Should pot be legal? Yes or no. - Page 14 - Political Forum

Eilish · 02-23-2008, 01:03 AM

RE:
'That's anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of government, it is individuals "governing" themselves without any central consistent consequences.'

Yes i stand corrected. My last response did not make sense.

RE: 'A government is created so that the rights of the people may be enforced, but a government cannot hold its authority and therefore loses its ability to enforce the rights of the people when the people continue to demand what they claim to be "individual rights" when really those "individual rights" are simply anarchical and selfish in nature and those "rights"--in this case the idea of the "right to smoke marijuana"--actually create an unpleasant, unstable and sometimes even dangerous scenario...'

OK... but what i was inadequately trying to say is the Western govts whilst seeking to portray the upholding of a standard for best outcomes for the greater population is essentially blatant hypocrisy. People will always use drugs irrespective of legislation or incarceration risk. I don't think anyone would deny there is worldwide corruption re drug manufacturing, distribution etcera furthered through govt. channels & collusion. Drugs are big bucks even marijuana. My argument is the hypocrisy lies in why ppl are treated as criminals for smoking marijuana whilst the factors often underpinning entrenched drug usage (ie) poverty and so forth are not addressed. I would also so argue there is a degree of genoicidal intent by governments. Incarceration rates for drug offenders will always show you the jails overflow with non-white, the oppressed and so forth. Hence my conviction for legalising marijuana is primarily due to it automatically removing corrupt profits, stigma of users, entrenched fallacies it is a heinous crime and so forth. By coupling legalisation with harm minimization strategies BINGO problem solved.

In some countries it is legal as you would know. There is more hysteria anti it in the States than in Europe or even Australia (anecdotal relay) I ideally should add stats/research sites here but run out of time.

Eilish · 02-23-2008, 01:10 AM

A harm minimisation approach accepts that:
Drug use will continue to be part of society
The eradication of drug use is impossible
Continued attempts at eradication may well result in increasing harm to society.
Harm minimisation aims to identify the harms to individuals and society and implement strategies to minimise these harms. Strategies can be categorised as:
Supply reduction
Demand reduction
environmental responses that aim to assist people using drugs to do so in the safest possible manner

Harm Minimization

Locke9-05 · 02-23-2008, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eilish

People will always use drugs irrespective of legislation or incarceration risk.

Does that make it right? Does that make it okay? Hardly. Just because people will continue to defy a completely reasonable law doesn't mean that lawmakers should roll over and overturn said law for those petty criminals who don't seem to understand the logic of how a society is intended to function.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eilish

I don't think anyone would deny there is worldwide corruption re drug manufacturing, distribution etcera furthered through govt. channels & collusion. Drugs are big bucks even marijuana. My argument is the hypocrisy lies in why ppl are treated as criminals for smoking marijuana whilst the factors often underpinning entrenched drug usage (ie) poverty and so forth are not addressed. I would also so argue there is a degree of genoicidal intent by governments. Incarceration rates for drug offenders will always show you the jails overflow with non-white, the oppressed and so forth. Hence my conviction for legalising marijuana is primarily due to it automatically removing corrupt profits, stigma of users, entrenched fallacies it is a heinous crime and so forth. By coupling legalisation with harm minimization strategies BINGO problem solved.

What you're doing here is undermining the real problem. There are no external factors besides choice. I grew up in a poor neighborhood with a lot of drug activity and I stayed clean. You make suggestive inquiries that seem to present themselves in a manner such as "why do drug users get locked up for such a small thing?" Who defines it as a small thing? So who's to say this is a "small issue?" Society doesn't. Society defines it as a fairly large issue--an issue that ultimately needs to be resolved. The ironic thing here is that the "desire" or "craving" to use the drugs is what's not the big issue. People don't need recreational drugs for any aspect of natural human life, it's not a requirement, and it's certainly not a right.

What recreational drugs do at best is complicate the lives of those around the user, creating unpleasant, unstable, and sometimes unsafe environments in which the user and those around the user are to be subjected by the selfish choice of an individual. Because of this, marijuana is deemed unnecessarily risky and pointless and is discouraged via legal action, just like other "activities" like it--speeding for instance. It's all about choice, and nothing more--that's the only factor involved here. Who puts the drug users behind bars? They do. Society makes laws for the collective populace to benefit the collective populace so that society and the government can retain the authority it needs to preserve and enforce the rights of the people. When people continue to demand things like "marijuana" as "rights," they undermine true rights and suggest nothing more than principles of anarchical indulgence--something that leads to nothing but trouble.

Locke9-05 · 02-23-2008, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eilish

A harm minimisation approach accepts that:
Drug use will continue to be part of society
The eradication of drug use is impossible
Continued attempts at eradication may well result in increasing harm to society.
Harm minimisation aims to identify the harms to individuals and society and implement strategies to minimise these harms. Strategies can be categorised as:
Supply reduction
Demand reduction
environmental responses that aim to assist people using drugs to do so in the safest possible manner

Harm Minimization

The harms are being created by the people who continue to break the laws of society, so it's hypocrisy, rather, to bend any way for these individuals who are defying society's reasonable laws--for the good of the collective populace--simply for their own individual anarchical gain and pleasure. Society has no reason to bend to the will of the cause of these problems (the drug users) when they are what's causing the harm in the first place and are then making the argument that "eradication of said cause is 'impossible.'"--an argument which, to reiterate, refers to the cause of the harm to society (the drug users who persist to break the laws) and is therefore nothing but stubborn.

"Harm minimization" is basically drug users and dealers saying "we're not ever going to stop defying your laws [even though the laws are reasonable], so you as a society may as well find some other way to work around this problem."

That's what "harm minimization" is, and it's appalling. There's no way society will or should accept that kind of stubborn crime-acceptance based strategy for this issue. It simply makes no sense.

Eilish · 02-23-2008, 01:28 AM

Feb 2008 Drs back marijuana usage for med. Treatment.

Doctors group backs pot for medical uses - SBS World News Australia

The War on Drugs has failed.

Where is marijuana legal?

Where Is Marijuana Legal? Ask The Old Hippy - Drugs - Hippyland

The following may interest some in regards to The War on Drugs has failed = harm min. harm reduction strategies WORK.

Sydney Australia Medically Supervised Injecting Centre.

Welcome to Sydney MSIC

Locke9-05 · 02-23-2008, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eilish

Feb 2008 Drs back marijuana usage for med. Treatment.

Doctors group backs pot for medical uses - SBS World News Australia

I have nothing wrong with medicinal marijuana as long as it's strictly regulated and used for this purpose. Why? Because it has a productive purpose. Doesn't that make sense? Doesn't that click in terms of logic? Yes. It does. Regulated medicinal marijuana is fine by me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eilish

The War on Drugs has failed.

Where is marijuana legal?

Where Is Marijuana Legal? Ask The Old Hippy - Drugs - Hippyland

The following may interest some in regards to The War on Drugs has failed = harm min. harm reduction strategies WORK.

That's just a whole lot of propaganda and nothing more. If you care to post something unbiased that isn't full of biased pro-drug nonsense, I'll be sure to address it. Otherwise, I'll leave it untouched, as it belongs.

Eilish · 02-23-2008, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

Does that make it right? Does that make it okay? Hardly. Just because people will continue to defy a completely reasonable law doesn't mean that lawmakers should roll over and overturn said law for those petty criminals who don't seem to understand the logic of how a society is intended to function.
What you're doing here is undermining the real problem. There are no external factors besides choice. I grew up in a poor neighborhood with a lot of drug activity and I stayed clean. You make suggestive inquiries that seem to present themselves in a manner such as "why do drug users get locked up for such a small thing?" Who defines it as a small thing? So who's to say this is a "small issue?" Society doesn't. Society defines it as a fairly large issue--an issue that ultimately needs to be resolved. The ironic thing here is that the "desire" or "craving" to use the drugs is what's not the big issue. People don't need recreational drugs for any aspect of natural human life, it's not a requirement, and it's certainly not a right.

What recreational drugs do at best is complicate the lives of those around the user, creating unpleasant, unstable, and sometimes unsafe environments in which the user and those around the user are to be subjected by the selfish choice of an individual. Because of this, marijuana is deemed unnecessarily risky and pointless and is discouraged via legal action, just like other "activities" like it--speeding for instance. It's all about choice, and nothing more--that's the only factor involved here. Who puts the drug users behind bars? They do. Society makes laws for the collective populace to benefit the collective populace so that society and the government can retain the authority it needs to preserve and enforce the rights of the people. When people continue to demand things like "marijuana" as "rights," they undermine true rights and suggest nothing more than principles of anarchical indulgence--something that leads to nothing but trouble.

I respect ur stance & ur personal clarification but you see you had the ability, you made the choice to stay clean & kudos to you. Millions don't though and it is that reality i am trying to portray. Everyone has their journey, history, factors that play primary roles in decisions to use. I agree with lots of what you are saying but then cannot totally agree as the reality of life shows me people will use irrespective. yes it may be deemed weak, selfish, ignoring the collective rights of others in communities and so forth. But it still gonna happen ain't it You know it - I know it - the world knows it. By addressing the factors underpinning entrenched drug usage we see the core issues... corruption, oppression and so forth. By applying harm min & harm reduction & decriminalising of marijuana we apply a bandaid until the deeper issues are addressed.

Eilish · 02-23-2008, 01:41 AM

this is not propoganda or bias Welcome to the 2lst century and a realistic response to drug abuse/usage
The following may interest some in regards to The War on Drugs has failed = harm min. harm reduction strategies WORK.

Sydney Australia Medically Supervised Injecting Centre.

Click below

Welcome to Sydney MSIC

Welcome to Sydney MSIC

I find it unbelievable you reject harm min/harm strat. when your jails overflow... just unbelievable. Anyway enough energy expended by both of us on this. I am totally convinced my stance is right but have read all you had to say and considered it It has only served to convince me what i propose as a realistic response is correct. Whilst my stance is not the whole answer it is an effective response to a burgeoning problem which has not decreased with your responses suggested - criminalising etc

Locke9-05 · 02-23-2008, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eilish

I respect ur stance & ur personal clarification but you see you had the ability, you made the choice to stay clean & kudos to you. Millions don't though and it is that reality i am trying to portray. Everyone has their journey, history, factors that play primary roles in decisions to use. I agree with lots of what you are saying but then cannot totally agree as the reality of life shows me people will use irrespective. yes it may be deemed weak, selfish, ignoring the collective rights of others in communities and so forth. But it still gonna happen ain't it You know it - I know it - the world knows it. By addressing the factors underpinning entrenched drug usage we see the core issues... corruption, oppression and so forth. By applying harm min & harm reduction & decriminalising of marijuana we apply a bandaid until the deeper issues are addressed.

No, no, no, by educating people on how to make their own choices through tough love and consequences... That's how any society works. Society cannot just roll over and allow drug users and dealers to get away with it simply because they use the argument that "it'll never stop." I mean, holy crap, rapists and murderers could use the same argument after awhile. No. Criminals do not get to choose to be criminals and get away with it, just because they'll continue to do it. That's the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard. Society enforces its laws for a reason and you're suggesting amnesty for drug users for a very personal and individualistic idea--so that these people can indulge and use their drugs without consequences... That's anarchical. That's not how society works.

Eilish · 02-23-2008, 01:55 AM

RE No, no, no, by educating people on how to make their own choices through tough love and consequences...

Sounds great but try telling that to the disadvantaged who are already oppressed. What do they learn by being further stigmatized, criminalized, incarcerated. They learn despair, further self hate etc. They implode & self destruct and another generation of entrenched users emerges... Tough love sounds a wee bit too poetic when many drug users have substantial factors against them. lack of education opportunity etc. Tough love - that line makes me puke as it is touted often by middle & upper class types from their lofty towers of power and self righteousness. It sort of has a churchified ring to it a mainstream goodly godly approach which few can attain to when they are already broken I personally am a believer in God but not rhetoric statements.... It conjures up images of these clone like, self righteous types demanding all in society conform rigidly to their standards...
Coming from you and what you shared i have considered the tough love stance but it is just too unrealistic... The linking of rapists and murderers to marijuana usage/legalisation is deflecting from the topic at hand. If marijuana was legalised the dealers would lose out alot because the govt would be regulating its sale (ahaha such irony that govts are viewed as not involved in importing drugs etc. so why not put their face to the selling)

RE 'Society enforces its laws for a reason and you're suggesting amnesty for drug users for a very personal and individualistic idea--so that these people can indulge and use their drugs without consequences... '

As far as i am concerned the bloated on power/drunk on grog corporate pigs who frequent bars etc are the ones who truly personify 'personal and individualistic idea--so that these people can indulge and use their drugs without consequences... ' They do love their cocaine and marijuana those types as well as their booze. Booze, crack, crystal meth are IMO the worst drugs in their impact. Marijuana is a nominal in comparison. Soooooooo

LEGALISE MARIJUANA - STOP THE SOCIETAL & GOVT HYPOCRISY - DEFUSE THE DRAMA AROUND MARIJUANA AND INTRODUCE HARM MIN STRATEGIES.

Anyway therewithin ends my views. If it makes me anarchist whatever... i think i am quite conformist & contained.