Teenager dies from Nitrous Oxide....UK now wants to ban it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You're proving my point. Addicts have issues, and will find a way regardless of the legislation.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

And people are willing to give a dangerous drug a try "because it's legal".

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Both exist. I'm saying the long-term seems to even out for the most part.

Your reasoning, and homeboy have valid points.

People are not all the same. Some see shiny things and have an impulse to grab. Some people like to play it safe. People are people regardless of legislation.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Well irony upon irony, I understood in your first reply that you question
the statistics on Portugal that I was refering to..
I see the statistics do show a well defined trend in legalisation to less abuse,so now
that we have had an improper arguement we find ourselves on the same page, ha !

a reply to: simplesurfer

Yes I'm against people using biased statistics to prove a point that can stand on it's own ground. If I have the time tomorrow I'll post some links for the thread.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Both exist. I'm saying the long-term seems to even out for the most part.

Your reasoning, and homeboy have valid points.

People are not all the same. Some see shiny things and have an impulse to grab. Some people like to play it safe. People are people regardless of legislation.

Some drugs such as MJ are harmful, but really have no problem with them being legal. I am definitely against certain drugs, such as crack, that really are simply too dangerous not to be controlled.

My opinion.

I have no problem with most drugs being legalized as long as people are forced to take responsibility for the consequences of their choices. I am not interested in my tax dollars subsidizing the poor choices of others. I would much rather it go to those who fall on hard times due to random chance/luck.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Both exist. I'm saying the long-term seems to even out for the most part.

Your reasoning, and homeboy have valid points.

People are not all the same. Some see shiny things and have an impulse to grab. Some people like to play it safe. People are people regardless of legislation.

Some drugs such as MJ are harmful, but really have no problem with them being legal. I am definitely against certain drugs, such as crack, that really are simply too dangerous not to be controlled.

My opinion.

I have no problem with most drugs being legalized as long as people are forced to take responsibility for the consequences of their choices. I am not interested in my tax dollars subsidizing the poor choices of others. I would much rather it go to those who fall on hard times due to random chance/luck.

Anyone who is stupid enough to use hard drugs, should be aware of the consequences, of cheap legal, readily available supply. They would not have to steal to support their habit, and would soon cease to become a problem.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Unfortunatly that is exactly what your tax $ are doing at the
moment, subsidizing the poor choice our govts have made by criminalizing drugs,
rather then controlling their quality and distribution and providing honest and
compassionate help for those who need it..

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That's the thing, your dollars already go to addicts. Legalizing saves the tax payer a lot of monies, and grows the economic base.

I can understand people wanting to set limits on things they perceive as too dangerous. This goes back to my first point, I think it's for right now an issue that won't get solved until we have better tech in our hands. We can skew things a little this way or that and some people will be satisfied while others are outraged regardless of which way we go about things until then.

I think everyone in this thread would agree that getting to the root of addictions is the overall ideal. Punishment is deemed necessary by many, but I think if they're being reasonable what they want is the most effective means at having less addicts in society. Right now it's debatable, and IMO that's all there really is. In the future we will know with certainty and on the cheap who has which susceptibilities, which drugs that puts them at most risk for... like an allergy test tells us now which foods to avoid. I think this is one of many ways that advances in the sciences will help us in the near-future.

Anyways, as I'm overall for progress, but not convinced much will happen right now no matter what we choose, I'm going to bow out of this thread for the nite.

originally posted by: simplesurfer
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Unfortunatly that is exactly what your tax $ are doing at the
moment, subsidizing the poor choice our govts have made by criminalizing drugs,
rather then controlling their quality and distribution and providing honest and
compassionate help for those who need it..

To be clear I am unhappy with the current system. I just do not think "legalize everything and anything" is the solution.

a reply to: anonentity

Crack is already very cheap and people still spend $2k a week on it. How much cheaper do you think it will get?