Global War On Drugs 'Has Failed' Say Former Leaders

[HVC]

The problem is that the most commonly available form of pot these days is hydro, which is bread to be very very potent. Take that when you aren't a steady smoker and what you get is paranoia, not a mellow buzz.

Sort of as if someone was to enjoy drunking a beer or two after work, but all they could get was 150 proof vodka - which they drank in the same quantities as beer.

Ya. The skunk stuff i used to get in high school did nothing so i didn't smoke much. The stronger stuff is too strong. Doesn't make me paranoid so much as lose all track of time. I'd be that guy staring at his watch every minute thinking half an hour has passed. That made me anxious and took away any enjoyment.

[Barrister]

I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

douchebag was too far, but it was a dishonest way of arguing the ills of drug use by making the comparisons you used.

I'm not so fussed. Many anti-drug types truly believe that drug use is morally on par with stealing and rape (and of course, the punishments can be for things like trafficing). If so, using the comparison isn't "dishonest", though such a POV is so alien to the rest of us that it can appear that way.

Well I certainly don't put stealing and rape on par with each other, so I don't know what to make of your analysis.

I just dispute the label of "victimless crime".  The user is the victim.  There are spill-over effects on wider society as well.

[DGuller]

I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

douchebag was too far, but it was a dishonest way of arguing the ills of drug use by making the comparisons you used.

I'm not so fussed. Many anti-drug types truly believe that drug use is morally on par with stealing and rape (and of course, the punishments can be for things like trafficing). If so, using the comparison isn't "dishonest", though such a POV is so alien to the rest of us that it can appear that way.

Well I certainly don't put stealing and rape on par with each other, so I don't know what to make of your analysis.

I just dispute the label of "victimless crime".  The user is the victim.  There are spill-over effects on wider society as well.

The user of junk food is also the victim.  Should junk food be made illegal?

[Barrister]

I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

douchebag was too far, but it was a dishonest way of arguing the ills of drug use by making the comparisons you used.

I'm not so fussed. Many anti-drug types truly believe that drug use is morally on par with stealing and rape (and of course, the punishments can be for things like trafficing). If so, using the comparison isn't "dishonest", though such a POV is so alien to the rest of us that it can appear that way.

Well I certainly don't put stealing and rape on par with each other, so I don't know what to make of your analysis.

I just dispute the label of "victimless crime".  The user is the victim.  There are spill-over effects on wider society as well.

The user of junk food is also the victim.  Should junk food be made illegal?

I wouldn't inherently rule it out (though it seems the likely answer is no).  But clearly the state has an interest in regulating junk food, just as they do alcohol, tobacco, and controlled drugs and substances.

[Valmy]

I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

Yep because that line of the post was dishonest and douchebaggy.  I am intrigued by the idea that the victim and the perpetrator are the same person.  Can they decide not to press charges with themselves?

[HVC]

Well I certainly don't put stealing and rape on par with each other, so I don't know what to make of your analysis.

They're on par in that the victimize a innocent third party. I can't see how you can equate (at the lowest level you provided) breaking into someones house taking their stuff and traumatizing the victim with someone sitting in their backyard getting high.

I just dispute the label of "victimless crime".  The user is the victim.  There are spill-over effects on wider society as well.

there are spill over effect with everything. As a scoiety we don't often criminalize something becasue of what tertiary side effects might occur (drugs are the only one i can think of at the moment). it's like saying we should ban alcohol because alcoholic men are much more likely to abuse ther wives or ban playstations becasue it makes kids sedentary which will effect health care costs in the future. From my point of view that's what you're saying about drugs.

[Valmy]

I wouldn't inherently rule it out (though it seems the likely answer is no).  But clearly the state has an interest in regulating junk food, just as they do alcohol, tobacco, and controlled drugs and substances.

Yes they are regulations.  For public interest and health and all that and are up for debate and can be altered.  They are not essential protections of people and property and should not be compared.  The drug laws could be changed and society could function as they are optional regulations in the public good and interest.  Making rape, murder, and theft legal would lead to anarchy so the suggestion us not repealing them (or that our anti-murder laws do not decrease murder so are not working) means that regulations cannot be changed is beyond ridiculous.

[Barrister]

I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

Yep because that line of the post was dishonest and douchebaggy. 

AAAANNNNDDD with that, I'm outta here.

[DGuller]

Should've done that a couple of posts ago, before revealing that your objections to drugs are purely paternalistic in nature.

[HVC]

Dammit valmy. First soccer now drug threads. Is there nothing you dont jynx

[Valmy]

Dammit valmy. First soccer now drug threads. Is there nothing you dont jynx

I have wicked mojo my friend.

[HVC]

Dammit valmy. First soccer now drug threads. Is there nothing you dont jynx

I have wicked mojo my friend.

Your hot texas blood gets you in trouble

[Valmy]

AAAANNNNDDD with that, I'm outta here.

Bah I meant it with love in true Languishite fashion.

[Malthus]

I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

douchebag was too far, but it was a dishonest way of arguing the ills of drug use by making the comparisons you used.

I'm not so fussed. Many anti-drug types truly believe that drug use is morally on par with stealing and rape (and of course, the punishments can be for things like trafficing). If so, using the comparison isn't "dishonest", though such a POV is so alien to the rest of us that it can appear that way.

Well I certainly don't put stealing and rape on par with each other, so I don't know what to make of your analysis.

I just dispute the label of "victimless crime".  The user is the victim.  There are spill-over effects on wider society as well.

I'll put it this way: many anti-drug types see nothing odd about classifying "doing drugs" with both "stealing" and "rape", in that they are all criminal acts, though obviously varying in severity and moral blameworthiness.

Others (and I'm one) look at that list and think that things like "stealing" and "rape" are objectively bad and inherently the sort of thing that ought to be criminalized; and that "doing drugs" isn't of the same category, much less severity. It is more of a cultural choice, like those Mormons who don't drink coffee, and that making one set of choices criminal (presumably by legislators who enjoy the occasional cigar and whisky) is simply elevating one set of cultural choices over another, for no good reason.   

I think some of your critics in this thread think that this point is so obvious, that failing to believe it is a sign of deliberate dishonesty. I don't.

[Valmy]

I think some of your critics in this thread think that this point is so obvious, that failing to believe it is a sign of deliberate dishonesty. I don't.

Ok maybe I was wrong.  It sure looked like he was trying to spin it that way.