Last edited by Uzique (2011-05-18 07:20:34)
If Alcohol is justifiably legal then why should something with lesser consequences not be legal? Its a contradictory approach.Shocking wrote:
Yes, if you compare a drunk to someone who's under the effects of another drug then most likely yeah, the other drugs seem safe. I however don't see how this in any way is an argument for legalizing any of them. "it's not as bad as compared to someone who's completely drunk, so it must be ok to legalize".
Last edited by Shocking (2011-05-18 07:24:39)
So were drugs. Then Victorian era moral crusaders became incensed by opium dens and here we are today.Shocking wrote:
If one is already that dangerous why would you want more?
Alcohol simply has the benefit of being legally consumed for the past 2000 years and generally being socially acceptable.
Correct. All it's done is make drugs more expensive, which in turn gives hood rats the desire to sell it for a source of income, which increases the violence and incarceration rates, which ends up costing us, the taxpayer, many more millions of dollars than simply allowing drug use to be legal would. The war on drugs has done far more harm to far more people than if they had just been legal this whole time. It's absurd.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
How many people die on the roads? Yet we continue to build more roads and more cars at an increasing rate.
The main point is that banning drug taking has had very little effect in reducing its consumption. Contrastingly your argument assumes it is having a significant impact and once it is repealed everybody will be high.
Can't really find a single graph depicting drug use by year in conjunction with legalisation/banning either proving or disproving this.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
The main point is that banning drug taking has had very little effect in reducing its consumption. Contrastingly your argument assumes it is having a significant impact and once it is repealed everybody will be high.
Shocking wrote:
Can't really find a single graph depicting drug use by year in conjunction with legalisation/banning either proving or disproving this.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
The main point is that banning drug taking has had very little effect in reducing its consumption. Contrastingly your argument assumes it is having a significant impact and once it is repealed everybody will be high.
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-05-18 07:55:38)
Aren't most people in Sweden of a higher socioeconomic status? I know that in the US, generally speaking, there are smaller percentages of people in higher economic classes that smoke tobacco.Shocking wrote:
I meant as in timeline, f.ex. portugal decriminalized a few drugs in 2001, finding a graph of use from 1980-now of Portugal and several other countries where it's still illegal for comparison would be useful.
On the other hand what I'm finding is wildly differing statistics by country. Cannabis use in France is much higher than in the Netherlands, while it's illegal in France. On the other hand, it's illegal in Sweden and use is much lower than any other European country.
That IS a timeline. Look at the use of marijuana over time. It's been illegal since the sixties and that hasn't stopped the majority of every new generation from using it.Shocking wrote:
I meant as in timeline, f.ex. portugal decriminalized a few drugs in 2001, finding a graph of use from 1980-now of Portugal and several other countries where it's still illegal for comparison would be useful.
On the other hand what I'm finding is wildly differing statistics by country. Cannabis use in France is much higher than in the Netherlands, while it's illegal in France. On the other hand, it's illegal in Sweden and use is much lower than any other European country.
You buggin'. Rich people are just as likely, if not more so, to have done drugs in their lives.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Aren't most people in Sweden of a higher socioeconomic status? I know that in the US, generally speaking, there are smaller percentages of people in higher economic classes that smoke tobacco.Shocking wrote:
I meant as in timeline, f.ex. portugal decriminalized a few drugs in 2001, finding a graph of use from 1980-now of Portugal and several other countries where it's still illegal for comparison would be useful.
On the other hand what I'm finding is wildly differing statistics by country. Cannabis use in France is much higher than in the Netherlands, while it's illegal in France. On the other hand, it's illegal in Sweden and use is much lower than any other European country.
lol.Jay wrote:
You buggin'. Rich people are just as likely, if not more so, to have done drugs in their lives.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Aren't most people in Sweden of a higher socioeconomic status? I know that in the US, generally speaking, there are smaller percentages of people in higher economic classes that smoke tobacco.Shocking wrote:
I meant as in timeline, f.ex. portugal decriminalized a few drugs in 2001, finding a graph of use from 1980-now of Portugal and several other countries where it's still illegal for comparison would be useful.
On the other hand what I'm finding is wildly differing statistics by country. Cannabis use in France is much higher than in the Netherlands, while it's illegal in France. On the other hand, it's illegal in Sweden and use is much lower than any other European country.
i'm talking about tobacco specifically. Upper-middle-class yuppies around here think smoking is the devil's pastime, most smokers are either college students, "social smokers" or poor black people.Jay wrote:
You buggin'. Rich people are just as likely, if not more so, to have done drugs in their lives.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Aren't most people in Sweden of a higher socioeconomic status? I know that in the US, generally speaking, there are smaller percentages of people in higher economic classes that smoke tobacco.Shocking wrote:
I meant as in timeline, f.ex. portugal decriminalized a few drugs in 2001, finding a graph of use from 1980-now of Portugal and several other countries where it's still illegal for comparison would be useful.
On the other hand what I'm finding is wildly differing statistics by country. Cannabis use in France is much higher than in the Netherlands, while it's illegal in France. On the other hand, it's illegal in Sweden and use is much lower than any other European country.
Jay wrote:
End SWAT teams now.
And they get a better quality of them as well.Jay wrote:
You buggin'. Rich people are just as likely, if not more so, to have done drugs in their lives.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Aren't most people in Sweden of a higher socioeconomic status? I know that in the US, generally speaking, there are smaller percentages of people in higher economic classes that smoke tobacco.Shocking wrote:
I meant as in timeline, f.ex. portugal decriminalized a few drugs in 2001, finding a graph of use from 1980-now of Portugal and several other countries where it's still illegal for comparison would be useful.
On the other hand what I'm finding is wildly differing statistics by country. Cannabis use in France is much higher than in the Netherlands, while it's illegal in France. On the other hand, it's illegal in Sweden and use is much lower than any other European country.
Obama smokes.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
i'm talking about tobacco specifically. Upper-middle-class yuppies around here think smoking is the devil's pastime, most smokers are either college students, "social smokers" or poor black people.
an exception to the rule perhaps?13rin wrote:
Obama smokes.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
i'm talking about tobacco specifically. Upper-middle-class yuppies around here think smoking is the devil's pastime, most smokers are either college students, "social smokers" or poor black people.