Subject:
|
Re: Should recreational drugs be illegal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 7 Feb 2002 00:35:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
323 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
>
> > Maybe you're right, Chris. I just can't get past seeing a friend's family
> > breaking up because they were always arguing about money, when they had a
> > combined tobacco habit of about $200/w.
>
> Wow! How much do cigarettes cost? Isn't that like what it would cost to have
> three lit simultaneously, 24 hours per day? I suspect that they had deeper
> problems of which smoking and arguing were merely symptoms. It is a shame to
> see any family torn apart, but I would be hard pressed to rule that tobacco • was
> the culprit.
Thats AU$. At $7 a pack, that's about 2 packs a day each, though he was smoking
more than she was. Not hard for chain smokers. Tobacco is addictive. If you
become addicted it's hard to stop even when you have no (other) need for it.
Especially when the person you're sharing a house with also smokes.
And you also get in the rut where, when the price of cigs goes up, you cut back
on something else (and complain a lot), then when you get a pay-rise, you buy
more cigs. Not uncommon.
> > So I guess what really bugs me about most recreational drugs is I've never
> > seen them have a positive affect on families.
>
> I think I could break the effects of alcohol down into both positive and
> negative effects. I am pretty sure that I have succesfully used alcohol in
> fairly small doses to take the edge off of a stressful day when I come home
> from work, thus making myself more pleasant for my family. I have also seen
> people use too much and get in the way of their family participation.
>
> But even if you're right, I don't think that "positive family effects" should
> be the criterion for whether a thing is legal.
Maybe not. I just can't help thinking anything that reduces overall consumption
(which I think prohibition probably does, but I may be wrong) reduces the "bad"
effects on society (which cost extra money to fix) as well as any "good"
effects. But maybe there's other ways to reduce consumption than prohibition.
Education's a start, but is it enough?
> > I guess that doesn't mean they
> > never do, though. But happy families seem to be pretty rare these days, and
> > you have to wonder if that's a significant factor in the increasing violence
> > (including terrorism).
>
> How do you define happy families? They don't seem rare to me. I mean, I seem
> to be surrounded by them.
Maybe I live in the wrong neighbourhood.
> > Should cocaine (etc) be legalised? I really can't see it making much
> > difference. Maybe the drug lords will make less money for a while, but is it
> > worth it if the drugs do nothing positive anyway?
>
> What I see is that prohibition isn't doing anything good and is doing plenty
> bad. (e.g. corrupting cops, taking law enforcement away from helping people,
> making drug lords rich, causing addicts to become criminals, etc.) So why • have
> it?
I don't see it that clear-cut. I do see some good from prohibition (see above)
but whether that's enough is obviously debatable.
> > Note that I'm speaking as someone who's experience of recreational drugs is
> > limited to caffeine, alcohol & grass (which I haven't used for >10 years).
> > They all make you feel good for a short while, but I'm convinced they all
> > have bad long-term effects. As you say, that doesn't mean they should be
> > illegal though.
>
> I think that each of those chemicals has bad long (and short) term effects • when
> used to excess.
Even water is toxic in large quantities. You'd most likely drown first, though
8?)
> Medicine pretty much says that alchol in fair moderation is
> better to have than to be without. Why assume the opposite for marijuana,
> caffeine, or even cocaine?
My sister has at least 1 bong every day. I can't say with any authority what
effect(s) it may have had on her health, or whether it's had any direct
deterimental effect on her family life (she's divorced with a daughter). But I
know she's not happy, and I've told her many times "if you want to change your
life, it's illogical to keep doing all the same things". One thing she could
easily change is not smoking (she smokes tobacco too), but she's not prepared
to give it up.
Again, this doesn't make an argument for prohibition, it just highlights to me
another negative effect of addiction to drugs.
> Heavy pot smokers run the risk of damaging their lungs, so why not take THC
> orally?
Because of it's deterimental effect on short-term memory?
> Caffeine -- and even amphetamines, have a valid role as temporary
> stimulants. My mom attributes her success in college (with a job and little
> boy) to her addiction to speed for a semester.
Never used speed, but I probably would've found studying for my uni exams more
difficult without caffeine.
> Something else that just occurred to me is that we might see more benefits • from
> these substances if we took a more rational view of them as potential tools.
Like the stupid hoops we have to jump through to grow hemp for clothing etc.
> Instead of teaching our kids lies and ignorance about drugs, why not teach • when
> and when not to use them for certain effects and teach safety too? Then we'd
> be more likely to see how their use could produce benefit.
We definitely shouldn't teach kids "Drugs are illegal, so don't use them or you
could go to gaol". That's entirely the wrong approach to education. Same as
drink-driving - those ads on TV that say "we've increased random breath tests,
you're more likely to get caught" are sending exactly the wrong message.
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
37 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
