The Battle to Decriminalize All Drugs

Abhaya Budhil wrote: I don't think the government's job is to protect us from ourselves. As long as the information about the possible effects of drugs, food additives, etc. is readily available, it should be up to the consumer to make the right decision. Your argument against weed is that it is addictive. So are cigarettes. So is alcohol. So are pain medications. So are anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medications. So is caffeine. So why is weed all of a sudden different? As long as people know the potential effects, they should be free to make their own decisions. I don't need the government so involved in my life that they want to protect me from myself.

Taking a show of hands, do I have the moral right to kill myself? Not a loaded or trick question, I simply want to know how you all feel.

Star Forge wrote:

RyuJin wrote: I have seen the negative effects of cocaine use...my stepdad was addicted to it when I was a child as a result I received countless beatings usually for nothing more than forgetting something trivial...however I do not let this negativity control me....I got over it instead of letting it rule the entirety of my life...I'm covered in scars from various beatings I took because of cocaine addiction....not weed...I'm also not basing my views on what I experienced from one individual, not when there are millions of people using and not beating children...

Personally I'm opposed to using drugs, but I'm not going to use my personal views to punish everyone for the stupidity of only a few...

I do not understand what you mean when you keep speaking of negativity in the past. I have no grudges, nor is this a sore subject for me. However, we learn from the past, and I realized that marijuana and certain other drugs must remain illegal, not only for the would-be users, but also, and most importantly, for all those who do not use it.

Alas until understanding is achieved you will forever let your history dictate your future...you claim its not a sore subject and yet when you mentioned your past alcohol problem and I pointed it out, you took offense, then quickly tried to backtrack and change direction...

If it's ok to take meds that cause more harm than good simply because the government says its legal (and gets their cut of the profits) what does it matter if someone uses something that does much less harm?

Hmm do I take the anti depressant that's supposed to mellow me out but causes suicidal thoughts or do I take some weed that actually does mellow me out and doesn't cause suicidal thoughts?

RyuJin wrote:

Star Forge wrote:

RyuJin wrote: I have seen the negative effects of cocaine use...my stepdad was addicted to it when I was a child as a result I received countless beatings usually for nothing more than forgetting something trivial...however I do not let this negativity control me....I got over it instead of letting it rule the entirety of my life...I'm covered in scars from various beatings I took because of cocaine addiction....not weed...I'm also not basing my views on what I experienced from one individual, not when there are millions of people using and not beating children...

Personally I'm opposed to using drugs, but I'm not going to use my personal views to punish everyone for the stupidity of only a few...

I do not understand what you mean when you keep speaking of negativity in the past. I have no grudges, nor is this a sore subject for me. However, we learn from the past, and I realized that marijuana and certain other drugs must remain illegal, not only for the would-be users, but also, and most importantly, for all those who do not use it.

Alas until understanding is achieved you will forever let your history dictate your future...you claim its not a sore subject and yet when you mentioned your past alcohol problem and I pointed it out, you took offense, then quickly tried to backtrack and change direction...

If it's ok to take meds that cause more harm than good simply because the government says its legal (and gets their cut of the profits) what does it matter if someone uses something that does much less harm?

Hmm do I take the anti depressant that's supposed to mellow me out but causes suicidal thoughts or do I take some weed that actually does mellow me out and doesn't cause suicidal thoughts?

I felt that you were taking my alcohol comment out of context, and wanted to set the matter straight. I only provided that example for use in the argument. That is why I seemed angry. No, take my word for it, aside from regret for being a dumbass for about two months, my past drinking problems do not haunt me today. I broke no laws, got in no trouble, and my daughter did not even know it was going on. Just letting you know.

Star Forge wrote:

Abhaya Budhil wrote: I don't think the government's job is to protect us from ourselves. As long as the information about the possible effects of drugs, food additives, etc. is readily available, it should be up to the consumer to make the right decision. Your argument against weed is that it is addictive. So are cigarettes. So is alcohol. So are pain medications. So are anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medications. So is caffeine. So why is weed all of a sudden different? As long as people know the potential effects, they should be free to make their own decisions. I don't need the government so involved in my life that they want to protect me from myself.

Taking a show of hands, do I have the moral right to kill myself? Not a loaded or trick question, I simply want to know how you all feel.

Only you can answer that, we are all born with the freedom to choose how we live or die...I'm against suicide but I'm not going to tell someone else that because I don't agree with it they shouldn't agree with it... I don't condone or condemn someone for their views instead I seek to understand them and learn...I hold my own views and allow them to evolve as I gain more knowledge and understanding...

Because you all think I am a zealot, let me restate my position. As with everything, I choose the side that is right. As with most cases, this ends up putting me in some mid-way stance. Weed is no exception. I am against legalization or total decriminalization. This article is roughly how I feel and I challenge you all to tell me that my stance is not sane and moderate.


http://www.thefix.com/content/marijuana-should-not-be-legalized70010

Right? By who's standards?...certainly not mine...right and wrong are not absolutes, they are a matter of perspective...my right is someone elses wrong...someone elses right is my wrong...

Yes, you should have the right to kill yourself. I don't think that you should kill yourself, but I think you should have the right to. The same way I don't think people should smoke or drink excessively or do heroin, but I think they should have the right to, provided they are not harming anyone else.

My question about why weed is different than the rest of those addictive substances was not rhetorical. I genuinely want to know your reasoning.

Abhaya Budhil wrote: Yes, you should have the right to kill yourself. I don't think that you should kill yourself, but I think you should have the right to. The same way I don't think people should smoke or drink excessively or do heroin, but I think they should have the right to, provided they are not harming anyone else.

My question about why weed is different than the rest of those addictive substances was not rhetorical. I genuinely want to know your reasoning.

You partially misunderstand what I am saying, but actually, you're asking me the very same question that I ask weed advocates. What makes weed any different than those substances? To me, nothing. Weed is no different to me than heroin, cocaine, meth, or crack, except that out of the drugs listed, it is the least damaging. They should remain illegal. One has the right to destroy themselves, yes, but not to destroy, injure, harm, or bother anybody else, and that is what drugs cause one to do.

As a side note, I do not consider alcohol to rank among drugs. One can drink and not get drunk, whereas the sole purpose of using the drugs listed above is to get high. Alcohol is to alcoholism as food is to obesity. I demonize alcohol no more than I do food, because alcohol is not inherently meant to create drunkenness nor is food by design meant to cause obesity. The only reason one would use weed, however, is to get high.

But how is weed different to you than the legal drugs I listed? Drugs don't automatically cause someone to harm another person, and plenty of people harm others without using drugs. I think that drugs should be illegal, but harming someone should of course not be allowed. So if your drug addiction starts causing you to harm others, then of course you shouldn't be allowed to have drugs. But if you aren't addicted or if you aren't letting your addiction harm others, then I see no problem with drug use.

Abhaya Budhil wrote: But how is weed different to you than the legal drugs I listed? Drugs don't automatically cause someone to harm another person, and plenty of people harm others without using drugs. I think that drugs should be illegal, but harming someone should of course not be allowed. So if your drug addiction starts causing you to harm others, then of course you shouldn't be allowed to have drugs. But if you aren't addicted or if you aren't letting your addiction harm others, then I see no problem with drug use.

You mean alcohol and cigs? Easy.

As I already explained, alcohol is only a problem when you overdo it. You can only drink a little. I was staying over at a friend's house the other night, and had seven beers and a margarita, but I stretched it all across eight hours, so I was never drunk. Cigarettes only harm the user, as the whole secondhand smoke thing is BS, unless, perhaps, you're smoking in the car with somebody.

On the other hand, weed, heroin, etc, are only there to get you high, no other purpose.