thats ok too, at least we wont throw god in eachother's faces. ^_^

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Goldstein on August 15, 2011 at 12:33am

Um….a….lemme….lem…eeeeee….um……WHAAAA?  Beleeminorot, iyamiridnow anacudobransurgryifnihadta!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MooyrhedIkatcmafet;’.,? Plece?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zach Hooper on August 15, 2011 at 12:51am

Hahaha, what is mooyrhedlkatcmafet?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam on August 15, 2011 at 3:59am

It seems, if you make something illegal like recreational drugs, people will use the black-market to acquire them.  Given that, I would choose to make every drug legal and amiable over the counter.  The FDA wouldn't regulate the way they do now.  Instead, I would have the FDA prove the claims of the manufactures and label products explaining the uses, different dosages, side-effects, and possible dangers.  This would allow cancer patients, the terminally ill, terminal pain patients, etc to use any medicine they choose.  From my experiences with the FDA, they're not regulating but controlling the market for established corporations.    

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Max Powers on August 15, 2011 at 5:19pm

DMT anyone?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zach Hooper on August 15, 2011 at 9:24pm

DMT should have it's own thread here. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob MacVay on August 15, 2011 at 10:33pm

Eric, I agree with you that persons using marijuana are not endangering their own health and it is their decision to to do so even if they were. When you say provided whatever they decide to do does not interfere with my (or your) property rights or liberties,is where things change.It is a fine line and often difficult to asses when an individual's rights infringe on the rights of others. It is the impairment of their judgement and reaction time while carrying on their regular daily activities that concerns me. Wouldn't you say the guy that just smoked a joint and is now driving the cab, bus, or aircraft you are in is interfering with your and others safety. Or the same guy driving in the opposite direction on the highway.Or the same guy accidently starting a fire in the complex where you live. Is he the best person to judge whether he is interfering with the rights of others, because I am sure he would argue thet he isn't. He can operate that way a thousand times and nothing happens but just one time where his impaired judgement is responsible for an incident is one too many. Obviously the war on drugs is not working but I think a free hand in the use of recreational drugs use would be much worse than you imagine.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Artor on August 20, 2011 at 2:34pm

It's not the act of smoking the joint or driving a cab that's dangerous, it's the combination of the two. I carry a lifelong injury inflicted by a completely sober man who happened to be a reckless idiot. It's the specific dangerous acts that should be regulated, not the supposed causes. If a guy smokes pot all day, but never starts any fires, why should he be prosecuted? If a careless cooker burns down the apt. bldg., but is sober, should we cut them some slack because they weren't stoned when they did it?

A drunk driver is dangerous, but drinking alcohol is not outlawed. We tried that before, and the results were far worse than the original problem. The War on (some kinds of) Drugs is orders of magnitude worse than Prohibition was.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob MacVay on August 21, 2011 at 11:54am

I totally agree, Ator it is not just the smoking of the joint but the combination of driving with it that is the problem.I also agree if the guy wants to smoke pot all day that should be his preference.The problem is what is he going to do that day that will effect the lives of others. We often see the terms "drunk" when talking about alcohol and "stoned" when talking about drugs.These symptoms are obvious to everyone who sees someone in that condition. I am talking about the influence of smaller amounts that impair your perception and reaction time but aren't as obvious to everyone else. What are the chances, for example, of the guy that smokes some pot or has a few drinks and eventually makes a bad decision and does something that effects the lives of other people.If he did that knowingly shouldn't he be responsible for his actions? As far as the guy acting like a reckless idiot, he should be held accountable for his actions as well. I know proving responsibility is difficult in some cases, but I don't see any other solution. Unfortunately people who cause problems for themselves and others as a result of sober stupidity are difficult to deal with. If you could be charged for being stupid we would all likely be written up from time to time. I just think that legalizing most drugs as Eric suggested, would increase the downside. The war on drugs is obviously not working but I don't agree that legalizing them would make the big picture any better either.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Artor on August 21, 2011 at 12:09pm

Take a look at Portugal. They decriminalized EVERYTHING there 10 yrs ago, including coke, meth, heroin, etc. Treatment is available for walk-ins, and for people who still manage to get into drug-related criminal problems. Overall use has gone down, abuse has gone way down, and criminal gangs are making much less money off the deal.

Btw, not to be over-sensitive, but it's Artor, not Ator. If you've ever seen the D-grade movie "Ator the Fighting Eagle," you'll understand why I'd rather not get called Ator.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page