Biodiesel: Is it the answer to all our energy needs?

[Brother None]

Nuh-uh. Guns hurt OTHER people. Drugs only hurt YOURSELF.

Guns don't hurt anybody. The weilder of a gun hurts someone. In the same way, drugs only hurt the user, but the user hurts others. The comparison is very valid.

Making drugs illegal doesn't help in getting people OFF drugs.

Nor is it supposed to, it's supposed to keep people off drugs, not get them off.

Yep, and it's their own choice, their own repsonsibility. Taking drugs isn't ilegal anymore, but stealing still uis, though. So it doesn't matter for the person "harming society" in being out there and doing things.

Yes it does. Take a junkie for stealing, throw him in jail a weak and he'll re-emerge with the HUNGER, because you can't force him into rehab. Hello?

We would also get rid of a large part of the criminal sector, the people DO have better access to frugs, but again, that is THEIR repsonsibility. The same could be said for alcohol, it's cheap and available, so people become alcoholists, do nothing or die, and become pains in the ass for society. However, that still doesn't take away the fact that it's about granting basic freedoms to people. Such as fuck around with their own lives(What COULD happen, would be one clause in the law saying that drug addicts do not get any money, if they are causing troubles for society. Just a possibility).

I don't like alcohol either, lots of reasons that should be outlawed.

And again, this basic freedom stuff is bs, go back to the gun bit.

 

[Sander]

Guns don't hurt anybody. The weilder of a gun hurts someone. In the same way, drugs only hurt the user, but the user hurts others. The comparison is very valid.

Let me put it like this then: Guns can be USED to hurt other people, a tool to be used FOR hurting other people. Wile drugs induce certain states of mind, and sometimes paranoid delusions, they don't make hurting other people easieer.

Nor is it supposed to, it's supposed to keep people off drugs, not get them off.

Indeed, but is there any way of knowing for certain that those laws ARE keeping people off, or actually attracting people? As I said, people DO get attracted by risks and illegality.

Yes it does. Take a junkie for stealing, throw him in jail a weak and he'll re-emerge with the HUNGER, because you can't force him into rehab. Hello?

You can't force him into rehab, you CAN force him into jail. When people go to jail and are cut off from drugs, they (may) see that that is just fucked up(For them). When people then come out, they may think "Hey, that is completely FUCKED. I don't want that, I want to go into rehab." They just might think that. Or maybe they won't and go back to stealing. I'm not sure, but I do think repeat offenders get higher punishments. In fact, I know pretty much for certain.

Oh, and in jail, you CAN force someone to go into rehab, mainly by just cutting him off from drugs.

I don't like alcohol either, lots of reasons that should be outlawed.

And again, this basic freedom stuff is bs, go back to the gun bit.

Great for you! YOu don't like alcohol. YOu try to see what will happen when it gets outlawed.

Basic freedom all depends on what you THINK those basic freedoms are. I am, in fact, in the process of re-evaluating my stance on the gun bit. Not because of the gun bit itself, tough. That was merely an extradition of opinions.

 

[welsh]

And in the same way it's the junk's responsibility when he breaks in a house to get his drugmoney, that doesn't mean the law enforcers shouldn't try to remove the causes.

You could also try to get that junk OFF of drugs, instead of keeping him on them, and just making drugs illegal. With legal drugs, anti-drug campaigns aimed at addicts, and campaigns to get addicts OFF of the drugs are much easier to launch and maintain, because there isn't any fear of arrests any more for the drug users.

That makes no sense- You are saying that by legalizing drugs, anti-drug campagins become stronger? How? Don't you think the fear of arrest stops some people from smoking a joint?

I am sympathetic on the idea of education. If sex education can help address issues of abortion, sexually transmitted diseases and other issues of human sexuality, I think it fair to say that drug use education could also play an important role.

I am not without sympathy to the legalizing grass argument, but not for the harder drugs. It doesn't take much crack to make an addict, and an addict with kids is a social problem. An addict who commits crimes to support that habit is a social cost and a waste to society.

The notion of individual liberties has to have limits if one wants to live in a more peaceful and just society. As Kharn points out, the analogy with gun control is apt. One needs to balance between individual liberties and social welfare- too much on either extreme leads to a net bad.

Sander, I agree with Kharn, you are being a bit too idealistic and extreme here. Idealism without realistic application, or without grounding in real circumstances is, at the most benign, mental masturbation. At the more extreme- dangerous.

Also, while I think one can make a good argument that the consumption of alcohol is more harmful than grass, I think we also need to appreciate that marijuana is generally more harmful than cigerrettes. If we are to restrict tobacco products for their harmful effects, than we need to think about marijuana for not just their physicological effect, but also for the psychological. For one thing, I am much more sympathetic to the pilot who takes a break to spoke a marlborough, than one who will take a break for a hit of Panama Red.

 

[Sander]

That makes no sense- You are saying that by legalizing drugs, anti-drug campagins become stronger? How? Don't you think the fear of arrest stops some people from smoking a joint?

No, I'm saying that instead of focusing on illegality and punishment of drugs, campaigns can actually focus on education and providing more means for people to both fight drugs, and stay off of drugs.
And I'm absolutley not talking about joints here, I think taht soft drugs are a completely seperate issue from the harder drugs, because there are no proven negative effects from marijuana at all, thus not really amking it an issue about responsibility of the user.

The notion of individual liberties has to have limits if one wants to live in a more peaceful and just society. As Kharn points out, the analogy with gun control is apt. One needs to balance between individual liberties and social welfare- too much on either extreme leads to a net bad.

Perhaps, but who is to say where the balance lies?

Sander, I agree with Kharn, you are being a bit too idealistic and extreme here. Idealism without realistic application, or without grounding in real circumstances is, at the most benign, mental masturbation. At the more extreme- dangerous.

Agreed, which is why I'll add more nuance to my argument:
Either drugs should be legalised, OR there should be a BIG focus on NOT arresting small time dealers, but the crime bosses. As well as (mostly) free rehab programs, and GOOD education about drugs, and to STOP wasting resources on stopping small time dealers and USERS. Syop punishing the users!
If the second thing happens, I am not opposed to illegalisation of drugs.

Let's make another nuance: USING drugs should be legal, DEALING shouldn't.

Also, while I think one can make a good argument that the consumption of alcohol is more harmful than grass, I think we also need to appreciate that marijuana is generally more harmful than cigerrettes. If we are to restrict tobacco products for their harmful effects, than we need to think about marijuana for not just their physicological effect, but also for the psychological. For one thing, I am much more sympathetic to the pilot who takes a break to spoke a marlborough, than one who will take a break for a hit of Panama Red.

Read OZrat's link on the previous page, READ it, get the FACTS about marijuana and THEN comment on it.

 

[welsh]

Yes, I read Ozrat's line and to some extent I agree with many of his points.

Still, I would hate to be an an airplane when the cockpit door opens up ant the pilots walk out stoned. Maybe I'd be more concerned if they were drunk but neither choice is a great option.

Where does the balance lie? Jeesh Sander, that is a woosey answer. That't the point of democratic governance isn't it? That governments can change with the times, That certain minority rights are protected while the majority still gets to choose what is moral and not moral? For example, the idea of gay rights is becoming reexamined in the US because people are asking themselves, "What does it matter to me who this person fucks and why should anyone be bothered with my choices." Yet at the same time we can all agree that Incest and pedophilis is wrong.

The topic of marijuana is also being raised in this same way.
If I were a king there would be no debate. I would legalize and tax.

This notion of letting small dealers go while going after big dealers is just silly. Why should the amount that a person deals make a difference as to whether its a crime or not. I will accept that the amount of drugs trafficing should matter in terms of punishment. But if you traffic its a crime.

I am also unsure if you are getting how much of this process works, and perhaps need to step back from this and think it through carefully.

Furthermore, you go after the small dealers and you squeeze them for info. Sometimes he rats out the bigger fish. Sometimes you let him go and he's your snitch. Either case by the force of law (backed by the coercive force of the state) one is able to squeeze the low level retailer for info so you can build a case after the big time dealer.

In this case you get all of them.

As for what I know, using isn't considered to be a crime in the US, it is possession that gets you in trouble. Possession of small quantities involves an implication that you are involved in commerce.

So if you come out of a rock concert and you have gotten a good buzz from the second hand smoke, the cops do a blood test on you and find that you are high, you probably will get off- No possession, just use. On the other hand if you are walking out with a bag of grass, then they can nail you on possession under the idea that you possess with the intention to traffic.

 

[Sander]

This notion of letting small dealers go while going after big dealers is just silly. Why should the amount that a person deals make a difference as to whether its a crime or not. I will accept that the amount of drugs trafficing should matter in terms of punishment. But if you traffic its a crime.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean that that should be the focus. The focus should be on getting the MAIN distributors, simply because without them, it all falls down.

Furthermore, you go after the small dealers and you squeeze them for info. Sometimes he rats out the bigger fish. Sometimes you let him go and he's your snitch. Either case by the force of law (backed by the coercive force of the state) one is able to squeeze the low level retailer for info so you can build a case after the big time dealer.

That's part of going after the big guy. Agreed, small dealers can lead to bigger dealers, and even bigger dealers and so forth. But always, the focus must ultimately lie on the bigger fish.

As for what I know, using isn't considered to be a crime in the US, it is possession that gets you in trouble. Possession of small quantities involves an implication that you are involved in commerce.

Yep, you're indeed involved in commerce, mainly by buying it. Users and possessors shouldn't be punished, dealers should.

So if you come out of a rock concert and you have gotten a good buzz from the second hand smoke, the cops do a blood test on you and find that you are high, you probably will get off- No possession, just use. On the other hand if you are walking out with a bag of grass, then they can nail you on possession under the idea that you possess with the intention to traffic.

What happened to the principal of assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty?

Where does the balance lie? Jeesh Sander, that is a woosey answer. That't the point of democratic governance isn't it?

Yeppers, and I took a stance on an issue. Saying "Well, we should determine a balance" is absolutely right. ANd I chose a point as to where I think that balance should lie.

Still, I would hate to be an an airplane when the cockpit door opens up ant the pilots walk out stoned. Maybe I'd be more concerned if they were drunk but neither choice is a great option.

Me too, because marijuana may lower reaction time. If a pilot smokes marijuana he can be endangering his passenegers. Thus, it should be disallowed to smoke pot when going out flying.

ALthough, as the articel noted, "stoned" drivers tend to drive more carefully.

IN any case, that doesn't have anything to do with legalizing pot.

 

[Brother None]

Let me put it like this then: Guns can be USED to hurt other people, a tool to be used FOR hurting other people. Wile drugs induce certain states of mind, and sometimes paranoid delusions, they don't make hurting other people easieer.

Have we ironed this one out yet?

Guns don't hurt people, the weilders of guns hurt people.

Drugs hurt the users, the users hurt people.

The difference can be nullified for the sake of argument. If you work with junkies long enough, it's an inevitable truth.

Oh, and in jail, you CAN force someone to go into rehab, mainly by just cutting him off from drugs.

...

Do you even know what that does to a person? Cold turkey in one night...Hello, insanityville...That's not something I'd ever like to see done, making someone go cold turkey overnight is like strapping him to a Dark Age torture device...

Great for you! YOu don't like alcohol. YOu try to see what will happen when it gets outlawed.

Alcohol, like tobacco and caffiene, are socially accepted drugs and as such can not be outlawed. Just like you can't outlaw weed in Holland, no more than you can make it legal in the US. It just doesn't work that way.

That's part of going after the big guy. Agreed, small dealers can lead to bigger dealers, and even bigger dealers and so forth. But always, the focus must ultimately lie on the bigger fish.

Yeees...Somehow, I don't think it's quite that easy. I never worked with the police, but my suspicion would be their attitude is more "catch what you can" rather than "let's go for the bigger fish!" They'd rather have A catch than nothing.

Again, you're being to idyllic. Reality first, idyllic situations later.

Yep, you're indeed involved in commerce, mainly by buying it. Users and possessors shouldn't be punished, dealers should.

You're a bit contradictive here, but anyway, users and possessors should simply be smashed into rehab, to get rid of the drugs, but to effectively do that you can't really make it legal.

What happened to the principal of assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty?

That's a bit silly, welsh was talking about a bag of weed. Now I can walk around with a voordeel-zak (5 gr.) and that'd still be usage, but say you're carrying a real bag. 100 gr. weed (which would be a huge bag, but still), do you really think they CAN attribute that to usage?

And besides that, owning the stuff is a crime in the USA too.

 

[Ozrat]

Okay now...

Punishing the addicts for something they don't have a lot of self-control over is just plain stupid. Social acceptance of their problems is the only way to get these people out of the closets and onto the road of recovery. They have to be able to go get help voluntarily. Forcing them into rehab or even into jail just won't work. Haven't we figured that out already? The drug wars are faulty from the start and have caused more crimes and problems than they have fixed.

My real point is that marijuana should be legalized. Not only is it a great environmentally friendly resource for manufacturing, it also has a multitude of medicinal properties to it and it just won't hurt anybody. From what I remember reading, the only cases of lung cancer that have been associated with its usage have also been combined with tobacco. Thus, there is no hard proof that it even contains carciogens. Why, even a committee from the Canadian Parliment released a report last year stating that marijuana should be legalized for consumption for anybody 16 and older! That's even younger than their smoking and drinking ages!

Canabis Sativa: The little plant that could...

 

[welsh]

Ozrat- As mentioned above, I am pretty sympathetic to the idea of legalized marijuana. As stated, the positives of legalizing seem to outweigh that of keeping it criminal. Tax revenue- like cigerrette taxes, quality control, new import commodities, manufacturing uses, medicinal uses, etc.

However, regarding harder drugs, I have to disagree with you. Social acceptance is alone not the answer. Here, I think harder penalties are required and more active response.

I was in Switzerland a few years ago and remember seeing the junkies in the doorways and in the parks, strung out on smack. I remember seeing them trade and the cops being able to nothing. It was amazing how widespread the use had become. I also recall talking to cops about how bad the war on drugs became after crack hit the streets.

That these drugs often target the poor and the young, vulnerable populations, is alarming. While I will agree that a wider policy that cares for addicts is necessary, frankly I want these drugs off the streets. That the supply of these drugs often comes from countries that are poor, wartorn, corrupt and unstable indicates that more can be done abroad to increase quality of life issues in these countries. But to ignore the demand side is equally bad.

Social acceptance would probably lead to only more drug users, especially among the young and poor. That much of this traffic occurs between small users illustrates that a policy of going after only the big dealers will not work. The answer needs to be more complex, and it can't just involve police work but community development as well.

Sure alcohol is addictive- but crack and heroin? The people who deal in those commodities are trading in death. These drugs destroy people's lives, their families, their potential. The kill people after wasting them.

Those that deal in these substances know this. The fitting punishment is to put them away, for a long long time. Or fry them. People who deal to kids- I got no sympathy. It's not like they lack either the intelligence of the capital to make money through legal means, but rather, they are drawn to the drug trade for profit. I got more sympathy for the poor bastard that robs a convenience store for $300 so he can eat then one of these bastards.

Social Acceptance- to rehabilitate the user- sure. But what we need is more grassroots opposition. People in neighborhoods with high populations of addicts need to have the support to rid their communitities of the people who deal. It is these people who are aware of the social costs and the risks associated with allowing drug traffic to grow. Support neighborhoods that want to be drug free, and you concentrate drug traffic in those areas where such opposition is not as strong. Here you can concentrate your police efforts at getting to the dealers.

Sorry Oz, as much as I sympathize with you on the marijuana issue, on hard drugs I want the dealers to feel and experience the pain they've been dealing.

 

[megatron]

drugs rock, they should legalize everything imaginable and shit HARDCORE

 

[Sander]

Have we ironed this one out yet?

Guns don't hurt people, the weilders of guns hurt people.

Drugs hurt the users, the users hurt people.

The difference can be nullified for the sake of argument. If you work with junkies long enough, it's an inevitable truth.

*Kills Kharn*
Listen to what I said. I SAID that guns are an instrument, while drugs CAN be a CAUSE> Very VERY big difference. Now, I'll admit that it doesn't really help for legalising hard drugs. But you HAVE TO make a very big difference between something that is made for the SOLE PURPOSE of hurting people THROUGH other people(Yes, drugs hurt the users, but that is of their own volition(Until they want to quit, but I'll get to that later)), and something that is made to alter peoples minds, and addict them, THUS making them criminals BUT NOT AN INSTRUMENT FOR WOUNDING OR MURDERING. THAT is the difference, and it should be quite obvious. Now, drugs can cause people to become criminals, but a criminal isn't a murderer(And NO I'm not even TRYING to argue that every gun possessor is a murderer. So don't talk to me about that.)

Alright, on to the more important stuff. what I DO find interesting is that everyone somehow ignored this:

Either drugs should be legalised, OR there should be a BIG focus on NOT arresting small time dealers, but the crime bosses. As well as (mostly) free rehab programs, and GOOD education about drugs, and to STOP wasting resources on stopping small time dealers and USERS. Stop punishing the users!
If the second thing happens, I am not opposed to illegalisation of drugs.

Let's make another nuance: USING drugs should be legal, DEALING shouldn't.

Instead of commenting on those things, basically ALL of you just went after the more radical(ANd admittedly completely infeasible) part of what I said. I'll give it up, because I realise it's basically either stupid, or too idealistic.

Now, I'll (again) say what I think should realistically happen(Please note that I'm talking solely about hard drugs):
1) Rehab programs should be free.
2) Rehab programs should be made obligatory for prisoners in jail(Yes, they should. They can always go back, but without forcing them into rehab, they might never experience the feeling of NOT being addicted).
3) Dealers should be punished hard.
4) When economically better times arrive, more money should be put into fighting drugs.
5) An international effort SHOULD be established, but especially NOT under the leading of either France or the USA, because both of those have way bigger drug problems than, for instance, the Netherlands, yet still want to impose THEIR way of dealing with drugs on other countries.
6) Money should be put into education programs, educating EVERYONE(Including adults, myths are all too common) about drugs.
7) Possession and use should be legal, up to a point(If you're possessing for instance one hundred pills of XTC, you can't even reasonably assume that it's for self-usage.)

There.

 

[Brother None]

HRAKA! The damn computer ate my reply.
To sum up:

1. Guns and drugs both cause a significant increase in crime (arguable for guns, but that's what you believe), isn't that what's most important? Even if they were legal, they'd continue to put people to crime, same as the gambling and alcohol industries do.

2. We didn't comment on that bit because it's way too obvious and not interesting for the topic. We're discussing the effects of legalising hard drugs, not the idyllic way of fighting them, two things that clash.

3. You're clashing all over the place. You're talking about hunting down drugs more intensely while simultaneously legalising the usage? This makes NO sense whatsoever. Are you for legalising hard drugs or not? If you are, you can't talk about making an international effort against drugs, 'cause they're legal, just like you can't start punishing dealers harder and harder while letting the buyers go.

Ever heard of the "no demand means no sale"-policy? You can't try and cut off one end without doing anything about the other.

 

[Sander]

Guns and drugs both cause a significant increase in crime (arguable for guns, but that's what you believe)

No, that's not what I believe, I believe that guns make VIOLENT crime EASIER.

3. That's not clashing. Ofcourse I'm talking about hunting down drugs more extensively! That's logical, I am not talking about making owning drugs UP TO A CERTAIN amount illegal, because I think that a person has the right to fuck himself up.
Alright, let's put it differently: CONDONE usage and owning drugs, BUT do make it illegal by law.

 

[welsh]

Let's start rethinking this thing with CAPS shall we?

 

[Ozrat]

So we all agree that marijuana should be legalized? Yipee!

Okay, I don't think one of my points was understood. You're still talking about prosecuting the users. If you see drug abuse as a problem, rather than a crime, the options of taking care of the situation are a lot better and a lot more effective.

As for still having the drug dealers and whatnots, this is why I said we should have them legalized and regulated. If you can go to your local pharmacy (maybe you should be required to have a prescription from a doctor for your addiction) and get whatever fix you need, the quality and strength of your drug will be controlled. This would be a much safer, much more controlled, and much more appealing source than the guy passed out in the gutter. You're getting your drugs from people who are trying to help you rather than the dude who wants to make a quick buck without caring whether you'll live to make another purchase.

Do I have a good solution here?

 

[Brother None]

As for still having the drug dealers and whatnots, this is why I said we should have them legalized and regulated. If you can go to your local pharmacy (maybe you should be required to have a prescription from a doctor for your addiction) and get whatever fix you need, the quality and strength of your drug will be controlled. This would be a much safer, much more controlled, and much more appealing source than the guy passed out in the gutter. You're getting your drugs from people who are trying to help you rather than the dude who wants to make a quick buck without caring whether you'll live to make another purchase.

No, if the commerce was the only problem, as with mirajuana, this would work, but this doesn't. If you make a hard drug too easy to get and too socially accepted, you get an explosion in users, who get addicted and will have to fall into crime eventually.

It would indeed take away the commerce/traffiking problems, but at what price?

 

[welsh]

I am also thinking that we would replace one problem with another. Merely by going through the pharmacy you have a new set of folks getting a piece of the trade.

Already we have a problem with people addicted to prescriptive drugs. In part this is because much of the medical field likes Meds. But there have been plenty of cases where someone is paid off to make a prescription.

While I can seen some occassions where that kind of thing is allowed, harder drugs- cocaine, heroin, angel dust, etc- that't troublesome. ALso you have the varied drug cocktails that are being distributed these days. By regulating it through commerce you will still have intermediary dealers creating their own concoctions.

 

[APTYP]

To all you crazy drugsters:
GET A TOPIC!

 

[megatron]

you can't get addicted to pot? and people can get addicted to caffeine, cigarettes and booze, if hard drugs were legal just make the dosage really small. I don't see the pros in hard drugs like cocaine or heroin though, just make some lesser forms available? i dunno craaasy

pcp shouldn't really be available, it's for animals.

also sex education is shitty. I don't mind watching 5 hours of genital warts and abortions, but where's the fun part in it. Same with drugs, we'd probably just get bombarded with shows giving little details on the effects and 10 minutes giving a list of loads of shit. They also need to re-try the drug tests that took place in the 30s or something?

I also don't think guns+drugs=crime. If every jew in the 30s had a gun, world war 2 probably wouldn't have happened. A lot of things probably wouldn't happen if everyone was all trippy and lying around. And why would drugs lead to crime, everyone has the potential to harm others, should we make everything pointy illegal?

afashfafahhjs

 

[Sander]

You can't get physically addicted to pot. Read the stuff, megatron.

I don't mind watching 5 hours of genital warts and abortions

...No comment.

Same with drugs, we'd probably just get bombarded with shows giving little details on the effects and 10 minutes giving a list of loads of shit.

Which is why I said GOOD education.

If every jew in the 30s had a gun, world war 2 probably wouldn't have happened.

Keep telling yourself that.

And why would drugs lead to crime,

Drugs cost money, drugs increase need for more drugs, cost more money, only way to get money=crime(Or a job, which isn't going to happen if you're addicted to XTC or anything of the like, probably.)

should we make everything pointy illegal?

Yep.
</sarcasm>

afashfafahhjs

My friend, who doesn't even know what the hell this board is about, just said you were a moron. Seriously.


PS: I use CAPS to emphasize stuff. Eaiser than silly bb-code or html tags.