Poll: Drug Policy

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

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

[jgruber]

I offered the forced to shoot yourself idea as a hypothetical to better understand your definition, which I do now.

[M2]

I offered the forced to shoot yourself idea as a hypothetical to better understand your definition, which I do now.

Well in that case...sorry for the diatribe. lol

[jgruber]

Nada problem.

But you do know that people would expect medical studies to back up the non-toxic claims and then the controversy starts again.  The medical establishment will try to beat down anyone who even hints of supporting legalizing drugs.

I offered the forced to shoot yourself idea as a hypothetical to better understand your definition, which I do now.

Well in that case...sorry for the diatribe. lol

[M2]

Nada problem.

But you do know that people would expect medical studies to back up the non-toxic claims and then the controversy starts again.  The medical establishment will try to beat down anyone who even hints of supporting legalizing drugs.

I offered the forced to shoot yourself idea as a hypothetical to better understand your definition, which I do now.

Well in that case...sorry for the diatribe. lol

I'm 100% for medical studies...too bad they are  rarely allowed.

It took about 7 years for ONE study on MDMA to merely get approved

[marista]

A lot of drugs are potentially harmful and thus available only by prescription. The prescription represents a medical acknowledgement that the drug, in this case, would be medically beneficial to the person. But does that mean that morphine (or Levitra, or Zoloft, or most prescription drugs) should be freely available to all, because they might be beneficial to some?  If alcohol were available only by prescription, and people could be prescribed a glass of wine a night for the heart benefits, fine with me.

[M2]

A lot of drugs are potentially harmful and thus available only by prescription. The prescription represents a medical acknowledgement that the drug, in this case, would be medically beneficial to the person. But does that mean that morphine (or Levitra, or Zoloft, or most prescription drugs) should be freely available to all, because they might be beneficial to some?  If alcohol were available only by prescription, and people could be prescribed a glass of wine a night for the heart benefits, fine with me.

Marista you must admit though that your argument is based on religious faith not scientific fact.

[jgruber]

I don't see that.  I just see a difference in intrepetation of facts.

Marista you must admit though that your argument is based on religious faith not scientific fact.

[M2]

I don't see that.  I just see a difference in intrepetation of facts.

Marista you must admit though that your argument is based on religious faith not scientific fact.

The point is she blatantly ignores certain facts and says "I still feel these things are harmful".
It's impossible to have an argument with someone who disregards facts

[jgruber]

Yes, saying that you feel it is dangerous takes you on a questionable path.  In that sense she is departing from a factual based analysis, but it does not necessarily mean that the substance she's talking about is harmless.  It only means that she does not have facts to back it up.

[marista]

A lot of drugs are potentially harmful and thus available only by prescription. The prescription represents a medical acknowledgement that the drug, in this case, would be medically beneficial to the person. But does that mean that morphine (or Levitra, or Zoloft, or most prescription drugs) should be freely available to all, because they might be beneficial to some?  If alcohol were available only by prescription, and people could be prescribed a glass of wine a night for the heart benefits, fine with me.

Marista you must admit though that your argument is based on religious faith not scientific fact.

In what sense is the above argument religious? Do you agree that certain drugs are available only by prescription? Do you agree that those drugs MIGHT be beneficial to some people medically, but not to everyone? Where's the religion in that?  I'm just saying that it does not make sense for drugs known to be physically harmful (including alcohol) to be available to everyone because they medically benefit some people.