• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should Cocaine and Heroin be legalized along with Marijuana?

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
People drive to work tired or buzzed out of their heads on caffeine. Sleep-deprived individuals are just as dangerous as drunks. None of the illicit substances provide unique dangers.

Your argument is also a poor one because it instinctively equates getting high with driving. Perfectly safe activities like texting are dangerous while driving. Should we ban texting? Of course not. We fault people who are a hazard on the road but maintain a free society.

I suffer from clinical depression and I can say that certain illicit substances are better for my mental well-being than any prescriptions.

No disagreement that people that drive tired or buzzed are just as dangerous. I have a friend that feel asleep at the wheel and put himself in the hospital for a week. We have laws in my state against texting while driving I would support laws against driving while to tired if it could be enforced.

I to have taken legal drugs that have impaired me. My doctors advised me not to drive, not to work and to try and get sleep as much as possible.

Here's the deal. Drugs impair you physically and mentally. If you are impaired you have no right to endanger me or my family. If you do so I want you prosecuted by the law for your stupidity.

If you wish to do drugs in you home and are sober when you step outside I have no issue's. You can do drugs untill you die. Once you endanger me you should be locked up. If you believe you should have the right to endanger me then I should have the right to protect myself.

If you are saying drugs do not effect your mental or physical state then I would say they are unecessary for anyone and should be no problem banning them. But you and I both know drugs effect you mentally and physically and make you a hazzard to others.

Personally I don't care to grade hazzards anything that is a hazzard to my welfare big or small I should be able to protect myself from. Especially protect my family from.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
otokage said:
You said I was personaly involved in the topic. I only suggested that maybe it was you the personaly involved. But ok, you started it and now you ask to stop it. That's fine with me.
I suggested that your opinions were based on personal prejudice. Your arguments all imply that you don't really know much about drugs, drug safety, crimininalisation and decrimininalisation issues. Now if you do have any pertinent information or analysis on these matters feel free to present them.
 

otokage007

Well-Known Member
Seriously, I can understand a person saying that legalization of drugs could solve some problems. I get the point, but I don't share it because I don't see that as the best solution by any means.

However, to say drugs are actualy "fine" is something that I didn't expect to hear from other than a young teenager :facepalm:, no offense.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
We do ban texting and cell phone use while driving. It is illegal in my State.

Well, you missed my point then, as did otokage007 (later, with GeneCosta making similar point) which means you are responding that texting in all situations ought to be banned. Since I don't believe you think that, then you (two) may wish to reread what I (and GeneCosta) were actually stating.

I not against drugs I believe all people should be allowed to do what ever they want in the privacy of there home. As soon as they step outside they can be arrested.

Impractical, not able to be enforced. If you feel otherwise, please describe what this really looks like.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
Seriously, I can understand a person saying that legalization of drugs could solve some problems. I get the point, but I don't share it because I don't see that as the best solution by any means.

However, to say drugs are actualy "fine" is something that I didn't expect to hear from other than a young teenager :facepalm:, no offense.

They are fine in the sense that anything external is "fine." Especially substances we ingest. Arguably all of it (including food) is medicinal, but also arguably all of it, or vast majority, has side effects that look a lot like cons. One might say they don't affect others, but that doesn't hold water if looking at things accurately. Your eating something at your desk at work could have impact on me if I am anywhere near you, both in smell, and how your body reacts after eating it (also having to do with smell, and hearing). I may, or may not be, easily offended by that. And offense to me could be reasonable based on several factors in situation.

I think all substances have impact on those around us, but reality is we adopt a 'live and let live' attitude, up to a point. If I want to take mass amounts of cocaine, handle a gun, and walk (uninvited) into your house, you are likely going to have issues with almost all substances involved in that situation, perhaps some more than others. Same situation, and I want to ingest a bunch of egg yolks and go into your house uninvited (with gun), again you'll have judgments about all substances going into that situation. If my third offense with egg yolks, there might be situation called forth where I can no longer have egg yolks. If a dozen cases or more, then no more egg yolks for everyone, would be the call for 'justice' from the likes of your position. You may have no issue with ingesting egg yolks, but if a dozen people have, sorry you lose your right to have egg yolks. Just the way it is.
 

otokage007

Well-Known Member
They are fine in the sense that anything external is "fine." Especially substances we ingest. Arguably all of it (including food) is medicinal, but also arguably all of it, or vast majority, has side effects that look a lot like cons.

I don't think you yourself take this as a valid argument. I mean, of course anything can have negative effects if ingested in extreme. However, the "extreme" is relative to the substance itself, and that's why we say some substances are "dangerous" and some are not. For example uranius is dangerous, while water is not.

One might say they don't affect others, but that doesn't hold water if looking at things accurately. Your eating something at your desk at work could have impact on me if I am anywhere near you, both in smell, and how your body reacts after eating it (also having to do with smell, and hearing). I may, or may not be, easily offended by that. And offense to me could be reasonable based on several factors in situation.

Body smell or body sound aren't a threat to your health. I don't think your politics of "well this is bad but there are other things that are bad too and other that are even worse" will take us somewhere.

I think all substances have impact on those around us, but reality is we adopt a 'live and let live' attitude, up to a point. If I want to take mass amounts of cocaine, handle a gun, and walk (uninvited) into your house, you are likely going to have issues with almost all substances involved in that situation, perhaps some more than others. Same situation, and I want to ingest a bunch of egg yolks and go into your house uninvited (with gun), again you'll have judgments about all substances going into that situation. If my third offense with egg yolks, there might be situation called forth where I can no longer have egg yolks. If a dozen cases or more, then no more egg yolks for everyone, would be the call for 'justice' from the likes of your position. You may have no issue with ingesting egg yolks, but if a dozen people have, sorry you lose your right to have egg yolks. Just the way it is.

I understand your point, but it didn't convince me at all since egg yolks can't affect your mind state by any means or make you be dangerous. I look forward a more sustainable example.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
I don't think you yourself take this as a valid argument. I mean, of course anything can have negative effects if ingested in extreme. However, the "extreme" is relative to the substance itself, and that's why we say some substances are "dangerous" and some are not. For example uranius is dangerous, while water is not.

Cocaine and heroine are not (inherently) dangerous. They are not poisons.

Body smell or body sound aren't a threat to your health. I don't think your politics of "well this is bad but there are other things that are bad too and other that are even worse" will take us somewhere.

But yours will?

I understand your point, but it didn't convince me at all since egg yolks can't affect your mind state by any means or make you be dangerous. I look forward a more sustainable example.

Have you done cocaine? If no, then might be challenging to make points if bias is 'it is dangerous.' While it's been awhile for me, I've ingested the drug more than 10 times, and would say the danger to health is minimal, unless abused. The danger to others I would say is negligible. Someone on 'power walk' around the neighborhood, while ingesting cocaine (especially pure form) would be as harmful to community, or I would argue less, as someone who had 2 cups of caffeinated coffee.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Well, you missed my point then, as did otokage007 (later, with GeneCosta making similar point) which means you are responding that texting in all situations ought to be banned. Since I don't believe you think that, then you (two) may wish to reread what I (and GeneCosta) were actually stating.



Impractical, not able to be enforced. If you feel otherwise, please describe what this really looks like.


Actually I'm fine with banning texting in all situations but I wasn't asked that. Also in Gene's comment I forgot we also have laws requiring trucks to sleep for a specific amount of hours that they have to log or they will be taken off the road by the police.

Its enforceable, any time any one is stopped for a crime or accident they have to be tested for alcohol and drugs. If tested positive you are prosecuted. If you commit no crime or have no accident you could actually get away but I trust eventually we will get you. People using drugs and achohol always end up doing something that gets them in trouble with the law.
 

otokage007

Well-Known Member
Cocaine and heroine are not (inherently) dangerous. They are not poisons.

I don't know if you have some knowledge about how a posion works. You can look for it in the internet but, as I am a biologist, I will try to put it simple:

A poison is a toxic substance that can produce an illness, lesion, an alteration of the normal body functions and even death. They trigger or inhibit a chemical process by reacting with an enzyme (also preventing it's natural reactive to bind, something that almost always produces secondary effects).

The diference between a poison and a medicine is marked by the quantity of substance required. Poisons usualy require a very small quantity to produce the effects and could be dangerous or lethal if this quantity is surpassed. Also poisons have no terapeutic use unless they are carefuly processed.

I think heroine and cocaine are well suited to this description.

Have you done cocaine? If no, then might be challenging to make points if bias is 'it is dangerous.' While it's been awhile for me, I've ingested the drug more than 10 times, and would say the danger to health is minimal, unless abused. The danger to others I would say is negligible. Someone on 'power walk' around the neighborhood, while ingesting cocaine (especially pure form) would be as harmful to community, or I would argue less, as someone who had 2 cups of caffeinated coffee.

Although your personal experience with cocaine has its value, a chemist, doctor or biologist would have a more valuable opinion than yours, concerning to the substance. Even if they have not consumed it.

I hope you understand that your ability to diagnose the symptoms that cocaine produces is merely anecdotal and could be not taken into account.

Let me cite you some of the symptoms that I'm sure you can easily find on the internet (at least in a medical webpage):

Changes in the subject's normal behavior. The first area of action of cocaine is the dopaminergic system, making the person to take an unpredictable behavior, producing a strong feeling of alertness and stress. It is this stress which produces the greatest long-term damage to a lot of consumers.

It is one of the most addictive substances even if consumed in its pure form (cocaine hydrochloride) because it interferes with regulators of serotonin, a substance that produces feelings of well being and happiness.

It is a potent vasoconstrictor. It is because of this rise in blood pressure that most consumers experience a sensation of tachycardia, palpitations, anxiety, irritability and aggressiveness. This symptoms are very common even if consumed for the first time.

Most consumers have a moderate tolerance to effects, requiring increasing doses to achieve the desired state and thus exponentially increasing the damage to the body.

Among the group of regular users, some of the most serious effects that may be experienced are:

-Nasal-Ulceration which can lead to partial or total loss of the tissue that forms the nose (of course if consumed via nasal).
-Thrombosis.
-Myocardial infarction.
-Stroke (cerebrovascular accident). This means a quick loss of brain functions.
-Sudden death. Especially when mixing cocaine and alcohol, which lead to the formation of a lethal compound called cocaethylene.
-Arteriosclerosis.
-Paranoid schizophrenia.

Cocaine was used in the past as a local anesthetic but was declared illegal because of the addiction rate and high toxicity. Today, some countries still consider legal their use in anesthetic therapies.
 
Last edited:

Acim

Revelation all the time
Its enforceable, any time any one is stopped for a crime or accident they have to be tested for alcohol and drugs.

You previously said, "set foot outside your door." That is not enforceable, what you are now saying is reasonable. Glad you updated it to something practical.

If tested positive you are prosecuted. If you commit no crime or have no accident you could actually get away but I trust eventually we will get you. People using drugs and achohol always end up doing something that gets them in trouble with the law.

Fine for you to believe this, and there are many who agree with you.

I strongly disagree and will continue to vocalize said disagreement.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
I don't know if you have some knowledge about how a posion works. You can look for it in the internet but, as I am a biologist, I will try to put it simple:

A poison is a toxic substance that can produce an illness, lesion, an alteration of the normal body functions and even death. They trigger or inhibit a chemical process by reacting with an enzyme (also preventing it's natural reactive to bind, something that almost always produces secondary effects).

The diference between a poison and a medicine is marked by the quantity of substance required. Poisons usualy require a very small quantity to produce the effects and could be dangerous or lethal if this quantity is surpassed. Also poisons have no terapeutic use unless they are carefuly processed.

I think heroine and cocaine are well suited to this description.

How small of a quantity are you talking about with regards to cocaine and heroin?

Me, I doubt the therapeutic uses of many medicines. It's not that I won't take them, but I am reluctant because side effects suck and I would say around 99% of all medicines I've ever taken have some really sucky side effect. Akin to poison. Regardless of how "careful" one is in prescribing them to me, and in my taking them. Some medicines suck and are akin to poison. You feel otherwise? Great, my experience of both trumps your claims. I know of more than 20 people who have ingested more than 'a little' cocaine (depending how one quantifies that), and I think all of those (perhaps there is an exception or two) are I would say healthy, normal, living an okay to very good life.

Although your personal experience with cocaine has its value, a chemist, doctor or biologist would have a more valuable opinion than yours, concerning to the substance. Even if they have not consumed it.

I disagree, and is where this debate falls apart. Chemists, doctors, biologists reference properties in lieu of 'average' person. The data they provide, I observe often leads to "lies" about usage. Like, "snort one line of coke, and you could die." Well the "you could" part could be said about... anything. The implication given the ways in which that message is often distributed (via ad campaigns, or ex addicts, or friends of those who died from one line) is, "no it's not you could, you will. Law of averages tells us this. You want to argue with that? Good luck, but it is no different than pointing loaded revolver at your head. You're going to die!!!!!!!!"

Guess what doc, everybody dies.
So, yeah, you might be onto something there.

I hope you understand that your ability to diagnose the symptoms that cocaine produces is merely anecdotal and could be not taken into account.

In what sort of situation?

Let me cite you some of the symptoms that I'm sure you can easily find on the internet (at least in a medical webpage):

Changes in the subject's normal behavior. The first area of action of cocaine is the dopaminergic system, making the person to take an unpredictable behavior, producing a strong feeling of alertness and stress. It is this stress which produces the greatest long-term damage to a lot of consumers.

Again, I know 'a lot of consumers' and this comes off as inaccurate, unless the point is, "you don't know what there brain looks like. Instead of dying at 87, they are now likely to die at 75 or younger because of cocaine use." If in that vein, the points may be valid, but I would say impractical. There are umpteen hundred substances all around us that are cutting life span short. Most of them are legal. Some of them are subsidized.

It is one of the most addictive substances even if consumed in its pure form (cocaine hydrochloride) because it interferes with regulators of serotonin, a substance that produces feelings of well being and happiness.

In my experience, nicotine (cigarettes) is far more addictive. Like 3 times more so. Sugar I would say is more addictive than cocaine. And from what I understand meth and heroin are more addictive. I could see things like gambling (video slots) being more addictive. Compared to marijuana, cocaine is more addictive, not just in my experience, but just about every user (of both) that I know / have known. I actually don't know any current coke users.

It is a potent vasoconstrictor. It is because of this rise in blood pressure that most consumers experience a sensation of tachycardia, palpitations, anxiety, irritability and aggressiveness. This symptoms are very common even if consumed for the first time.

And amount to non-issue in 100% of the cases I'm familiar with from personal relations (from first use). Admittedly, of the hard core users I've known, some have complained of chest tightness issues, but this is not in first 10 uses. More like first 100 uses, by persons who think a little won't do it anymore.

Most consumers have a moderate tolerance to effects, requiring increasing doses to achieve the desired state and thus exponentially increasing the damage to the body.

And again, most consumers I am personally familiar with, have left the drug with history that would look a little like 'experimentation' except I know of a few hard core users who are now clean. One not to long ago told me rather scary story of 'reaching bottom' and I was anticipating the story to lead to them needing outside intervention to get off, since they had already become full blown addict, unable to simply set it aside. But story didn't conclude that way, and instead was person having revelation of sorts (from within) that then was the time to stop. Completely stop, and move on. That person still drinks alcohol. Most users I know do not fall in category of chronic abuser. That is fact. While dosage may go up, it is akin to person who needs large cup or 3 cups of coffee in morning, or person who needs 2 desserts during day. In fact, wherever you find lack of moderation in I would say anything, that is sign of 'person needing more than normal amount.' Yet, in some circles, some situations that is the people who are grown-ups. Cut from a different breed.

Among the group of regular users, some of the most serious effects that may be experienced are:

-Nasal-Ulceration which can lead to partial or total loss of the tissue that forms the nose (of course if consumed via nasal).

Usually an issue depending on purity of the drug. Less pure usually means more damage.

-Thrombosis.

Side effect, all medicinal substances I'm familiar with have sucky things like this that occur to the body.

-Myocardial infarction.

Of all the people I've ever heard of using (includes hundreds I've never met in person), I would say this is accurate for 1% of the cases, maybe less.

-Stroke (cerebrovascular accident). This means a quick loss of brain functions.

I am yet to hear of anyone having this from coke use. Even if I were linked to cases, that would likely put it in quantity of less than 1%

-Sudden death. Especially when mixing cocaine and alcohol, which lead to the formation of a lethal compound called cocaethylene.

Well, let's blame coke on those who would mix it with other substances. Btw, I know users who did both, and of all cases I've ever heard of, I know of none that had "sudden death," as if that is isolated from some other condition.

-Arteriosclerosis.

Side effect. All drugs have potential sucky side effects.

-Paranoid schizophrenia.

Paranoia, yes. IMO, it is number one factor, and does have to with how it is cut. The less cut it is (and more pure) the less the paranoia.

Paranoid Schizophrenia, I will say never or in very minimal forms, read as slight. Prolonged use could plausibly lead to schizo traits, but is true in abuse of many mind altering substances. Abuse being key word, not 'simple or regular use.'

Cocaine was used in the past as a local anesthetic but was declared illegal because of the addiction rate and high toxicity. Today, some countries still consider legal their use in anesthetic therapies.

Its history in society is far more interesting than this little nugget. Go read up about it (Popularity) on Wikipedia or watch documentary on it.

My bottom line (which I believe is stated 1 to 2 times earlier in this thread): teach one and all the chemical, biological and medicinal perspective of cocaine and other drugs, but in that same 'course,' have the integrity to teach the good experience, the balanced approach so people receive truth, rather than trying these substances and finding out like thousands before them that no, you won't have cardiac arrest, sudden death, and start making up 14 personalities just because you dared to try that drug that they told you would be end of life as you know it.
 

otokage007

Well-Known Member
Acim

It is up to you if you trust in professionals or not regarding this type of topics. I respect this.

I see you give a lot of importance to your personal experiences and the cases you know directly, even more than to the results that medical studies give. However, know that medical studies are done just the same way you do it, but instead of making a result based in the ten people you know, it is based in a few thousands or millions. As you should know, the more people you use for making an analysis, the more accurate it will be. This said, I hope you understand why you shouldn’t rely on your personal experiences to stablish your point of view.

To put you an example, I have five friends that consume marihuana regularly:

One of them (31 years old) stopped consuming due to a myocardial infarction. After some tests, the doctors stated that it happened because of the marihuana, a long-term effect for consuming the drug regularly since he was 16 years old.

The second (36 years old) suffered a paralisis in the left half of his body. After a whole bunch of tests, they came to the conclusion that consuming marihuana too regularly since he was 18 years old, determined the paralisis. A year has pased and fortunately he now can use his leg and arm again, but the doctors have their doubts regarding to if he will someday regain the mobility of his face.

The third one (29 years old) suffered of fainting very often since he was 27. The doctors did him some tests, and stated that it was due to marihuana abuse. He stopped consuming and now he has been almost a year without fainting.

The other two are, at least in appearance, in perfect conditions. However I can’t think it is a casuality that they are both the youngest of the five (23 years old).

As you can see, your personal experience with drugs and mine, can be ridiculously different. And neither of both should be taken into account if put against a profesional study.

One of the big problems with drugs compared to medicines, is that you can only take the medicine if prescribed. However, you can take the drug whenever you want, and all the days of your life if you want.

EDIT: I forgot to tell you that those symptoms that I put you, are produced by pure cocaine, I'm sure you can easily check it on the internet. Just to clarify, drug effects on the population are not mere statistic, the substance is tested in laboratory (for example in rats), and of course 100% pure.
 
Last edited:

otokage007

Well-Known Member
I see. Is this due to your concerns regarding personal safety?

Yes. Personal safety and the safety of everyone is just one of the things that makes me be against drug legalization. But I'm sure you can easily extract other motives from all that I've said before.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
Acim

It is up to you if you trust in professionals or not regarding this type of topics. I respect this.

I see you give a lot of importance to your personal experiences and the cases you know directly, even more than to the results that medical studies give. However, know that medical studies are done just the same way you do it, but instead of making a result based in the ten people you know, it is based in a few thousands or millions. As you should know, the more people you use for making an analysis, the more accurate it will be. This said, I hope you understand why you shouldn’t rely on your personal experiences to stablish your point of view.

And what I am saying, consistently in this thread, is bring in the professional opinions, keep them firmly in the teaching about 'what is really going on' but also include personal usage. From say 2 to 3 moderate users, then 3 to 6 regular users, and 2 to 5 abusers / ex-addicts. Those persons aren't going to have the chemical / medical details that will lead to more informed opinion, but will carry with them a perspective that chemical / medical simply doesn't have, nor does it care much about.

I also think, in some cases, medical / chemical professionals could be persuaded to have a bias. It ought not to be only "scared straight" type of evidence that is provided. I often think about how some pill gets on the market (talking right now about medicine) and given info that is put out, you can tell medical / chemical pros have essentially endorsed this, but then 2 to 5 years later, it gets recalled due to side effects that weren't known at original time of sale, and effects that are essentially deadly. There may be plenty of users who swear by the drug, but once that bias is made very public where combo of trial lawyers and additional chemist / medical types are on the scene, it almost inevitably leads to product that will be removed from the market. While the reasons are a bit obvious on hindsight, I think there is reality of bias among medical / chemist professionals at work. Perhaps you disagree with this, but I know of many examples in this vein, and is part of reason why I just won't take such drugs myself. If one googles any popular (or not so popular) drug, and I mean pharmaceutical, and then adds in "cons" for that search, there will be fairly long list of people who have experienced catastrophic results with that drug. And yet, there will be people that swear by it.

My point is that with items like marijuana (for sure) and coke and heroin (perhaps) we are at point in history where the positive items (pros) won't have unique benefit, and negatives will be seen to outweigh the positives, even while users of these drugs will swear by them, especially if they are type of users who are non-abusers.

To put you an example, I have five friends that consume marihuana regularly:

One of them (31 years old) stopped consuming due to a myocardial infarction. After some tests, the doctors stated that it happened because of the marihuana, a long-term effect for consuming the drug regularly since he was 16 years old.

I would day this is rare exception.

The second (36 years old) suffered a paralisis in the left half of his body. After a whole bunch of tests, they came to the conclusion that consuming marihuana too regularly since he was 18 years old, determined the paralisis. A year has pased and fortunately he now can use his leg and arm again, but the doctors have their doubts regarding to if he will someday regain the mobility of his face.

Again, exception.

The third one (29 years old) suffered of fainting very often since he was 27. The doctors did him some tests, and stated that it was due to marihuana abuse. He stopped consuming and now he has been almost a year without fainting.

I've never even heard of this as possibility.

As you can see, your personal experience with drugs and mine, can be ridiculously different. And neither of both should be taken into account if put against a profesional study.

One of the big problems with drugs compared to medicines, is that you can only take the medicine if prescribed. However, you can take the drug whenever you want, and all the days of your life if you want.

I do see us disagreeing with this, and not sure how that would get resolved. Me, I don't use drugs at all anymore, including medicine. Rarely will I take medicine and usually reluctantly. Doctors strike me, often, as pushers and seem to have as little concern for side effects of medicine as an illegal drug dealer will have no concern for cons of product they sell.

I've never done heroin or meth, and those seem like very easy to abuse. Coke less easy, and marijuana the least easy. Yet, I've met abusers of all of these. And as much as abuse stinks, I think it is because of lack of education around usage that the problems exist like they do. There's far too much darkness associated with drug use, and far too little darkness associated with medicines. Yes, doctor does make significant difference, but I think true nature of mind's use / addiction to any substance is leading toward dependence on ineffective treatments of perceived illnesses (over time).

I do happen to know 2 people very well who without medicines are told they will essentially die. I don't think either should be taken off their medication, but in knowing what I do know about their predicament, includes cons, it just seems like drugs are not about healing, but about managing symptoms. It is as disastrous, IMO, as those who try to manage own addiction through regular use of illegal substances.
 

Requia

Active Member
Sure, but the car has a lot of benefits and there is a large list of security rules that, if followed, the risk of using it isn't substancial at all. The same with medicines.

30,000 people died last year in car accidents, its estimated around 11,000 more would have died if the price of gas was not so high.

Legal drugs killed a good 60,000 people in 2009 (I don't have 2010 figures). In fact, Tylenol alone kills thousands.

I can't find recent figures for illegal drugs, but in the late 90s it was under 20,000 (at the time, legal drugs hit about 30k, and car accidents hit around 40k).
 

Mathematician

Reason, and reason again
Not to mention a lot of those deaths resulted from black market shenanigans. If your goal is to reduce damage both to the community and user, criminalization is not the way to go. Prohibition proved this point.
 

kai

ragamuffin
keep saying it criminals love alcohol and tobacco over here. They sell by the truck load, smuggled in duty free or even dangerous counterfeit stuff because ours is taxed to the hilt, same as tobacco nearly everyone i know that smokes buys theirs under the counter nearly half the price.
 

otokage007

Well-Known Member
30,000 people died last year in car accidents, its estimated around 11,000 more would have died if the price of gas was not so high.

Legal drugs killed a good 60,000 people in 2009 (I don't have 2010 figures). In fact, Tylenol alone kills thousands.

I can't find recent figures for illegal drugs, but in the late 90s it was under 20,000 (at the time, legal drugs hit about 30k, and car accidents hit around 40k).

Now someone show us the lifes that the car has saved, for example, thanks to ambulances. And someone show us the lifes that illegal drugs has saved.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
So everyone needs to have ambulances, operated only by EMT's, with ability to turn on siren going as fast as possible in certain emergencies. But reality is that an automobile for personal use has no unique benefit over an ambulance. Does it?
 
Top