PDA

View Full Version : Should Drugs Be Legalized?



Dagna
Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 07:17 PM
What is your opinion on the legal status of drugs? I believe all drugs should be legal for adults. It is not the state's business what kind of substances we put into our bodies. Our ancestors used drugs in various forms. The hysteria about drugs is a recent phenomenon and the war on drugs is a failure. Alcohol prohibition did not work.
To conclude, I am by no means promoting drug (ab)use. I believe we should each make our own choices and decide what we want. At least some of the illegal drugs are by no means more harmful to our bodies than the legal drugs we consume. I drink alcohol and smoke tobacco occasionally but I also believe in people's right to boycott these substances.

Cuchulain
Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 07:23 PM
I agree that drugs ought to be legal.

Drug prohibition accomplishes nothing and costs billions of taxpayer money.

Drugs if legalized could be taxed.

Illegal drugs are the backbone of crime, legalizing them would take away the biggest business for criminals.

Every time you put a drug dealer in jail, you create a lucrative opportunity for criminal enterprise by someone else.

Boche
Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 07:33 PM
It depends on the kind of drugs...

Heroin, XTC, Speed etc. should be banned - basically every chemical drug or a drug which destroys the body and person extremly shall be banned.


How can a folk or an ethnicity be preserved if drugs are treaten like a new food brandmark?


I say it's alright to give Soldiers the opportunity to get Drugs which makes them less stressed and loose alot of their angst - like Pervitin.


Concerning our forefathers...
The Germanics only used herbs or other naturalities, and also mostly for the warriors to be more effective in war, and not for "fun" like people do nowadays.




Gruß,
Boche

Next World
Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 07:56 PM
I'm quite indecisive on this. Personally, I don't use any drugs with the exception of medication (and even then, it is rarely prescribed to me, and when it is, I still rarely take it). I think that people of adult mental, physical, emotional, and in some cases social stature should be allowed to do as they please so long as it doesn't harm others.

However, even if we made it legal for adults to have drugs, it'd still be illegal for children, and there are sick %*+!$ in the world who would sell the drugs they obtained legally to children. I think that the government should take a greater role in ensuring the health of its citizens, especially the children. It tears me apart when parents don't care for their children properly in even the most basic medical sense.

So, I kind of think any drug that can be terminated without effecting society in a negative way should be. Kind of a shame we can't just make certain things vanish. I think that if people wanted to use drugs they would have to do it in an extremely moderated way.

Drugs are still going to be a danger and a problem if they are made legal. There is no avoiding that.

Loyalist
Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 08:23 PM
The use of drugs is injurious to virtually every aspect of one's existence, and I do not distinguish between anything from marijuana to heroin. They will always fuel crime, stupidity, immorality, and death.

Freydis
Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 08:30 PM
I think the drugs that are illegal should remain illegal. I know most people likely have never had to deal with someone on drugs, or at least on hard drugs/hardcore addict.

They are awful. They do nothing for the user. Who wants a society of people with low intelligence and rotting teeth?

Junkies are scary people. ^^

I have never taken illegal drugs and I never will.

Zyklop
Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 09:00 PM
I do not distinguish between anything from marijuana to heroin.One shouldn't overlook alcohol which is a very heavy drug leading to both mental and physical addiction and decay. The deaths directly and indirectly caused by alcohol are uncountable and it's the number one starting drug for adolescents.

Most alcohol abusers get very defensive when being confronted with their addiction and are hiding behind the social acceptance and legality of their drug of choice. Even those sleeping in their own excrements after a night out boozing (as can be seen in hundreds each year at the Oktoberfest f.e.) would never see any connection between them and the sad figures lingering at subway stations and parks at night craving for the next shot.

Any restrictions or approvals regarding "illegal" drugs should apply to alcohol as well.

Ęmeric
Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 09:33 PM
I think the drugs that are illegal should remain illegal. I know most people likely have never had to deal with someone on drugs, or at least on hard drugs/hardcore addict.
I have had to deal with family members on drugs, including a hardcore junkie (last I heard he was living in a public park in Tucson).You would think making drugs illegal would solve the problem :rolleyes:. However, all drugs are available at a price. So the junkies resort to crime to support his/her habit. They tend to steal from people they know.

They drug laws have had the effect of greatly inflating the cost of illegal drugs, while at the same time increasing the police powers of the state, but without actually preventing people who want drugs from getting them. If drugs were legal, it would be much cheaper for junkies to support their habits, resulting in a lot less crime. The police could spend their time on other matters - maybe chasing down illegal aliens.


They are awful. They do nothing for the user. Who wants a society of people with low intelligence and rotting teeth?
Well, maybe we could pay the junkies to sterilize themselves. So if there is a genetic disposition to abuse drugs we could weed it out of the general population. And the drug abusers would have a much shorter lifespan & die off. It sounds cruel, but there isn't anything that casn be done for hardcore junkies. I really don't understand why anyone would start drugs when it isn't a secret how that person could end up. It doesn't help that modern pop culture has glamorized drug abuse, including the use of marijuana.

Deary
Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 10:21 PM
Legalize soft drugs. It is not illegal to drink alcohol; it is illegal to drink and drive under the influence. This holds true for drugs like marijuana, regardless of whether it affects one more or less in these instances. The War on Drugs wastes taxpayer money and has made little headway on the issue while being the greatest contributor to the demonization of drugs and spread of misinformation. Legalization would allow the government to have some control over drug standards.

United Faith
Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 10:24 PM
Definitely illegal. There's no way I want people crawling across the street, people running over children, etc. I find it hard to imagine people doing their jobs while using drugs as well.

sophia
Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 10:28 PM
I think drugs shouldn't be illegal, they're production/import should be though.

Cuchulain
Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 10:28 PM
Definitely illegal. There's no way I want people crawling across the street, people running over children, etc. I find it hard to imagine people doing their jobs while using drugs as well.

Just because drugs became legal doesn't mean everyone would do them.
Noone i know would go smoke a crack rock tommorow just because it was legal (if it became so).


Despite prohibition, anyone who wants drugs can get them easily already anyway.

Loddfafner
Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 10:55 PM
If drugs were legalized then a major source of economic activity would be withdrawn from ghettos. Legalize them and then a lot of ghetto residents would not be able to make any money at all - pharmacies would sell them instead.

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 11:59 PM
I think banning them does more harm than good, mostly for reasons already mentioned. I think drugs should have the same restrictions as alcohol-no use when driving or at work, must be 21 to obtain/use, etc.

Drug abuse isn't so much a result of the availability of drugs as a result of the drug abuser's attitude towards life-failure to control behavior, acting for instant gratification without regard to later consequences and so on, and these people will always find a way to screw up their lives.

Northern Paladin
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 01:05 AM
I believe getting stoned out of your mind should be an unalienable right that should be incoporated in the Constution.

I can understand why drugs are illegal though. Certain drugs have some pretty nasty after effects.

Freydis
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 01:46 AM
Even if they are cheaper legally, there will still be problems relating to them.

And people who use drugs are really annoying as well ^^

United Faith
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 02:42 AM
Just because drugs became legal doesn't mean everyone would do them.
Noone i know would go smoke a crack rock tommorow just because it was legal (if it became so).


Despite prohibition, anyone who wants drugs can get them easily already anyway.

More people are going to use drugs if it's legalised than whether it's criminalised and illegal. I don't care if you want to apply the pseudopsychology that legalising fixes the problem because it doesn't and won't.

Loddfafner
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 03:21 AM
I shall retire to the drawing room with some fine brandy and a few choice rocks of crack cocaine.

Cuchulain
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 04:12 AM
More people are going to use drugs if it's legalised than whether it's criminalised and illegal. I don't care if you want to apply the pseudopsychology that legalising fixes the problem because it doesn't and won't.


More people may use them however the overall impact of the drug culture on society will be less damaging. I'm not claiming to be able to fix the problem, frankly I don't think its ever going away, I'm just suggesting what I believe would be a better way of managing a problem.

I think the term you were looking for is pseudosociology.

Matamoros
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 06:18 AM
I've seen too many people destroyed by drugs to support their legalisation. They should remain illegal.

stormlord
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 07:38 AM
Morally, I'm completely opposed to them, but the fact is that the "war on drugs" in the US and Europe has failed. Aside from those with mental health issues, junkies are not inherently criminal, but due to the cost of illegal drugs they commit crime. If drugs were legalized then their cost would massively deflate, and crime would fall by 60% (the % of crime committed by drug users). The problem caused by drugs would then be the same as those caused by alcoholism; homeless people who are just alcoholics might lie in the street and make urban centres look scruffy, but they don't do much else.

At the other end of the social scale, many drugs are not as damaging as they are made out to be if they are of high quality and available freely; a considerable number of doctors are addicted to drugs right up to the level of heroin, but they have freely available sources so they tend to be able to conceal their habit and hold their lives together. With many people it isn't the drug itself that ruins their lives, it's the desperation for a way to fund their habit, getting into debt, stealing from friends and relatives, eventual homelessness or prison. If drugs are legalized, a considerable portion of their negative effects will be neutralized over night

Huzar
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 10:38 AM
I've seen too many people destroyed by drugs to support their legalisation.


I've seen the same.

I understand your words as much as i understand the supporters of legalization........

It's hard for me to give a final judment on the thing.......

Jäger
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 10:52 AM
It's hard for me to give a final judment on the thing.......
That's with most people on this issue I think, it is at least the same for me, both sides have convincing arguments, I guess it can't be helped it should be just tried.

Boche
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 11:24 AM
Any restrictions or approvals regarding "illegal" drugs should apply to alcohol as well.

Depends on the country. If you would put beer in Germany on the same level as a Joint of Marihuana, then it's like comparing a fly with an elephant.

Some natural drugs are also usual in other countries culturally which are not usual here. So the people there and their body can tolerate it easier, and the same also goes for Beer in some germanic countries.

You can't put alcohol on the same level without including the country and culture.

I believe Hawaiians can consume a wooden rose on an easy way mentally, but if a germanic would take it he'd go crazy with his halucinations and probably cut his throat while running naked on a street.

Or take a japanese man and a german man when both drunk beer, the japanese will be drunk after 1 L, while the german still feels alright after 1 L.

Never forget cultural drugs and their tolerance on a physical level.




Gruß,
Boche

United Faith
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 11:35 AM
More people may use them however the overall impact of the drug culture on society will be less damaging. I'm not claiming to be able to fix the problem, frankly I don't think its ever going away, I'm just suggesting what I believe would be a better way of managing a problem.

I think the term you were looking for is pseudosociology.

No. I wasn't really looking for a pre-existing term, especially one that isn't defined as I required.

How would it become less damaging if more people would be using drugs?

Freydis
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 01:51 PM
I can understand the argument of the other side as well, but I have seen far, far too many junkies (and been scared excrementless by them. you try being followed for 3 blocks by some insane raving lunatic on crack or heroin or whatever.).

Making them legal makes them seem "safe" to the general population. "Oh, the government legalised them, they must be safe"

Huzar
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 02:03 PM
Depends on the country. If you would put beer in Germany on the same level as a Joint of Marihuana, then it's like comparing a fly with an elephant.
You can't put alcohol on the same level without including the country and culture.


I absolutely agree. I find strange a comparison beteen beer and REAL drugs as Marihuana.....




Or take a japanese man and a german man when both drunk beer, the japanese will be drunk after 1 L, while the german still feels alright after 1 L.



Well.......a 163 cm x 50 kg. Japanese against a 193 cm x 100 kg. German.....:D in a drinking competition.......









Gruß,
Boche[/QUOTE]

Bridie
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 03:49 PM
Well, maybe we could pay the junkies to sterilize themselves. So if there is a genetic disposition to abuse drugs we could weed it out of the general population. And the drug abusers would have a much shorter lifespan & die off. It sounds cruel, but there isn't anything that casn be done for hardcore junkies.Better still, they should be forcefully sterilised whether they like it or not. They personally compromise the prosperity of their people with their irresponsible, wreckless, degenerate and selfish behaviour, and therefore have forfeited their rights to be treated as adults and make their own decisions.

Cuchulain
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 04:32 PM
No. I wasn't really looking for a pre-existing term, especially one that isn't defined as I required.

How would it become less damaging if more people would be using drugs?

Because most of the problems that drug culture causes for society are the result of the fact that drugs are illegal.

Billions every year in tax dollars are flushed down the toilet for a futile drug war. The more they spend and the harder they work, the more demand for drugs increases, and so does their price.

In the US, the country with the highest prison population in the world, over half of the prisoners are in for drug offences, the majority of them for possession. This also is an incredible burden on taxpayers. And it also implies that the threat of incarceration is not enough to keep people from using drugs.

Illegal drugs are an enormous criminal enterprise. From urban street gangs to rural meth cookers, everywhere in this country criminals are getting rich from drugs, and getting more and more violent (a result not of drug use, but of fighting for territory to make money selling drugs)

Basically we continue to pump more and more money into the war on drugs, harming taxpayers and the economy more and more, while the problem continues to get worse. Taking a dealer of the streets does nothing to stoop the trade of drugs, because his absence creates a vacuum that is quickly filled by another greedy dealer. What it does do (besides costing taxpayers) in many cases, is cause a rapist or child molestor to be paroled early on account of lack of space in the prison system. Legalizing drugs would take away the incentive to sell them illegally....there is no legislation that will take away the incentive of a sexual predator.

If drugs were legalised, besides bringing down by far the most overwhelmiong criminal enterprise in the world, they could be taxed, and the tax revenue used to help with the drug problem rather than income tax. This way the funds would come from those causing the problem, rather than from innocent hardworking citizens. The funds could be used for treatment centers and more preventative education, which would have a better chance of helping the problem than would prison. Drug addicts go to prison, are still able to obtain drugs in prison, and they are realeased to society just as addicted if not more, and as muich better criminals, because they have been congregating with other criminals and making contacts (and shooting up) while in prison.

If legalisation did cause more people to use drugs, the majority of them would be smoking pot, not shooting up or smoking crack. This might actually even cause less people to drink, which is in my opinion more destructive than marijuana. People don't get high and beat their wife and kids, or go out and have casual sex with some filthy std infested hooker. They do when they are drunk.

Spydskjold
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 05:21 PM
Let people have them.
If they are unable to handle it, then let them succumb to it. We can't watch everyones back, and if people are interested in destroying themselves (in any way), then let them.
Taking preservation into regard; would you care for a bunch of weakminded people who needs to be babysitted around the clock!?
I would not.

Imperator X
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 09:35 PM
I believe people have the right to ingest any substance they want, if it should have an averse effect i.e. addiction, I think people are asking for it when they don't practice moderation. I don't believe alcoholism is a disease. This topic is highly subjective...

For example, coffee is perhaps responsible for the success of the United States, we are a coffee republic, caffeine has fueled people to stay awake, generate ideas, and to work longer. Consider, caffeine is one of those drugs which no one takes into account as a drug. Caffeine causes mood elevation, because with an increase in intellectual thought comes a biological reward of mood elevation, however it is possible to develop a tolerance. Over consumption of caffeine can lead to tremors, esophageal erosion and delirium... I'd be willing to bet the high incidence of Gastrointestinal reflux disease (which I have) is largely derived from many years of drinking caffeine... This is also exacerbated from drinking alcohol.

Drugs are essentially spirits, e.g. alcohol, al-kahul arabic. lit. "the spirit"... The spirits can be communed with, but they must be respected.

Aeternitas
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 10:33 PM
I'm pro legalization for various reasons, some of which have already been mentioned.

First, I don't believe in the myth that all illegal drugs are necessarily bad, evil and the like. Some of the illegal drugs are less dangerous than alcohol, for example, yet alcohol is legal. Second, not all drug users are abusers. Surely there are junkies, but this drug user = junkie image is an exaggerated media thing. There are people who use drugs occasionally and live perfectly normal lives. However, there are people who use drugs regularly too, and live perfectly normal lives. Many are addicted to a legal drug - tobacco - and their lives are perfectly normal. Sure their health might not be in the best condition, but that is their business and their choice. The difference between tobacco and illegal drugs is not that tobacco is better or less "evil", but that tobacco is legal. Because they are illegal, drugs are very expensive and one can never be sure a. what one is getting and b. what the amount of it is. E.g. a lab analysis has revealed that not every ecstasy pill contains MDMA. If drugs were legal, one would at least be sure what one is getting is what one expects to get. One would be getting them from pharmacies so there would be a purity assurance and a label to avoid overdose.

Drug dealers want drugs to stay illegal. They can put who knows what substance in them to cause addiction because to them, an addict = money. They can put whatever price they want on their drugs, because they are illegal and no one can control them. Drug users don't have (m)any cheap alternatives. Drug dealers make a fortune and it's not uncommon for many crimes to be financed by the drug business. By making drugs legal, one cuts their primary economic resource.

Anyway, whether we like it or not, drug (ab)use existed in the past, exists now and will continue to exist in future. One cannot eradicate it. One could instead work to handle it, diminish it or ideally prevent it. But this war on drugs doesn't really seem to do a good job at that.

A possible solution I'd see is as follows:

1. Legalise all drugs
2. Allow people to make/grow their own if they want.
3. Classify drugs between those requiring medical/pharmaceutical prescription and lighter drugs that can be sold more openly (such as marijuana and alcohol)
4. Only allow persons of 18 years and older or another legally determined age to legally purchase drugs. Harder drugs would be sold by Pharmacies/Chemists, and only after a consultation to ensure users are aware of risks and to determine safe dosages. Marijuana could be sold from liquor stores/offlicences as alcohol is now
5. Enforce quality standards on all drugs
6. Treat Addiction as an illness, and provide medical services to help addicts beat their problem.
7. Tax drugs and use the income to fund drug use training in schools, quality enforcement, addiction assistance/medical help for addicts, and medical/pharmaceutical training
8. Make it illegal for anyone to supply drugs to minors, with harsh penalties (say 1 years mandatory community service followed by 10 years in prison)
9. Impose harsh penalties (large fines, community service and imprisonment) on anyone who causes harm to anyone else whilst under the influence of drugs. No distinction is made between alcohol and other drugs. Driving whilst under the influence of drugs and alcohol should be treated as a major offence, whether someone is injured or not. It is effectively attempted manslaughter, at the very minimum. Big fines along with compulsory re-education and community service (a substantial amount of it-like 2 years) should be followed by a mandatory minimum jail term for any subsequent offence.
10. Make the giving of drugs to another person without their consent a serious criminal assault, punishable by a combination of prison and mandatory community service.Source (http://www.legalisedrugs.co.uk/solution.html)

Birka
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 10:43 PM
Legalize or at least decriminalize them. There will always be self destructive idiots who will get addicted to whatever. It would lower the crime involved with the drug trade. Then the police can spend their time going after real criminals and not putting people possessing a few joints in jail at the cost of $43,200 per year as is the cost in California. BTW, the cost for 1 year of a Harvard education is $43,200.

Galloglaich
Friday, October 12th, 2007, 11:40 PM
For too many reasons to (re)numerate I feel all drugs should be legalized. To attempt to regulate them is not only a monetary waste, but effectively punishes a non-crime. If you steal to support your habit, or neglect your kids because of it, then there are justifiable statutes for that. Drug prohibition only exacerbates the problem.

Matamoros
Saturday, October 13th, 2007, 01:05 AM
If legalisation did cause more people to use drugs, the majority of them would be smoking pot, not shooting up or smoking crack. This might actually even cause less people to drink, which is in my opinion more destructive than marijuana. People don't get high and beat their wife and kids, or go out and have casual sex with some filthy std infested hooker. They do when they are drunk.

Here we have a problem drug called "P" (for pure methamphetamine). The people taking this commit terrible crimes when they're high. One man robbed a local RSA, but was so high on this drug it just turned into an orgy of violence and he ended up killing 3 people and maiming a 4th. Another man chopped the hands off two women with a samurai sword, then shot a stranger in a carpark, and then took another person hostage. It's absolutely insane what people do when they're taking this drug.

skyhawk
Saturday, October 13th, 2007, 03:03 AM
I am very much in the camp of the pro legalise but think a better way to say it is to decriminalise all drugs

Society , for which this is a huge issue , needs to bring it out of the underworld and take some control over the situation instead of carrying on down the insane path of prohibition.

State control of all drugs available for registered users. The inclusion of registering being an attempt to assertain whether there are minors being cared for by hard drug abusers. For obvious reasons.

The potential benefits , I feel ,far outweigh the discomfort people may feel for an acceptance of such policies.
We accept we can't stop it , but we can have a huge impact on how drug use affects our societies if we bring it out into the open

I think a new approach is needed and long overdue

There is also the important issue of personal freedom of choice to which I also have a fondness :)


Here we have a problem drug called "P" (for pure methamphetamine). The people taking this commit terrible crimes when they're high. One man robbed a local RSA, but was so high on this drug it just turned into an orgy of violence and he ended up killing 3 people and maiming a 4th. Another man chopped the hands off two women with a samurai sword, then shot a stranger in a carpark, and then took another person hostage. It's absolutely insane what people do when they're taking this drug.

I understand your horror but nothing can stop these incidents from occuring regardless of whether the policy is prohibition or openess.

At least an open approach may have reduced the likelyhood of him having to steal to fund his habit. Who knows?

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, October 13th, 2007, 08:35 AM
Making them legal makes them seem "safe" to the general population. "Oh, the government legalised them, they must be safe"

That's the kind of mindset we need to get rid of. The government is to prevent people from endangering others, not to prevent people from endangering themselves

Freydis
Saturday, October 13th, 2007, 02:31 PM
That's the kind of mindset we need to get rid of. The government is to prevent people from endangering others, not to prevent people from endangering themselves

Drug addicts endanger others.

edit: Plus, the healthcare in Canada is covered by the government. So guess who has to pay for their addiction in the end?

Cuchulain
Saturday, October 13th, 2007, 02:51 PM
Drug addicts endanger others.

edit: Plus, the healthcare in Canada is covered by the government. So guess who has to pay for their addiction in the end?

Drug addicts will be there endangering others unless you turn society into a police state the likes of which has never been seen before, they are an unfortunate truth we must learn to deal with in the best way possible.

Who do you think is paying the inflated costs of law enforcement and justice administration in Canada? Like I said before, if it were legal it could be taxed and the revenue raised from addicts and businesses, instead of non-users paychecks.

Huzar
Saturday, October 13th, 2007, 03:49 PM
For too many reasons to (re)numerate I feel all drugs should be legalized. To attempt to regulate them is not only a monetary waste, but effectively punishes a non-crime. If you steal to support your habit, or neglect your kids because of it, then there are justifiable statutes for that. Drug prohibition only exacerbates the problem.

.......hmmm....i'm still unsure, but there is a sure thing : the prohibition doesn't resolve the problem.

Perhaps we should reflect deeper on the resons of phenomenon , and localize the real "source of evil" (socially speaking). A drug addict is substantially a waek people. A person who can't live without some sort of external help. Now, even if Drug doesn't exist, THAT weak people will find something other (substitutive of drug), like Alcohol or smoke etc. etc.

Of course society and Government, can't forbid alchol and cigarettes only cause few peoples who could abuse of them. Government can't forbid the use of a knife in the kitchen since the knife is potentially dangerous for a child.

I mean, Government can't substitute personal responsability. Although, the drug question is very complicate and dangerous....

Dagna
Saturday, October 13th, 2007, 03:59 PM
.......hmmm....i'm still unsure, but there is a sure thing : the prohibition doesn't resolve the problem.

Perhaps we should reflect deeper on the resons of phenomenon , and localize the real "source of evil" (socially speaking). A drug addict is substantially a waek people. A person who can't live without some sort of external help. Now, even if Drug doesn't exist, THAT weak people will find something other (substitutive of drug), like Alcohol or smoke etc. etc.

Of course society and Government, can't forbid alchol and cigarettes only cause few peoples who could abuse of them. Government can't forbid the use of a knife in the kitchen since the knife is potentially dangerous for a child.

I mean, Government can't substitute personal responsability. Although, the drug question is very complicate and dangerous....
I believe that is a very good point, Hussar. The government cannot forbid us to drive cars because there are many car accidents which cause deaths yearly. So WHY should the government forbid drugs because some weak people cannot handle them? I believe this ban hysteria is an exaggeration and it is against the original spirit of Germanic freedom.

Deary
Saturday, October 13th, 2007, 04:08 PM
Better still, they should be forcefully sterilised whether they like it or not. They personally compromise the prosperity of their people with their irresponsible, wreckless, degenerate and selfish behaviour, and therefore have forfeited their rights to be treated as adults and make their own decisions.

You cannot administer a plan of compulsory sterilization based on an unproven theory of a genetic predisposition to drugs. Then, those who never touched drugs would become subject to sterilization for crimes they never committed. Those who are guilty of crimes already have some of their rights revoked from them. Paying drug users to sterilize themselves would be less a threat to individual rights to ensure their filthy habit does not affect the lives of others, because unlike the mentally retarded who were previously forcefully sterilized, there is more chance for a drug user to "get clean" and act as a normal citizen again than there is for mentally retarded individuals to cure themselves.

DanseMacabre
Monday, October 15th, 2007, 05:51 AM
I think marijuana should be legal. But I think harder drugs should remain illegal.

Freydis
Monday, October 15th, 2007, 01:37 PM
Drug addicts will be there endangering others unless you turn society into a police state the likes of which has never been seen before, they are an unfortunate truth we must learn to deal with in the best way possible.

Who do you think is paying the inflated costs of law enforcement and justice administration in Canada? Like I said before, if it were legal it could be taxed and the revenue raised from addicts and businesses, instead of non-users paychecks.

Cuchulain: Why create more drugaddicts than necessary? I don't call people being victims of violent crime "an unfortunate truth"... or any crime really.


I believe that is a very good point, Hussar. The government cannot forbid us to drive cars because there are many car accidents which cause deaths yearly. So WHY should the government forbid drugs because some weak people cannot handle them? I believe this ban hysteria is an exaggeration and it is against the original spirit of Germanic freedom.

Because weak people who can't handle drugs don't always keep to themselves, Dagna. Drugs would be legal if they didn't cause people to harm others as well.

To call all drugaddicts "weak" is fallacious, as well as calling all drugaddicts criminals. Yet we will still do it.

With freedom comes responsibility. Responsibility meaning the ability to account for one's actions and do what is considered to be proper. As in, not taking drugs that will make one a burden on everyone. Do normal people want to turn mentally disabled or something?

If we want to say why the government shouldn't ban drugs because some weak people can't handle it, how about the government decriminalising rape because some weak people can't handle it? Or how about decriminalising theft, because it shows Germanic initiative to take what one wants?

Freedom does not mean doing what one wants, unless one is an anarchist.

GreenHeart
Monday, October 15th, 2007, 02:05 PM
Drugs should be legal but only for the purpose of shamanic/spirit journeys. They should be for the most part controlled by the community's spiritual leader(s), who can decide who is fit to go on such journeys and in what method.

Sigurd
Monday, October 15th, 2007, 02:20 PM
I will not hold it against people if they use natural drugs/herbs for spiritual use, as long as it does not become the centre of the ritual but a supplement to it. Personally I don't do that kind of thing, but I will turn an eye and pretend not to see that. As far as recreational drug use is concerned, I am heavily against it.

As "legal drugs" are concerned I would leave them legal. As "illegal drugs" are concerned I would leave most of them illegal.

I have no problem with smoking - not because smoking is accepted, and least of all because I smoke myself - but instead because of the fact that they do not have much of a mental impact on the consumer. A person that has smoked a cigarette is still in an ordinary frame of mind, hence he largely poses a danger to himself. If he takes due care, he also damages no one but his own's health (and only the physical, but not the mental) - it surely cannot be that hard to go outside for a cigarette out of respect for those who do not indulge in them.

I likewise have little problem with alcohol. Now, it does change your frame of mind when drunk in masses, but it is the degree of harshness of the drug that does it here, and draws the main line between marijuana and alcohol legality as far as I am concerned. You can have an occasional beer with your dinner just for the taste, without getting drunk - but you cannot smoke a joint of marijuana without getting stoned. Also, the rate of alcohol abusers is - as far as I am aware - relatively low compared to those who abuse marijuana when compared to the number of people who do them. Hence it is more of a "reasonable foreseeability of abuse and dosage" that draws the line here.

For both alcohol and cigarettes, I do however support a minimum age. Whether it is decided that this should be 16 or 18 remains to be debated. I feel that most people aged 16 are able to understand the risks of both of them - it surely cannot be logical that we trust youngsters with driving a car before we trust them to dose their alcohol intake?

Psychadelic mushrooms finally should be legal ... not for sale, but for picking. They are a natural drug that grow naturally in our surroundings, our ancestors did for a fact use them at occasions, and they are largely harmless ... if you know which ones to pick you will have a "safe trip". They do as a general rule not make you addicted either as far as I am aware, hence abuse is generally limited as well.

As regards the harder drugs - I am still for that good old blanket ban. Many of them guarantee abuse almost to 100% ... I yet have to find someone who did not get addicted to heroin (it is at large a physical addiction), and the addiction rate for (crack) cocaine isn't quite low either (except that this one is largely a psychological one). And other things like XTC aren't much better either. I have seen enough formerly good people destroyed by them because they could not control when a habit became an addiction - and they were usually hooked fairly quickly. It took few of them long to lose the control over their intake ... and by the time they got off the stuff, if they did, they usually had done irrepairable damage to their brain.

I did look into the possibility of getting them harder drugs prescribed via the chemist's as a solution to the problem as it would put an end to a lot of drug-related crime ... but just about how many people would not abuse that fact to get at their drugs more easily. It would cost the state - and ultimately the taxpayer - quite a bit of money, with little to no effect in battling drugs. And even with that - it is €4.80 for a prescription of any type in Austria, tendency rising ... the black market would not disappear, all it would be doing is selling them in larger amounts and to lower prices ... but don't be naive enough to think that the countries where those are largely produced can't keep up with the demand...

Jäger
Monday, October 15th, 2007, 02:24 PM
Because weak people who can't handle drugs don't always keep to themselves, Dagna. Drugs would be legal if they didn't cause people to harm others as well.
An idiot in a car is more dangerous, isn't he?

GreenHeart
Monday, October 15th, 2007, 03:33 PM
Sigurd, I don't use any drugs myself either, but I do think people should be able to if they want and there is little to no possibility for abuse. IE: natural drugs such as marijuana, mushrooms or others such as Ayahuasca which has healing properties etc.

Chemical concoctions such as crack or heroin on the other hand will be done away with.

Generally I am against smoking, because people are always doing it in front of others, especially children, as if it were the most normal thing in the world. I dont want to have to breathe it in all the time when I open the window I get the neighbors smoke, or go out in the füßgänger zone and walk into a cloud of disgusting smoke from the smokers on the sidewalk ahead of me. However, smoking could be acceptable if they would only do it occasionally in private or outside away from public areas without exposing me or others.

The key to everything is moderation.

Dagna
Monday, October 15th, 2007, 03:47 PM
Because weak people who can't handle drugs don't always keep to themselves, Dagna. Drugs would be legal if they didn't cause people to harm others as well.

To call all drugaddicts "weak" is fallacious, as well as calling all drugaddicts criminals. Yet we will still do it.

With freedom comes responsibility. Responsibility meaning the ability to account for one's actions and do what is considered to be proper. As in, not taking drugs that will make one a burden on everyone. Do normal people want to turn mentally disabled or something?

If we want to say why the government shouldn't ban drugs because some weak people can't handle it, how about the government decriminalising rape because some weak people can't handle it? Or how about decriminalising theft, because it shows Germanic initiative to take what one wants?

Freedom does not mean doing what one wants, unless one is an anarchist.
Rape and theft are different things, Freydis. Rape and theft are wrong in all instances because they affect others by default. Drugs don't, I believe they can only affect the person who is taking them. I believe that if weak people can buy drugs at a normal price from the pharmacy, like people said here, they won't need to steal. I believe that if the state offers help to treat their addiction, they won't commit crimes to find the money to get high. Driving cars causes people to harm others, and going by the same logic, judging by the big number of car accidents in so many countries, driving should be banned (except for public transportation perhaps) because of the weak people who cannot handle it. Guns should be banned too, because there are weak people who cannot handle them and harm others with them. Computers should be banned, because there are people who use them for hacking, child porn, cyber romances leading to sexual assault and other disgusting crimes.

Freydis
Monday, October 15th, 2007, 04:37 PM
Rape and theft are different things, Freydis. Rape and theft are wrong in all instances because they affect others by default. Drugs don't, I believe they can only affect the person who is taking them. I believe that if weak people can buy drugs at a normal price from the pharmacy, like people said here, they won't need to steal. I believe that if the state offers help to treat their addiction, they won't commit crimes to find the money to get high.

Drugs cause emotional strain in families and friends of the addict. They don't only affect the person who is taking it, to say so is, in my opinion, narrow-minded.

But what is a "normal" price? I know someone who can't afford asthma medication at a "normal" price and even a discounted price. If they spend all their money on this drug, they will eventually need to find a way to get more money... just because it is legal doesn't mean it is free.

The state already offers help to treat addiction. Sure, it works sometimes, but again, it's a "burden" on the taxpayer to help them cure their addiction. For the government to have these drugs legal would only put more pressure on this system. Anyways, it's contradictory to advocate the legalisation of drugs then go on to assert the state should have a program that helps people get over their addiction.


Driving cars causes people to harm others, and going by the same logic, judging by the big number of car accidents in so many countries, driving should be banned (except for public transportation perhaps) because of the weak people who cannot handle it. Guns should be banned too, because there are weak people who cannot handle them and harm others with them. Computers should be banned, because there are people who use them for hacking, child porn, cyber romances leading to sexual assault and other disgusting crimes.

I do not believe in a "nanny" state, but I do believe many people are incapable of making good decisions for themselves and these decisions affect others. These things are incomparable with drugs anyways, in my opinion.

Anyways, to respond to this statement, I believe that public transit is the best option for everyone ("personal" auto-equipment for people who have an actual purpose, such as farming), I don't think that guns are really very good either because of all the idiots running around with them ;). Computers, well, I build them, I fix them, I know all about them.

But all of these things that you mentioned (well perhaps excepting guns) have another use that benefits society. Automobiles allow people to move rapidly around, guns allow people a sense of "security" (still disagree with them..), and computers allow people to connect with others worldwide and to make processes more efficient.

Drugs only allow the person to hallucinate or be momentarily "happy" or to do stupid things. It does not benefit society at all.

Reducto ad absurdum failed. ^^

Cuchulain
Monday, October 15th, 2007, 05:24 PM
Cuchulain: Why create more drugaddicts than necessary? I don't call people being victims of violent crime "an unfortunate truth"... or any crime really.



Because in the scenario which may have more drug addicts, society as a whole will be better off. Your not creating drug addicts either, that responsibility lies in the drug addicts themselves. Also in my scenario addicts will have better access to treatment, which will be funded by taxing the substances themselves, and it will cost a fraction of catching, prosecuting, and punishing them as criminals.

You don't have to call violent crime victims an unfortunate truth if you don't want to to, but it certainly is true that they exist, and I for one think its quite unfortunate.

If the current system works, why are so many addicts in prison for multiple offences. A high rate of recidivism is an indicator of failure of any penal system.

Dagna
Monday, October 15th, 2007, 07:30 PM
Drugs cause emotional strain in families and friends of the addict. They don't only affect the person who is taking it, to say so is, in my opinion, narrow-minded.
No, Freydis, not always. They often do so because the drug addict receives no help with his addiction, the people have prejudices, he is punished for the drug use, he cannot afford to buy drugs for himself. If he were left alone with his drugs he would live a different life.

But what is a "normal" price? I know someone who can't afford asthma medication at a "normal" price and even a discounted price. If they spend all their money on this drug, they will eventually need to find a way to get more money... just because it is legal doesn't mean it is free.
I did not say legal means free, but the costs would differ immensely. By the way, I did not say it would solve every drug user's problem, but drugs will be more accessible to the addict on average, like cigarettes are acceissible to smokers. :)

The state already offers help to treat addiction. Sure, it works sometimes, but again, it's a "burden" on the taxpayer to help them cure their addiction. For the government to have these drugs legal would only put more pressure on this system. Anyways, it's contradictory to advocate the legalisation of drugs then go on to assert the state should have a program that helps people get over their addiction.
It isn't contradictory because not all drug users are addicts. Drug addiction exists anyway and I believe the bad quality illegal drugs only make it worse on the addicts.


I do not believe in a "nanny" state, but I do believe many people are incapable of making good decisions for themselves and these decisions affect others. These things are incomparable with drugs anyways, in my opinion.

Anyways, to respond to this statement, I believe that public transit is the best option for everyone ("personal" auto-equipment for people who have an actual purpose, such as farming), I don't think that guns are really very good either because of all the idiots running around with them ;). Computers, well, I build them, I fix them, I know all about them.

But all of these things that you mentioned (well perhaps excepting guns) have another use that benefits society. Automobiles allow people to move rapidly around, guns allow people a sense of "security" (still disagree with them..), and computers allow people to connect with others worldwide and to make processes more efficient.

Drugs only allow the person to hallucinate or be momentarily "happy" or to do stupid things. It does not benefit society at all.

Reducto ad absurdum failed. ^^
But a state that decides what we can put in our bodies for us is a nanny state. In moderate or small quantities drugs could bring benefits as well. Heroin was originally used as an anti-cough remedy, I believe.

http://opioids.com/heroin/bayerheroin.jpg

You are only 17, perhaps you are accustomed to your parents making decisions for you, but adults should have the right to make decisions by themselves. I believe that is the Germanic freedom and not the Semitic or Romanic fascist, police state.

Freydis
Tuesday, October 16th, 2007, 12:12 AM
No, Freydis, not always. They often do so because the drug addict receives no help with his addiction, the people have prejudices, he is punished for the drug use, he cannot afford to buy drugs for himself. If he were left alone with his drugs he would live a different life.

Where does he get these drugs? He has to have contact with some people to get these drugs and he has to (conceivably) work to afford them.

I have a prejudice against drug addicts. I've had to deal with drugaddicts and I can say without a doubt, it is entirely an unpleasant experience. It is silly to say that it is not his own damned fault for getting addicted in the first place.

I know former addicts, and they certainly aren't doing well either.

Drugs are bad for society. They are not a good thing. They have no benefits.

Why should we care about them? That would be a "nanny" state itself, something you are strongly against. You can't have it both ways.


I did not say legal means free, but the costs would differ immensely. By the way, I did not say it would solve every drug user's problem, but drugs will be more accessible to the addict on average, like cigarettes are acceissible to smokers. :)

Cigarettes are quite expensive because they are heavily taxed. I doubt the prices of drugs will change because they are government regulated.


It isn't contradictory because not all drug users are addicts. Drug addiction exists anyway and I believe the bad quality illegal drugs only make it worse on the addicts.

How are they bad quality? ^^ Plus every single drug user I've met says they are not addicted but they rely on the drug... isn't that an addiction?


But a state that decides what we can put in our bodies for us is a nanny state. In moderate or small quantities drugs could bring benefits as well. Heroin was originally used as an anti-cough remedy, I believe.

Isn't a state advocating and selling these drugs "deciding what we can put in our bodies"?

It's called scientific improvements and innovations. We learned heroin was horrible and addictive.


You are only 17, perhaps you are accustomed to your parents making decisions for you, but adults should have the right to make decisions by themselves. I believe that is the Germanic freedom and not the Semitic or Romanic fascist, police state.

Don't judge me on my age.

My parents didn't make decisions for me. I made them myself, some of them were poor, but in the end I learned from them.

Germanic freedom... freedom to degrade oneself beyond recognition?

Dagna
Tuesday, October 16th, 2007, 12:33 AM
Where does he get these drugs? He has to have contact with some people to get these drugs and he has to (conceivably) work to afford them.

I have a prejudice against drug addicts. I've had to deal with drugaddicts and I can say without a doubt, it is entirely an unpleasant experience. It is silly to say that it is not his own damned fault for getting addicted in the first place.
I have a prejudice against people who believe in censorship and bans, which are mostly Semitic and Romanic in nature, not Germanic.

I know former addicts, and they certainly aren't doing well either.
I know some too, I also know people who do drugs regularly and do not cause trouble.

Drugs are bad for society. They are not a good thing. They have no benefits.

Why should we care about them? That would be a "nanny" state itself, something you are strongly against. You can't have it both ways.


Cigarettes are quite expensive because they are heavily taxed. I doubt the prices of drugs will change because they are government regulated.
Cigarettes are bad for society too, as is alcohol but in small quantities, they as well as marijuana and other drugs can be beneficial. I believe I have already explained why I care. My state would not be a nanny state, it would be a state where people have the right to make decision, whether good or bad.
[QUOTE]How are they bad quality? ^^ Plus every single drug user I've met says they are not addicted but they rely on the drug... isn't that an addiction?
As several people have noted already, the drugs found on the street are not in pure form. You cannot judge all drug users by your personal experiences... We all have little anecdotes to tell. I know some people who have only used drugs once.

Isn't a state advocating and selling these drugs "deciding what we can put in our bodies"?
No, Freydis, we make the decisions ourselves. We can buy drugs or we can boycott them, just like we do with any products. What are you afraid of? Do you believe that the majority of people are so weak not to resist temptation? Alcohol is legal and addictive yet we are not all alcoholics. I believe that even if people are weak as a whole, they they still should decide for themselves whether they can take drugs or not. Freedom does not mean that everyone is going to be happy, smiling and healthy. The people should be free to choose what they want, even if it leads to their destruction. That is real freedom. I believe you cannot nanny everyone around for ever.

It's called scientific improvements and innovations. We learned heroin was horrible and addictive.



Don't judge me on my age.

My parents didn't make decisions for me. I made them myself, some of them were poor, but in the end I learned from them.

Germanic freedom... freedom to degrade oneself beyond recognition?
17 is an age at which teenagers cannot make some legal decisions because they are not old and mature enough. Indeed, I believe freedom of choice does not mean only positive things, or it would not be real freedom.

sophia
Tuesday, October 16th, 2007, 03:10 AM
Drugs don't only effect the person taking them. Even if sometimes they do, when lots of people are doing them they won't.

I've done drugs when I was younger and then got bored of them but so many of the people I knew from those days are still doing them and its not the effects on themselves that bothers me, the fact that something like half of all the people I went to school with spend half their time stoned and their primary excitement in life is that they can take ecstasy/coke/speed on the weekend and their whole life revolves around that event has a huge effect on the whole community. It effects the cultural landscape of the town, it effects the productivity of local businesses who employ the kids of the town and it effects what new businesses chose to set up shop here, it effects the older generation who have to witness their kids doing this and who have to put up with the way it changes the town - even if all the ones who turn to crime are taken out of the equation it has a huge effect on the qualitative social environment.

At the very least the community should have the right to tell those kids "if you are going to screw up the town by revolving your life around drugs you have to leave" - that is some kind of local bylaw which says that drug abusers have to stay outside the city limits.
Since being a "drug abuser" is hard to define in law the easiest definition is just to say you can't use drugs here, anyone who's life revolves around drugs wouldn't be able to handle that restriction and would leave, people who don't abuse drugs but might have used them once or twice or experimented a bit would have no problem.

Sigurd
Tuesday, October 16th, 2007, 06:52 PM
17 is an age at which teenagers cannot make some legal decisions because they are not old and mature enough.

Really? When I turned 17 I had already entered one of the country's most prestigeous Law schools. ;)

Fortis_in_Arduis
Tuesday, November 13th, 2007, 11:57 PM
Yes to decriminalization, but landlords and employers should have the right to exclude individuals according to their lifestyle preferences, including alcohol consumption, possibly even food consumption.

Society should not have to deal with the irresponsibility of drug users, and non-users should be able to have their own drug-free spaces, if they wish.

Freedom of choice is the issue. The freedom to use and the freedom to exclude.

Loftor
Friday, December 7th, 2007, 07:45 PM
Most of the time the people who are opposed to drugs are those who have never tried them, and those who support drugs are the people who have actually tried them.

I am for drug use at the discretion of the individual. Ritual plants and fungi were used by our ancestors since ancient times.

exit
Friday, December 7th, 2007, 08:21 PM
Drugs aren't the problem but their abuse is one of the many symptoms of modern society which totally lacks any form of traditional spirituality (doctrine and initiation) and which only selfishly seeks out sources of entertainment, whether this is socializing, partying, dating, having sex, consumerism, etc., for nothing more than the sake of meaningless pleasure. Modern man has not earned the right to breath much less drink booze and vote. He takes in everything in excess even though it is killing him and his entire race. In such chaos and cowardice we are drowning under the forces of our own psyche rather than controlling them by the intellect.

Corin
Friday, December 7th, 2007, 08:45 PM
Freedom of choice is the issue. The freedom to use and the freedom to exclude.


I don't believe in freedom of choice in this case. People need to be protected from themselves for their own sake. Drugs are of no benefit to society or the individual. I have taken drugs (magic mushrooms) in the past out of curiousity and I regret doing so as my vision was compromised for a period afterwards. I have already made a post detailing some of my experiences in The Lounge in the thread "Magic Mushrooms".

ChaosLord
Friday, December 7th, 2007, 10:13 PM
I believe that "natural" drugs should be legal (marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms, entheogens, etc.) and destructive manmade drugs shouldn't (Meth, crack, heroin, etc.)

SineNomine
Friday, December 7th, 2007, 11:50 PM
I agree entirely with the OP.

Drakkar
Saturday, December 8th, 2007, 12:22 AM
Drugs are illegal because they cause problems. Therefore they should keep their illegal status. However I believe in medical marijuana being legal because it does in fact help. I'm still unsure about mushrooms. They grow from the ground, yet I've heard too many bad experiences from them.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Saturday, January 12th, 2008, 11:23 AM
I don't believe in freedom of choice in this case. People need to be protected from themselves for their own sake. Drugs are of no benefit to society or the individual. I have taken drugs (magic mushrooms) in the past out of curiousity and I regret doing so as my vision was compromised for a period afterwards. I have already made a post detailing some of my experiences in The Lounge in the thread "Magic Mushrooms".

Well... I just had a really big fat line of coke and re-read your riveting post.

IMO the only way to clean society up is to give landlords and employers more rights and methods of excluding drug users, unhealthy people, drinkers, smokers, fat people, racial foreigners - whoever!

I believe in the freedom to exclude as well as the freedom to choose.

If one were to set up a social housing project which had mandatory drug-testing it would be enormously popular, as would a mono-racial housing project.

Having 'crackdowns' will never work, clean people should simply have the right to exclude users, smoker, drinkers, whoever... from their living spaces.

We have always had substance abuse, what is new is the 'caring' industry which surrounds it and seeks to socially include people who are intractable train-wrecks who cause problems for others, thereby compounding all of society's problems and causing misery for decent people.

If I had children and had the choice to bring them up in an environment where consuming drugs and alcohol were explusion offences I would jump at the chance to do that.

Also, there is another issue.

There are lot of people in our society who have alcohol damage, both physical and mental, and whether they drink or not, they will always be weak, childish, aggressive and often unable to make a single right desicion. They might be able to do it for 25 years, and get by. However beyond a point they are just dog meat. Alcohol can be worse than heroin in this respect.

Do you include alcohol in your list of drugs or are you afraid of reprisals from drinkers?

Now... I am not really a drinker and I hate 'boilers' with a passion. Should people like me not have the right to exclude them from our spaces without fear of being pulled up for 'discrimination'?

Do you really want the goverment to tell us what we can and cannot do?

I think I might be voting for the Bryan Ferry Party in the next election.

A party with class and style.

This is their manifesto:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfgU4iQr8PU

It is not to be sniffed at, you understand.

:ner-ner0:

Corin
Saturday, January 12th, 2008, 04:59 PM
IMO the only way to clean society up is to give landlords and employers more rights and methods of excluding drug users, unhealthy people, drinkers, smokers, fat people, racial foreigners - whoever!

Drug use is often an easily kept secret. Most people can manage their drug habit, cocaine, cannibis or whatever, and still hold down a job and manage their life.


I believe in the freedom to exclude as well as the freedom to choose.

Currently I'd agree with the freedom to choose drugs legally due to the circumstances under which they are brought into countries by criminals and how they are procured by people. The current illegal status of drugs fuels drug related crime. Basically at the moment you can whatever drug you want anyway so it might as well be legal and controlled by government. In the instance when the criminal source of the drugs supply are wiped out then I'd be in favour of illegality.



If one were to set up a social housing project which had mandatory drug-testing it would be enormously popular.

Logistically that could never happen and would be highly unpopular. Maybe a Scandinavaian health service could cope.


Having 'crackdowns' will never work, clean people should simply have the right to exclude users, smoker, drinkers, whoever... from their living spaces.

At what stage does a user, smoker, drinker have a problem? Most of Britain use alcohol and also cocaine use is widespread among all social classes and people still make it into work on a Monday morning. Of course drugs are never a positive influence in someones lfe no matter how well they seemingly can handle their habit and drugs take their toll eventually.


We have always had substance abuse, what is new is the 'caring' industry which surrounds it and seeks to socially include people who are intractable train-wrecks who cause problems for others, thereby compounding all of society's problems and causing misery for decent people.

If people make poor decisions in life I don't think it's right that they be treated like animals and ousted from society. They can be rehabilitated and become valuable functionaing members of society. Society should have the responsibility to protect it's members from things that could harm them. It is at least partly responsible for harmful drugs existing within it in the first place.




If I had children and had the choice to bring them up in an environment where consuming drugs and alcohol were explusion offences I would jump at the chance to do that.

Not a bad idea.




There are lot of people in our society who have alcohol damage, both physical and mental, and whether they drink or not, they will always be weak, childish, aggressive and often unable to make a single right desicion.

I don't agree with your logic. Overcoming alcoholism or any drug takes great strenght and will power. I have respect for people who have defeated their demons and now control their life.



Do you include alcohol in your list of drugs or are you afraid of reprisals from drinkers?

I include alcohol. It is as destructive if not more so than many others.




Do you really want the goverment to tell us what we can and cannot do?

They already do.



I think I might be voting for the Bryan Ferry Party in the next election.

A party with class and style.

This is their manifesto:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfgU4iQr8PU

It is not to be sniffed at, you understand.

I'm fan of his too. I love that song.

Phlegethon
Tuesday, January 15th, 2008, 12:33 AM
As long as caffeine remains legal I don't care.

Mrs. Lyfing
Wednesday, January 30th, 2008, 10:08 PM
I think the notion of drugs being illegal is strange,the police & drug task try to control it,but why? Its still gonna be made,smoked,snorted & injected.
Maybe a better idea would be to just send them all to a designated spot in the world & just let them be junkies.
Drug use will never stop,life gets so messed up for people and they feel there is nothing else to turn to.
Or they try it out in teenager years because of poor judgment & it leads to drug abuse through out their lives.
Meth has become a huge problem in the US throughout the past few years & it is just horrible,people staying up for days with no sleep & without sleep well you start to loose your mind & if you add a cooked up drug to that the person is definitely one to stay away from. Scary. So many Americans on Meth,I do not know if it is in other countries? I hear about parents on Meth cooking it at home with children present,one parent was even hiding the contents to cook it in the baby's crib...:confused:
Whacked out is what they end up being. & ya that drug should be illegal & they should get a strong sentence,same for other hard drugs.
Marijuana should be legal,I mean it helps people recovering from cancer,& "they" know its harmless in some ways,they just want our money when it comes to convicting individuals with possession of marijuana.
& I also find it annoying when they sentence someone to prison for YEARS for having a few hundred pounds of marijuana in their home ;) when rapists & even some murders don't do half of that time. I find the whole system confusing & unworthy,I mean sell us beer,liquor & wine,but no pot? :confused:
Has pot ever made you as drunk as being drunk does? I don't think so ;) Oh & I am very against drunk driving,it kills innocent people everyday ...:(

Gefjon
Wednesday, January 30th, 2008, 11:39 PM
I'm undecided. :confused: Let me smoke this one joint and then I'll come back to reflect on this question. :D

hildolf
Thursday, January 31st, 2008, 10:33 AM
Maybe it's because I see the negative effects of drug abuse on a daily basis that I am completly opposed to the use of Drugs.

You can argue that adults have a right to put into their bodies whatever they choose. But you look at the world around you and see what adults do with the rights to choose what they can and cannot do and I very much wonder if they are capable of using such rights sensibly. With rights and freedoms come great responsibility. Sadly there is little come back as I see it for people who abuse such freedom to choose and as such there is little encouragement for people to act responsibly.

Corin
Thursday, January 31st, 2008, 08:29 PM
Maybe it's because I see the negative effects of drug abuse on a daily basis that I am completly opposed to the use of Drugs.

You can argue that adults have a right to put into their bodies whatever they choose. But you look at the world around you and see what adults do with the rights to choose what they can and cannot do and I very much wonder if they are capable of using such rights sensibly. With rights and freedoms come great responsibility. Sadly there is little come back as I see it for people who abuse such freedom to choose and as such there is little encouragement for people to act responsibly.

I don't think a lot of people are capable of being sensible in a society saturated by drugs of all kinds and I wouldn't agree as some might suggest oh just let these weak minded people die off by natural selection through their own early demise. I don't think it's as cut and dry as them being weak minded and naturally inferior in some way. Circumstance, life experience, liberal attitudes as part of life philosophy play roles in determining individuals situations.

Ulvhedin
Saturday, February 2nd, 2008, 02:29 AM
I think smart people choosing their opinion about drugs.
Drugs are just nature resources that man can use. And goverment use criminals to sell them to earn money, and it dont like when some other people do :D
Drugs using in nowaday civilisation is for weak. Drugs should be studied by science to gain knowledge, and shouldnt be studied by junkies to gain satisfaction.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Saturday, February 2nd, 2008, 11:52 PM
Well, I spent several hours last night, in bed, laughing and snorting like a pig. I could not stop laughing.

I cannot believe that I actually paid money to turn myself into a retard for several hours, for lack of anything else to do, but this is what happens.

Funny thing is, everytime I do it, I say to myself, "this is the last time", but it never ends...

When will the party end? I was really uncomfortable today. I left the house to get some lunch and after getting a table, I just got up and left.

I have done the most ridiculous things. I have taken drugs rectally. I have overdosed. I have walked miles to obtain drugs. I have lied to my doctor to obtain prescription drugs. I have lied to obtain money to buy drugs, but, unfortunately, I have had the time of my life doing it as well.

This is the problem. Drugs work for most people who take them, most of the time. Rarely do you find yourself being uncomfortable. One of the hardest and most dangerous drugs is cocaine, yet, one can go to work on it and function quite normally, if not well. I have sat down with a gram and got through tedious paperwork in double-time.

The guy delivered my stuff at 3am on a pushbike, and I was rolling around in bed making pig noises, until 9am. I met my landing neighbours and we had a little impromtu soiree. It was fun, in a bag.

I felt a bit sick this morning, but that was really from the drink, not the chemicals. :confused:

I do not think that one can be any fairer than to allow landlords and employers to exclude people on the basis of their drug habits.

Einheerjar
Sunday, February 3rd, 2008, 02:21 AM
As much ilegall drugs are, better is
I wouldn´t see problem also in making tobacco illegal
Anyway, I never used drugs, never smoke a cigarrette, and I don´t even drink alcohol
Drugs will allways be harmfull, no matter how much do you use
And I don´t understand also saying that natural drugs can´t do damage to the bodie, just because they are natural. Lots of things that you can found in nature are poisonous, so, in my opinion, it isn´t a valid argument
As much healthy someone is, better this is
I don´t believe much also in this Freedom thing. Too much freedom is bad, in theory, can be good, but, what really happens is quite diferent. There will be always people who want to abuse of they´re freedom. Things should be more limited. If people can´t limit themselves, than the state and laws should limit them
Straight Edge till the soul

Fortis_in_Arduis
Sunday, February 3rd, 2008, 02:28 AM
How much ilegall drugs are, better is
I wouldn“t see problem also in making tobacco illegal
Anyway, I never used drugs, never smoke a cigarrette, and I don“t even drink alcohol
Straight Edge till the soul

I wish I could do this, but there is something intractable in my soul, perhaps just at the moment.

I used to be straight, and my life was just as much fun then.

I think that we need a cultural shift to promote clean living. One of the best things anyone can do for themselves is take a month off every year to detox and rejuvenate in a health spa.

I did this in India in 2003, and I plan to do it again this year, for maybe 51 days. Totally clean myself out, not just the body but the soul too.

A culture where keeping young and clean living is respected will be less prone to drug abuse and its attendant problems.

Ulvhedin
Sunday, February 3rd, 2008, 04:01 AM
Why u need to take spa, if u can be healthy and go outside ur town to rest in nature every week?

Brynhild
Sunday, February 3rd, 2008, 04:29 AM
I voted for the 2nd one, as I believe Cannabis should be made legal. My only concern is how it's grown, hydroponically it can mess with your mind. I used to smoke my uncle's home grown all the time, before kids. I also used to smoke cigarettes, but quit nearly 15 years ago. I don't even take a headache tablet nowadays.

Over the counter and prescription drugs are the biggest concern. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies make a killing financially, because people have forgotten to listen to their bodies and take care of themselves properly. They're not at all honest about what goes into the drugs, and because of that, it's little wonder we have more cases of ADHD and Autism.

My youngest son's paediatrician wanted me to put him on some drug to control his ADHD and Autistic tendencies. I read up on the side effects (which were quite numerous), took the leaflet to our chiropractor and he promptly gave me a list of safe foods and the not so safe ones. I've stopped taking him to the paed for the time being, as I resented his beliefs regarding the drugging of my son into submission.

What other people do with themselves is relatively their business, but my drug of choice is - NONE!

skyhawk
Thursday, February 7th, 2008, 11:27 PM
Its good to see an honest and open debate on a subject with many misunderstandings.

I live in a very seedy area , drug use is rampant. When I was 21 a friend of mine died through a heroin overdose . Growing up here , drugs were always part of the tapestry of life .

Someones poison maybe alcohol , or cigarettes , caffeine , etc........ drugs can be seen in the same light. Some people just prefer the poison of opiates.

Cocaine use in the UK has greatly increased over the past couple of decades. Once mainly the domain of the partying aristocracy it has filtered down through all the social stratifications of society.

Many people in high pressure jobs use it to enhance performance . Others use it simply for its ability to assist in " lasting the distance " in whatever social situation they feel its use would be beneficial. Drinking bouts , all day events, parties , sex , .... whatever it is .

It is a highly addictive drug.

Drugs are only one side of the equation. The addiction side of it I find more interesting to be honest.

This may sound odd but I think there are some strange considerations to be given to the nature of addiction. From my own observations of and contacts with Heroin users , there appear to be some strong indications of addiction to the lifestyle equalling that of addiction to the hit off the drug itself.

They awake everyday with a mission to complete. How many people feel the same way about their own lives ? Would we all feel better waking up with a purpose to the day , everyday ? I think we would. And I think they ( hard drug users ) do , as strange as that may sound.

Drug use also involves ritual ( drug preparation ). Another primal companion of mankind , it too helps support the whole addiction process.

The whole process of funding and acquiring with a habit like heroin requires a transformation from the norms of modern society. It also leads to an exclusion from it in many ways.

So here we have a small group of people , with a sub culture of their own confirmed in ritual which offers a purpose and you also get high at the end of it to boot. Compare this with the relative tedium of much of " normal life " and is it any wonder we see people with a drugs habit?

I'm just surprised there are still so many people living a " normal life " :D

I don't mean this as a promotion of drugs ( there are huge downsides to it which have already been mentioned ) , I just think that the issue of addiction to the lifestyle is sometimes overlooked in debates on drug use

Janus
Thursday, February 7th, 2008, 11:54 PM
I am personally in favour of legalising all drugs, which are not physically addictive or have extremely bad effects on your health hence I'd vote for legalisation of weed, ecstasy, LSD and similar stuff but not for legalisation of heroine, cocaine and so on. I'm generally in favour of the Swedish modell of the systembolaget in which they sell alcohol and it should be expanded on all legal drugs so the still has some kind of control. I think that it will be a good act of balance between personal responsibility and government restrictions to protect people.

I personally do not do any recreational drugs like alcohol, weed, tobacco and so on but because of being sick I do have to take opioids against the pain sometimes. However, I'd actually like to try some pure hallucigenics somewhen.

-jmw-
Friday, February 8th, 2008, 09:43 AM
As much ilegall drugs are, better is
I wouldn“t see problem also in making tobacco illegal
Or alcohol.
It worked so well back in the 20s, right?
Some more Al Capones, lots more police sneaking into our private lives and billions and billions in cost are surely something we can handle...

By the way, what about aspirin?
Refined sugar? Caffeine? Tea? The internet? TV?


Drugs will allways be harmfull
A lot of things are harmful.
Modern states killed 170 millions of their own citizens in the 20th century alone.
Seems very harmful to me!
But does this mean we all should become anarchists?

Even better:
Drug prohibition brings with it organized crime, health problems and an enlargement of the police state.
Harmful?
Indeed!
So now we have a little dilemma:
Prohibition -> harmful.
No prohibition -> harmful.
Solution?


As much healthy someone is, better this is
No one doubts this.
But this goes for other things as well: The more secure one is, the better.
The more prosperous, the better. The happier, the better. The more educated, the better.
And so on.
Problem is, we cannot get everything.
If you put health on top, you could invest 90 percent of the GNP into the healthcare system.
Would you want to do that?
80 percent? 70? 40?
So, yes, the healthier one is, the better, but only insofar as one has ressources not needed for other things and only insofar as one doesn't give priority to other concerns.
Just being healthy sucks!
There are other things equally or even more important.


I don“t believe much also in this Freedom thing.
I'm quite sure this is only because you have most of the freedoms you want.
Would be interesting to know if you would say the same thing if some bureaucrat tells you what cloth to wear or whom to marry or which job or what hobbies to have!


There will be always people who want to abuse of they“re freedom.
Aka "there are people who may do what they want and blasphemously do not choose the things I want them to choose". :D

Nagelfar
Friday, February 8th, 2008, 10:07 AM
I'd vote for legalisation of weed, ecstasy, LSD and similar stuff but not for legalisation of heroine, cocaine and so on.

The problem there is, that there would probably be more societal & individual benefit from legalizing the "hard drugs" like heroin & cocaine than from marijuana or LSD. The black market which creates so much trans-national crime is made from these drugs, and government bringing their commercialization out in the open would get rid of the largest violence factor surrounding them. It would also stop money, at least in terms of the U.S., from filtering to Mexico (black tar heroin) or south America (cocaine) and funding subversive groups internationally. This is beside the consideration of street purity issues for heroin and cocaine which are a major source of overdose deaths which would also be overcome. No one ever has to worry about the street purity of marijuana or magic mushrooms (maybe lacing issues).

Mrs. Lyfing
Thursday, March 13th, 2008, 03:18 PM
Although cannabis does indeed have some harmful effects, it is no more harmful than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. As a matter of fact, research by the British Medical Association shows that nicotine is far more addictive than cannabis.
Furthermore, the consumption of alcohol and the smoking of cigarettes cause more deaths per year than does the use of cannabis (e.g. through lung cancer, stomach ulcers, accidents caused by drink driving etc.).

I personally think it should be legal. Especially for medical treatment.

Whats your opinion?

Jäger
Thursday, March 13th, 2008, 03:36 PM
Every drug should be legal. They should be handed out by a pharmacist and education about the harmfulness of such substances is due, the rest is personal choice.
The few who would chose to actually harm themselves, are nothing compared to the victims of the side effects of the illegality of drugs (organized crimes, etc.)

Ęmeric
Thursday, March 13th, 2008, 04:57 PM
I think it should be legal. And other hard drugs as well. All the drug laws have accomplished is restricting our freedoms in the name of combatting drugs & making millionaires & billionaires out of drug trafficers & the bankers who launder the drug money. Much of the crime in the US is associated with the drug trade, e.g. persons committing crimes to buy illegal drugs & pot at inflated prices, drug lords killing each other over sales territory etc.. Indiana & Kentucky both keep track of who buys cold medicine & if you purchase too much over a short span of time they will arrest you on suspicion of manufacturing meth. The only reason for anti-drug laws is to maintain an excuse for the police state & to support the prison-industrail complex. The US has more persons in prison then any other country in the world, including China,(http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=5224) & a big part of that is our draconian drug laws. And it is usually the smalltime dealers or users who end up in prison. The bigtime drug lords are safe in their compounds in Latin America & the bankers who make it all possible by laundering the drug money are living well on Park Ave. It's time to end the insanity & repeal the drug laws. I doubt that doing so will lead to higher rates of addiction, anyone who wants an illegal substance can already buy it at an inflated price.

Flash Voyager
Thursday, March 13th, 2008, 05:06 PM
Sure, why not?

Loyalist
Thursday, March 13th, 2008, 05:23 PM
No, the results of legalising marijuana would simply be horrifying. It is a gateway drug, it does carry health risks, it does impair judgement and behaviour. By making it openly and readily available to everyone, potential users will be far more attracted than they otherwise would have been. Existing habitual users will increase, and both of the aforementioned will more than likely move on to the next level of narcotic. Within a short time, addiction, disease, and public disorder rates would skyrocket. Legalising all drugs would not remedy this, but would in reality amplify the decay of society.

The solution to drug-related crime exists on several levels. First, implement much stricter laws for the investigation, apprehension, and punishment of traffickers and users. Give the authorities the power to enforce these laws without the restrictions hindering them now. Finally, take steps against any nation which serves as a base of operations for the manufacturing and exporting of narcotics, be it through economic sanctions or more direct action.

Loddfafner
Thursday, March 13th, 2008, 05:40 PM
Legalizing drugs would be disastrous to the economies of ghettos.

Ęmeric
Thursday, March 13th, 2008, 05:51 PM
No, the results of legalising marijuana would simply be horrifying. It is a gateway drug, it does carry health risks, it does impair judgement and behaviour. By making it openly and readily available to everyone, potential users will be far more attracted than they otherwise would have been. Existing habitual users will increase, and both of the aforementioned will more than likely move on to the next level of narcotic. Within a short time, addiction, disease, and public disorder rates would skyrocket. Legalising all drugs would not remedy this, but would in reality amplify the decay of society.

The solution to drug-related crime exists on several levels. First, implement much stricter laws for the investigation, apprehension, and punishment of traffickers and users. Give the authorities the power to enforce these laws without the restrictions hindering them now. Finally, take steps against any nation which serves as a base of operations for the manufacturing and exporting of narcotics, be it through economic sanctions or more direct action.

OTL; Anyone who wants marijuana can get it. There wouldn't be anymore marijuana use if it was legalized. There might even be less. Part of the glamour of smoking weed is that it is illegal. Also what you are advocating to stop people from using other recreation drugs would lead to a police state akin to Castor's Cuba or Stalin's soviet Union. Do you really think the authorities would only use their greatly increased police powers to combat illegal drugs?

Loyalist
Thursday, March 13th, 2008, 06:08 PM
OTL; Anyone who wants marijuana can get it. There wouldn't be anymore marijuana use if it was legalized. There might even be less. Part of the glamour of smoking weed is that it is illegal. Also what you are advocating to stop people from using other recreation drugs would lead to a police state akin to Castor's Cuba or Stalin's soviet Union. Do you really think the authorities would only use their greatly increased police powers to combat illegal drugs?

Of course, in theory, it's accessible to anyone, but since the process is more complicated than simply walking into a corner store, there are some who simply won't put in the effort. That's without mentioning the minority who are deterred by the threat of consequences from the law, school, work, etc. True, there are those attracted by the prospect of a proscribed substance, but there are also those with whom the opposite effect is seen.

I am in no way opposed to implementing a "police state" if the system enforces the appropriate views. I can contrast undesirable systems such as those under Castro and Stalin to those which worked for the benefit of society, such as the administrations of Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. The security of morality and other essential elements to the future of society, specifically as it concerns Germanics, necessitates the existence of supreme power within a government (albeit in a National Socialist context). On the contrary, I would not want increased police powers to be limited simply to crushing the drug trade.

Mrs. Lyfing
Thursday, March 13th, 2008, 06:34 PM
I wanted this thread to be separate from Drugs because I was only questioning marijuana, in any case, the arguments are good, although I do agree, no matter legal or not, we will and will always get our hands on it if we want.

I consider marijuana a little different from other hard drugs because it is just not the same. ;)

Jäger
Thursday, March 13th, 2008, 07:41 PM
It [marijuana] is a gateway drug, it does carry health risks, it does impair judgement and behaviour.
The same can be said about alcohol.


The solution to drug-related crime exists on several levels.
I have to admit I am undecided, prohibiting alcohol did lead to more crime, was it implemented to light heartedly?

Truth is however, that uncontrolled drug use, did lead to social problems, e.g. China with Opium, Russia with Vodka, America with Cocain (?), while Germany can cope relatively well with alcohol.
The problem could have been about the lack of knowledge about such substances though.

No easy matter of choice.

Phlegethon
Thursday, March 13th, 2008, 08:19 PM
Although cannabis does indeed have some harmful effects, it is no more harmful than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. As a matter of fact, research by the British Medical Association shows that nicotine is far more addictive than cannabis.


This only further proves that you have absolutely no clue.

One joint is about 30 times more harmful than a cigarette. Regular pot smokers have a very high probability to get either a lung collapse or lung emphysema, according to the European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery. Apart from that the hemp fibres that end up in the lung can get you a nice asbestosis which mostly is a terminal disease.

Unlike nicotine cannabis can lead to irrepairable brain damage. Cheech and Chong were only funny because everyone actually knew dopeheads like them.

Mrs. Lyfing
Thursday, March 13th, 2008, 08:22 PM
This only further proves that you have absolutely no clue.

One joint is about 30 times more harmful than a cigarette. Regular pot smokers have a very high probability to get either a lung collapse or lung emphysema, according to the European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery. Apart from that the hemp fibres that end up in the lung can get you a nice asbestosis which mostly is a terminal disease.

Unlike nicotine cannabis can lead to irrepairable brain damage. Cheech and Chong were only funny because everyone actually knew dopeheads like them.

we all gotta die of something

Phlegethon
Thursday, March 13th, 2008, 08:26 PM
Furthermore, the consumption of alcohol and the smoking of cigarettes cause more deaths per year than does the use of cannabis (e.g. through lung cancer, stomach ulcers, accidents caused by drink driving etc.).

And more people die from burgers, fries and milkshakes than from alcohol and nicotine combined.

Mrs. Lyfing
Thursday, March 13th, 2008, 08:27 PM
And more people die from burgers, fries and milkshakes than from alcohol and nicotine combined.

we all gotta die from something

Fortis_in_Arduis
Thursday, March 13th, 2008, 08:38 PM
THC can be put into pill form, making cannabis a bit safer.

Ayurveda says that cannabis should be smoked with calamus root powder to neutralize the toxic effect on the liver and brain.

I have done this and it was pleasant. A much less 'mongy' high. The calamus recommended is the Euro-Asian variety, not americanus. However americanus was enjoyed by North American Natives who smoked it with tobacco.

Calamus has an unusual taste, but it is good for the brain, and can be used to counter-act the negative effects of all psychedelics.

Hanna
Thursday, March 13th, 2008, 08:58 PM
I don't think the drugs is more damageable than multiculturalism

Bridie
Friday, March 14th, 2008, 04:09 PM
we all gotta die from something
Would help not to get yourself brain damaged well before you do die though. ;) Would be better for your family and community too...

Freydis
Friday, March 14th, 2008, 04:23 PM
"we all gotta die from something"

What stinging rhetoric.

I have a question to pose to you:

Would you rather die or degenerate to death?

Mrs. Lyfing
Friday, March 14th, 2008, 06:37 PM
Would help not to get yourself brain damaged well before you do die though. ;) Would be better for your family and community too...

True. :). I am not condoning any behavior really, just people have choices. To anyone else beside Phleg, I would of had a different response...;)

@Freydis, I would rather live my life being happy, doing things that make me happy, if that brings death or degenerating death, well its unknown right now. Besides, to grow old on your own good health of just being old, is also degenerating.

Dagna
Friday, March 14th, 2008, 06:39 PM
To deny people the right to make a choice for themselves is against the Germanic spirit of freedom. It is not your business if someone else wants to degenerate just like it is not your business what someone else does in his bedroom.

Mrs. Lyfing
Friday, March 14th, 2008, 06:48 PM
This only further proves that you have absolutely no clue.

One joint is about 30 times more harmful than a cigarette. Regular pot smokers have a very high probability to get either a lung collapse or lung emphysema, according to the European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery. Apart from that the hemp fibres that end up in the lung can get you a nice asbestosis which mostly is a terminal disease.

Unlike nicotine cannabis can lead to irrepairable brain damage. Cheech and Chong were only funny because everyone actually knew dopeheads like them.

Ya, and I can say unlike cannabis nicotine is controlled by the Govt, they get rich off killing us, and they do not care.

BTW, there are so many things that are "addictive" or unhealthy this topic is endless. Also, not only drugs cause brain damage, obviously ...:rolleyes:

Just because I say it should be legal does not mean I want to smoke it all...:D. To me it is a natural plant, and it is ridiculous for the Govt and Police to treat someone who smoked some grass as a murder, throw them in jail, and make money, and at times keep the drugs for themselves or re traffic them..:rolleyes:

If we are talking about crack, crank, acid or any of the heavy drugs, I would have a different opinion, those are the very brain damaging drugs. At most pot makes you forgetful, and no matter what you say, nicotine is much more harmful and addictive than pot. :)

Fortis_in_Arduis
Friday, March 14th, 2008, 07:28 PM
If we are talking about crack, crank, acid or any of the heavy drugs, I would have a different opinion, those are the very brain damaging drugs. At most pot makes you forgetful, and no matter what you say, nicotine is much more harmful and addictive than pot. :)

I think that the problem is that harder drugs like cocaine and MDMA, for example, are extremely pleasurable.

There is no proof that MDMA is particularly damaging, apart from a few cases where people actually did overdose, or had an allergic reaction or mixed some drugs or died of drinking too much water, or took something else instead.

I think that there was one fellow who took hundreds over the course of several years and emerged a little 'punch drunk', with short-term memory problems. lol

Cocaine is another funny one. You can take it and go to work or do household chores. If you mix it with alcohol, it is even better. You wake up the next morning and there is no hangover. You might only notice that you are addicted when you simply cannot say 'no', if someone offers it to you.

These two drugs have completely changed a whole generation in my country, and there is an absolute epidemic... Attitudes changed almost overnight when ecstasy became popularized through dance music. These drugs have informed a sub-culture which has now become mainstream, and there is seemingly no way to reverse this process.

What is said about cocaine and ecstasy does not match up with most users' experience of the drugs. These 'hard' drugs seem to feel terribly, terribly soft. People do not spin out of control, entirely lose their memories and inhibitions, go psychotic and paranoid, have immediate heart-attacks, brain heamorrages or any of the other events which they are told are going to happen to them if they take hard drugs. Mostly they have the time of their lives, a process which can continue weekend-in, weekend-out, for years.

The fact is that the legal drugs are the drugs which seem to fit into our political economy more easily, and the illegal drugs are the drugs which would perhaps encourage people to question where society is going and question their values and the regimes which control us, or simply become unavailable for work...

Alcohol and tobacco (Victory Gin and Cigarettes?) seem to numb people into accepting a degraded existence, whilst continuing to work for the machine. Illegal drugs are not just the means by which criminals or terrorists can generate intraceable incomes, they are culturally subversive.

This is another reason why illegal drugs have developed a certain cache, even though they are the wrong solution.

Even in Islamic countries, which are supposedly free from drugs, marijuana is popular. Marijuana is technically forbidden under Islam, but socially so acceptable that it is smoked quite openly.

I would like to add more:

I utterly reject the idea that drugs open the mind. Aldous Huxley and many other great minds have made this mistake, it is a very easy mistake to make. Drugs dull the senses and make us much harder to please. Why else would drugs so often be associated with loudness in art, music and personality? Drugs disrupt meditation, and frustrate, rather, than satify our desires. They make us insensitive.

Intoxicating substances include alcohol, tobacco, chocolate, coffee, betel nuts and tea. Meat, fish and eggs, onion and garlic are also intoxicating.

If you really value your senses, and you want to live a sensitive life, then you will follow a brahmin diet and keep your food as saatvic as you can.

Freydis
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 05:01 AM
@Freydis, I would rather live my life being happy, doing things that make me happy, if that brings death or degenerating death, well its unknown right now. Besides, to grow old on your own good health of just being old, is also degenerating.

You didn't understand my question.

Would you rather live your life being happy and doing things that make you happy (dying) or spend the rest of it in a hospital ward being unable to breathe (degenerating to death)?

People aren't built to last past 50 or 60 anyways... we don't "grow old on our own good health" anymore.

Let's look at what some academic journals have to say on this matter:


Cannabis use disorders (CUD) encompass the two distinct diagnoses of abuse and dependence, defined in the DSM-IV by the same criteria as for other substance use disorders (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994). ... observed a substantially higher
lifetime prevalence of cannabis dependence among adolescent and young-adult cannabis users as
compared to older users.

Aside from the risk for CUD, an extensive body of literature has described other adverse effects of cannabis use, and whilemost long-term effects appear to be limited to heavy or chronic use, important short term effects occur during the acute phase of intoxication, regardless of the frequency of use (see reviews by Budney, Moore, & Vandrey, 2004; Joy, Watson, & Benson, 1999; Kalant, 2004). Neurocognitive impairments—such as problems with psychomotor function, attention, memory, and learning—occur
during intoxication, some of which persist after a brief period of abstinence. The possible functional consequences of these effects are an important area of concern, as they have the potential to affect the large
number of individuals who use cannabis moderately or occasionally.

...

24.6% of all cannabis-using students met the definition for CUD


From: The occurrence of cannabis use disorders and other cannabis-related problems among first-year college students by Kimberly M. Caldeira, Amelia M. Arria, Kevin E. O'Grady, Kathryn B. Vincent, Eric D. Wish.

Addictive Behaviors 33 (2008) 397-411


Because marijuana and tobacco are both smoked and the emissions contain similar carcinogens (19), it has sometimes been assumed that regular marijuana smoking would pose risks for respiratory disease and cancer that are similar to those associated with tobacco. Although the causal relationships between tobacco smoking and respiratory diseases and cancer are now very well-established (21), a link between regular marijuana smoking and cancer has not yet been demonstrated (22, 23). Furthermore, although marijuana smoking is associated with long-term pulmonary inflammation and injury, epidemiological evidence that marijuana smoking leads to chronic pulmonary disease is inconsistent to date (24). It is worth noting that the effort to prove the causal links between tobacco smoke inhalation and disease, including lung cancer, even though smokers, nonsmokers, and former smokers could be readily identified and tracked, required decades of case-control and prospective epidemiological studies and reviews (see the above review by Thun).
...
It was surprising to find nicotine in the mainstream and sidestream marijuana smoke (Tables 3 and 4). For mainstream smoke, of the 20 marijuana cigarettes examined under ISO conditions, 16 showed no nicotine and none of those examined under extreme smoking conditions had any evidence of nicotine.
...
In marijuana smoke, ammonia was found at levels about 20-fold those in tobacco in mainstream smoke (Table 3) and about 3-fold greater in sidestream smoke (Table 4), although the absolute values were very much greater in sidestream smoke.
...
Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) was also significantly higher in marijuana smoke, both mainstream and sidestream, with a 5-fold increase relative to tobacco under extreme conditions.
...
Marijuana smoke did contain elevated levels of acrylonitrile as compared to tobacco.
...
the four aromatic amines examined in the two materials were all significantly, and substantially, elevated in marijuana smoke over tobacco smoke, especially in mainstream smoke but also in sidestream smoke under both smoking conditions.
...


From: A Comparison of Mainstream and Sidestream Marijuana and Tobacco Cigarette Smoke Produced under Two Machine Smoking Conditions by David Moir, William S. Rickert, Genevieve Levasseur, Yolande Larose, Rebecca Maertens, Paul White, and Suzanne Desjardins

Chemical Research in Toxicology vol 21 no. 2 (2007) 494–502

That second article alone is scientific evidence of the detriments of marijuana smoking. In fact, there was even more information I could have obtained for you if you so wished.


To deny people the right to make a choice for themselves is against the Germanic spirit of freedom. It is not your business if someone else wants to degenerate just like it is not your business what someone else does in his bedroom.

People making choices for themselves effect others and cause detrimental effects.

To say this is very individualistic... I think there is a Germanic spirit of caring for one's own people as well.

Degenerating to death is not Germanic preservation.
Miscegenation is not Germanic presevation.

But if one doesn't care for this and cares more for personal choice to degenerate to death or do whatever he pleases in the bedroom (pedophilia, zoophilia, miscegenation, etc.); then so be it. I can't change one's mind.


Ya, and I can say unlike cannabis nicotine is controlled by the Govt, they get rich off killing us, and they do not care.

And cannabis is controlled by gangs and the mafia. Great choice. :rolleyes:


To me it is a natural plant, and it is ridiculous for the Govt and Police to treat someone who smoked some grass as a murder, throw them in jail, and make money, and at times keep the drugs for themselves or re traffic them..:rolleyes:

To me it is a natural plant just like the various plants that are deadly poisonous to us human beings. Natural doesn't necessarily mean "good for humans". It's like saying poisonous berries or mushrooms are perfectly fine to ingest on a regular basis.

The point is to protect people from themselves as well as protecting others from them.


If we are talking about crack, crank, acid or any of the heavy drugs, I would have a different opinion, those are the very brain damaging drugs. At most pot makes you forgetful, and no matter what you say, nicotine is much more harmful and addictive than pot. :)

Marijuana does cause brain damage. "makes you forgetful"... hum, doesn't Alzheimer's do the same thing? Oh, no big deal right?

Beornulf
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 06:34 AM
Drugs should only be used for ritual purposes and not recreationally.

If you legalise heroin it's not going to do any good other than save money. The quality of people comes into it a lot and lets face it, most people are degenerates.

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 02:00 PM
Drugs should only be used for ritual purposes and not recreationally.

What's the difference? Ritual substance use was generally used in a religious/ritual sense in order to allow people to experience the pleasure, but limit their use to 'religious days' (days off of work). A modern person who uses drugs but still manages to show up for work would fall into the same category.


If you legalise heroin it's not going to do any good other than save money.

Or more specifically, law enforcement resources, which could better used against the more violent and destructive elements of society. The merely annoying do not dictate such concern.


The quality of people comes into it a lot and lets face it, most people are degenerates.

Yes, but they will still be degenerates if we ban drugs

Beornulf
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 06:28 PM
What's the difference? Ritual substance use was generally used in a religious/ritual sense in order to allow people to experience the pleasure, but limit their use to 'religious days' (days off of work). A modern person who uses drugs but still manages to show up for work would fall into the same category.

You have some validity here but I sense you are referring to when religion and spirituality became hobbies themselves.


Or more specifically, law enforcement resources, which could better used against the more violent and destructive elements of society. The merely annoying do not dictate such concern.

Drug dealers to me are violent and destructive elements of society. As are most who take these drugs, Methamphetamine, Heroin etc.


Yes, but they will still be degenerates if we ban drugs

This I agree with completely, my focus is the removal of these degenerates.

Imperator X
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 06:34 PM
I used to smoke marihuana moderately. Now I don't do it at all. All it did was make me paranoid and painfully conscious of my own mortality. The only good thing it did was the intense tactile experiences and the vastly heightened appreciation of music.

I smoked cigarettes for a little while as well. Now I don't smoke anything.

Ęmeric
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 07:25 PM
If you legalise heroin it's not going to do any good other than save money.

What's wrong with saving money :confused:. As I pointed out, a lot of crime is associated with supporting drug habits, because of the inflated cost of illegal drugs. And legalization wrong pull the economic rug out from under those who make a living from the inflated prices of drugs caused by the artificial scarcity caused by making marijuana, heroin & cocaine & other recreation substances illegal. Making these substances illegal has just made life more difficult for those of us who do not use these drugs. We pay for the crime associated with illegal drug use, either through being a victum of crime or by paying higher insurance premiums. We have to pay taxes to fund the "War on Drugs." We have our civil liberties infringed upon in the name of the public welfare. Yet we have a much worst problem now then before drug use was regulated by the government. It would be to the benefit of nearly everyone - druggies & those who don't do drugs - to decriminalize drug use. The only persons this would have a negative impact on would be the employees of the state who occupations are dependent on the drug war, the drug trafficers & the bankers who launder the drug money. And you better believe all those with a stake in maintaining the illegality of recreation drug use funneled money to political compaigns & will do their best to ensure drugs remain illegal in the US.

Beornulf
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 07:29 PM
With legalising drugs you have the threat of them becoming "socially acepted" like drinking. Degenerates are no longer just fringes but now the norm in society.

Certainly the war on drugs is mostly fruitless, but so would be legalising drugs in the long run.

Flash Voyager
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 07:30 PM
Don't forget how the illegal aspect makes it more exciting.

Ęmeric
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 07:45 PM
With legalising drugs you have the threat of them becoming "socially acepted" like drinking. Degenerates are no longer just fringes but now the norm in society.

Certainly the war on drugs is mostly fruitless, but so would be legalising drugs in the long run.


But in US society drug use is "socially accepted." Look at our societal role models. Entertainers, athletes, high society figures, politicians can how use drugs without risk of being sigmatized. The concept of shame no longer exists. If the drug use becomes a problem then there is the trip rehab, followed by a press junket & perhaps a book. No one is embarrassed by using drugs, in some social circles not experimenting with drugs is considered weird. There are people who think I'm weird because I'm 45 & never smoked pot. Drug use has become so socially accepted as a fact of life & drugs so widely available that the problem won't get worst with legalization.

Beornulf
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 07:57 PM
But in US society drug use is "socially accepted." Look at our societal role models. Entertainers, athletes, high society figures, politicians can how use drugs without risk of being sigmatized. The concept of shame no longer exists. If the drug use becomes a problem then there is the trip rehab, followed by a press junket & perhaps a book. No one is embarrassed by using drugs, in some social circles not experimenting with drugs is considered weird. There are people who think I'm weird because I'm 45 & never smoked pot. Drug use has become so socially accepted as a fact of life & drugs so widely available that the problem won't get worst with legalization.

I think it certainly does apply to a portion of the population but I think for the time being it is still a minority of people. If it weren't the case I'd say most people would be crack fiends today.

Keeping drugs illegal won't make them any less accessible but it does discourage the use among most people.

Anyway, I assume we’re discussing this in an ideal society if our opinions were to hold such sway. The current state of affairs needs to be altered before we can really make any proper progress in these directions.

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 08:14 PM
Keeping drugs illegal won't make them any less accessible but it does discourage the use among most people

It greatly discourages their sale, which leads to an economic advantage for those who have nothing to lose by going to jail, ie black criminals. Legalization would put the manufacture/distribution/sale in the hands of legitimate enterprises, thus depriving criminal enterprises of a source of income

Siebenbürgerin
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 12:51 PM
I don't think drugs should be legal. They just harm too many persons and destroy lives. Even freedom needs to have some limitations, or we could lose our people from silly mistakes.

Hrodnand
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 01:06 PM
Drugs are the "solution" to escape reality instead of facing it with all its problems. Most people use it to escape in their "little heaven" because they can't bare life. I say these people are weak and they use the easier way. However the easier way is not always the best.
Im against drugs since I don't need any alien substance to "escape reality". But of course I'm not banning from others, but personally Im against it. There were so many who tried to convince me to use them but I just had to laugh them in their face. They were so fanatically holding to it that honestly it made me pity them. They find and degrade the meaning of life in this? Please.:rolleyes:

Fortis_in_Arduis
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 03:21 PM
I think that I would be happy with drugs being decriminalized, but not legalized, and as I have said before, give landlord and employers the right to drug test and refuse employment/tenancy to people who use drugs, including alcohol and tobacco.

I have used a fair amount of drugs and have absolutely loved the sensory and social aspects of drug taking and never really had any negative after effects until recently. Cannabis was never for me and ecstasy became nauseating and unsatisfactory after a while, so I switched to cocaine.

I recently gave up the idea of ever taking cocaine again because I was having palpitations and chest pains. It is a shame for me because I loved everything about it, the facial numbness, the 'groovy' feeling, the silly permasmile, the light in my partner's eyes, but particularly the banter, the chit-chat and the illicit prohibition-era pleasure of going to my local 'speakeasy' to pick the stuff up.

People who use drugs are usually hard to please in the first place, after giving up, we are even harder to please. In a similar vein to Salvador Dali's paranoiac-critical process of working, we are left with very exacting senses.

I do not think that people really understand how much drugs have affected our society. In England, cocaine is the new cannabis.

There was a marked change in youth culture post 1988, because of the effect that ecstasy and dance music had. I am not sure this has been such a bad thing.

Imperator X
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 08:56 AM
In a similar vein to Salvador Dali's paranoiac-critical process of working, we are left with very exacting senses.


Could you explain this aspect a bit more? I find it interesting.

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 09:39 AM
I don't think drugs should be legal. They just harm too many persons and destroy lives. Even freedom needs to have some limitations, or we could lose our people from silly mistakes.

What about natural selection? People that mess up their life with drugs will be just as likely to kill themselves doing something else stupid, and I don't see the value to keeping around a large collection of people so stupid they have to be baby-sat well into adulthood.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 11:52 AM
What about natural selection? People that mess up their life with drugs will be just as likely to kill themselves doing something else stupid, and I don't see the value to keeping around a large collection of people so stupid they have to be baby-sat well into adulthood.

Should that not more correctly be, 'People who mess their lives up with drugs'?

Imperator X:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoiac-critical_method

Dali used to force himself to stay awake when he was tired. Then in that vunerable state, would hold something in his hand, whilst resting in a chair contemplating his chosen object for analysis.

Whilst slipping into a dream state, the unconscious connection in his mind which proved that the object was really an extension of his subjective self became apparent. What Dali was holding in his hand would fall onto the floor, waking him abruptly and enabling him to remember his dream and access his subconscious mind.

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 12:18 PM
'who' is reserved for the higher elements of life :D

Geribeetus
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 12:44 PM
To deny people the right to make a choice for themselves is against the Germanic spirit of freedom. It is not your business if someone else wants to degenerate just like it is not your business what someone else does in his bedroom.

Then why exactly is it our business who sleeps with who? :rolleyes: Why is it our business if people choose to preserve their race or not?

Because 95%+ of people are not capable of running their own lives. We don't have natural selection any more. The state must, does and should intervene in issues such as this. So until you are ready to test children early on on their intelligence and execute them if they do not have high scores, legalizing every damn thing isn't going to be good for society.

And just because modern law enforcement is unable to deal with such crimes (largely due to this 'freedom' and 'rights' bull**** I've just read a few pages of), doesn't mean they could not ideally.

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 01:12 PM
What's the need to test people and execute them, when the lower element is perfectly capable of killing themselves if we let them. That way it is natural and not artificial selection, and the added bonus that they provide us with entertaining antics which can hopefully be captured on videotape and posted on youtube.

Dagna
Wednesday, July 16th, 2008, 05:29 PM
Then why exactly is it our business who sleeps with who? :rolleyes: Why is it our business if people choose to preserve their race or not?

Because 95%+ of people are not capable of running their own lives. We don't have natural selection any more. The state must, does and should intervene in issues such as this. So until you are ready to test children early on on their intelligence and execute them if they do not have high scores, legalizing every damn thing isn't going to be good for society.

And just because modern law enforcement is unable to deal with such crimes (largely due to this 'freedom' and 'rights' bull**** I've just read a few pages of), doesn't mean they could not ideally.
95% of adults can afford to make their own mistakes. We do not need a nanny state, that is ungermanic. I did not say everything should be legalized. I do not believe everything should be legalized, but drug use should. Legalization or at least decriminalization would solve more problems because drugs would be able to be regulated.

Flash Voyager
Wednesday, July 16th, 2008, 06:10 PM
Legalising it would allow 'passive' eugenics, leave those who are both helpless and problematic to nature.

CrystalRose
Thursday, July 17th, 2008, 04:09 AM
If you can be a successful positive role model in society while being on drugs, it should be legal for you. Those who cannot handle a drug should not be doing the drug. ie: living off the government, violent. If most people thought the same way I’m sure it would eliminate most drug use. Unfortunately in the real world people don’t all think alike. So I’m indifferent.

mischak
Thursday, July 17th, 2008, 04:56 AM
Drugs are disgusting and trashy, and so are people who do them. I don't care how it will or will not benefit the government or economy, I don't want to be surrounded by people who are allowed to do them openly.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Thursday, July 17th, 2008, 11:05 AM
Drugs are disgusting and trashy, and so are people who do them. I don't care how it will or will not benefit the government or economy, I don't want to be surrounded by people who are allowed to do them openly.

What about people who take drugs privately but subsequently visit their antisocial behaviour upon you? Is this not the main problem with drugs? Rather than people 'ruining' themselves?

Do you think it would be sensible to allow employers and landlords to sack their employees and tenants on the grounds that they use drugs? I do, and they should be allowed to impose mandatory drugs testing to that effect.

I think that this is the only way that people who want to be free from drugs taking can be free from drug takers.

But for me, drug-free environments would only be a minimum standard, I see no reason why private landlords and employers should not be disallowed from sacking people for taking legal drugs, even mild ones like caffiene, or even certain foods. I would like to stress, that this should be an undertaking by landlords and employers, not by government.

Only then will the benefits of being clean be brought into sharp enough relief for it to become a mass social movement, and only then will people be free from drugs and free from the negative social and financial consequences of drug taking.

Instead of creating 'tolerance zones' for drugs and drugs taking, and other negative trends, we should allow people to create 'intolerance zones'. I think that would be much more effective.

Intolerances zone for people who do not exercise, intolerance zones for people who eat meat, basically, intolerance zones specific to the needs of the community which decides the 'house rules' which govern that community.

Cuchulain
Thursday, July 17th, 2008, 01:45 PM
Drugs are disgusting and trashy, and so are people who do them. I don't care how it will or will not benefit the government or economy, I don't want to be surrounded by people who are allowed to do them openly.

So if they were legal and restricted to certain areas, i.e. red light districts, don't you think they would be an even less significant presence in your life than they are now?

mischak
Thursday, July 17th, 2008, 07:19 PM
So if they were legal and restricted to certain areas, i.e. red light districts, don't you think they would be an even less significant presence in your life than they are now?

Why would that be the case? People who already use illegal drugs aren't exactly considerate of where they do them now, I don't see how restricting them to certain areas would keep these people from not disobeying those laws as well.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Thursday, July 17th, 2008, 08:11 PM
So if they were legal and restricted to certain areas, i.e. red light districts, don't you think they would be an even less significant presence in your life than they are now?

I agree with you, but this would be more effective if we were able to work the other way round as well, by allowing people to create and enforce drug-free zones which they would voluntarily subscribe to.

Only then will the benefits of being clean become apparent to the lemming majority.

It has been shown that one of the best remedies for drug-abusers is group self-help. Community policed 'intolerance zones' could work as a prophylactic against drug abuse in a similar vein.

Another method for defeating drug abuse could be to bombard areas with drug problems with aesthetic or even culinary remedies.

I mean, who would want drugs or even sex when having there desires confronted, placated and then satisfied by a *perfect* cheese souffle, a painting by Delacroix or an interior after Robert Adam? :D

That was a joke, just in case some people on this glorious forum had their senses of humour surgically removed at birth, but it does bring to bear on the reasons why people might take drugs in the first place:

Their physical environment and/or their internal world might not be enough to satisfy their desires.

The intelligent method to remedy this is to teach people to accrue inner strength, and this works better in environments which operate to the exclusion of negative elements.

Who would want to go to a temple if drunks were able to enter the inner sanctum?

From this inner strength and ONLY from this inner strength does beauty originate, whether in the heights of asceticism or when descending into the inevitable and sybaritic pleasures of life...

Crimson Guard
Thursday, July 17th, 2008, 08:27 PM
My answer overall is, no!

Can we trust these people on illegal drugs to be normal at home or work and do their jobs, not talking on an individual basis but on large scale?!

Nearly all processed drugs, even over the counter medications or doctor prescribed, can be very fatal to us. Big Company mass-produced cigarettes are fatal not simply because of the tobacco, but because of all the added fatal ingredients thats put into them. Even natural drugs like marijuana has been found to kill brain cells even with extensive long term usage and cause cancers. It would very hard to have a normal conversation with someone on drugs, let alone trusting them operating machinery or running business or government all lit up on crack or quaaludes or coming drunk or whatever. Morever people who are already born unstable and missing neurons taking narcotics, is a very bad combination and train wreck waiting to happen.

Least here in the USA, the only illegal recreational drug that should be legalized however moderately , I feel should probably be marijuana and regular tobacco shouldnt be penalized, although I do not condone the usage of marijuana or even cigarettes.

Even with tight laws, people will always want to get high and have been for many thousands of years and their always stands human greed seeking to make a profit off other peoples misery, so they will find a way no matter how tyrannical the laws.. people will even sniff glue or gas fumes so their will always be the minority element within humanity who will seek out a high anyway they can.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, July 18th, 2008, 08:13 AM
Laws against driving and operating heavy machinery while under the influence make sense, even against currently legal substances like alcohol. I don't see why other drugs can't be treated the same way. If you can handle it in a responsible manner, fine, if you can't, off to jail with you.

Bärin
Monday, July 28th, 2008, 04:36 AM
Drugs should stay illegal. I'm not a freedom at any price supporter and frankly I don't care if junkies suffer for not being able to smoke joint all day. :rolleyes:

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, July 28th, 2008, 09:45 AM
It's not just the junkies that suffer, the rest of society suffers because we have the police harassing us looking for drugs, and when they do find junkies the productive part of society foots the bill for the law enforcement and criminal justice system. Also, the criminal underworld makes massive profits from selling these substances on the black market, if they were legal then the money would go to legitimate farmers, processors, distributors and retailers.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Monday, July 28th, 2008, 01:05 PM
It's not just the junkies that suffer, the rest of society suffers because we have the police harassing us looking for drugs, and when they do find junkies the productive part of society foots the bill for the law enforcement and criminal justice system.

I feel that the cost is greater than this because the connection one can have with God is impaired if one is stoned or drunk. Even certain foods impair this connection.

I think that the material argument has been lost already, otherwise why would our capitalist societies effectively permit drugs to be used?

As you can see, criminalising it costs money, but we also lose from decriminalising, although perhaps not materially, but with our collective spirit.

Perhaps the criminalisation of drugs benefits the law, the morally corrupt materialist government and the dealers?

This is why I feel that people should be allowed to establish and self-police areas which are free from drugs.

Octothorpe
Thursday, July 31st, 2008, 10:44 PM
It depends on the kind of drugs...

Heroin, XTC, Speed etc. should be banned - basically every chemical drug or a drug which destroys the body and person extremly shall be banned.


How can a folk or an ethnicity be preserved if drugs are treaten like a new food brandmark?


I say it's alright to give Soldiers the opportunity to get Drugs which makes them less stressed and loose alot of their angst - like Pervitin.


Concerning our forefathers...
The Germanics only used herbs or other naturalities, and also mostly for the warriors to be more effective in war, and not for "fun" like people do nowadays.




Gruß,
Boche

You mean the same Germanics who used hemp, henbane, fly agaric mushrooms, and alcohol? For religious and other purposes? Who placed the same items in graves? Yep, they did. :)


The use of drugs is injurious to virtually every aspect of one's existence, and I do not distinguish between anything from marijuana to heroin. They will always fuel crime, stupidity, immorality, and death.

If you're not distinguishing, it's due to not understanding the various uses of the items in question. They are all different, some addictive, some habituative, some harmless. It is a complex subject, and one where a person really needs to do their homework.


Drugs are illegal because they cause problems. Therefore they should keep their illegal status. However I believe in medical marijuana being legal because it does in fact help. I'm still unsure about mushrooms. They grow from the ground, yet I've heard too many bad experiences from them.

Sorry, friend, but their illegal status is what caused the problem in the first place. Let me illuminate the history for you: the first anti-drug act in the U.S. (and it might be the first in the West, as well) was the Harrison Narcotics Control Act of 1914. It was passed as part of the "Progressive" agenda (a socialistic affair that still stains this once-great nation), with the help of suffragists and sociologists. The problem at that time was heroin, and the stats showed that (without any law against use) nearly 3% of the population were 'addicts.' Since then, the govenment has, nearly a century later, spent hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the "War on Drugs" and shredded the Constitution in order to do so. So, what is the percentage of narcotics (heroin, opium, morphine, oxycontin, etc.) abuse in the U.S. today? 3%. Why?

As a psychologist and an historian, I can assure you that about 3% of the human population is, by genetic default, predispositioned to addiction or habituation. Elimination of various drugs (totally impossible) wouldn't do the trick, as those who are predisposed will simply fix upon another substance for its soporific effect. These are the people who'll huff glue if they can't get anything else.

Most people who try or use illicit substances do so for a very limited time in their lives ('daytrippers'). Tens of millions will smoke a little pot in college, or maybe even drop acid. They'll give that up for Chardonay and mortgages eventually (or a beer and a ballgame, depending on social class). The junkies and heavy abusers will always be with us.

Solution? Treat people like the adults they are. If they die, they die and clean up the gene pool (like Dan Ackroyd once said, "If you can't fly a MiG, don't fly MiG Alley"). Or, they'll deal with it. Either way, the government leaves you alone to deal with your own life. What do you want, the government to wipe your bum for you?

Patrioten
Thursday, July 31st, 2008, 10:57 PM
You mean the same Germanics who used hemp, henbane, fly agaric mushrooms, and alcohol? For religious and other purposes? Who placed the same items in graves? Yep, they did. I don't get this "Germanics (how many exactly, where, since when, for how long and in what extent?) used various stuff to get high a thousand years ago so now we need to allow our own youth to sit in coffeeshops and smoke weed legally and not have the cops arresting them.".:rolleyes:

Octothorpe
Thursday, July 31st, 2008, 10:59 PM
No, the results of legalising marijuana would simply be horrifying. It is a gateway drug, it does carry health risks, it does impair judgement and behaviour. By making it openly and readily available to everyone, potential users will be far more attracted than they otherwise would have been. Existing habitual users will increase, and both of the aforementioned will more than likely move on to the next level of narcotic. Within a short time, addiction, disease, and public disorder rates would skyrocket. Legalising all drugs would not remedy this, but would in reality amplify the decay of society.

The solution to drug-related crime exists on several levels. First, implement much stricter laws for the investigation, apprehension, and punishment of traffickers and users. Give the authorities the power to enforce these laws without the restrictions hindering them now. Finally, take steps against any nation which serves as a base of operations for the manufacturing and exporting of narcotics, be it through economic sanctions or more direct action.

Wow, that's wrong on nearly every count. Let's count the ways:

1. Sorry, it makes for a nice sound bite, but there's no such animal as a gateway drug. That's not a scientific term, albeit one that every one of my students bring to the classroom (I swear, most of my job lies in unteaching bad habits of thought). It's a political term.

2. It was legal, for centuries, without any increase in users or abusers. It was made illegal only in 1937, in the Marihuana (sic) Stamp Tax Act of that year. The major sponsor (financially, not legislatively) was DuPont. Why? Hemp, the actual pot plant, is a miracle plant that produces the strongest natural fiber in the world. DuPont had just invented Nylon, which did not quite have the same weight-to-strength ratio, and cost much more. Therefore, they decided to eliminate the competition!

3. The U.S. government already punishes people in a Draconian manner, to no avail. The jails are filled to the brim with dime-bag purveyors, and to accomodate them (due to mandatory minimum laws) the wardens are placing murderers and rapists out on the streets. Feel safer?

4. Politically, the only reason we've not eliminated these silly laws are due to the pandering to the Puritanical side of the American character. There are those in life who are deeply afraid that, somewhere, someone is having fun. They're the ones, blue-haired old ladies and fundie freaks, who write letters to editors and representatives. Without their support, the drug laws would have been scrapped decades ago--because they can't work, they've never worked in the past, and they'll never work in the future.

Octothorpe
Thursday, July 31st, 2008, 11:05 PM
This only further proves that you have absolutely no clue.

One joint is about 30 times more harmful than a cigarette. Regular pot smokers have a very high probability to get either a lung collapse or lung emphysema, according to the European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery. Apart from that the hemp fibres that end up in the lung can get you a nice asbestosis which mostly is a terminal disease.

Unlike nicotine cannabis can lead to irrepairable brain damage. Cheech and Chong were only funny because everyone actually knew dopeheads like them.

"More harmful?" In what way? Lung collapses and emphysema, as well as cancer, are far more prevalent among tobacco users than pot smokers, due to the differing amounts smoked. Smokers might puff on two packs a day, as opposed to a few puffs on a joint by a pothead. Simply not comparable! Also, that bit about hemp fibers in the lungs is total fabrication, as is the brain damage bit. You need better data, friend (hemp's history and physiological effects were the twin subjects of one of my graduate degrees).

Octothorpe
Thursday, July 31st, 2008, 11:15 PM
I don't get this "Germanics (how many exactly, where, since when, for how long and in what extent?) used various stuff to get high a thousand years ago so now we need to allow our own youth to sit in coffeeshops and smoke weed legally and not have the cops arresting them.".:rolleyes:

It was a direct answer to the statement made that "Germanics" didn't use drugs. Grave goods from all over Northern Europe disprove that. That was the only statement being made. No statements were made or implied about 'coffeehouses.' I can't see where you're going with your statement. Can you elaborate?

Patrioten
Thursday, July 31st, 2008, 11:20 PM
It was a direct answer to the statement made that "Germanics" didn't use drugs. Grave goods from all over Northern Europe disprove that. That was the only statement being made. No statements were made or implied about 'coffeehouses.' I can't see where you're going with your statement. Can you elaborate?Because this is one of the major arguments being made in discussions on the legalization on drugs. "Since the Vikings used red fly-mushrooms, how can you claim it is ungermanic, and how can you then claim we should keep drugs illegal since they are a part of our heritage".

Octothorpe
Wednesday, August 6th, 2008, 03:28 PM
Because this is one of the major arguments being made in discussions on the legalization on drugs. "Since the Vikings used red fly-mushrooms, how can you claim it is ungermanic, and how can you then claim we should keep drugs illegal since they are a part of our heritage".

I thank you for the elaboration on your queston/comment. I see that some might conflate the statement on grave goods into a direct statement on current drug use. I shall clarify: I did not intend on that, and it was not a direct connecting argument. I do support the relegalization of illicit substances, but not because of the ancient use. I merely wished to correct the perception that drug use was not a part of the lifestyles of the ancestors. I think that I shall leave it at that, unless you wish a further clarification. Again, thanks for allowing me to elaborate.

Hrodnand
Wednesday, August 6th, 2008, 05:13 PM
"Since the Vikings used red fly-mushrooms, how can you claim it is ungermanic, and how can you then claim we should keep drugs illegal since they are a part of our heritage".

I wouldn't say it so sure "its part of our heritage", yes there were and are speculations about vikings using the red-fly mushrooms, but I've seen a documentary recently where scientists claimed that the usage of these mushrooms was really harmful to the human organism and after one dosage the individual was in immense pain for days, let alone they could easily die in over dosage. However, even if they did use I'm sure it was a rarity and only really few had been using it, perhaps the spiritual leaders of the communities.
Still I'm strongly advising to keep drugs illegal in any kind of form. The only effects they have is help people loose their sense of reality and learn how to "day-dream", to build up a little "refugee world" in their heads and make their life unworthy.:rolleyes:

Nagelfar
Monday, September 15th, 2008, 03:00 AM
Chemical concoctions such as crack or heroin on the other hand will be done away with.

Oh come now, though coca has been around 1000's of years on foreign soil, cocaine was first extracted from the leaf by a German chemist in Germany and didn't exist until then, the same is true about acetylated morphine or heroin: a German invention. Thus there's no drug use more Germanic than speedballing. ;-P ;)

Alfadur
Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011, 07:06 PM
I don't have anything against the legalization of weed and softer drugs. I'm more ambivalent about hard drugs, though. Heroin, for example, is a disgusting poison.


Thus there's no drug use more Germanic than speedballing. ;-P ;)
Amphetamines are seen as a typically "Swedish" drug over here. You won't see any immigrant doing that. :P

Elessar
Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011, 07:31 PM
Loaded question. "Drugs" are already legal: Alchohol, Tobacco, OTC medications (Nyquil "DXM"), Salvia Divinorum, Synthetic Cannabanoids ("Spice"), plus the material required to make Methamphetamines is readily available, the illegalization of Cannabis, Opium, Cocaine, Heroin, etc just seem to be out of spite of economic factors, and if you ask me, Cannabis has no logical reason being outlawed.

Intoxicants have a far different purpose today than they did to our ancestors.

I don't believe all drugs should be legalized. Drugs like Cocaine, Meth, Heroin, and the rest of the 'hard drugs' should be banned outright, as they are only extremely detrimental to ones physical and mental health.
But what one injects, inhales, or ingests into themselves is of no concern to me, the only thing we can do is to stay away from harmful drugs and educate ourselves. If you're going to travel down that path, be warned.

Neophyte
Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011, 07:56 PM
What we need to get rid off is the illegal market. It has a corrupting influence that gradually eats away at the foundations of society. How we go about eliminating the need that drives that illegal market is of secondary importance.

Some drugs could probably be legalized at a profit whereas others, such as heroin, will probably require a different approach. The first priority would be to lock up and medicate addicts in order to destroy the market and then bring some justice to the market place.

But, hey, if we repatriate our guests the drug markets will just collapse. And we will get the respite we need to put some effective measures into place.

Neophyte
Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011, 08:03 PM
But what one injects, inhales, or ingests into themselves is of no concern to me, the only thing we can do is to stay away from harmful drugs and educate ourselves. If you're going to travel down that path, be warned.

I am not so sure about that, not even from a philosophical point of view. The society in which we live is to no small extent our collective and collaborative product, as we are all to some extent products of it. So it is only natural that we should have some legitimate interest in what other people are doing to themselves. E.g. I am strongly in favor of laws that prohibit my neighbors from mixing steroids and PCP or driving on public roads while intoxicated. Doing that is not just your own business any more than giving an AK47 to your pet chimp is.

Gray
Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011, 11:01 PM
Marijuana should never have been made illegal in the first place. Billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted trying to enforce the prohibition of this drug, when they are never going to succeed in making it go away. Too many people use weed for the government to ever hope to stop people from using it. The illegal status of marijuana contributes immensely to the crime rates in America. If it were legal, there would not be any need for drug cartels and gangs who's sole purpose is to supply marijuana and other drugs.

Trying to enforce illegality on a substance as abundant and easy to obtain as marijuana is ridiculous.

Besides, it has very few health risks, if any at all. There has not been a single recorded death that can be attributed to the usage of pot. Alchohal is far more dangerous than weed could ever be.

Marijuana is a gift to us from the earth.

norseking
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 02:09 AM
More people are going to use drugs if it's legalised than whether it's criminalised and illegal. I don't care if you want to apply the pseudopsychology that legalising fixes the problem because it doesn't and won't.

It does work. In parts of the Netherlands smoking marijuana is legal and they have only found a decrease in drug/marijuana use because of these legal changes. Its psycological mostly. The thrill of doing something "badass" or "not socially accepted" is the fun part to many people. Underaged drinking is huge in the US and I ask people who are 21 and they say drinking before they were of age to drink was funner because of the risk of being caught and because it was harder to obtain.

OnePercent
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 03:05 AM
Amphetamines are seen as a typically "Swedish" drug over here. You won't see any immigrant doing that. :P

Sounds like our epidemic of white "tweakers" or meth-addicts here. The meth epidemic among whites here in the US has often been compared to the inner-city crack epidemic that effected predominantly blacks during the 1980's. By now I think the major epidemic among whites has pretty much passed, at least here in AZ, and now it seems like the hispanics are the majority of tweakers. I have never known a black tweaker for some reason.

Loyalist
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 03:59 AM
Marijuana is a gift to us from the earth.

:thumbdown

Marijuana is the drug of choice for racial and social degenerates; Negroes, Amerindians, Hispanics, Middle Easterners, white trash and left-wing/progressive types, and it bothers me to no end that Germanic youth fall willingly fall victim to its use and advocate its legality and consumption. The fact that it is a Negro drug should be enough of a deterrence to at least the racially-conscious, but evidently not. In terms of physical damage, it is either on par with, or worse, than alcohol; it is a carcinogen which carries with it all the respiratory and lung maladies associated with smoking tobacco. A recent study demonstrated the physical detriments of regular marijuana usage to be comparable to cocaine or heroin. Psychologically, the drug causes brain damage and mental illness to an extent almost unparalleled by other narcotics. Having interacted with heavy marijuana users, I can attest to the fact that it severely and permanently impairs cognitive functions, memory, speech, etc.

I find it greatly amusing how marijuana legality advocates react so indignantly whenever anyone dares to convey the notion that usage is dangerous and unhealthy. At the end of the day, the former are not motivated by legitimate or serious scientific evidence, but simply by a desire to get their fix without the threat of legal consequences.

We also seem to be ignoring another soluton to the marijuana and overall narcotics issue. While the debate has thus far focused on either maintaining the status quo, where enforcement of the law is hindered by excessive privacy rights and restrictions on investigations, or simply pursuing legalisation, there are certainly other options. I do not value democracy, individual rights, or freedom in any form. Those are concepts which have led us to our current situation, whereby we face a choice of continuing a doomed war on drugs, or caving in to substance-abusing criminal lowlifes and legalising this trash. On the contrary, the government, courts, and law enforcement should be given unlimited powers to investigate and prosecute drug-related crime. No more bureaucracy, no more warrants, no more giving offenders or suspected offenders more rights than law-abiding citizens. I favour the application of capital punishment, hard labour, and indefinite detention for those involved in the manufacture, distribution, and usage of drugs, and I want to see the former applied liberally to this problem.

Elessar
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 04:33 AM
TL;DR

Q: Have you ever tried Cannabis?

Frostbite
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 04:48 AM
I think pot should be legal. I personally don't do drugs of any kind but it seems that out of all of them, pot isn't that bad.

Drugs like cocaine, heroin etc, should stay illegal. Legalizing drugs doesn't keep people from getting addicted and everything.

I believe there should be more help for drug addicts because the cost of offering rehab isn't nearly as expensive as sending people to jail, homelessness etc.

Loyalist
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 04:51 AM
Q: Have you ever tried Cannabis?

No, I have never touched a drug, not even alcohol or tobacco.

Elessar
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 04:56 AM
No, nor any other drug, including alcohol and tobacco.

Knew it. Usually when people declare they've never smoked herb they make sure you know that they don't do anything, trying to gain some moral high ground. It's pretty humorous actually.

I've already addressed this problem here (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=102774&page=31) before and don't feel like rehashing (no pun intended) the same old arguments.

Gray
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 05:06 AM
Knew it. Usually when people declare they've never smoked herb they make sure you know that they don't do anything, trying to gain some moral high ground. It's pretty humorous actually.

I've already addressed this problem here (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=102774&highlight=Opinion+Marijuana&page=31) before and don't feel like rehashing (no pun intended) the same old arguments.

You're right, it's always the people who have never tried the herb who harp on it's nonexistent dangers the most.

Smoke on brother.

Stanley
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 07:02 AM
It doesn't matter to me if marijuana use is dangerous and unhealthy or not, and I don't care if it's legal or illegal so long as it's stigmatized. I can't respect drug culture, even if it's a completely harmless drug. I'm sorry, but I'm consistently off-put by the decadent and/or pseudo-spiritual attitudes towards it and look at marijuana use no differently than I do gluttony.

It's funny, even the biggest atheists I know treat the plant as some sort of magical, eternal wonder of the universe, as if the only meaning in the world can be realized by smoking it.

Wychaert
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 07:05 AM
It does work. In parts of the Netherlands smoking marijuana is legal and they have only found a decrease in drug/marijuana use because of these legal changes. Its psycological mostly. The thrill of doing something "badass" or "not socially accepted" is the fun part to many people. Underaged drinking is huge in the US and I ask people who are 21 and they say drinking before they were of age to drink was funner because of the risk of being caught and because it was harder to obtain.


Well its not actually legal, Its tolerated.

Goomer
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 08:28 AM
Yes. Legalize them and regulate them. Same for prostitution.

Eiriksson
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 09:02 AM
You're right, it's always the people who have never tried the herb who harp on it's nonexistent dangers the most.

Smoke on brother.

Have You ever thought, that as a user You may not spot it's negative effects? especially when they get You down slowly & gradually?
I'm not fan of hedonistic culture which this drug is related to.
I'm not a scientist either, but from my subjective observation, long term using of this drug drags people to some sort of carelessness, one may see it as freeing from unnecessary worries, other as hippy-go-happy frivolity.

I despise too much perversity, so I'd rather watch how it's all gonna end, seeing places like christiania in Kųbenhavn gives me mixed feelings.
My general impression of this place and its people is decadence, perversion, decay, "don't care about nothing" attitude, and everything turns around weed there
I think this place wouldn't exist if there weren't weed dealers.
so it's all about weed there.

The coincidence is I rarely understand general behaviour and approach to life of regular weed users, and it's always gives me negative feelings.

I don't try to generalise much, it's just my humble experience.
otoh generalisation's not bad as long as You're sane about it, and keeps your eyes opened giving chance to adjust your opinion with real world, not isolating yourself from reality.

The Aesthete
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 09:53 AM
The occasional joint doesn’t seem to do much harm

However long term use of weed f@#ks up the chemicals in the brain, pretty much every old stoner I know suffers from some kind of mental problem e.g. manic depression etc

As a stepping stone drug maybe it is for some but certainly not all

In my area it is mostly racial others who peddle the stuff, so I am not going to line their pockets

Plus I carry on like a big enough wanker on alcohol alone so I don’t really need other drugs

Sadly a friend of mine who really got heavily into drugs and is only in their late teens just recently was committed after his family caught him trying to tear parts of his face off. They tried an intervention but it did not work as he said it is how he wants to live his life and he just likes the drugs too much. He is also right into the whole philosophy, talking of Terence McKenna and claiming to have seen Machine elves.:(

Patrioten
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 10:48 AM
Marijuana should never have been made illegal in the first place. Billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted trying to enforce the prohibition of this drug, when they are never going to succeed in making it go away. Too many people use weed for the government to ever hope to stop people from using it. The illegal status of marijuana contributes immensely to the crime rates in America. If it were legal, there would not be any need for drug cartels and gangs who's sole purpose is to supply marijuana and other drugs.

Trying to enforce illegality on a substance as abundant and easy to obtain as marijuana is ridiculous.So a legal pot market would not provide any room for criminal competition? As of today, the market is illegal. The consumers of this product engage in criminal activities to get ahold of it and be able to consume it. If a legal channel is introduced, which I assume would be taxed and regulated like any other business, what's to stop the criminals and consumers from upholding a competing black market with drugs supplied at a lower price than that of government regulated and taxed businesses (which, unless the drugs were actively subsidized by the government to undercut prices and keep them competitive, would leave room for the same profit margins as today for the gangs due to lower labor costs from their operations overseas, economies of scale and their reluctance to pay taxes and fees imposed by the government)?

The criminals still have their channels, and the users, the consumers are already prepared to break the laws to get their drug. If they can get the same product cheaper, and not risk jail time since possession and use would be legal, why wouldn't they buy from the criminal gangs? Due to their strong civic morals?

Just as organized crime competes with legal businesses in construction and other economic areas, they would compete on a legal drug market, against other competing cartels and gangs.

Neophyte
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 11:39 AM
So a legal pot market would not provide any room for criminal competition?

That is a valid point, and I guess that it would depend on both the drug in question and the level of taxation put on it and aspects such as health and safety. The problem is that we just do not know what premium e.g. heroin addicts would put on safe drugs of a known concentration and without impurities.

But with the illegal prices being where they are today and legal methods of production and transport being as efficient as they are, there would be plenty of room for legal drugs to undercut the illegal competition. But to a large extent it will come down to what we think that a drug should cost.

Patrioten
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 12:11 PM
That is a valid point, and I guess that it would depend on both the drug in question and the level of taxation put on it and aspects such as health and safety. The problem is that we just do not know what premium e.g. heroin addicts would put on safe drugs of a known concentration and without impurities.If we assume that legal prices would be higher than black market prices we might see a tiered market with premium, mainstream and subpremium consumers, where consumers will go for different channels depending on the price. Just as we have frugal consumers buying inferior, subpar branded grocery products just to save money. The coffee shops in Holland for example exude a certain level of upmarket sophistication, relative to the street trade, but I wonder if the pot market is solely restricted to those shops, even in the Amsterdam area (and I realize of course that not every corner of the country has ready access to such shops). But...


But with the illegal prices being where they are today and legal methods of production and transport being as efficient as they are, there would be plenty of room for legal drugs to undercut the illegal competition. But to a large extent it will come down to what we think that a drug should cost....If we assume that the price could in fact be undercut via legal channels, then it stands to reason of course that such channels would be effective in drawing customers away from illegal channels.

Schopenhauer
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 12:58 PM
Instead of discussing the legalization of drugs, perhaps we should be discussing making drug abuse a capital crime instead.

Wulfram
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 01:19 PM
If we assume that legal prices would be higher than black market prices we might see a tiered market with premium, mainstream and subpremium consumers, where consumers will go for different channels depending on the price.

How would legal drugs be higher in price? During alcohol prohibition in this country the price for a bottle of whiskey was many times higher than it had been previously. When prohibition was ended the price dropped just as dramatically, and this kind of fluctuation would apply to any criminalized substance. The utterly wasteful (and anti-Conservative) war on drugs has lost untold billions of dollars and created more criminals than there ever were prior to the laws that still hold to this day. These are just the hard facts that most who oppose decriminalization refuse to accept as reality.

If I personally had evidence that prohibition cured every addict and removed the criminal element then it would have my support. But it does not, and only seems to do just the opposite and is now 100 times worse than ever.

Also, if drugs were legalized and monitored by the state then there would no need for people to resort to buying their product from the underworld ever again. When prohibition was in full swing people had no choice but to turn to the mafia for their booze. When that law was repealed the criminal element associated with alcohol disappeared overnight. I have no doubt that the same will happen if drugs are legalized. A consumer of drugs can purchase their substance of choice the same way they can purchase booze at a liquor store. And like a liquor store you will find that some shelves (usually down at the bottom)carry the cheaper quality alcohol, and other shelves(usually found higher up :D) carry the good quality.


I wonder if the pot market is solely restricted to those shops, even in the Amsterdam area (and I realize of course that not every corner of the country has ready access to such shops). But...

If people know that these shops sell high-quality and safe products then no one in their right mind would resort to other channels(unless they grow it themselves). Because of this those pot shops have pretty much cornered the market.


...If we assume that the price could in fact be undercut via legal channels, then it stands to reason of course that such channels would be effective in drawing customers away from illegal channels.

...and away from the criminal element that thrives precisely because drugs are illegal.

Sindig_og_stoisk
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 01:33 PM
I voted in favour of legalising, but with huge reservations.

I have extremely ambivalent feelings about legalising drugs. On one hand, it is odd that tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, sugar and psychiatric medicine are legal when they are also "drugs" and used in the same way as "real drugs": in moderation it does not significantly impair your ability to function in society and you can be using and still be a decent individual, but excessive and hedonistic use quickly becomes dangerous.
I have never tried marijuana myself, but I have several acquaintances who will smoke a single joint every few months for the fun of it and they are completely decent individuals. I could even name some acquaintances who have tried cocaine for some periods of their lives but quit it and moved on to better things in life.
And there is definitely something to be said against the gargantuan amounts of resources poured into law enforcement, counter-smuggling and prisons for drug dealers, smugglers and users. legalising and liberalising drug use would undoubtedly remove a source of income for criminals and a source of expenditure for the state.

On the other hand, drug use is dangerous as well as detrimental to the good life and we would probably be better of if it simply did not exist. One of my soldier buddies died from a drug overdose, and it was probably his first time trying it. Despite being inclined to tolerate but not partake in drug use (but of course not abuse!) I simply do not trust drugs and even less drug users whom I don't want in my life at any level.
Singapore is one of few industrialised countries where drug use is non-existent. Their methods are not only harsh( even draconian) sentences for drug dealers and users, but a general societal culture of zero tolerance for drug use. I can't help but think that that is the way to go.

Loyalist
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 01:36 PM
Knew it. Usually when people declare they've never smoked herb they make sure you know that they don't do anything, trying to gain some moral high ground. It's pretty humorous actually.

I've already addressed this problem here (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=102774&page=31) before and don't feel like rehashing (no pun intended) the same old arguments.

I had a feeling this would be your response, and it is what is known as a "cop out". It would be quite hypocritical of me to have consumed any drugs in the past and take the position I do now, so on the contrary, I am owed some recognition. As for the other thread, your post referenced drug use by historical figures and something about connections to Aryans and Buddhists. So, negative behaviour by famous Germanics in the pass makes marijuana and other applicable drugs alright? You must be having a laugh.


You're right, it's always the people who have never tried the herb who harp on it's nonexistent dangers the most.

Smoke on brother.

Since you evidently want to be a Negro, from now on I will treat you like one.

Wulfram
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 01:54 PM
Singapore is one of few industrialised countries where drug use is non-existent. Their methods are not only harsh( even draconian) sentences for drug dealers and users, but a general societal culture of zero tolerance for drug use. I can't help but think that that is the way to go.

The numbers given to the public are by the same singapore government who made these laws. Have you personally seen most of the drug problem removed there? What evidence can you provide that what they say is true? Drug warriors often look toward singapore as a beacon of hope but never bother to ask if what they are told is even close to being 100% accurate. Any government has the right to falsify information about what is really happening within its own borders.


Singapore Central Narcotics Bureau statistics showing 3,393 people arrested for drug offences in 2002 and the number of new drug abusers up 16 percent from 2001. Use of methamphetamines, or "ice," also showed a significant increase.

Neophyte
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 05:46 PM
...If we assume that the price could in fact be undercut via legal channels, then it stands to reason of course that such channels would be effective in drawing customers away from illegal channels.

The prices that you would pay for pure legal drugs at a pharmacy would be a around one or two percent of the street price.

Scario
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 06:14 PM
I have tried cannabis, in my past as a teenager and in my 20's. I think it should stay illegal. On one occasion, I took out a Ohio State Highway Patrol sign while driving under its influence. That was in the 1980's. The stuff they have now is more potent then when I was a teenager. If you are under it's influence, you are impaired, more so than under alcohol. Your reaction times to events are slower. Not everyone who smokes sits in a basement and 'CHILLS'. People get paranoid under its influence and freak out on themselves or others. I have seen people from my high school days who were over achievers become bottom dwellers because of smoking dope. It ruins lives if you want to believe it or not. If you want to smoke, I wont stop you, it's your life wasted, not mine. But I will fight to keep it illegal and if you ever harm me or mine while under the influence, or give to my kids to 'try it, you'll like it', then I will bring my A-game to your door.

Patrioten
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 06:16 PM
When prohibition was ended the price dropped just as dramatically, and this kind of fluctuation would apply to any criminalized substance.


The prices that you would pay for pure legal drugs at a pharmacy would be a around one or two percent of the street price.Then we might ask ourselves instead what happens when prices are that low and the drugs that accessible, comparable to the debate about alcohol and alcohol taxes. As far as I know there are no examples of such a situation from "the age of disposable income" that could tell us what the consequences of such a set up would be.

Neophyte
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 06:19 PM
Instead of discussing the legalization of drugs, perhaps we should be discussing making drug abuse a capital crime instead.

Actually, recless driving kills more people than drugs do. So why not make speeding and failing to halt at stop signs capital punishments too?



Then we might ask ourselves instead what happens when prices are that low and the drugs that accessible, comparable to the debate about alcohol and alcohol taxes. As far as I know there are no examples of such a situation from "the age of disposable income" that could tell us what the consequences of such a set up would be.

What happens? That's when we slap on the tax. As I wrote above, it's really a question of how much we want it to cost.

Schopenhauer
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 06:28 PM
As if drunk drivers aren't bad enough. Do we really need our highways full of retards high on PCP as well?

Those that advocate the legalization of drugs are themselves criminals. To think that there are actually those on this board who'd willing make these poisons readily accessible.

Oh well, you want to reduce yourselves to level of a mindless ghetto ape, more power to you, I guess. Just don't be surprised that if someday when you get yourself high off your ass, do something stupid, and get shot through the head for it.

Patrioten
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 06:32 PM
Actually, recless driving kills more people than drugs do. So why not make speeding and failing to halt at stop signs capital punishments too?




What happens? That's when we slap on the tax. As I wrote above, it's really a question of how much we want it to cost.There might be a difference between what we want it to cost, the majority who do not use drugs, and what the users, the minority want it to cost. Once the drug users get to enjoy the type of taxes that we have for alcohol, don't we create incentives then for a black market just as there exists one for cigarettes and alcohol in countries with high taxes? Or do we suppose the simultaneous introduction of the same drug laws in all the countries of the world, including the rogue producer states, which would eliminate the illegal supply and with it the cartels? How long did it take for Columbia to become a top producer of coca leafs, or for Afghanistan to corner the poppy market once there existed a demand for its products? If they could emerge at one point, what is there to keep them from emerging once more to compete where there is money to be made on the spread between what the taxed goods go for and what can be offered via black market channels?

I suppose we could hope for a commodityfication of the drugs which would ensure brand loyalty among the consumers that become unwilling to settle for drugs not branded with "Coca Cola classic" or whatever :P.

Wulfram
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 06:40 PM
If you are under it's influence, you are impaired, more so than under alcohol.

Wrong. No other substance comes even close to alcohol.

Alcohol-related traffic accidents kill half a million people each year. Compare this to almost none that happened as a result of marijuana.
Would you have some evidence to back up your claim?


People get paranoid under its influence and freak out on themselves or others.

I smoked a ton of the stuff when I was younger and I smoked with perhaps hundreds of different people at parties, shows, and what not. In my experience very few of them ever freaked out on marijuana alone, unless they were already high on another substance beforehand, such as LSD.

Your opinions are typical. You smoke it a few times and think you have become battle-hardened as a result and that your experience equals sage wisdom. All I have heard from you so far is typical Nancy Reagan-inspired hysteria that happens only rarely.

I quit using it myself many years ago and have been drug-free and happy ever since. But I still feel that the only way to stop most drug abuse and other problems connected with drugs is to return society to the way it was before prohibition, when addicts and criminals associated with drugs were so small as to have almost no impact. You make it illegal you create millions of criminals overnight, and the worst of them take advantage of these laws in order to gain profits, and power, and become quite dangerous as a result.


I have seen people from my high school days who were over achievers become bottom dwellers because of smoking dope

Admittedly I have seen some who used weed and wasted their lives, but these are VERY few in number and far between. But, I have also seen over-achievers who smoked it and REMAINED over-achievers. In fact I know many of them who still smoke it to this day and it has never had any bad effect on how they conduct themselves in life or the way they run their businesses or support their families. Again, you are basing your opinion on your very limited experience, and that is not being completely honest.

Neophyte
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 08:17 PM
There might be a difference between what we want it to cost, the majority who do not use drugs, and what the users, the minority want it to cost. Once the drug users get to enjoy the type of taxes that we have for alcohol, don't we create incentives then for a black market just as there exists one for cigarettes and alcohol in countries with high taxes?

Everything is possible. But you must ask yourself if there will be a greater or smaller illegal market after legalization, if drug money will have more or less influence around the world and whether the government will have a greater or smaller influence over the drug consumption and culture in our countries.

You must not let the best become the enemy of the good.

Patrioten
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 09:30 PM
Everything is possible. But you must ask yourself if there will be a greater or smaller illegal market after legalization, if drug money will have more or less influence around the world and whether the government will have a greater or smaller influence over the drug consumption and culture in our countries.

You must not let the best become the enemy of the good.The answer to the first question is I don't know since that would depend on the drug users, a group which I am not a part of and whose ideas about morality, civic duty and law are wholly different from my own, the second is that is difficult to say due to the fact that different parts of the globe, different countries operate differently and are separate and independent units to a meaningfully enough extent with regards to drug policy/drug cultivation etc., and to the third I say that it is hard to say given the fact that I have yet to see a government which is able to taylor the drug use/drug culture of the population according to its wishes.

Others might answer with an affirmative to all three, but I don't. There are too many unknowns. The current situation is not ideal, but I don't forsee the drug free society either, so the offer that is on the table here doesn't appeal to me in terms of either priorities or reasoning.

I wouldn't object if the US for example would want to try a drug experiment of their own along the lines of what has been suggested here, I don't advocate an intervention on behalf of the Netherlands for example, but I wont support such experiments within Swedish borders. Let others experiment, just as the eager teenager will have all the time in the world to drink once he turns 18 and possibly ruin his life while at it, so do countries have the time to implement radical changes to their societies over the course of their existence, it does not need to happen over night or right now.

Criminal gangs are a problem, but they wouldnt be an existential problem as far as Sweden is concerned if the policies in other areas such as immigration and law wouldn't be so misguided. With some sensible approaches in these areas, the drug problem could be handled in such a way as to allow us to carry on as we have without implementing any more societal experiments.

The urgency here comes from "rights" activists, the right to smoke (by others, not necessarily themselves), there is no great urgency beyond that. I don't believe in that right, nor do I sympathize with the people who use these drugs. It's yet another deviant minority issue, a minority we could do without.

OnePercent
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 10:54 PM
Personally I think that if tobacco is going to be legal there is absolutely no reason why marijuana shouldn't be. All of the arguments against legalizing weed can be applied to tobacco as well. Not only is tobacco a foreign drug it is highly addictive and has very few positive benefits for the consumer, things that can't really be said about marijuana.

Also, though I know that marijuana is often considered a "negro drug" in the modern world its origins are actually from Central Asia and it is possible that the Aryans themselves used it. We know from Greek writers that the Scythians, a blonde-haired steppe people living in modern Ukraine, used it. Also, the 2800 year-old petrified mummies of blonde people found in the Taklamakan Desert in Xinjiang China (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/a-meeting-of-civilisations-the-mystery-of-chinas-celtic-mummies-413638.html) (some of whom have celtic DNA) were buried with marijuana and hemp goods.

I know this doesn't necessarily mean that it is a Germanic drug (in historical terms it obviously is not) and I definitely agree that many people who argue that marijauna is some kind of miracle drug are being disingenuous, but I personally feel that it is an enormous waste of time and resources to prohibit it and prosecute people for using it.

Mööv
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 11:03 PM
Personally I think that if tobacco is going to be legal there is absolutely no reason why marijuana shouldn't be. All of the arguments against legalizing weed can be applied to tobacco as well. Not only is tobacco a foreign drug it is highly addictive and has very few positive benefits for the consumer, things that can't really be said about marijuana.



True said about tobacco. It“s ungermanic and should be cast out.
As for marijuana. Well, I haven“t seen any positive effects of it for years of looking at people using it (and I also used it on rare occasions when I was a teenager) and I started avoiding people using it couple of years ago because after a longer time of usage they become annoying and a completely different person (in a bad way). Lost a lot of friends that way, but when you look at what they started to turn into it“s better that way.

Edit:
As for Aryans using marijuana. Well, maybe that“s why they got extinct in favor of the black Indians.

Wulfram
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 11:12 PM
Those that advocate the legalization of drugs are themselves criminals.

Take a look below at how much money has been wasted in the past and is currently being wasted as we speak:


The federal part of the Drug War budget number comes directly from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, including the National Drug Control Strategy Budgets (2002-2009) (adjusted after 2003, for budget structure changes implemented in 2004), and subsequent budgets, the latest of which is the 2011 budget, which indicates that the federal government will spend at least $23.44 billion on the War on Drugs in 2011.

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, in 2001, which in its press release and on page 3, shows that states spent $30.7 billion in 1998 on "the burden of substance abuse on the justice system -- for incarceration, probation and parole, juvenile justice and criminal and family court costs of substance involved offenders". In other words, that $30.7 billion represents only "justice-related" (Drug War) expenses in state drug budgets.

30.7 billion in 1998, and 23.44 billion in 2011?!!!
I used these separate dates to give you an idea of the average that has been spent per year. Money that was taken from your pockets as well as mine.

This has been going on since the Nixon era.

It is like a broken record player that no one bothers to fix.
Over half a trillion dollars spent and the drug problems have only gotten worse?
Over half a trillion dollars wasted and the drug lords have never been more powerful.

You would think they would have established a pattern by now that even with a budget that large that the war on drugs has LONG AGO proven itself to be an embarrassing failure.

If this was proven long ago to have no effect on curbing drug use or violence related to it then the real criminals are those who continue to keep an impossible-to-win war alive. That includes those who advocate that the drug war continue, and I would say especially those who don't even bother to look at the very glaring and very real statistics involved that prove without a doubt that the drug war has turned into a criminal enterprise itself.

Each year surpasses the last for increased addicts as well as availability.

That is not practicing sane conservatism at all.

Like yourself, those who are in charge have dug themselves into an irrational rut.

To spend all that money made it criminal back in 1998, when it was already obvious to everybody that the war was hopeless. But here we are in 2011 and they are still spending insane amounts of cash while the problem keeps getting worse?


To think that there are actually those on this board who'd willing make these poisons readily accessible.

They already are readily accessible, and not one drug law has ever done a thing to stop it.


Oh well, you want to reduce yourselves to level of a mindless ghetto ape, more power to you, I guess.

YOu are actually saying that because I want to stop the government from wasting another half-trillion out of our pockets that makes me a ghetto ape? Schopi, I think you had better explain yourself better here, because your profound ignorance is as obvious as a drug-dealers gold teeth.


Just don't be surprised that if someday when you get yourself high off your ass, do something stupid, and get shot through the head for it.

You didn't even try to challenge a SINGLE fact I presented and still won't.

Mööv
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 11:15 PM
Take a look below at how much money has been wasted in the past and is currently being wasted as we speak:



30.7 billion in 1998, and 23.44 billion in 2011?!!!
I used these separate dates to give you an idea of the average that has been spent per year. Money that was taken from your pockets as well as mine.




Public stoning (with stones not with drugs) of users would eliminate these expenses as well as remove the drug use from society for good. :D

Scario
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 11:25 PM
Wrong. No other substance comes even close to alcohol.

Alcohol-related traffic accidents kill half a million people each year. Compare this to almost none that happened as a result of marijuana.
Would you have some evidence to back up your claim?


I smoked a ton of the stuff when I was younger and I smoked with perhaps hundreds of different people at parties, shows, and what not. In my experience very few of them ever freaked out on marijuana alone, unless they were already high on another substance beforehand, such as LSD.

Your opinions are typical. You smoke it a few times and think you have become battle-hardened as a result and that your experience equals sage wisdom. All I have heard from you so far is typical Nancy Reagan-inspired hysteria that happens only rarely.

I quit using it myself many years ago and have been drug-free and happy ever since. But I still feel that the only way to stop most drug abuse and other problems connected with drugs is to return society to the way it was before prohibition, when addicts and criminals associated with drugs were so small as to have almost no impact. You make it illegal you create millions of criminals overnight, and the worst of them take advantage of these laws in order to gain profits, and power, and become quite dangerous as a result.


Admittedly I have seen some who used weed and wasted their lives, but these are VERY few in number and far between. But, I have also seen over-achievers who smoked it and REMAINED over-achievers. In fact I know many of them who still smoke it to this day and it has never had any bad effect on how they conduct themselves in life or the way they run their businesses or support their families. Again, you are basing your opinion on your very limited experience, and that is not being completely honest.


My experience comes from drug parties and such. My drug of choice was LSD at the time I was doing most of my drug use. My experience comes from seeing people high at parties going on the roads and crashing or doing something to cause a crash. I've had many friends who did drugs and crash, more so than with alcohol. The problem we have is after a crash, the driver is tested for alcohol use, which most potheads drink while smoking, not illegal drug use, unless they are a red rash on the cement. So the figures that are posted, I think, would be different if they tested for everything after a crash and not just alcohol. My own personal experience of a crash at a highway patrol station was while on Dope as a teenager. Every pothead is always quoting that alcohol is the worst, Pot doesn't kill anyone or cause DWI's, that's just Bullshit. I've personally known many friends that have caused accidents on the road from smoking Pot. It is not a safe drug that harms no one and to think differently is just showing you how smart you really are.

Wulfram
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 11:28 PM
My experience comes from drug parties and such. My drug of choice was LSD at the time I was doing most of my drug use. My experience comes from seeing people high at parties going on the roads and crashing or doing something to cause a crash. I've had many friends who did drugs and crash, more so than with alcohol. The problem we have is after a crash, the driver is tested for alcohol use, which most potheads drink while smoking, not illegal drug use, unless they are a red rash on the cement. So the figures that are posted, I think, would be different if they tested for everything after a crash and not just alcohol. My own personal experience of a crash at a highway patrol station was while on Dope as a teenager. Every pothead is always quoting that alcohol is the worst, Pot doesn't kill anyone or cause DWI's, that's just Bullshit. I've personally known many friends that have caused accidents on the road from smoking Pot. It is not a safe drug that harms no one and to think differently is just showing you how smart you really are.

All you have presented us with are your personal stories, which may or may not be true. We have only your word on it. However, I have presented you with verifiable statistics. I was only quoting official numbers. It does not take that much brains to understand the very obvious.

Elessar
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 11:45 PM
"cop out"
Mmmm, no. I like to think of it as: don't want to type out a bunch of bullshit that I already wrote on the issue that is entirely applicable.


So, negative behaviour by famous Germanics in the past makes marijuana and other applicable drugs alright? You must be having a laugh.
I'm having a laugh at Dr. Holierthanthou, it's almost as bad as militant Vegetarians.
Keyword: Negative. Where do you get your experience on the issue, D.A.R.E?
Cannabis is not even on par with the rest of the hard drugs you'd like to group them with. With statements like "...Germanics in the past" I'm sure you'd also like to believe that they all regretted their horrendous decision to smoke and inhale, this is entirely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, Germanics have and will continue to smoke weed and will still be recognized as Germanic, regardless your your stance on the matter.
It's as right or wrong as drinking a beer.


It would be quite hypocritical of me to have consumed any drugs in the past and take the position I do now, so on the contrary, I am owed some recognition.
Exactly the reason why I don't owe you any recognition.
I would have taken you more seriously if you were driven away from drugs by past drug use, hence giving you a logical reason for your aversion, other than Christian-Conservative fairly tales.
Let me put it this way: if a man told you how un-fun skiing is, how dumb it is to go up on a freezing-cold mountain and speed down a hill on two long pointy sticks attached to your feet, how much it will cost out of your pocket, and how dangerous it can potentially be, Would you believe the man?
Who knows, you may just like it, you can only find out yourself.
Your world-view experiences should not be defined by some pansy sourpuss.


Since you evidently want to be a Negro, from now on I will treat you like one.
Another absolutely retarded statement, seriously. Typically, anti-Cannabis White folk like to associate smoking Weed with Niggers. All I can say is, look at the holy herbs record throughout history, you'll find it has been used far more extensively by other races and cultures before Tyrone and Shaniqua came along, and is currently used by each and every race and social strata. Yet another detractor from any serious debate: "You're in league with niggers if you use it!"


Hot damn, all this weed talks makes me want to crank up the Stoner metal, made by good ol' English boys (and girl) :D
XWHplp10kQM

Schopenhauer
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 11:46 PM
Personally I know this doesn't necessarily mean that it is a Germanic drug (in historical terms it obviously is not) and I definitely agree that many people who argue that marijauna is some kind of miracle drug are being disingenuous, but I personally feel that it is an enormous waste of time and resources to prohibit it and prosecute people for using it.

Au contraire. Prosecuting dopers is good for the economy. Think about it, if drugs weren't illegal you wouldn't need to employ cops, judges, court officers, and correctional facility workers. You de-criminalize drugs and you put these people out of work.

Personally, I'd much rather see the death sentence imposed on dopers, but, if locking them up keeps good people employed and the criminal justice system busy, then I don't mind keeping the present system in place.

OnePercent
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 01:38 AM
Au contraire. Prosecuting dopers is good for the economy. Think about it, if drugs weren't illegal you wouldn't need to employ cops, judges, court officers, and correctional facility workers. You de-criminalize drugs and you put these people out of work.


Well, first of all, I don't believe that any drug besides marijuana should be legalized, so all of those law enforcement officials should still find plenty to keep them busy with all the junkies, tweakers, and crackheads that will still be out wandering around in the country. Moreover, I think that the law enforcement focus on drugs actually reduces their ability to combat other more serious crimes and equally destructive crimes, such as prostitution for example.



As for Aryans using marijuana. Well, maybe that“s why they got extinct in favor of the black Indians.


:D lol quite possible! They didn't smoke it like we do now though, from the reports they would light it like incense and then crowd into a sealed tent and "clam bake".

Loyalist
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 02:02 AM
I'm having a laugh at Dr. Holierthanthou, it's almost as bad as militant Vegetarians.
Keyword: Negative. Where do you get your experience on the issue, D.A.R.E?
Cannabis is not even on par with the rest of the hard drugs you'd like to group them with. With statements like "...Germanics in the past" I'm sure you'd also like to believe that they all regretted their horrendous decision to smoke and inhale, this is entirely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, Germanics have and will continue to smoke weed and will still be recognized as Germanic, regardless your your stance on the matter.
It's as right or wrong as drinking a beer.

It is not a matter of experience, but rather one of common sense. Willingly consuming intoxicating substances which inflict mental and physical damage on the human body, and in the process act as a catalyst for the subject to embarass themselves through inane antics, should be enough to deter anyone from getting involved with marijuana or any other drug. Germanics can smoke the former, and indeed, consume any other drug they please. I want nothing to do with them, however, and would prefer a law-abiding Negro family as neighbours over the most Halstatt of Nordics who smoke weed.


Exactly the reason why I don't owe you any recognition.
I would have taken you more seriously if you were driven away from drugs by past drug use, hence giving you a logical reason for your aversion, other than Christian-Conservative fairly tales.
Let me put it this way: if a man told you how un-fun skiing is, how dumb it is to go up on a freezing-cold mountain and speed down a hill on two long pointy sticks attached to your feet, how much it will cost out of your pocket, and how dangerous it can potentially be, Would you believe the man?
Who knows, you may just like it, you can only find out yourself.
Your world-view experiences should not be defined by some pansy sourpuss.

I do not have to tour Somalia to know it is a shit country. ;)


Another absolutely retarded statement, seriously. Typically, anti-Cannabis White folk like to associate smoking Weed with Niggers. All I can say is, look at the holy herbs record throughout history, you'll find it has been used far more extensively by other races and cultures before Tyrone and Shaniqua came along, and is currently used by each and every race and social strata. Yet another detractor from any serious debate: "You're in league with niggers if you use it!"

Again, I am not interested; I have seen the copious drug use of vikings used as justification for substance abuse amongst Germanics, but at the end of the day vikings were also rapists, thieves, and mass murderers. The use of drugs in other cultures does not mandate or justify the same in another community, that is just an excuse.

The final point sums up the issue, by the way. You, and other marijuana legality advocates, are not able to come up with a coherent argument, so the name-calling starts (retard, etc.). It is the equivalent of homosexuals labelling anyone who opposes gay marriage as homophobic, instead of engaging in serious debate. Basically, you and your type simply want it legalised so you can obtain and smoke the drug of your choice easily and without fear of legal consequences.


Hot damn, all this weed talks makes me want to crank up the Stoner metal, made by good ol' English boys (and girl) :D
XWHplp10kQM

Proper English boys know drugs and drug users have no place in England. :)

iZJkwLK6XJ8

Scario
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 02:40 AM
Ronan, yes, they are my personal stories, and I tend to trust what I see over what the Government puts out on numbers and statistics. I trust the statistics of everything I see like I trust Al Gore's statistics on Global Warming. Numbers are sometimes inflated to present what the presenter wants to push. Drinkings bad, look at the numbers, so don't Drink and Drive. Now I'm against the use of any drugs, including alcohol, when driving or when the safety of others is in question. My ex-brother in law was arrested and convicted of Distribution and possession of over a pound of dope. His name is in Case Law in Ohio because he sued the Police for improper procedures and won. Didn't mean to sound like I was chastising you, but replying to everyone in my rebuke on drugs. I know you are showing numbers, I'm looking at real life that's happening around me. I've seen drugs, including Dope, ruin peoples lives. Some people are strong and can do drugs and have a life, but most drug users are weak and let the drugs take over their lives. Why allow it to tempt one kid and possibly ruin their life? We are all about preservation, but it's ok to do drugs and lose ones self for a minute, for a day, and some forever.

Žoreišar
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 02:48 AM
Au contraire. Prosecuting dopers is good for the economy. Think about it, if drugs weren't illegal you wouldn't need to employ cops, judges, court officers, and correctional facility workers. You de-criminalize drugs and you put these people out of work.

Personally, I'd much rather see the death sentence imposed on dopers, but, if locking them up keeps good people employed and the criminal justice system busy, then I don't mind keeping the present system in place.What a great mentality. :thumbdown

One could say the same about the hordes of third world rapist that are flocking to Europe; It sure may ruin the lives and standard of living of peaceful, innocent individuals of our Nations, but at least it keeps unemployment down...

Schopenhauer
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 03:41 AM
What a great mentality. :thumbdown

One could say the same about the hordes of third world rapist that are flocking to Europe; It sure may ruin the lives and standard of living of peaceful, innocent individuals of our Nations, but at least it keeps unemployment down...

Your analogy is flawed, very, very flawed.

Žoreišar
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 03:43 AM
I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why.

Hersir
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 03:48 AM
How will people ever respect us if we use drugs, and how will we be able to win them over on our side?

We have to behave better than other people. If we use drugs they will have even more tools to use against us. This is a Germanic preservation forum, maybe http://www.erowid.org/ would be a better website to frequent for some of you.

I'm okay with limited alcohol use, I voted No, drugs should keep their illegal status. There are much other stimuli to our brains which we can expose ourselves to, like reading, music, nature etc.

Schopenhauer
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 03:52 AM
Well, first of all, I don't believe that any drug besides marijuana should be legalized, so all of those law enforcement officials should still find plenty to keep them busy with all the junkies, tweakers, and crackheads that will still be out wandering around in the country. Moreover, I think that the law enforcement focus on drugs actually reduces their ability to combat other more serious crimes and equally destructive crimes, such as prostitution for example.

Sorry, but I don't differentiate between drug abusers. To me a pothead is no different than any other drug abusing scumbag.

Quite simply, those who use drugs are weaklings, contemptible degenerate weaklings, who should be ruthlessly culled from our society.


Your analogy is flawed, very, very flawed.

Your analogy is flawed because we are not discussing the de-criminalization of the crime of rape.

Žoreišar
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 04:14 AM
How will people ever respect us if we use drugs, and how will we be able to win them over on our side?Well, one could turn the question around, and ask; How will we ever win people over to our side if we constantly try to decide how they should live their own lives?

That doesn't mean we Nationalists shouldn't walk in front as the great examples we are (;)), but to give our fellow Nationals (both Nationalists and otherwise) some breathing-space and enough respect to let them decide for themselves what they want to put into their own bodies.

This totalitarian attitude among Nationalist circles is the least appealing quality of our movement to the masses. It's kind of like telling a child not to scratch his wounds... The more you keep telling them, the more defiant they will grow, and the more they will want to do the exact opposite of what you tell them.

Wulfram
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 04:18 AM
Sorry, but I don't differentiate between drug abusers. To me a pothead is no different than any other drug abusing scumbag.

Quite simply, those who use drugs are weaklings, contemptible degenerate weaklings, who should be ruthlessly culled from our society.

Since alcohol is the main cause of abuse among families, and kills millions of lives and psychologically destroys millions more, would you say that it is also the indulgence of "weaklings, contemptible degenerate weaklings, who should be ruthlessly culled from our society."?

We have a large amount of members here who oppose drugs, but seem to support alcohol because it is "traditional". Yet, they condemn the other drugs used by our ancestors? That makes no sense, especially if the specific reason for why they oppose usage of drugs is because it degrades families. Well, does not alcohol degrade just as bad and even worse?

Schopi, all you have to do is look at the stats and you will see that alcohol kills more people and ruins more lives than all the other drugs put together.

What are your own opinions of alcohol and the various members of Skadi who use (abuse) it?

Schopenhauer
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 04:20 AM
Does the Nationalist movement need to reach out to crackheads in order to broaden its power base? I think not.

Also, people aren't "won over" to Nationalistic movements. They affiliate with them because they already believe in what those movements philosophically stand for.

Žoreišar
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 04:26 AM
Your analogy is flawed because we are not discussing the de-criminalization of the crime of rape.You're right, but nevertheless, both practises (prosecution of drug-users and importation of third world rapists) causes just the same unecessary misery to peaceful, innocent individuals of our Nations. To use 'decrease of unemployment' as a positive argument in such a matter, is rather cold and heartless, in my opinion.

Schopenhauer
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 04:35 AM
You're right, but nevertheless, both practises (prosecution of drug-users and importation of third world rapists) causes just the same unecessary misery to peaceful, innocent individuals of our Nations. To use 'decrease of unemployment' as a positive argument in such a matter, is rather cold and heartless, in my opinion.

How does prosecuting drug abusers cause misery?

Žoreišar
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 04:41 AM
Does the Nationalist movement need to reach out to crackheads in order to broaden their power base? I think not.No, but as you've already stated, all drug abusers are the same, in your mind. I'm sorry to break it to you, but that accounts for a very large proportion of our populations, if you are to include occasional marujiana smokers. I'm sure even a substantial portion of Skadi's member base would have to go, should one impose such policies you've suggested here.

I for one, don't understand why such people would be any less valuable as Nationalists than any other people. But the foremost concern, is that the common people just don't like being told what to do, even if it would hinder their personal way of life in no way whatsoever. We can either learn to adapt to that, or keep banging our heads against the wall in the same manner we've been doing the last 20, 30 years or so. Just a thought.

Wulfram
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 04:45 AM
How does prosecuting drug abusers cause misery?

I have never heard you once say "Lets go for the big guys". Instead you obsess over taking out the little guys. Think of all the money and time wasted if we use your plan to cull the drug users from the herd. Killing the small time user would be just as wasteful as stuffing the already overcrowded prisons with them.

If you kill one abuser then he will only be replaced by three more, since that is exactly how fast drug abuse is increasing. If you want to stop the problem you must go for the source. This very same source, the drug lords, became rich and powerful PRECISELY because drugs are illegal. The same thing made the mafia rich and powerful during the prohibition era.

Žoreišar
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 04:45 AM
How does prosecuting drug abusers cause misery?By incarceration and economical punishment of peaceful, well-behaving people.

Gray
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 05:03 AM
Well, one could turn the question around, and ask; How will we ever win people over to our side if we constantly try to decide how they should live their own lives?

That doesn't mean we Nationalists shouldn't walk in front as the great examples we are (;)), but to give our fellow Nationals (both Nationalists and otherwise) some breathing-space and enough respect to let them decide for themselves what they want to put into their own bodies.

This totalitarian attitude among Nationalist circles is the least appealing quality of our movement to the masses. It's kind of like telling a child not to scratch his wounds... The more you keep telling them, the more defiant
they will grow, and the more they will want to do the exact opposite of what you tell them.

I just want to make sure everyone reads this post. What he is saying is exactly right. The kind of irrational, hateful, condescending anti-drug attitude some people have expressed here is disgusting ("give them the death sentence").

If drug use (however minimal) were punishable by death, most of my family would be dead. The way you speak with such pretentious authority on drug-
users is detestable to me. At the least, make the attempt to understand these substances and why people turn to them.


Edit: I didn't mean to sound so harsh in my original post. It's just that it is very difficult not to take some of the sentiment here as personally insulting.

Schopenhauer
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 05:34 AM
By incarceration and economical punishment of peaceful, well-behaving people.

What are you talking about?


I for one, don't understand why such people would be any less valuable as Nationalists than any other people.

You don't understand why a drug abuser wouldn't be "valuable" to a Nationalistic movement? Seriously?

Gray
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 06:02 AM
You don't understand why a drug abuser wouldn't be "valuable" to a Nationalistic movement? Seriously?

You keep assuming that all drug-users are useless louts, when that is not at all the case. My friend's medical degree is testament to that.

Schopenhauer
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 06:17 AM
You keep assuming that all drug-users are useless louts, when that is not at all the case. My friend's medical degree is testament to that.

Drugs do serve one useful purpose, they separate the wheat from the chaff.

Elessar
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 06:30 AM
It is not a matter of experience, but rather one of common sense.
Common sense isn't exactly common sense. In this subjects case, common sense derives from "Reefer madness", a sheep-like impulse to that which is taboo. This naive aversion with such voracity as is displayed so wholeheartedly and which divides Skadi Forum so is quite interesting. Just goes to show how far Racial Altruism really goes. In this, there is no sense, only nonsensical sentimentality.


I want nothing to do with them, however, and would prefer a law-abiding Negro family as neighbours over the most Halstatt of Nordics who smoke weed.
Race traitor :P



I do not have to tour Somalia to know it is a shit country. ;)
Terrible comeback, and might I say quite the Red Herring. We all know how shitty Somalia is, that is without a doubt, yet there are those who know how great smoking a joint can be.
You haven't a modicum of insight as to the world Cannabis endows.
There's a reason not a soul books a trip to Mogadishu, yet Amsterdam is a sort of Mecca. Hmm...


The use of drugs in other cultures does not mandate or justify the same in another community, that is just an excuse.
Name one culture where the use of intoxicants were never used, in any way shape or form.
I know one, the Islamic world.
People are going to smoke, drink, what have you no matter what. This you cannot stop. Nobody care how much of a hissy fit you have over it.

Here's some food for thought, lulz
http://www.cannabisculture.com/backissues/cc11/christ.html


The final point sums up the issue, by the way. You, and other marijuana legality advocates, are not able to come up with a coherent argument,
The argument is...there is no argument. Marijuana is about as harmful as getting drunk and smoking cigarettes, definitely not as harmful as some prescription drugs (have you ever heard the list of side effects during their commercials?), something which is exercised on a daily basis by Germanics everywhere. Thus, the whole argument over detriment is null.


so the name-calling starts (retard, etc.).
And I maintain that fact. It would only be a detractor if you didn't deserve it



Basically, you and your type simply want it legalised so you can obtain and smoke the drug of your choice easily and without fear of legal consequences.
I want it legalized because there is no logical reason to outlaw it. No wait, it's because I'm a strung-out cretin who needs his next fix :oanieyes
Carcinogens, mental health (which largely, if not only, depends on the mental health of the user), and criminality are absolutely nothing special in the face of legal drugs: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Pharmaceutical drugs.
The crime it brings is inexorably connected to its illegality, as has already been gone over in past replies.


Proper English boys know drugs and drug users have no place in England. :)
Proper? You give me an example of proper by showing a Neo-Nazi band who's grandfathers died fighting against the ideology they have a hard-on for? Some loyalist you are.

Huginn ok Muninn
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 06:34 AM
Au contraire. Prosecuting dopers is good for the economy. Think about it, if drugs weren't illegal you wouldn't need to employ cops, judges, court officers, and correctional facility workers. You de-criminalize drugs and you put these people out of work.

Personally, I'd much rather see the death sentence imposed on dopers, but, if locking them up keeps good people employed and the criminal justice system busy, then I don't mind keeping the present system in place.

Make someone a jailer and you corrupt his soul. These are not the kind of jobs you want proliferating in the economy. Besides, you are talking about big government. If you are going to ruin someone's life anyway, why punish the taxpayer with his maintenance by locking him up for 30 years? It's an abomination that the cost to house a prisoner for a year exceeds most people's yearly income. Put a bullet in the real hopeless cases and be done with it.

Ęlfrun
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 07:18 AM
I really think that we need to look at modern society and the misconception about what is a drug and what is not.

For instance, cannabis is considered to be a drug, but it is also a healing herb. It can reduce inflammation, and provide other benefits. My uncle has crohn's disease. He is allowed to grow cannabis for medicinal purposes because it takes his pain away.
I know that it may seem unrealistic when I proclaim that cannabis medicinal, but here is a website that promotes the healing properties, including cancer prevention.
http://phoenixtears.ca/
Therefore, I believe that it should be legalized as a medicine, not abused
by uneducated losers.

Alcohol, on the other hand is extremely dangerous. There happens to be more deaths and accidents per year due to careless alcohol consumption.

It destroys families and relationships, puts people into debt, kills innocent people, promotes abuse and importantly, creates disabilities in our children such as FASD.

I am not implying that alcohol is bad, or that is should be outlawed. However, the North American concept of drinking is completely different and more dangerous than the European concept of drinking.

Other drugs including, but not limited to cocaine, heroine, crystal meth, LSD, acid and ecstasy should be illegal as they stand. As a social worker and from personal experiences, I have seen drugs destroy people and their families.

Patrioten
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 10:23 AM
Well, one could turn the question around, and ask; How will we ever win people over to our side if we constantly try to decide how they should live their own lives?

That doesn't mean we Nationalists shouldn't walk in front as the great examples we are (;)), but to give our fellow Nationals (both Nationalists and otherwise) some breathing-space and enough respect to let them decide for themselves what they want to put into their own bodies.

This totalitarian attitude among Nationalist circles is the least appealing quality of our movement to the masses. It's kind of like telling a child not to scratch his wounds... The more you keep telling them, the more defiant they will grow, and the more they will want to do the exact opposite of what you tell them.Life style-liberalism for deviants is not a winning position beyond the deviants themselves. The minority which uses narcotics and want them legalized (not just try them once or twice) is not an important constituency. It may be that we will see a shift over time as younger generations grow up having increasingly liberal opinions, but such individuals aren't going to be interested in the concept of ethnic preservation either. The rights-thinking and individuality that underlines such a movement will not be favorable to our ideas. The same logic that makes people tolerate drug use by others is the same logic which makes people tolerate foreigners, race mixing and other things which "do not concern me as an individual". We shouldn't compete with such reasoning, it's not a competition which we can win.

SpearBrave
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 10:55 AM
I have never heard you once say "Lets go for the big guys". Instead you obsess over taking out the little guys. Think of all the money and time wasted if we use your plan to cull the drug users from the herd. Killing the small time user would be just as wasteful as stuffing the already overcrowded prisons with them.

If you kill one abuser then he will only be replaced by three more, since that is exactly how fast drug abuse is increasing. If you want to stop the problem you must go for the source. This very same source, the drug lords, became rich and powerful PRECISELY because drugs are illegal. The same thing made the mafia rich and powerful during the prohibition era.

This is a good point.

One way to cull illegal drug use is require a drug screen on all welfare or government assistance recipients. Many employers require this of there workers who pay taxes to support these programs why not have the recipients take a drug screen to.

The urban ghettos is where both welfare and drug abuse is over the top, screen the welfare people and the program would pay for itself in the long run.

Kinda makes you mad when you think about how your tax dollars are basically going to support the illegal drug trade in a round about way. Just think of all those negroes waiting for their welfare checks so they can be lazy and sit around smoking crack or whatever while we pay for it.

Basically until we have harsh welfare reform our governments are the biggest problem. If we screen the welfare people, it would stem the flow of money to the drug dealers. When I say screen them I mean all people living it the house even the kids.

Patrioten
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 12:11 PM
It's an abomination that the cost to house a prisoner for a year exceeds most people's yearly income. Put a bullet in the real hopeless cases and be done with it.The costs seem to vary widely though. This report was pretty interesting, it's from 2001 but as far as costs per inmate goes it is informative.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/spe01.pdf

The cost per inmate differs from a high of 44 000 dollars per year in Maine to 8,128 dollars per year in Alabama.

In Sweden the cost per inmate per year amounts to some 140 000 dollars with today's exchange rate. With the exchange rate we had 10 years ago visavi the dollar it would still be 100 000 dollars per inmate per year. This is quite simply an outrageous sum of money to be paying for the absolute dreg of society, but the lesson here seems to be if you're going to build and operate prisons, and keep down costs, don't allow liberals or socialists to be in charge of the planning stage.

Žoreišar
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 12:36 PM
What are you talking about?Well-behaving, honest citizens who get arrested from smoking a joint in their own home and have to spend decades of their life, working to pay back their fines for doing so, or end up in jail for not being able to pay up. For example.


You don't understand why a drug abuser wouldn't be "valuable" to a Nationalistic movement? Seriously?Someone relaxing with a small joint every now and then? No. Crackheads, speed freaks and heroin junkies are of course another story.

Schopenhauer
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 01:15 PM
Make someone a jailer and you corrupt his soul.
And just how did you arrive at this conclusion? Also, you seem to grossly underestimate the moral fibre of our correctional facility officers.


These are not the kind of jobs you want proliferating in the economy.Why not? It's honest work for those who can hack it.


Besides, you are talking about big government. If you are going to ruin someone's life anyway, why punish the taxpayer with his maintenance by locking him up for 30 years?Well you're only talking about "big government" if you land yourself in a federal prison.

Also, people ruin their own lives by breaking the law and taking illegal drugs. So nobody is ruining their lives but themselves.


It's an abomination that the cost to house a prisoner for a year exceeds most people's yearly income. Put a bullet in the real hopeless cases and be done with it.Personally, I'd rather get some use out of them. That's why instead of applying the death penalty, dopers should be handed over to the appropriate scientific facilities and made into medical test subjects. Why force animals to endure the horrors of medical testing when we already have a ready supply of convicted felons to use instead.


Well-behaving, honest citizens who get arrested from smoking a joint in their own home and have to spend decades of their life, working to pay back their fines for doing so, or end up in jail for not being able to pay up. For example.
Well behaving, honest citizens don't commit crimes.

Also, whether the crime is committed in the privacy of one's own home is irrelevant. A crime is still a crime whether it's committed on some street corner or in one's own living room.


Someone relaxing with a small joint every now and then? No. Crackheads, speed freaks and heroin junkies are of course another story.If you abuse drugs you are worthless. This is especially true of potheads.

Remember, the purpose of drug laws is the help a society weed out its most useless/worthless elements. By making stupidity, in this case drug abuse, illegal, you are then able to identify those negative and counter-productive elements. Once identified, they can then be cleansed and punished properly.

Really, strict drug laws only have a society's best interests at heart.

Scario
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 04:35 PM
One thing that we all need to remember, it is illegal to possess Illegal Drugs, key word being Illegal. Its against the law. This is what irritates me in this country. We have ILLEGAL immigrants coming everyday, but our government allows it and wants to give them amnesty. When did breaking the law become ok to do? As I stated before, I don't care if you toke or not. Keep it away from me and mine and we'll be ok. We should be after the growers, the dealers, etc. But this country gives some dealers a slap on the hand if they turn in someone higher up. Do they really believe the dealer they just released will turn their life around and become an upstanding citizen? This world has gone upside down thinking that ILLEGAL doesn't mean bad anymore. If we allow ILLEGAL to be ok, then release everyone from the jails. If you want it to change, then fight in the courts, elect someone who will change what you want, but until then, it is still ILLEGAL. And because it is, deport the immigrants, lock up the tokers, the dealers, the growers, etc. If your statistics prove what you are backing to be true and just, then why is it still ILLEGAL? If you have most the population backing you, then get laws passed. Here in Oregon, they have the medical Mary Jane cards. Its the law and I'm ok with it. But that's as far as my approval goes for its use.

Schopenhauer
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 05:40 PM
@Grayscouts: The aim of the cultural Marxist is to destroy America by undermining the traditional values of Anglo-Saxon culture.

Now Anglo-Saxon law is, admittedly, one of the world's greatest cultural achievements. It is also the single greatest obstacle in the cultural Marxist's path towards the destruction of traditional Anglo-Saxon culture. But, if this cultural bullwark were to be removed, then nothing would stand in the way of the cultural Marxists.

Now the cultural Marxists are aware that they can't "win", i.e. destroy America and Europe in an outright frontal assault, so they, instead, they try to undermine Anglo-Saxon culture by slowly and insidiously poisoning it from within. This is accomplished by first flooding their target countries with crime prone foreign nationals so as to politically marginalize the White majority. Now once this process has been initiated, the cultural Marxists move on to the next phase of their plan, and that is the actual physical destruction of Whites. And what is the best way to accomplish this? Well to have Whites destroy themselves, of course. And what's the best way to destroy Whites? With drugs! Once Whites begin to lose their hereditary distaste for illegal narcotics, the "ni**erification" of Whites can begin in earnest.

And that, my friends, is why the cultural Marxists want you to think that "recreational" drug use isn't such a bad thing. Why they will tell you pot is "harmless" and that it's "kewl." They want you nice and stoned so you don't have the mental wherewithal to notice what they're up to. Remember, every White man or woman who abuse drugs are active participants in the destruction of Anglo-Saxon culture. And as such, they are not only criminals but the enemy of everyone of you who works to keep your Anglo-Saxon heritage alive for the coming generation.

Gardisten
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 05:56 PM
So is this the same Schopenauer that believes any talk about the role of Jews in Freemasonry is "conspiracy theory"?

Thorolf
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 06:15 PM
They want you nice and stoned so you don't have the mental wherewithal to notice what they're up to. Remember, every White man or woman who abuse drugs are active participants in the destruction of Anglo-Saxon culture. And as such, they are not only criminals but the enemy of everyone of you who works to keep your Anglo-Saxon heritage alive for the coming generation.

Even stoned I have the mental wherewithal to notice what the governments up to. You really have no understanding of what your arguing about. I'm not telling you to try it, because I see it as respectable that you have never smoked. Though I find some of your arguments a bit silly because they are way off the mark. The majority of drugs are definitely destroying our culture, but the lesser ones really don't.

Forgotten
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 06:30 PM
I think basic drugs like marijuana and maybe cocaine should be legalised. We waste billions on a senseless war on drugs (a market where marijuana dominates more than 50% of the drug trade) when we could legalise it, tax it and take the money out of the drug cartels and into our government's wallet. That extra revenue can be used to maintain and open new schools, hell, even better education on the dangers of drug abuse. The possibilities are limitless.

Žoreišar
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 08:07 PM
Well behaving, honest citizens don't commit crimes.Sure we do. Ever heard of 'Holocaust-denial laws', or "anti-racism" laws?

I was hoping any member of this forum were aware and freely thinking enough to be able to make up their own moral views, instead of mindlessly adhearing to what the State tells them is right and wrong.


If you abuse drugs you are worthless. This is especially true of potheads.I for one, can think of hundreds of more important criterias of what makes a good charachter, than whether or not the person in question enjoys a spliff once in a while.


Really, strict drug laws only have a society's best interests at heart.I'm sure they do. It's just too bad they keep failing.

Schopenhauer
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 08:36 PM
Even stoned I have the mental wherewithal to notice what the governments up to. You really have no understanding of what your arguing about. I'm not telling you to try it, because I see it as respectable that you have never smoked. Though I find some of your arguments a bit silly because they are way off the mark. The majority of drugs are definitely destroying our culture, but the lesser ones really don't.

If you get stoned you should be stoned, Old Testament style.


I think basic drugs like marijuana and maybe cocaine should be legalised. We waste billions on a senseless war on drugs (a market where marijuana dominates more than 50% of the drug trade) when we could legalise it, tax it and take the money out of the drug cartels and into our government's wallet. That extra revenue can be used to maintain and open new schools, hell, even better education on the dangers of drug abuse. The possibilities are limitless.

Senseless war on drugs?!? Hardly, cultural Marxists are doing their damnedest to keep the war on drugs from being fought in the first place.

Drug abuse is a crime, just like murder, robbery and rape. Yet we're supposed to look the other when "recreational" drug abusers just want to get high on the weekends. Well I got news for those recreational drug abusers, you're nothing but criminal lowlifes. In reality, no better than some knuckle-dragging ghetto crackhead or crackwhore.

It will be when the White race finally purges itself of its more useless elements that it will finally get itself back on course and able to finally win the fight against cultural Marxism.

Auricomous
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 08:43 PM
I think that plants that grow straight out of the ground and are used as they are (without being processed through a chemistry lab or pharmacologically manufactured) should be legal. Particularly because most of these types of plants have large spiritual significance for many people. This is because everyone owns their own life, including plants, and they as we exist strictly due to life's longing for itself. No living being should be made illegal, and no one who owns thier own life can be told what to do with the natural world around them or their own bodies.

Drugs like alcohol, processed tobacco, heroin, meth, so on and so forth, should remain illegal as they have no spiritual significance in their use and are detrimentally unhealthy both physically and socially.

Schopenhauer
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 08:46 PM
Sure we do. Ever heard of 'Holocaust-denial laws', or "anti-racism" laws?
The same people that promote those kind of thought crime laws are the very same ones that want to destroy Occidental society with drugs. When you take up the drug legalization cause you further the cause of Occidental cultural destruction.


I was hoping any member of this forum were aware and freely thinking enough to be able to make up their own moral views, instead of mindlessly adhearing to what the State tells them is right and wrong. Sounds like Jane Fonda is back in town.

Anyways a free mind is not one poisoned by drugs.



I for one, can think of hundreds of more important criterias of what makes a good character, than whether or not the person in question enjoys a spliff once in a while.Again, drug abuse is a crime. Those that commit that crime are criminals. Criminals, by definition, are not people of good character.


No living being should be made illegal, and no one who owns thier own life can be told what to do with the natural world around them or their own bodies.Want to bet? Try not paying your taxes or avoiding conscription, then see how free you are. :thumbup


Drugs like alcohol, processed tobacco, heroin, meth, so on and so forth, should remain illegal as they have no spiritual significance in their use and are detrimentally unhealthy both physically and socially.Actually fermentation is a naturally occurring process.

As for the spiritual significance of narcotics, there are none, unless of course, if you're a RHP practitioner looking to destroy their ego.

Neophyte
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 09:00 PM
I am not implying that alcohol is bad, or that is should be outlawed. However, the North American concept of drinking is completely different and more dangerous than the European concept of drinking.

Which European concept? The Nordic of "let's see how much we can drink before we forget our names this midsummer's eve" or the more Continental habit of renaming in a constant state of mild marination? :P

Gardisten
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 09:45 PM
This coming from a self-professed LHP occultist. :-O


If you get stoned you should be stoned, Old Testament style.

Personally I find your hard-line stance on this issue a little suspect, almost to the point of coming across as a DCL.

Nagelfar
Sunday, August 7th, 2011, 07:04 AM
I've been on both sides. I was completely opposed to 'altered states' (still am, for the most part) without recourse to environment.

At 25 and a half I started straight into hard drugs because I pretty much gave up, and it was an alternative to suicide. Cocaine, IV'ing cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine. I was a daily heroin user for three years, didn't really start up with shooting meth until I was homeless two years later. Would shoot pharmaceutical oxycodone, dilaudid etc., black tar & china white heroin.

Out of the people that use, many fit the stereotype and many do not.

I still do not smoke, nicotine or cannabis, or drink alcohol. (carcinogenic, shrinks the hippocampus, heavy liver damage for a prolonged active dose, etc.)

Out of the drugs I used the only one I will say was truly damaging was methamphetamine (neurotoxic, phosphorates your dopamine transporters) and I had gone into amphetamine psychosis for an extended duration. True psychosis: it was an interesting experience to say the least.

Heroin, like all opioids, is actually benign, has no organ toxicities, and the only active metabolite of heroin itself has been shown to actually be created by the human brain in trace amounts (6-acetyl-morphine) so it's actually "natural". Anyway, heroin is basically vinegar with poppy extract.

Cocaine, though it is cardiotoxic from being a sodium channel blocker, is actually neuroprotective; long term users have lessened instances of alzheimer's disease in old age, and drugs modeled on cocaine are used for alzheimer's treatments. (unlike methamphetamine, which is neurotoxic and has 'increased' instances of alzheimer's in life time users)

The most highly addictive drugs are the most 'sober' feeling. Cocaine & heroin are by far more clear headed in their "highs" than marijuana, alcohol, benzodiazapines, psychedelics. They just selectively better (cocaine) or remove the negative (heroin) of certain mood centers of the brain without any unwanted side effects, and are way more effective than anti-depressants (which are altered to not be 'abusable', when all "abusable" is, is effectiveness. Addiction is not a separate process from useful in mode of action)

I also had the distinguished privilege of meeting life long heroin and meth users who were in their mid-70s, have been using IV for over 50 years, and are still in good physical shape. It's mostly the lifestyle that drags people down, because such drugs are incredibly addictive (read: functional, useful, and difficult to get away from when you find what "works"). Studies have shown methadone gives a worse quality of life than prescribed lab grade heroin. (methadone is additionally an NMDA antagonist like PCP/Ketamine, and is heptatotoxic unlike heroin). The 1980s scares in U.S. drug "education" about "crack babies" have been proven to be entirely unfounded (the low birth weight has again and again been attributed to co-administration of tobacco products. It was cigarette use that caused "crack babies" and not cocaine, because most crack smokers also had nicotine addictions)

Heroin being illegal however, with oxycodone, hydrocodone, morphine, codeine, kratom etc., being legal is nonsensical. It has the exact same mode of action as a mu-receptor agonist, and is simply social perception & politics that makes it conceived as different or worse.

That said, whether drug use is legalized or not, drug use will continue. Ironically the worst drugs for you are already legal.

celticviking
Wednesday, December 14th, 2011, 02:14 AM
Switzerland Legalizing Small Scale Marijuana Cultivation Beginning ...‎

THE Weed Blog (blog) - 17 Nov 2011
Citizens of Switzerland will soon be allowed to grow up to four marijuana plants each at home, according to government

http://www.theweedblog.com/switzerland-legalizing-small-scale-marijuana-cultivation-beginning-january-1st/

Guinevere
Wednesday, December 14th, 2011, 03:24 AM
I picked 'some drugs should be legalized, others not' . I don't really have a lot of experience with illegal drugs, lol, so my opinion isn't exactly one of an experts.. I'd say that marijuana could be an exception only IF the same rules applied to it, as they do for alcohol when it comes to driving. I think that people who choose to use it should stay in their homes where their actions can not harm others.

Fredericus Rex
Wednesday, December 14th, 2011, 04:05 AM
At the least marijuana should be legalized-its less harmful then tobacco.

Bombastus
Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 07:55 AM
It would be silly not to allow warriors, aristocrats and mystics to injure themselves and pursue illumination through drug use, if they so choose. It would be equally silly to allow peasants to do these things.