View Poll Results: Should drugs be legalized?

Voters
154. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, all drugs should be legalized.

    44 28.57%
  • Yes, some drugs should be legalized, others not. (Which?)

    60 38.96%
  • No, drugs should keep their illegal status.

    50 32.47%
Page 6 of 24 FirstFirst ... 23456789101116 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 231

Thread: Should Drugs Be Legalized?

  1. #51
    Senior Member Cuchulain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 23rd, 2010 @ 12:38 AM
    Ethnicity
    Hiberno-Norman
    Subrace
    UP/Atlanto Med
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Illinois Illinois
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    B-School, Demolition
    Politics
    I do what I can
    Posts
    601
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Freydis View Post
    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.

  2. #52
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Dagna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Northern German, Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Norway
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Politics
    Classic Liberalism
    Religion
    Agnosticism
    Posts
    2,098
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    80
    Thanked in
    49 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Freydis View Post
    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.



    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.

  3. #53
    Senior Member Freydis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 2nd, 2009 @ 12:03 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    with catoid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Lancashire Lancashire
    Location
    Nowhere
    Gender
    Age
    30
    Family
    Not in the mood
    Occupation
    I've got projects ;P
    Politics
    ineffable
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    1,414
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dagna View Post
    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?
    People turn to poison as quick as lager turns to piss

  4. #54
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Dagna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Northern German, Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Norway
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Politics
    Classic Liberalism
    Religion
    Agnosticism
    Posts
    2,098
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    80
    Thanked in
    49 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Freydis View Post
    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.
    [QUOTE]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.
    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.

  5. #55
    Senior Member sophia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 28th, 2008 @ 04:31 PM
    Age
    33
    Posts
    334
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    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.
    A* I’m a dreadful reactionary, Mrs. Helena. I don’t like this progress one bit.
    H* Like Nana.
    A* Yes, like Nana. Does Nana have a prayer book?
    H* A big fat one.
    A* And are there prayers in it for various occurrences in life? Against storms? Against illness?
    H* Against temptation, against floods -
    A* But not against progress, I suppose?
    H* > I think not.
    A* That’s a shame.

  6. #56
    Moderator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Sigurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    2 Weeks Ago @ 08:14 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Bavarii, Saxones, Suebi, Alamanni
    Subrace
    Borreby + Atlantonordoid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Location
    Einöde in den Alpen
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Engaged
    Politics
    Tradition & Homeland
    Religion
    Odinist
    Posts
    9,110
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    73
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    219
    Thanked in
    128 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dagna View Post
    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.

  7. #57
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 28th, 2008 @ 08:44 PM
    Ethnicity
    British
    Subrace
    sub-nordic
    Country
    England England
    Location
    London - Just Around
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Family
    Single
    Politics
    National Anarchist
    Religion
    Hatha Yoga
    Posts
    896
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    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.

  8. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Tuesday, May 6th, 2008 @ 07:33 PM
    Gender
    Age
    68
    Posts
    243
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    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.

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, April 26th, 2010 @ 05:05 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    646
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    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.

  10. #60
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, July 25th, 2011 @ 10:42 PM
    Age
    37
    Posts
    107
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis_in_Arduis View Post
    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".

Page 6 of 24 FirstFirst ... 23456789101116 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Prescription Drugs Kill 300% More Americans Than Illegal Drugs
    By Ulf in forum Health, Fitness & Nutrition
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Wednesday, December 16th, 2009, 11:56 PM
  2. Drugs and Propaganda
    By exit in forum Health, Fitness & Nutrition
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: Wednesday, February 25th, 2009, 04:20 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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