• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Are Our Reasons That We Choose Not To Use Illegal Drugs

Why have you decided not to use illegal drugs?

  • Because I hear horror stories about addiction to them

    Votes: 12 23.5%

  • Because I know people personally who have suffered from addiction.

    Votes: 17 33.3%

  • Because I am perfectly happy and serene without them (If it ain't broke...)

    Votes: 26 51.0%

  • Because the consequences of their being illegal make life miserable for addicts

    Votes: 8 15.7%

  • Simply because they are illegal

    Votes: 10 19.6%

  • Other (specify in the thread if you would like)

    Votes: 19 37.3%
  • Total voters
    51
Crack and cocaine are two different drugs. Crack is way worse than cocaine. I said cocaine and not crack for a reason.
Click to expand...

They're two different forms of the same drug.
I've tried crack a few times; I haven't experienced it as being "way worse".
It's similar to the high one gets from injecting coke, but it wears off almost immediately; maybe 30 seconds or a minute (maybe longer; my recollection is that it's a hella short high), followed by a crash.

If it's "way worse", that's merely because it's so cheap that it's easy to get addicted.
 
ludahai said:
I am kind of amused by people who think their lives are so inadequate that they have to enhance them eith drugs (either illegal or legal).

I don't do illegal drugs. I also don't drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. (No, I am NOT Baptist)
Click to expand...

Thats the only way to go! Not to use legal nor illegal drugs..

Best drug I know is to work out my body and mind with exercise. ;)
 
shiznit770 said:
The way I see it, with legality comes commercialization. Will advertising be banned?
Click to expand...

It is with cigarettes for the most part.

Who will produce it?
Click to expand...

Would it matter? If the production is regulated and paid for by the taxes on the final product, who really cares?

The fact is it will quickly become a lucrative practice. Do you think capitalism and commercialization will not come into play if it is legalized?
Click to expand...

Capitalism is already a factor. It's just currently unregulated. The people who make the money are organized crime and gangs.
 
1069 said:
They're two different forms of the same drug.
I've tried crack a few times; I haven't experienced it as being "way worse".
It's similar to the high one gets from injecting coke, but it wears off almost immediately; maybe 30 seconds or a minute (maybe longer; my recollection is that it's a hella short high), followed by a crash.

If it's "way worse", that's merely because it's so cheap that it's easy to get addicted.
Click to expand...

The difference between cocaine and crack is like the difference between coca leaves and cocaine.
I have not tried any btw.
 
So its not the drug that's addicting, its the effect the drug has on the user? That's fine if you wish to clarify. To be honest crime, robbery, and murder are not my reasoning for banning drugs such as Cocaine. It is the adverse effects they have on a person's role in society. Most people who do hard drugs become a burden on society and (i believe) waste their personal worth away on getting "high".
Click to expand...

Individuals are not beholden to some arbitrary conception of a social role. So long as I take responsibility for my actions and refrain from infringing on your rights I am to be left alone. If a person chooses to destroy their life by using a drug it is not for you or anyone else to forcibly compel them to stop, however, if their usage impugns the rights of others then the State has a legitimate interest in managing their behavior.

Do you also believe the government has no obligation to protect the consumer from fraud and producer negligence.
Click to expand...

No. The government has the authority to regulate commerce per the Commerce Clause. However, this does not entail the criminalization of commerce on the basis that it is unwholesome. The only type of commerce the government has the authority to criminalize is any commerce that results in the inherent violation of others' rights; for instance, contract killing.

Would you legalize Cocaine and then have the government oversee its purity to make sure you don't die from a bad dose?
Click to expand...

Yes. The government has a legitimate interest in overseeing the quality of a product both in terms of manufacturing and distribution.
 
ludahai said:
I am kind of amused by people who think their lives are so inadequate that they have to enhance them eith drugs (either illegal or legal).

I don't do illegal drugs. I also don't drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. (No, I am NOT Baptist)
Click to expand...

What makes you think people do those things because they "have to enhance them with drugs"? You could say the same about any pleasure that a person takes in life.

"I am kind of amused by people who think their lives are so inadequate that they have to enhance them by debating politics online"

"I am kind of amused by people who think their lives are so inadequate that they have to enhance them by traveling around the world"

"I am kind of amused by people who think their lives are so inadequate that they have to enhance them by building relationships and making friends"

"I am kind of amused by people who think their lives are so inadequate that they have to enhance them by playing video games"
Click to expand...

Do some people take drugs as an escape? Of course, just like some people overeat, play video games, have affairs, or debate online as escapes from their day to day life.
 
1069 said:
They're two different forms of the same drug.
I've tried crack a few times; I haven't experienced it as being "way worse".
It's similar to the high one gets from injecting coke, but it wears off almost immediately; maybe 30 seconds or a minute (maybe longer; my recollection is that it's a hella short high), followed by a crash.

If it's "way worse", that's merely because it's so cheap that it's easy to get addicted.
Click to expand...

It's also impure so that the high is shorter and cut with some funky stuff sometimes.

It's not exactly the same drug, though. The chemical properties are a bit different.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Thats the only way to go! Not to use legal nor illegal drugs..

Best drug I know is to work out my body and mind with exercise. ;)
Click to expand...

That is what I do. I do a short workout with dumbells in the morning, I commute to work on the bike, run about 20 miles a week and am training for marathons and triathlons. That gives me all the "high" I need.
 
Tucker Case said:
It is with cigarettes for the most part.

Would it matter? If the production is regulated and paid for by the taxes on the final product, who really cares?

Capitalism is already a factor. It's just currently unregulated. The people who make the money are organized crime and gangs.
Click to expand...

I'm confused of what you mean by "regulating" it. Limiting production? Distribution? Cost? Content? When I hear the argument to legalize it I see currently underground operations going public and modernizing their methods to produce as much product as possible. To the point where Cocaine is as cheap as cigarettes. Do you have another vision in mind?
 
Ethereal said:
Individuals are not beholden to some arbitrary conception of a social role. So long as I take responsibility for my actions and refrain from infringing on your rights I am to be left alone. If a person chooses to destroy their life by using a drug it is not for you or anyone else to forcibly compel them to stop, however, if their usage impugns the rights of others then the State has a legitimate interest in managing their behavior.

No. The government has the authority to regulate commerce per the Commerce Clause. However, this does not entail the criminalization of commerce on the basis that it is unwholesome. The only type of commerce the government has the authority to criminalize is any commerce that results in the inherent violation of others' rights; for instance, contract killing.

Yes. The government has a legitimate interest in overseeing the quality of a product both in terms of manufacturing and distribution.
Click to expand...

So the government has a right to criminalize the distribution of Cocaine (to protect consumers from its adverse effects) but not the right prevent you from producing and consuming it for personal purposes. I'd be fine with that.
 
ludahai said:
I am kind of amused by people who think their lives are so inadequate that they have to enhance them eith drugs (either illegal or legal).
Click to expand...

Your naivete towards illegal substances is apparent.
 
shiznit770 said:
Your naivete towards exercise and a good book is apparent. :)
Click to expand...

Not at all! I love reading. I read a book a week. I have found use for both of those things as well as illegal substances. My desire to try illegal substances was not due to a void in my life which needed filling. It was and is purely for philosophical and existential reasons.
 
EgoffTib said:
Not at all! I love reading. I read a book a week. I have found use for both of those things as well as illegal substances. My desire to try illegal substances was not due to a void in my life which needed filling. It was and is purely for philosophical and existential reasons.
Click to expand...

Do you think your circumstances accurately reflect those of the vast majority of illegal drug users?
 
ludahai said:
That is what I do. I do a short workout with dumbells in the morning, I commute to work on the bike, run about 20 miles a week and am training for marathons and triathlons. That gives me all the "high" I need.
Click to expand...

Wow, nice! :applaud

I cant run marathons yet. I smoked for 6 years, quit about 3 years ago. I am almost back at the health I should have been if I never started smoking..

I have promised myself that I am going to attempt and complete a marathon(in the first attempt) before I am 30(5 years).. I still have some way to go.. I frequently run 5kms but have a probably max capacity atm at around 10km. I am quite big, 183cm and 83kg, which will make it even harder for me(marathon)..


Nothing like the feeling after great a workout is there? Capoeira is my favorite.
 
Last edited:
So the government has a right to criminalize the distribution of Cocaine (to protect consumers from its adverse effects) but not the right prevent you from producing and consuming it for personal purposes. I'd be fine with that.
Click to expand...

No. First of all the government does not have rights, only individuals do, second, the government does not have the authority to criminalize the distribution of cocaine on the basis that its consumption may prove hazardous to a user. The government has a legitimate interest in regulating (not criminalizing) its production and distribution but only insofar as it endeavors to assure quality and transparency.

Companies would be held to the same standards of quality and transparency as any other manufacturer of goods and services. Warning labels, quality control, health standards, etc.
 
Ethereal said:
No. First of all the government does not have rights, only individuals do, second, the government does not have the authority to criminalize the distribution of cocaine on the basis that its consumption may prove hazardous to a user. The government has a legitimate interest in regulating (not criminalizing) its production and distribution but only insofar as it endeavors to assure quality and transparency.

Companies would be held to the same standards of quality and transparency as any other manufacturer of goods and services. Warning labels, quality control, health standards, etc.
Click to expand...

I could not have put it better myself. :applaud
 
I could not have put it better myself.
Click to expand...

Erroneous! Erroneous on all counts! You are far more lucid than I...:cool:
 
Ethereal said:
No. First of all the government does not have rights, only individuals do, second, the government does not have the authority to criminalize the distribution of cocaine on the basis that its consumption may prove hazardous to a user. The government has a legitimate interest in regulating (not criminalizing) its production and distribution but only insofar as it endeavors to assure quality and transparency.

Companies would be held to the same standards of quality and transparency as any other manufacturer of goods and services. Warning labels, quality control, health standards, etc.
Click to expand...

I think cigarettes and alcohol should be more strictly regulated, and I think the regulations for Marijuana, hashish, opium, coca leaves, cocaine and so on.. I believe it would be best if all these drugs fell under some kind of separate liberal prescription drug law.
 
Ethereal said:
No. First of all the government does not have rights, only individuals do, second, the government does not have the authority to criminalize the distribution of cocaine on the basis that its consumption may prove hazardous to a user. The government has a legitimate interest in regulating (not criminalizing) its production and distribution but only insofar as it endeavors to assure quality and transparency.

Companies would be held to the same standards of quality and transparency as any other manufacturer of goods and services. Warning labels, quality control, health standards, etc.
Click to expand...

I thought the government prohibited the production and sale of faulty products all the time in the interest of the consumer. Given there has been little medical study on the effects of illegal drugs compared with other consumed products, let me propose a couple hypothetical situations.

1. The FDA thoroghly tests Cocaine and deems it has similar risks/effects to Alcohol and Cigarettes, thus placing similar regulations on it.

2. The FDA thoroughly tests Cocaine and deems it significantly more risky and even dangerous to the consumer. Do they not then have the authority to criminalize the production for distribution and distribution of it?
 
I thought the government prohibited the production and sale of faulty products all the time in the interest of the consumer.
Click to expand...

Prohibiting the production and distribution of a faulty product does not entail the outright prohibition of the product itself. If a company produces tires that do not accomplish what they are intended to do the government may issue a moritoriam on that specific model but this does not mean they can ban tires outright.

Moreover, faulty implies a lack of transparency and as we have already discussed the government retains a legitimate interest in establishing transparency in the distribution of a product. So, if a certain cocaine distributor were to claim, "Our product will cure cancer!" then the government, in the interest of transparency, could compel them to cease distribution until they rectified their erroneous advertisement.

Given there has been little medical study on the effects of illegal drugs compared with other consumed products, let me propose a couple hypothetical situations.
Click to expand...

Why do you think we know more about the health effects of alcohol and cigarettes (legal) than we do about crack and heroin (illegal)? Could it be because legal substances are more thoroughly regulated and studied than illegal ones?

1. The FDA thoroughly tests Cocaine and deems it has similar risks/effects to Alcohol and Cigarettes, thus placing similar regulations on it.
Click to expand...

Sounds perfectly reasonable.

2. The FDA thoroughly tests Cocaine and deems it significantly more risky and even dangerous to the consumer. Do they not then have the authority to criminalize the production for distribution and distribution of it?
Click to expand...

No. They only have the authority to regulate it. If cocaine were deemed significantly more risky than tobacco or alcohol the only thing the government would need to do is make consumers aware of that fact.
 
ludahai said:
I am kind of amused by people who think their lives are so inadequate that they have to enhance them eith drugs (either illegal or legal).

I don't do illegal drugs. I also don't drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. (No, I am NOT Baptist)
Click to expand...

You are missing out on unique experiences. My life isn't inadequate. I used to do drugs (damn job) as a way to have fun. No different than sky diving, vacationing, watching a movie, wii bowling, or enjoying the company of friends. The difference is that when I'm high the simplest things are hysterical and entertaining.
 
I knew I eventually wanted to work for the government and I wanted to be able to answer my background check questions honestly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom