Boise State quarterback Finley arrested early Saturday

[hawkwing]

Why can't and why should not society respond to that waste of dollars by restricting and/or regulating these substances?

for me the question should be, why does society need to foot the bill for individual addictions. why should you or I pay for treatment and hospitalization for consequences related to drug use etc... why should you or I pay for food stamps for known drug users? why should I pay for the consequences of obesity when an individual has chosen a sedentary lifestyle?

This seems logically fair in theory, but how do you avoid paying social costs for others' bad choices in a society? If a bankrupt drunk driver creates an accident that involves a public vehicle, like a fire truck, who will pay to replace it? Or are you ok with merely having one less fire truck available when your house is burning? If an obese neighbor needs medical attention that would require hospitalization, can't afford it and is left without help, how do you avoid the trauma to yourself or your children of that neighbor dying next door? And what about the impact on your property values if the deceased has no family or friends to take care of funeral arrangements or to take care of the body and the property in his absence? Who will pay for the coroner to remove the body and for the property to be returned to productive use? We live in a society, we are not individual islands who operate without any impact on those around us.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Not only that, how do you determine which ailments are self induced and which are not? Is lung cancer never covered? But what if the person never smoked? Would an obese person who breaks a bone be covered? That may or may not have any bearing on their other physical condition, who is the final arbiter of these scenarios? If a house fire starts, do we need to determine the cause before we know of we as society will put it out?

The fact of the matter is, in most cases drugs did not start out as illegal and only became such after society saw the heavy toll inflicted upon it by it's use.

[Mars]

If a person drives at a speed that exceeds the speed limit, but there is no law enforcement officer to catch the alleged speeder, does he really speed or break the law? Kind of sounds like the tree falling and making noise philosophy debate to me.....

When he hits and kills a child, then yeah. Same thing with huffing spray paint in your garage, or any other incredibly stupid activity. It IS going to affect others. There's rarely any such thing as "keeping your own terribly bad choices to yourself".

No matter how many things you legalize, worse things will always be available illegally. It's impossible to legalize everything. Hey, what if I like to shoot up yellow cake uranium in the privacy of my own home? No, it's all about where we draw the line. The line has moved nationally when it comes to marijuana (medical, Colorado, etc). That doesn't make legalizing heroine/meth/bath salts a logical, sane decision, because it simply isn't.

[BroncoBot]

That doesn't make legalizing heroine/meth/bath salts a logical, sane decision, because it simply isn't. [/color][/quote]



why not?

does legalization cause a significant increase in use? I doubt it. these laws only help the general public sleep better at night knowing that those problems are "illegal". none of us are going to rush out for some bath salts if they were suddenly legal.

for me it just a political talking point similar to the anti gun movement. there are idiots out there who will shoot and kill or shoot up and kill (drugs) others and it doesn't matter if there are laws against it or not.

[BroncoBot]

That doesn't make legalizing heroine/meth/bath salts a logical, sane decision, because it simply isn't. [/color][/quote]



why not?

does legalization cause a significant increase in use? I doubt it. these laws only help the general public sleep better at night knowing that those problems are "illegal". none of us are going to rush out for some bath salts if they were suddenly legal.

for me it just a political talking point similar to the anti gun movement. there are idiots out there who will shoot and kill or shoot up and kill (drugs) others and it doesn't matter if there are laws against it or not.

until you are ready to go full blown minority report, which to me poses the greatest risk to personal and social freedom, I'd prefer to let people exercise their free will and pay the consequences for actions against others.

[Brayden Green]

I'm not interested in participating in an echo chamber, where everyone just shouts out what they beleive to hear themselves say it. If you would like to discuss things rationally, we need facts and logical premises to base our conclusions on.

I brought up decriminalization in Portugal, and got back "So facebook kills as many people as heroin, huh?" strawman as if the crux of my whole argument was that Facebook is just as deadly as hard drugs.

The crux of my argument, for those of you willing to have a rational debate, is:

There is not a drug out there that has EVER been shown to be universally habit forming. Most drugs only addict 5-10% of the people they are tested on. Therefore, the drugs are not the problem, it is the PEOPLE that get addicted to them. The addicts, themselves. It isnt a war on drugs, it os a war on the people that take those drugs.. Why are they addicts? Well, science has a lot to say about that.

That video I posted talks about the research being done about it. Portugal shows a working evidence of the principles being applied from the video in the real world. Portugal is not perfect, but it is revolutionary, and in my opinion, much much better than the system we have now.

I haven't heard one rebuttal to the facts stated in the video, or against the decriminalization in Portgal, and their approach. It really is a good talk about drugs and the problem therein. You should watch it, and I'd be interested in hearing what you all think after listening to it. If you do watch the video, it is starting at 3:00 mins in for some reason, just rewind to the beginning for full context...

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[BoiseBYU]

That doesn't make legalizing heroine/meth/bath salts a logical, sane decision, because it simply isn't. [/color]

why not?

does legalization cause a significant increase in use? I doubt it. these laws only help the general public sleep better at night knowing that those problems are "illegal". none of us are going to rush out for some bath salts if they were suddenly legal.

for me it just a political talking point similar to the anti gun movement. there are idiots out there who will shoot and kill or shoot up and kill (drugs) others and it doesn't matter if there are laws against it or not.

until you are ready to go full blown minority report, which to me poses the greatest risk to personal and social freedom, I'd prefer to let people exercise their free will and pay the consequences for actions against others.[/quote]

Legalization absolutely increases usage. The two most widely used and harmful drugs are tobacco and alcohol and it so happens that they are the ones legal to use (within limits). Cannabis usage has increased in CO post legalization. Legalization increases supply availability. Add to that that these and other like products are addicting, and it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that usage will go up. And the fact that these substances are highly and powerfully addicting leads to other bad outcomes, from crime, to poverty, to lost productivity. to family disintegration. You appear to think that legalizing these substances will not be a problem because we will just make the users pay for the consequences of their actions against others. As just one example, I have an acquaintance whose son died of lung cancer from second hand smoke. If we get rid of smoking bans, the number of people hurt by second hand smoke will increase with greater exposure to this carcinogenic product. Who do you propose pay for that and how? If a bankrupt person on meth, which has been legalized in your world, goes into shock and requires hospitalization, who pays to transport and treat him? In your world would you just let him die on the curb? Society has learned from sad experience about these banned or regulated substances and prohibiting them does increase our safety.

[BoiseBYU]

I'm not interested in participating in an echo chamber, where everyone just shouts out what they beleive to hear themselves say it. If you would like to discuss things rationally, we need facts and logical premises to base our conclusions on.

I brought up decriminalization in Portugal, and got back "So facebook kills as many people as heroin, huh?" strawman as if the crux of my whole argument was that Facebook is just as deadly as hard drugs.

The crux of my argument, for those of you willing to have a rational debate, is:

There is not a drug out there that has EVER been shown to be universally habit forming. Most drugs only addict 5-10% of the people they are tested on. Therefore, the drugs are not the problem, it is the PEOPLE that get addicted to them. The addicts, themselves. It isnt a war on drugs, it os a war on the people that take those drugs.. Why are they addicts? Well, science has a lot to say about that.

That video I posted talks about the research being done about it. Portugal shows a working evidence of the principles being applied from the video in the real world. Portugal is not perfect, but it is revolutionary, and in my opinion, much much better than the system we have now.

I haven't heard one rebuttal to the facts stated in the video, or against the decriminalization in Portgal, and their approach. It really is a good talk about drugs and the problem therein. You should watch it, and I'd be interested in hearing what you all think after listening to it. If you do watch the video, it is starting at 3:00 mins in for some reason, just rewind to the beginning for full context...

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Portugal is a very interesting experiment and in a number of ways in that country post decriminalization has seen better health outcomes. BUT I think it is fair to say that a significant part of the improvements are not solely the result of the decriminalization policy, but because Portugal also shifted towards a more health-centered approach to drugs, as well as wider health and social policy changes. I think many experts will agree that those efforts are equally, if not more, responsible for the positive changes observed than the mere decriminalization. And even though Portugal decriminalized drugs it did not legalize them. Use of many of the drugs is still banned civilly.

[BroncoBot]

Is lung cancer never covered?

Why is society paying for your lung cancer?

Would an obese person who breaks a bone be covered?

Why is society paying for your fractures?

If a house fire starts, do we need to determine the cause before we know of we as society will put it out?

No, that would be ridiculous wouldn't it. But, if investigation discovers fault, allow offender to compensate society for service rendered.

The fact of the matter is, in most cases drugs did not start out as illegal and only became such after society saw the heavy toll inflicted upon it by it's use.

Any evidence of this? I'd happily read it.

[byufan4ever]

Here's an interesting article about the most dangerous drugs:

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/19/5727712/th ... ally-legal

Tobacco, alcohol, and opioid painkillers are the top 3. But what I find most interesting is this graphic:

Here's where I say that if you can prove that a drug is harmful to others then it should be illegal. So the ones with the larger yellow bars I think should definitely be banned. I'm all for less laws and not telling everybody everything that they should and shouldn't be doing. But if it is a major threat/harm to others then yes there should be a law against it. I'm glad to see alcohol at the top of the list. I'd be all for doing away with alcohol in this country. Alcohol is a factor is 40% of violent crimes. That's enough for me. And the drunk driving deaths.