Legalize heroin

[equal2u]

My claim is that heroin should continue to remain illegal.

Here’s the few considerations that I’ve found levied in favour of the opposite position:
1. You want to take heroin.

I want to take it and I've got a right to take it because I have a moral right to decide what substances I take into my own body, within reason.

2. Legalizing heroin opens it up to regulation and safer use.

Yes.

3. Legalizing heroin would deflate the power of drug gangs.

Yes.

You forgot 4. Adults have a moral right to decide which substances they wish to take into their own bodies.

And 5. Responsible drug use improves people's lives.

[von Rivers]

You can find 4 in the principle that I used, it is implied.

[_________]

Allowing a child to get hold of drugs intentionally or through negligence would be a criminal offense.

Like it already is with tobacco and alcohol, and yet minors still smoke and drink with gusto...a marvelous preventative measure indeed.

And 5. Responsible drug use improves people's lives.

This is a claim. Do you have evidence outside your own subjectivity?

[Gamer]

Using heroin responsibly isn't stupid or damaging.

By definition, yes. But heroin is some really heavy guns. it's hard to stop because no matter how responsible you were going into it, you are a different person once you're in it, your grid for pleasure is different from here on out. other things pale.

knowing this, it's hard to be responsible as a heroin user. you may hurt yourself in ways you had no intention of doing prior to using.

one might also wonder why you want heroin. heroin is a layer of bliss that can cover up any woe. most people don't sit around writing about wanting heroin unless they are sad about something or bored. perhaps there are other ways to counteract these emotions that lead to growth and happiness hard won, rather than the dopey eyed bliss of heroin. in that regard, heroin use could always be seen as irresponsible. i just doubt whether it should be illegal.

Making it legal will make it easier for kids to get, it's more of an endorsement by society that it's okay. furthermore, a kid at 19 is still a kid, if it's your dickhead brother in law. seeing him piss away his life on drugs makes a strong argument that young people are defenseless to these very strong chemicals.

[von Rivers]

Equal2u, Just to be clear, you've read my long post and know that I am rejecting what you've said, and why, right? I listed those points only so you'd know what I was refuting.

[equal2u]

You can find 4 in the principle that I used, it is implied.

It isn't in my opinion.

[equal2u]

Allowing a child to get hold of drugs intentionally or through negligence would be a criminal offense.

Like it already is with tobacco and alcohol, and yet minors still smoke and drink with gusto...a marvelous preventative measure indeed.

I don't know what the law is exactly in the US. In the UK it is only illegal to give a child under 5 alcohol. It is legal to give five year old's a bottle of whisky and then for them all to get drunk. Stupid, huh? I would definitely change this. Like I already wrote right now the cops have an impossible task on their hands. Stopping underage drug use would be achievable.

And 5. Responsible drug use improves people's lives.

This is a claim. Do you have evidence outside your own subjectivity?

Where would I find this evidence? Human life quality is very difficult to quantify. It's an opinion backed by the opinions that drugs can make you feel good, and that if you use them responsibly the risks are low.

[equal2u]

Using heroin responsibly isn't stupid or damaging.

By definition, yes. But heroin is some really heavy guns. it's hard to stop because no matter how responsible you were going into it, you are a different person once you're in it, your grid for pleasure is different from here on out. other things pale.

Responsibility is responsibility, if you stop basing your decisions on it you'll get into trouble, that never changes.

knowing this, it's hard to be responsible as a heroin user. you may hurt yourself in ways you had no intention of doing prior to using.

Only if, to use your word, you're a 'dickhead'.

one might also wonder why you want heroin. heroin is a layer of bliss that can cover up any woe. most people don't sit around writing about wanting heroin unless they are sad about something or bored. perhaps there are other ways to counteract these emotions that lead to growth and happiness hard won, rather than the dopey eyed bliss of heroin. in that regard, heroin use could always be seen as irresponsible. i just doubt whether it should be illegal.

I'm an adult I have a right to make my own decisions which paths towards happiness I try.

Making it legal will make it easier for kids to get, it's more of an endorsement by society that it's okay. furthermore, a kid at 19 is still a kid, if it's your dickhead brother in law. seeing him piss away his life on drugs makes a strong argument that young people are defenseless to these very strong chemicals.

I want to use heroin responsibly, it's not fair to take away my right to do that because of the 'dickhead's who refuse to take responsibility for themselves. If someone doesn't take responsibility for themselves they can end up pissing away their life gambling, drinking, getting into debt, going morbidly obese. Drugs are just one way to fuck up. And anyway, people are much less likely to fuck up with legalised, regulated drugs.

[equal2u]

Equal2u, Just to be clear, you've read my long post and know that I am rejecting what you've said, and why, right? I listed those points only so you'd know what I was refuting.

I read it and it didn't make a lot of sense.

You don't want drugs legalised because you're too scared to take them yourself, but also you don't want others to take them either and get pleasure you're missing out on. So just not taking drugs isn't enough for you, no one else is allowed to either, as that will make you jealous. When you become aware of others experiencing pleasure from drugs that you're missing out on you can reassure yourself that what they're doing is illegal. You need drug laws like a heroin addict needs drugs- you're dependent on them to be happy.

[_________]

I don't know what the law is exactly in the US. In the UK it is only illegal to give a child under 5 alcohol. It is legal to give five year old's a bottle of whisky and then for them all to get drunk.

It is legal for a minor over 5 years of age to drink alcohol at home or a friend's house pending parent/guardian approval. They still can't do it in public, and purchasing alcohol for a minor in such a way as to violate the stipulations of the prenominate law is still illegal. I find such a law to have just as much potential for abuse as the legalization of all 'drugs', and as such find your lack of support for it verging on hypocrisy (in a strictly logical sense). I can think, however, of certain countries -- Italy in particular -- where a glass of wine is customary with dinner.

Where would I find this evidence? Human life quality is very difficult to quantify. It's an opinion backed by the opinions that drugs can make you feel good, and that if you use them responsibly the risks are low.

According to you. I'm not so positive that the statements "drugs can make you feel good" and "if you use them responsibly the risks are low" are evidence for "responsible drug use improves people's lives." I smoke a little pot every now and then and eat shrooms when a good batch crosses my path. I understand that responsible use is possible. I understand that they can make you 'feel good'. However I'm not so naive as to believe that everyone can take every drug as responsibly as I take these innocuous ones, especially at a younger age. I for one was quite the impetuous user throughout the latter half of high school, as I believe I've noted before -- and I was by no means alone in my behavior. Regardless, I remain opposed not to the concept of legalization itself but to your less than noble motives and the apparent insouciance with which you seem to address this topic.


And by the way, you should try to read Mo's post. Your summary of it is inaccurate and dare I say juvenile.

[equal2u]

I don't know what the law is exactly in the US. In the UK it is only illegal to give a child under 5 alcohol. It is legal to give five year old's a bottle of whisky and then for them all to get drunk.

It is legal for a minor over 5 years of age to drink alcohol at home or a friend's house pending parent/guardian approval. They still can't do it in public, and purchasing alcohol for a minor in such a way as to violate the stipulations of the prenominate law is still illegal. I find such a law to have just as much potential for abuse as the legalization of all 'drugs', and as such find your lack of support for it verging on hypocrisy (in a strictly logical sense). I can think, however, of certain countries -- Italy in particular -- where a glass of wine is customary with dinner.

Where would I find this evidence? Human life quality is very difficult to quantify. It's an opinion backed by the opinions that drugs can make you feel good, and that if you use them responsibly the risks are low.

According to you. I'm not so positive that the statements "drugs can make you feel good" and "if you use them responsibly the risks are low" are evidence for "responsible drug use improves people's lives." I smoke a little pot every now and then and eat shrooms when a good batch crosses my path. I understand that responsible use is possible. I understand that they can make you 'feel good'. However I'm not so naive as to believe that everyone can take every drug as responsibly as I take these innocuous ones, especially at a younger age. I for one was quite the impetuous user throughout the latter half of high school, as I believe I've noted before -- and I was by no means alone in my behavior. Regardless, I remain opposed not to the concept of legalization itself but to your less than noble motives and the apparent insouciance with which you seem to address this topic.

Where do you live? Those drugs you take are illegal? And you take them yourself but think they should remain illegal? Maybe you might change your mind about that if you find yourself in handcuffs facing a prison sentence. Or do you think the law should apply to everyone except you? And you call me a hypocrite...

I wish to incorporate certain drugs into my lifestyle. It is very noble to speak out against the forces of evil that seek to oppress me and every other human being on the planet. I am concerned about the 55 thousand needless deaths across Mexico in the insane 'war on drugs' along with all the other drug related killings and the innocent individuals murdered by governments for dealing drugs. Is that insouciant? How noble are you demanding that people are arrested and imprisoned every day for actions that you yourself engage in?

[_________]

Where do you live? Those drugs you take are illegal? And you take them yourself but think they should remain illegal? Maybe you might change your mind about that if you find yourself in handcuffs facing a prison sentence. Or do you think the law should apply to everyone except you? And you call me a hypocrite...

I live in Florida. The amount I indulge in is too negligible for the cops to bother with, especially if you're not strolling along some main downtown street with a cone joint. I smoke a bowl or two a week, and mushrooms are rare when you're not going out of your way to get them...twice a year tops. I entertain the notion that the laws should remain: if you're using small amounts in safe locations intelligently enough to not get the cops called on you, then you're probably ok to take them. If you make poor choices and wind up in jail, you're probably predisposed to reckless use such as may endanger yourself and others, and therefor probably would be better off without drugs.

I wish to incorporate certain drugs into my lifestyle. It is very noble to speak out against the forces of evil that seek to oppress me and every other human being on the planet. I am concerned about the 55 thousand needless deaths across Mexico in the insane 'war on drugs' along with all the other drug related killings and the innocent individuals murdered by governments for dealing drugs. Is that insouciant? How noble are you demanding that people are arrested and imprisoned every day for actions that you yourself engage in?

That would be fine if you stressed the effect of drug cartels on underprivileged populations, but as it stands you've consistently championed significantly less altruistic, empathetic motives, namely that you are an adult and therefor you should be allowed to do drugs. If the "55 thousand needless deaths across Mexico in the insane 'war on drugs' along with all the other drug related killings and the innocent individuals murdered by governments for dealing drugs" were really primary concerns and motives for this thread of yours, wouldn't it have been mentioned in the OP?

As for my demands, I am making none.

[equal2u]

That would be fine if you stressed the effect of drug cartels on underprivileged populations, but as it stands you've consistently championed significantly less altruistic, empathetic motives, namely that you are an adult and therefor you should be allowed to do drugs. If the "55 thousand needless deaths across Mexico in the insane 'war on drugs' along with all the other drug related killings and the innocent individuals murdered by governments for dealing drugs" were really primary concerns and motives for this thread of yours, wouldn't it have been mentioned in the OP?

They are not my primary concern. My primary concern is myself, just like you. Just like everyone that has ever existed and ever will exist. That's the way human beings are, that's the way consciousness is. I don't pretend to put others before myself, anyone who says they do is a fake. But I do care about others, just because I put myself first doesn't mean there's no room for anyone else. We all have to care about each other to create a functioning society.

Enjoy your bi-weekly weed bowls and your bi-yearly mushroom trips in your perfect world.

[Only_Humean]

Legalizing heroin means you can control and regulate it. This point is nice because it doesn’t seem to assume that doing heroin is a good thing at all, (though it wouldn’t take much for me to push your back against that wall). This could just be a case of minimizing a bad thing. Suppose you could only get heroin by prescription from a doctor, (as if there was a disease for which it was the cure). Then people will still go to drug dealers to get heroin.

Why? Do people go to drug dealers to get epilepsy medication? More to the point, why would drug dealers have any economic incentive to make heroin available illegally if vastly cheaper, industry-quality drugs are available elsewhere?

Suppose you want to know exactly what’s in what you’re getting, so that you’re not snorting up crushed Tylenol and whatever chemicals it has been cut with. If you don’t like the quality of what your dealer is selling, or if he doesn’t have the transparency in his business practices that you want, as a customer, then don’t buy the product…

You can solve the whole issue by advising people not to buy the product until the drugs cartels open their kitchens to quality inspectors. It's not a free market.

Your response here will either assume that you want to buy the product (point 1). Or else you’re concerned about others who are buying the product (this is point 3). Fine, but recognize that point 2 is a subsidiary one that will fall back on either point 3 or point 1—it doesn’t and can’t stand on its own.

Point 3 is subsidiary (a knock-on effect) of point 2 - regulation and industrialisation will drive the gangs out of business. I don't think that deflating the power of the gangs will open the way to regulation, unless you are of the opinion that the reason it remains illegal is pressure from drugs barons on the legislature.

Drug gangs are a problem for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the lack of transparency in their business practices. Two options: have government sell their product for them, or jail and kill them. If you want government to sell their product for them, then you have to argue either that heroin use doesn’t harm others, or that it’s for the greater good.

False dilemma. The argument is that licensed pharmaceutical companies can undercut the drugs gangs with better-quality cheaper products. As licensed brewers and distillers undercut the mafia after Prohibition was scrapped. You don't have to argue that alcohol is a good thing in order to argue that it's not as bad as offering a major source of income to criminals. Talk of making the perfect the enemy of the good, indeed.

[Gamer]

Wow, who is this guy? Not since white lotus have I seen such ham-fisted, monotone reductionism. Reminds me of Louis CK in the moments when he's not being funny, just so honest and to the point that it's brilliant.

If you want heroin, do what I do. Take it and stop complaining about legalization like a little bitch. In your OP you say they should legalize heroin because you want to take heroin now. Fucking take it. Since when did laws get in the way of drugs? If you can't get your hands on some good clean heroin without getting arrested, you are too dumb to take heroin in the first place. Nothing could be easier.

OF COURSE all drugs should be legalized. Go ahead and take heroin. The world is too populated and full of talented driven people. I could really use a break on all these fucking people, and all the competition. Take yourself out of the game, please. And hopefully it will take some of your family and friends down with you. That would be perfect.

Addiction often leads to severe atrophy of your responsibility muscles. Get addicted to heroin and the odds are high that your family and friends will clean up the mess and find you a pathetic failure. This is your choice and RIGHT, or it should be. If you think you're the exception then you are gambling, and so what? So much of life is a gamble. Have something to lose and maybe you wouldn't be so eager to take the gamble, but maybe you're too weak to have or earn something worth losing and that's fine. Being lame is also your right, as is being lamer, see heroin.

Exercising your right to give yourself a physical and mental disability is a great thing. Especially when you don't think it will happen if you are careful. Tha's the best kind of train wreck and what freedom is all about. Keep telling yourself that it won't happen. Like I said, I'd love to see you drop out of the game. You are too good of a writer, and too smart. Your talent makes me nervous. Go ahead, take heroin. I can already imagine your two word response that deflates my entire argument and leaves me feeling stupid. You are too good. Please poison yourself before you do some real good in this world with your talent.

When Slow John said his relative was a dickhead, he was not referring to being on the drug, but prior to taking the drug and opting to take it. You are also a dickhead in this sense. And that's your right.

As an adult, you should have the right to make your own decisions on which paths towards happiness you try. Even paths that are dangerous. The only time you might want to relinquish those rights is willfully and expressly when you enter certain relationships. Since you have none of these apparently, have it with Lady Heroine. Heroin is your new lover and friend, will never let you down. Heroin doesn't care about your unsightly moles and narrow shoulders (just guessing) lack of money and wasted potential (more than guessing, let's be real). Do it, and be whole. If only if you were bold enough to do it before it becomes legal. Your true love is waiting, she wants you to be bold. Don't make her wait long.

Do you have any plan on what your next move is other than argue for legalization? Are you going to take justice into your own hands? I think you should. Why this huge respect for a law that's stupid? If the law told you to kill jews and enslave blacks, would you? No. So why are you letting yourself be enslaved? Get your hands on some poppy plants and make your own opium if that's how you feel, or move to Amsterdam. Oh, what am I saying. If you had that kind of balls and resourcefulness you wouldn't need heroin in the first place! O, sweet dilemma! Why do you flick my bean so?

[equal2u]

Legalizing heroin means you can control and regulate it. This point is nice because it doesn’t seem to assume that doing heroin is a good thing at all, (though it wouldn’t take much for me to push your back against that wall). This could just be a case of minimizing a bad thing. Suppose you could only get heroin by prescription from a doctor, (as if there was a disease for which it was the cure). Then people will still go to drug dealers to get heroin.

Why? Do people go to drug dealers to get epilepsy medication? More to the point, why would drug dealers have any economic incentive to make heroin available illegally if vastly cheaper, industry-quality drugs are available elsewhere?

Suppose you want to know exactly what’s in what you’re getting, so that you’re not snorting up crushed Tylenol and whatever chemicals it has been cut with. If you don’t like the quality of what your dealer is selling, or if he doesn’t have the transparency in his business practices that you want, as a customer, then don’t buy the product…

You can solve the whole issue by advising people not to buy the product until the drugs cartels open their kitchens to quality inspectors. It's not a free market.

Your response here will either assume that you want to buy the product (point 1). Or else you’re concerned about others who are buying the product (this is point 3). Fine, but recognize that point 2 is a subsidiary one that will fall back on either point 3 or point 1—it doesn’t and can’t stand on its own.

Point 3 is subsidiary (a knock-on effect) of point 2 - regulation and industrialisation will drive the gangs out of business. I don't think that deflating the power of the gangs will open the way to regulation, unless you are of the opinion that the reason it remains illegal is pressure from drugs barons on the legislature.

Drug gangs are a problem for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the lack of transparency in their business practices. Two options: have government sell their product for them, or jail and kill them. If you want government to sell their product for them, then you have to argue either that heroin use doesn’t harm others, or that it’s for the greater good.

False dilemma. The argument is that licensed pharmaceutical companies can undercut the drugs gangs with better-quality cheaper products. As licensed brewers and distillers undercut the mafia after Prohibition was scrapped. You don't have to argue that alcohol is a good thing in order to argue that it's not as bad as offering a major source of income to criminals. Talk of making the perfect the enemy of the good, indeed.

Thanks OH for dismantling Mo's argument for me. I couldn't be bothered, it's got more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese.

[equal2u]

I can already imagine your two word response that deflates my entire argument and leaves me feeling stupid.

Pretentious. Very.

[_________]

They are not my primary concern. My primary concern is myself, just like you. Just like everyone that has ever existed and ever will exist. That's the way human beings are, that's the way consciousness is. I don't pretend to put others before myself, anyone who says they do is a fake. But I do care about others, just because I put myself first doesn't mean there's no room for anyone else. We all have to care about each other to create a functioning society.

Fine, but this is supposed to be substantiating why my opinion that your motives are "less than noble" and that you address the topic with an "apparent insouciance" is unfounded. So far you've only suggested that my arguments aren't noble by way of being hypocritical -- which I don't actually find to be hypocritical, namely since I'm not asking that drugs be legalized for me -- and doesn't really address my opinion. As I said, "I entertain the notion that the laws should remain: if you're using small amounts in safe locations intelligently enough to not get the cops called on you, then you're probably ok to take them. If you make poor choices and wind up in jail, you're probably predisposed to reckless use such as may endanger yourself and others, and therefor probably would be better off without drugs." Note the emphasis, since the underlined is not "subscribe to the notion," "support the notion," or "applaud the notion."

Enjoy your weekly weed bowls and your annual mushroom trips in your perfect world.

Corrections in italics and strike-through. Will do.

.

.

In other news, this thread is one sycophant too many.

[equal2u]

Fine, but this is supposed to be substantiating why my opinion that your motives are "less than noble" and that you address the topic with an "apparent insouciance" is unfounded. So far you've only suggested that my arguments aren't noble by way of being hypocritical -- which I don't actually find to be hypocritical, namely since I'm not asking that drugs be legalized for me -- and doesn't really address my opinion. As I said, "I entertain the notion that the laws should remain: if you're using small amounts in safe locations intelligently enough to not get the cops called on you, then you're probably ok to take them. If you make poor choices and wind up in jail, you're probably predisposed to reckless use such as may endanger yourself and others, and therefor probably would be better off without drugs." Note the emphasis, since the underlined is not "subscribe to the notion," "support the notion," or "applaud the notion."

And what about the drug dealers? They're taking a much greater risk to give you your drug taking lifestyle. They're the ones the cops focus on and who get the long prison sentences. They're providing you with a service, but you don't seem to give a shit about them. If a few of them end up getting sent to prison now and then there will always be new ones to take their place, you don't give a shit about the poor guys sitting in prison, as long as your weed and mushroom supply remains unaffected, how noble is that?

I really hope you get caught and end up in front of the most draconian judge in America, or wherever you're from. See what you think about your pro drug criminalization theories then.

[_________]

Equal,
If you can't take the time to actually read what people write, much less make an attempt at comprehension, there's no point discussing anything with you.

[_________]

Why? Do people go to drug dealers to get epilepsy medication? More to the point, why would drug dealers have any economic incentive to make heroin available illegally if vastly cheaper, industry-quality drugs are available elsewhere?

I think the street popularity of pharmaceuticals -- especially opiates -- speaks for itself here. I also think the details of regulation are at this point necessary to carry at least this point any further.

[von Rivers]

More to the point, why would drug dealers have any economic incentive to make heroin available illegally if vastly cheaper, industry-quality drugs are available elsewhere?

Point 3 is subsidiary (a knock-on effect) of point 2 - regulation and industrialisation will drive the gangs out of business. I don't think that deflating the power of the gangs will open the way to regulation, unless you are of the opinion that the reason it remains illegal is pressure from drugs barons on the legislature.

Isn't it clear that business is more lucrative when it's unregulated, rather than regulated? If you intend any substantive regulations at all, (which cost), then there will be drug dealers offering a cheaper product. I don't think real, substantive regulation will drive drug gangs out of business, only partly because of this. And when you consider that if heroin is more freely available through legalization/regulation, more people will be likely to become drug dealers, to the addicts who are prevented by the regulations from getting it. They can sell it for profit.

I meant that point 2 falls back on point 3 because the point of point two just is either the point of point 3, or of point 1. There's no reason for point 2 unless you have as your goal point 3 or point 1.

You don't have to argue that alcohol is a good thing in order to argue that it's not as bad as offering a major source of income to criminals. Talk of making the perfect the enemy of the good, indeed.

Right, this was the point that I made, before I argued that legalization/regulation would either not hinder drug gangs, or else make heroin as freely available as alcohol is today (as in your example), which would hinder drug gangs. Because it seems to me that if alcohol required a prescription, or something like that, you would absolutely have people bootlegging it. And I'm not sure if you are endorsing the latter point (that heroin be as freely available as alcohol) as something that would be good, or not. Care to clarify?

[equal2u]

If you can't take the time to actually read what people write, much less make an attempt at comprehension, there's no point discussing anything with you.

I'm not going to waste time dissecting your rambling statements.

You've lost the argument. Now you're sulking.

[equal2u]

Quit the bs, Mo. This is what's really going on:

You don't want drugs legalised because you're too scared to take them yourself, but also you don't want others to take them either and get pleasure you're missing out on. So just not taking drugs isn't enough for you, no one else is allowed to either, as that will make you jealous. When you become aware of others experiencing pleasure from drugs that you're missing out on you can reassure yourself that what they're doing is illegal. You need drug laws like a heroin addict needs drugs- you're dependent on them to be happy.

[von Rivers]

Quit the bs, Mo. This is what's really going on...

Relax, crackhead.