Well we can't really take away alcohol from people at this point because it is so intergrated into our society and socially accepted that people wouldn't be able to accept a ban on alcohol. I wasn't saying that alcohol is less dangerous than narcotics, I was just saying that I think marijuana is less dangerous than narcotics. I could see you posing an arugment that if alcohol is legal why shouldn't marijuana be legal? And I would agree with you on that because you can't overdose on marijuana, the way you can OD on alcohol by getting alcohol poisoning. But we also have to think if we would really want to bring more drugs into the mix, especially if they are highly addictive, probably more addictive than alcohol since if you use heroine or cocain once you can become addicted to it, why should we add these drugs to the mix of drugs already available?

Right but a lot of times people commit crimes not just because they need the money but also because they are under the influence of drugs which makes them more willing to commit a crime. I mean I used to be addicted to cigarettes but I wasn't about to go rob someone so I could buy cigarettes and believe me there were times when I didn't have any money and really wanted one. Its because when you use mind substances that greatly alter your mind you don't have as good of judgement. There is a reason you can't be convicted of first degree murder if the act was commited under the influence of a mind-altering substance, and thats because it affects judgement and people aren't in control of their actions. And yes a lot of crimes are commited under the influence of alcohol which shows that even that its legal doesnt keep people from commiting crimes.

I mean I guess. But a lot of people still die from overdoses, not because it is mixed and impure. Most of the drug related deaths I've heard about have been related to overdosing. Plus knowing that drugs are dangerous is an incentive not to try them.

Right we have a free country to a certain extent. We still need laws to protect people from hurting themselves. It is not in the best interest of our citizens to allow them, especially vunerable people like teenagers or people who are emotionally unstable, to develop drug addictions. If there is an ecouragement to legalize drugs like cocaine, people will probably be more likely to develop addictions. If we have drug companies using advertising to entice people to try and use drugs like this people will be more likely to try them. In that sense we still have a currupt drug bussiness, I admit there would be probably less corruption because it would be no longer underground, but it would still be currupt in that the companies would want people to become addicted to their product so they could make money much like the cigarette bussiness. Even worse our government would be allowing this to go on. If more people developed addictions then we would have less people going to work. I don't know if you know any drugs addicts but I've met a few and believe me it definintely interfered with their levels of productivity. We already have enough problems with alcoholism in the U.S., which I've already explained why we can't get rid of it. Plus are people really free when they have drug addictions, or do drugs start to dictate why people do? Also we live in a country which was established on puritan values just as much as freedom. This is why we don't see the legalization of gay marriage and there is such a strong opposition to abortion. If you're going to live in the U.S. we have to tolerate the puritan values, some of which I agree with and others of which I disagree.

These two statements are mutually exclusive. Laws to prevent people from hurting themselves (i.e. "nanny-state laws") are the polar opposite of freedom. It is my opinion that laws should only exist preventing people from hurting others - if I want to snort meth, drive my car without a seatbelt, eat fatty foods, and go outside in the winter without a coat, I should be able to do so, unbothered by the government acting as my surrogate mommy.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Here are some general arguments against drug prohibition (or statements in general). I tend to have very strong opinions on this matter, since (1) prohibition is eggregiously unconstitutional and (2) the "war on drugs" is arguably the biggest domestic policy disaster in the history of the modern world.

Illegal drugs like cocaine, extacy, heroin, etc. invariably have legal equivalents that are doled out for profit by pharmeceutical companies (adderall, prozac, oxycontin, respectively, for example). So what we see is that outlawing of drugs generally results in a legalized "Version 2.0" to replace them. Even adopting a government trusting approach, this tells us that intoxicating drugs are not considered bad, per se, but are considered bad if they are not "regulated". Let us not forget that there a lot of dollars in that sort of regulation.

Many legal drugs are more addictive than their illegal counter-parts. Caffiene is more addictive than cocaine, for example, and valium is more addictive than heroin. This is counter-intuitive because of how the drugs are ingested - caffiene is taken orally while cocaine is snorted, and valium is taken orally while heroin is (typically) injected. Heroin and cocaine both have significantly high oral dosages, and if you were to mix cocaine in your orange juice, the stimulating effect would be less than having an espresso. Conversely, if you made it your practice to buy caffiene pills and snort them, you would quickly develop a significant caffeine addiction.

In every year since the "war on drugs" was first declared (in an end run around the constitution) and drugs were federally banned, illegal drug use, addiction, and revenue have increased consistently. As we put more tax dollars into this "war", the problem of drug addiction gets worse. Continuing with this policy is utter insanity and anyone who examines the numbers cannot possibly come to a different conclusion - the "war on drugs" simply is not working or having any sort of positive impact on our society. The reason that this is not more publically known, however, is that the DEA and supporting agencies have a vested interest in keeping this "war" going - namely, keeping their own jobs. As a result, we see absurd propaganda and dissembling by this organization. You can view this for yourself when you see commercials on television that suggest that marijuana causes teen pregnancy and other nonsense. These sorts of lies are tolerated by a populace who feels that lying to children is a means justified by the end of keeping them safe and they reveal the vested interest of these agencies.

Since the beginning of the "war on drugs" new drugs with unprecedented potency have been developed to allow users to get the most "bang for their buck". Drugs like meth, crack, and ice are the direct result of drug prohibition and dealers wanting to maximize potency thus minimizing the risk in their risk vs. reward equation. In general, prohibition causes increased ingenuity in making an artificially lowered supply keep up with a steady demand.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Yes, legalising guns just encourages people to use guns.

And legalising same-sex marriage will only encourage otherwise straight people to marry same-sex people.

And legalising cars just encourages traffic accidents and road rage.

And legalising the right of any individual to do anything just encourages individual freedom and responsibility and we can't have none of that!

And we all know that it is the government's perogative to decide what is good or not good for every person. The government is always the best judge of everyone's own best interests. Can't have private citizens making their own decisions now can we?

My favorite right (one that is not granted often enough), is the right to make bad decisions. Just knowing it's there makes me smile.

__________________
"Anyone that needs what they want, and doesn’t want what they need
I want nothing to do with
And to do what I want
And to do what I please
Is first on my to-do list"
-Gnarls Barkley, "Going On" lyrics

So? We still sell rat poison and alcohol, do we not?What happens when people start selling anything that's legal? Did we scrap interstate commerce regulations when people started selling alcohol/tobacco?

Are people able to accept a ban on any of the drugs? Remember the problems we had with criminals when alcohol was banned? Well, we now have them with other drugs.From what I read about cigarettes, they are VERY difficult to quit and VERY addictive. Furthermore, did you not read the quote? Alcohol is so difficult to quit that it can cause death, which heroin can't while quitting.How many people get drunk and beat their wives?Right, but as you said before, not as many people rob stores to buy alcohol: it's not that expensive. But people still perform illegal acts under the influence of alcohol.Same with alcohol poisoning.So, why do we need the State to tell us not to use the drugs?No, we don't. I don't need my government to protect me from myself. This nanny-state bullshit has got to end. I mean, if we allow the government to protect us from anything they want, they would ban alcohol, cigarettes, cars, and virtually anything else they want. I don't know about you, but I think I deserve the right to do whatever I want to myself.People already develop addictions. So, guess what? The fact that they are illegal only helps druglords. Plus, we already have alcohol, except there is a chance kids will try it under parents' supervision. What's the chance of them trying an illegal drug with their parents if the parents don't actively use it? What's the chance of a kid admitting to using an illegal drug as opposed to a legal one when looking for help?Yes, and people are currently more likely to buy cars and get into crashes, more likely to buy alcohol and overdose. This can be said about anything, and yet everything isn't banned.And yet cigarettes are still legal. In any case, this type of reasoning applies to virtually any endeavor. Companies try to get people to get "addicted" to gambling, video games and many other things. It's how business works.The way I see it, video games are a much bigger/similar problems in terms of stopping people from going to work. Any form of entertainment stops people from going to work. And yet, we don't ban movies and video games, do we? In any case, it is not the government's right to restrict something from us just because they will get less taxes.Sure we can. It will be exactly the same as it is now except druglords will have one extra drug to deal, and alcohol will be much more dangerous.Shouldn't it be their choice what drugs they choose to use? As opposed to the government's? You know, the whole "a person owns his own body" thing?Do we not have separation of church and state? I'm sorry, but "the government won't get as much tax revenue" and "God says so" are not really very solid arguments. The fact remains, people have or at least should have the right to their own bodies. If not, it's no different from slavery.

I would also like to inject that the notion that drugs are illegal because the government wants to "protect" us is nothing more than a feel-good piece of sophistry. What the government wants to do is generate revenue - which it does hand over fist when working with the pharmecuetical industry.

Indeed, the government, like insurance companies, makes policy based on expediency more than goodwill. Consider the tax increases on cigarettes that happen periodically. The politicans that enact these things pat themselves on the back because they've put money in the public coffers and helped "discourage" people from smoking by raising the price of a pack of cigarettes by a quarter. This is, of course, nonsense. A teenager taking up the habit doesn't smoke often enough for the cost increase to make a difference to him. And, since nicotine is the most addictive substance on the list of substances (moreso than crystal meth, herion, or cocaine), it is preposterous to think that raising the price of cigarettes by increments of a quarter or so over the course of time is going to have any impact at all, except to work as a defacto tax on the poor (since this is who smokes, by and large).

I cite this as an example of the duplicity of politicians in general on these matters. They take a beneficial, calculated proposition and sugar coat it before cramming it down your throat, like your mommy hiding your foul-tasting medicine in a spoonful of honey. "Yes - we must think of the children and increase the penatly for posessing drugs!" is something that sounds more palatable to the average person than "We should increase the penalties for drug use becuase it's politically expedient, it keeps the pharmecuetical lobby donating money, and we avoid a public battle with the DEA."

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Here's another way to look at legalisation in the USA scenario:

There is no corporate constituency in the USA that would benefit from legalisation.

There is however a very large and powerful corporate constituency in the USA that profits enormously from the status quo.

Ergo, one is safe to predict that 'hell freezing over' has a better chance than legalisation of pot getting through Congress.

Ok I don't have time to reply to all of this right now but I will later. Basically what I was saying in my argument is this: Narcotics are addictive. People will commit more crimes when they are under the influence of narcotics or mind-altering substances whether they are legal or not, take alcohol for an example it is legal and people still commit a lot of crimes while under the influence of alcohol. Legalizing narcotics and putting them in stores and allowing companies to advertise for narcotics will persuade people to use them. We already have alcohol available and some people become addicted to it due to genetics, dependability, emotional instability, etc. So adding narcotics to the mix of drugs available will cause more people to have addictions and therefore there will be more people having bad judgement and commiting crimes. We can't ban alcohol because it is integrated into our society (i.e. most people use alcohol) which isn't the same case for say heroine.

I understand your point about the separation between church and state. I understand the point that laws that tell us what we can and can't do to our bodies are patriarchal, especially when they are restricting actions that are not directly harming others. I personally think marijuana should be legal if alcohol and cigarettes are. I could possibly see decriminalizing drug use so that people who have narcotics addictions would be more likely to admit to their drug addictions and seek help. I however can not really justify allowing narcotics to be sold in stores and advertised for.

They already are. "Talk to your doctor about Zoloft. Zoloft is not right for everyone and may include side effects such as anxiety, diarrhea, depression, nausea, insomnia, and in some rare cases intestinal bleeding. Contact your physicial immediately if you experience nasal bleeding or thoughts of suicide..."



Anti-depressants, for example (Zoloft, Paxil, Prozac), contain Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors - the same chemical in Extacy. And you can't watch "Two and a Half Men" without big pharmacy telling you that your life would be better with it. Or watch those Dunkin' Donuts commercials for coffee where the poor caffeine-deprived souls begin hallucinating and having the DT's until they're able to crawl into a Dunkin' Donuts and get their fix. (This isn't an exaggeration - there was recently a commercial where a guy claimed that he drove to Dunkin' Donuts on a flat tire because he needed coffee so badly - "it was worth the hundreds of dollars worth of damage.")

My point is that addiction to mind altering substances is not just condoned, but encouraged, when it is profitable to the right people to do so.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

So are painkillers, alcohol and cigarettes. Addictiveness of a drug only harms the person using it. And harm to oneself is never a good reason to ban something because, get this, PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY.As opposed to committing even more crimes now to feed an even more expensive addiction, in addition to committing crimes by buying the drug illegally?As I have said before, people have a right to their own body. You can't ban something because a person can buy it and use it against himself. Same as banning hammers, and anything else, including cars. You can't stop people from committing crimes by banning things that influence people to them. You might as well ban banks because people would be tempted to break the law by robbing them. Again, very bad reasoning.But alcohol HAS been banned before. That's a point you're missing. People have tried banning alcohol and then unbanned it because they saw that it was worse when the drug was banned. It is already tried and tested: banning drugs is bad.There is no need to justify that. All you have to justify is the banning of something that does not directly harm others. I don't see how you can do it, because PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODIES.

As a comic aside here is something that posting about Zoloft/Paxil reminded me of that I read in the Onion a while ago (Though perhaps less amusing is that this piece of satire isn't that far over the top):

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28349

"Pfizer Announces 'Zoloft for Everything' Ad Campaign"

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Ok Ok I get that you think that people should have the right to do whatever they want to their bodies. I believe that I should have the right to be protected from greedy drug companies who want to make profits off peoples addictions to highly-addictive, potentially lethal substances. Yes I agree the FDA approves all sorts of drugs that are not safe or that have not been proven to be safe over a long term. The food and drug adminstration don't do their job in my opinion and that's not cool.