• 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!

Prohibition against drugs, or anything else is illegal

eohrnberger said:
Discounting alcohol and tobacco which are over the counter, so to speak (as is a great many other drugs such as aspirin, Ibuprofen, etc. etc.), what drug use that isn't medically supervised isn't drug abuse?

Isn't the consumption of illegal drugs by definition drug abuse?



I do not defend the policy, I state that it is the current.

What I'm not supporting is the free for all access to hard narcotics for the population to more readily become addicted, and the medical, physical, emotional, familial and societal costs that come with that addiction.

You seem to sweep all the negative impacts of drug addiction under the rug of 'it's because they are illegal', as if making these drugs legal cures all the damage they bring.

It most certainly does not.

That damage will still exist whether the drugs are legal or illegal, and making them legal will only make the drugs more readily accessible, resulting in more of the population being addicted to them, i.e. increasing their damage.

I do not see that as a positive step forward for society. You seem to see that as a positive step forward for society. On this point we most certainly disagree, and likely will never agree.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that in your mind, your view, consumption of "illegal" drugs is drug abuse. Such a simple-minded view is the hallmark of the prohibitionist. I understand that absurd over-simplification.

But the reality is that many of the "illegal" drugs have a long history of therapeutic use, unsupervised by medical authorities. Marijuana, for example, was listed as a therapeutic agent in the National Formulary, which may have preceded the US Constitution in time.

The reality is that DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young, after days of hearings back in about 1981, declared marijuana to be the "safest therapeutic substance known to man." Your view does not allow that reality, but that's your problem.

I'm not sweeping anything under the rug. I am trying only to bring some perspective about human behavior regarding drugs, a move which you and other prohibitionists reject at every turn. Your authoritarian frame of mind does not allow you to deal with reality, but that's nothing new. It's OK. Irrational, but OK. :peace
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Ah, the sweet, fetid stench of willful intellectul dishonesty.

Conflating any use that isn't medicaly supervised with 'abuse' and 'destructive use' pretty much pulls the rug out from under your (ahem) arguments.
Click to expand...

I don't see how.

Powerful narcotics administered under medical supervision is not destructive, it is curative.
Powerful narcotics taken without medical supervision, without medical need, is not curative, it's drug abuse and it is destructive.

I don't buy into your position that there can be power narcotic use (abuse) that is benign. I think this is wishful thinking.

Tanngrisnir said:
And facts? Please. You've offered nothing but bare assertions unsupported by actual data.

You're not fooling anyone but yourself.
Click to expand...
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yes, I understand that in your mind, your view, consumption of "illegal" drugs is drug abuse. Such a simple-minded view is the hallmark of the prohibitionist. I understand that absurd over-simplification.
Click to expand...

As you'd expect, I disagree. It's not an "absurd over-simplification". Consumption of "illegal" drugs is certainly criminal, and as such is abusing those drugs, consumed for non-medical purposes without medical supervision. The only case where these narcotics can be legally consumed is under prescription from an authorized doctor. Such is are the laws that are currently in place.

I believe that there are very legitimate concerns as to personal, mental, medical, familial and societal negative impacts should these currently illegal narcotics be made legal and available to the general public. Legitimate Concerns that transcend whether the narcotic and / or it's consumption is legal or not.

Thoreau72 said:
But the reality is that many of the "illegal" drugs have a long history of therapeutic use, unsupervised by medical authorities. Marijuana, for example, was listed as a therapeutic agent in the National Formulary, which may have preceded the US Constitution in time.

The reality is that DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young, after days of hearings back in about 1981, declared marijuana to be the "safest therapeutic substance known to man." Your view does not allow that reality, but that's your problem.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm willing to consider reclassifying marijuana as a non-schedule 1 narcotic, but there are the consequences that resulting from this legalization to consider.

Last I heard was that the number of traffic accidents and deaths attributable to driving while under the influence of marijuana was significantly rising in Colorado. That certainly can't be considered as a good thing. Further, their neighbor state, Kansas, is having a huge problem, and large enforce & court expenses, of marijuana tourists purchasing in Colorado and smuggling it across state lines. That certainly can't be considered as a good thing either.

Thoreau72 said:
I'm not sweeping anything under the rug. I am trying only to bring some perspective about human behavior regarding drugs, a move which you and other prohibitionists reject at every turn. Your authoritarian frame of mind does not allow you to deal with reality, but that's nothing new. It's OK. Irrational, but OK. :peace
Click to expand...
 
eohrnberger said:
I don't see how.

Powerful narcotics administered under medical supervision is not destructive, it is curative.
Click to expand...

No one has argued otherwise.
Powerful narcotics taken without medical supervision, without medical need, is not curative, it's drug abuse and it is destructive.
Click to expand...

No, not necessarily. That's simply you pretending that anything outside of medical supervision is 'abuse'. That is not only transparently intellectually dishonest, but utterly ungrounded in reality. Words have meanings.
I don't buy into your position that there can be power narcotic use (abuse) that is benign. I think this is wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

I know, from real world experience, that your engaging in magical thinking and yet again you prove my point by trying to conflate use with abuse.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No one has argued otherwise.

No, not necessarily. That's simply you pretending that anything outside of medical supervision is 'abuse'. That is not only transparently intellectually dishonest, but utterly ungrounded in reality. Words have meanings.

I know, from real world experience, that your engaging in magical thinking and yet again you prove my point by trying to conflate use with abuse.
Click to expand...

So what is you definition of narcotic abuse vs narcotic use, in a non-medically prescribed situation?
 
eohrnberger said:
So what is you definition of narcotic abuse vs narcotic use, in a non-medically prescribed situation?
Click to expand...

Do you understand that all illegal drugs are not narcotics?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Do you understand that all illegal drugs are not narcotics?
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on your working definition.

nar·cot·ic
närˈkädik/
noun
noun: narcotic; plural noun: narcotics
adjective
adjective: narcotic
1.
relating to or denoting narcotics or their effects or use.
"the substance has a mild narcotic effect"
synonyms:soporific, sleep-inducing, opiate; More
Click to expand...

Illegal drugs aren't sold for medical purposes, and the users are without a doubt seeking their mood or behavioral affect, so it would seem to add up that illegal drugs are in fact narcotics, based on the given working definition.
 
eohrnberger said:
I suppose it depends on your working definition.



Illegal drugs aren't sold for medical purposes, and the users are without a doubt seeking their mood or behavioral affect, so it would seem to add up that illegal drugs are in fact narcotics, based on the given working definition.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance about drugs and their users is exceeded only by your closed mind and support for a failed policy, but that is common in the US, where so much of what the public believes is false.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Your ignorance about drugs and their users is exceeded only by your closed mind and support for a failed policy, but that is common in the US, where so much of what the public believes is false.
Click to expand...

So the presented working definition isn't to your liking then? Why am I not surprised.

What's wrong with the presented working definition? What would you change about this definition?
 
Tigerace117 said:
When a person chooses to subsidize groups like the Mexican cartels by purchasing illegal drugs, whatever punishment they get, that's on them.
Plenty of people have been killed by addicts. One of the government's main responsiblities is to protect citizens from other citizens.
Click to expand...

Do you support making alcohol and tobacco illegal?


Drunk people commit violent (or other) crimes at incredibly high rates. Alcohol is the worst drug ever, basically, but people who are addicted to it tend to damage every single person around them.

Meanwhile, tobacco second hand smoke can be quite bad too.




I do support legalization of pot and a number of others, as well as full decriminalization of personal possession of everything, but.....I don't buy your argument that government has no right to prohibit anything. It has the right, particularly one can pin it on the general welfare clause. The question is whether it should.
 
Mr Person said:
Do you support making alcohol and tobacco illegal?


Drunk people commit violent (or other) crimes at incredibly high rates. Alcohol is the worst drug ever, basically, but people who are addicted to it tend to damage every single person around them.

Meanwhile, tobacco second hand smoke can be quite bad too.




I do support legalization of pot and a number of others, as well as full decriminalization of personal possession of everything, but.....I don't buy your argument that government has no right to prohibit anything. It has the right, particularly one can pin it on the general welfare clause. The question is whether it should.
Click to expand...

We already tried banning alcohol. It didn't work, but that doesn't mean that suddenly alcohal is good for you or that we should turn a blind eye to its abuse just because it is legal.

I don't really mind if you banned tobacco, no.
 
Tigerace117 said:
When a person chooses to subsidize groups like the Mexican cartels by purchasing illegal drugs, whatever punishment they get, that's on them. Plenty of people have been killed by addicts. One of the government's main responsiblities is to protect citizens from other citizens.
Click to expand...



Mr Person said:
Do you support making alcohol and tobacco illegal?

Drunk people commit violent (or other) crimes at incredibly high rates. Alcohol is the worst drug ever, basically, but people who are addicted to it tend to damage every single person around them.

Meanwhile, tobacco second hand smoke can be quite bad too.

I do support legalization of pot and a number of others, as well as full decriminalization of personal possession of everything, but.....I don't buy your argument that government has no right to prohibit anything. It has the right, particularly one can pin it on the general welfare clause. The question is whether it should.
Click to expand...




Tigerace117 said:
We already tried banning alcohol. It didn't work, but that doesn't mean that suddenly alcohal is good for you or that we should turn a blind eye to its abuse just because it is legal.

I don't really mind if you banned tobacco, no.
Click to expand...

You relied on addicts killing people and illegal drug manufacture supporting cartels to support "government protecting its citizens", presumably by prosecuting the War on Drugs. The same was true of addicts and cartels during prohibition, yet as you note, prohibition failed. (And alcohol addicts STILL kill the most).

I wasn't saying alcohol is "good for you"*, I was making the point that your drug prohibition position makes no sense in light of other existing factors.



______________________
*Though, actually, it IS, if you limit your self to 1 to 2 standard drinks per day, depending on sex. Persons in that range of consumption do better than non-drinkers and heavier drinkers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom