Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

The best way to handle the drug policy would be...

Keep the status quo
 1 (3.1%)
Make tougher laws like mandatory minimum sentences
 3 (9.4%)
repeal all drug laws, focus on violent and property crime and let people do as they wish.
 11 (34.4%)
Decriminalize reefer, keep other stuff illegal, but focus more on distribution
 1 (3.1%)
decriminalize posession/use, set up clinics for addicts to reduce crime, go after major distribution of hard drugs
 14 (43.8%)
i dont like any of these choices, jackass
 2 (6.3%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Author Topic: Poll: Drug Policy  (Read 7597 times)

M2

  • Guest
Re: Poll: Drug Policy
« Reply #40 on: May 28, 2004, 04:47:20 PM »
OK thanks,

There is still one more thing I dont understand.
Why must everyone else follow your rules? i.e. Why do you desire everyone else to be forced to comply ?
Why not allow some people to use drugs like caffeine  if they are not harming others?

This is the only part I cannot grasp. The need to control what others do, when what they do is NOT harmful.
I'm only speaking about drugs and instances where an individual is not harming anybody (including themself)

Great discussion Marista.

marista

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
    • AOL Instant Messenger - purplenna
    • View Profile
    • My lawschoolnumbers page
    • Email
Re: Poll: Drug Policy
« Reply #41 on: May 28, 2004, 04:58:24 PM »
As I stated before, I think people using illegal drugs (hard drugs, let's put pot aside for the moment), alcohol and tobacco is harmful to the person using it, in addition to the indirect impact it has on the rest of society. So you say you don't know why drugs/alcohol/tobacco should be illegal if the person is not harming themselves or others, I would say it is not possible to use drugs, alcohol or tobacco without harming at the very least yourself.

I already took back my statement about that caffeine should be illegal.

M2

  • Guest
Re: Poll: Drug Policy
« Reply #42 on: May 28, 2004, 05:02:00 PM »
I guess I can't understand how you can say that "drugs are harmful" without doing research on the 1000s of psychoactive compounds in existence (yes there are many more than the ones that one hears about frequently)

There are many substances that are absolutely non-toxic. I can't combat your belief but I can come up with a list of at least 10 recreational psychoactive compounds that are 100% non-toxic.

So if it comes to a matter of your believing something without regard to  the scientific evidence...I guess there isn't much more to say.

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: Poll: Drug Policy
« Reply #43 on: May 28, 2004, 05:04:06 PM »
Is non-toxic the same thing as harmless?

M2

  • Guest
Re: Poll: Drug Policy
« Reply #44 on: May 28, 2004, 05:05:13 PM »
Is non-toxic the same thing as harmless?

Yes

schoomp

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 603
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - schoomp
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Poll: Drug Policy
« Reply #45 on: May 28, 2004, 05:06:12 PM »
As I stated before, I think people using illegal drugs (hard drugs, let's put pot aside for the moment), alcohol and tobacco is harmful to the person using it, in addition to the indirect impact it has on the rest of society.

Problem with this statemant, is it seems to be more from a religious standpoint - not medical fact.  For instance, the nicotine in tobacco can *help* IBD patients.  Coffee in the morning can also help because it works as a laxative for people with stomach problems.  Alcohol, such as a glass of wine a night, has been found to have good health benefits.  Although there are things about each of these that are bad - the same can be true of a lot of other substances.  Fatty beef can cause many health problems (not to mention Mad Cow disease if you get the wrong peice) and no one is talking about makign beef illegal.  What about turkey - it does have a substance that makes you tired?

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: Poll: Drug Policy
« Reply #46 on: May 28, 2004, 05:15:16 PM »
Is non-toxic the same thing as harmless?

Yes


Toxic means poisonous or something like it.  Can't something be harmful even if it is not poisonous?  I take a substance that is not a poison, but causes me to shot myself.  It's non-toxic, but it is demonstatably harmful.  Yes, no?

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: Poll: Drug Policy
« Reply #47 on: May 28, 2004, 05:18:37 PM »
Let me throw two things at this.

1) Are medical concerns the only criteria that should be considered in determining if something is good? 

2) I think we need to distinquish between general use and specific use.  Ex: Tobacco may be useful in a few specific cases -- medical treatment -- but is generally bad because it causes disease not only to the users but to others.

As I stated before, I think people using illegal drugs (hard drugs, let's put pot aside for the moment), alcohol and tobacco is harmful to the person using it, in addition to the indirect impact it has on the rest of society.

Problem with this statemant, is it seems to be more from a religious standpoint - not medical fact.  For instance, the nicotine in tobacco can *help* IBD patients.  Coffee in the morning can also help because it works as a laxative for people with stomach problems.  Alcohol, such as a glass of wine a night, has been found to have good health benefits.  Although there are things about each of these that are bad - the same can be true of a lot of other substances.  Fatty beef can cause many health problems (not to mention Mad Cow disease if you get the wrong peice) and no one is talking about makign beef illegal.  What about turkey - it does have a substance that makes you tired?

M2

  • Guest
Re: Poll: Drug Policy
« Reply #48 on: May 28, 2004, 05:22:26 PM »
Is non-toxic the same thing as harmless?

Yes


Toxic means poisonous or something like it.  Can't something be harmful even if it is not poisonous?  I take a substance that is not a poison, but causes me to shot myself.  It's non-toxic, but it is demonstatably harmful.  Yes, no?

The term non-toxic when referring to drugs means that they cause no damage to any part of the human body.
They also do not cause indrect damage such as Bruxism (teeth grinding)

Aspirin is toxic, so is ibuprofen, and tylenol (acetaminophen).
Prozac is toxic as are all SSRI's...

There are MANY psychoactive compounds that are 100% completely harmless.
I will compile a list of some later when I have time. LSAT is my first priority

My whole point in all of this is that many say drugs should be illegal because they cause harm directly or indirectly or both... then when I come up with compounds that are 100% non-toxic people sitll have a problem with these drugs being legal. This means that the whole "harm" issue is really a facade protecting some other "reason" for not wanting drugs to be legal.


Jeffjoe, can you please explain how a substance can FORCE you to shoot yourself ?
Even some foods cause unwanted psychological effects (namely ones packed with sugar)

If you want I could extend non-toxic so that substances that cause problems like aggression are also excluded...I would still have no problem coming up with that list (and I will later)

M2

  • Guest
Re: Poll: Drug Policy
« Reply #49 on: May 28, 2004, 05:32:54 PM »
Also Jeffjoe,

No one can protect everyone against their own stupidity.
Thats why the license system would make sure that people understand what the risks and effects are.

if someone decides to shoot themself, then so be it...
I can guarantee I would never do it under the influence of any drug, and if something happens to me during drug use (hypothetically of course) you can believe that I would accept full responsibility.