Page 11 of 27 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 264

Thread: Atheists: Your views on drug prohibition?

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    253

    Default Re: Atheists: Your views on drug prohibition?

    Quote DanDare said View Post
    Pro
    reduces use by some amount
    reduces addiction by a proportional amount to use reduction
    provides good material for movies about drug gangs etc

    Con
    puts addicts into outlaw category - hard for them to get help or be helped
    makes sales of the prohibited substance very lucrative and outside tax reigime
    provides criminal groups with money and political power
    adds a mystique to use
    reduces respect for the law
    absorbs much of our law enforcement budget
    Another con: removes chance of regulation, making the products more dangerous and/or unpredictable for those who do use.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,423

    Default Re: Atheists: Your views on drug prohibition?

    Are you saying that "clean heroin" is not highly addictive?
    No, but not dangerous and so what if it was? Banning some drugs has created far more problems and cost far more than having them remain legal. There is limit to which a government can or should protect people from their own self destructive behaviour.

    'Addictive' does not necessarily mean "life threatening" . EG caffeine is addictive,and so is valium,but people do not die from those addictions. Nor are there any recorded deaths from a valium overdose in this country.


    My position is the greatest good for the greatest number.That should entail harm minimalisation for both the individual and the body civil,with the body civil taking priority.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Altitude 700 m
    Posts
    8,551

    Default Re: Atheists: Your views on drug prohibition?

    It also leads to concentration of the product, so that a smaller quantity can be shipped (smuggled) and stored (hidden) for the same profit. Unlike soap powder manufacturers, drug manufacturers have no incentive to increase their packaging size to product ratio.

    Increased concentration is dangerous for lives, if you are accustomed to the earlier, less concentrated, version.
    There are no good arguments for gods.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,423

    Default Re: Atheists: Your views on drug prohibition?

    Increased concentration is dangerous for lives, if you are accustomed to the earlier, less concentrated, version.
    In the short term,probably,but not in the long term:Legalised drugs would be produced and sold under licence guaranteeing dose and purity,just like say alcohol..

    Such drugs would be produced and sold at a fraction of street drug prices.

    After 40-odd years,I have yet to come across a satisfying economic,medical or social reason not to legalise all illegal drugs..


    I have no interest in moral or political arguments.My basic position is that drug addiction should be a health problem, not a legal,political or moral one. The manufacture and sale of drugs need be no more of an issue than the manufacture and sale of alcohol..
    Last edited by Seamus; 15th April 2012 at 06:30 PM.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Altitude 700 m
    Posts
    8,551

    Default Re: Atheists: Your views on drug prohibition?

    Quote Seamus said View Post
    In the short term,probably,but not in the long term:Legalised drugs would be produced and sold under licence guaranteeing dose and purity,just like say alcohol..

    Such drugs would be produced and sold at a fraction of street drug prices.

    After 40-odd years,I have yet to come across a satisfying economic,medical or social reason not to legalise all illegal drugs...
    I am agreeing. You may have misinterpreted me, if I may say that . I was referring to what happens under prohibition.
    There are no good arguments for gods.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    452

    Default Re: Atheists: Your views on drug prohibition?

    Quote Seamus said View Post
    No, but not dangerous and so what if it was? Banning some drugs has created far more problems and cost far more than having them remain legal. There is limit to which a government can or should protect people from their own self destructive behaviour.

    'Addictive' does not necessarily mean "life threatening" . EG caffeine is addictive,and so is valium,but people do not die from those addictions. Nor are there any recorded deaths from a valium overdose in this country.


    My position is the greatest good for the greatest number.That should entail harm minimalisation for both the individual and the body civil,with the body civil taking priority.
    I think the severity of the harm needs to be taken into consideration for exactly that reason; harm minimisation to society. For that reason all drugs can't get thrown under one blanket.

    Also, pro and con lists need to be weighted. It's not relevant to say that this list has 2 things and that one has 10 when the weights are completely different.

    I looked into the "harm" of illicit drugs this morning and found this very helpful research;



    Source

    I think from this data (and other data) the social impact could be quantified to at least some degree. However, in a social context, I still don't by the two wrongs make a right argument. That being that alcohol or tobacco adversely impact society so lets allow everything. I think that's a silly argument. I think the argument should be; Should drugs be prohibited based on societal harm. I'm not too fussed about individual harm or being a nanny for the sake of it.

  7. #107

    Default Re: Atheists: Your views on drug prohibition?

    Quote ClayMonk said View Post
    We are not talking about drugs that should be banned, we are talking about drugs that should be legalised. By your logic, two wrongs make a right. Alcohol bad and it legal, so by your logic we should make everything that is bad legal.
    You missed the point of my post. It is to demonstrate the flawed logic that "drugs are bad so they should be illegal!" Even legal drugs can have a detrimental effect, so by your logic, given how bad it can be, we may as well make those things (alcohol, coffee, cigarettes) illegal.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Crocodile said View Post
    You missed the point of my post. It is to demonstrate the flawed logic that "drugs are bad so they should be illegal!" Even legal drugs can have a detrimental effect, so by your logic, given how bad it can be, we may as well make those things (alcohol, coffee, cigarettes) illegal.
    If "Drugs are bad so they should be illegal!" was asserted then that would be flawed logic, but it clearly wasn't asserted. So if that's the premise then the rest makes no sense.

    Furthermore, we are not talking about an alternate universe where banning those things would be pragmatic in any sense. Prohibiting drugs that are legal and widely used has different variables, complications and prejudices. We are talking about whether current prohibited drugs should be legitimised.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    7,503

    Default Re: Atheists: Your views on drug prohibition?

    Banning based on the harm level is insufficient and erroneous.

    The higher the harm the more important it is to take effective action. That is, action than that does the most to reduce the harm. I have not yet found evidence that prohibition is the most effective harm reducer.
    "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government".
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Burden of proof is the obligation on somebody presenting a claim to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to show the evidence presented is not adequate. If claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.

    History isn't written by the victors. It's written by the people with the time machines.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote DanDare said View Post
    Banning based on the harm level is insufficient and erroneous.

    The higher the harm the more important it is to take effective action. That is, action than that does the most to reduce the harm. I have not yet found evidence that prohibition is the most effective harm reducer.
    What is effective action?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •