Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by MasterShake29, Apr 17, 2006.
Try this on for size.
Ok, here's a few:
--Crack wouldn't exist were cocaine to be legal
--In all likelihood, neither would meth
--All drugs, but especially heroin, could be regulated and standardized, thus drastically reducing the number of deaths attributed to it
You obviously been taking John Walters waaay too seriously.
FWIW, I actually think the tighter controlling of sudafed is a good idea from a harm reduction standpoint, although it does have some serious drawbacks.
It hurts no one. Nobody goes to jail, which is unusual (and a pleasant change)in our penal culture. Thus nobody is saddled with a criminal record, homes have a better chance of remaining unbroken, and no taxpayer money is wasted on prosecution. Also, to the extent that it cuts down on domestic meth production, it is an environmental boon as well.
Now that the need has been established, commence importation from Mexico. This increases the porousness of our borders and contributes to a general increase in organized crime. That was previously the one positive about meth--you could make it yourself, however toxic the process, and thus were not enriching a crime lord south of the border, which also kept the price much lower.
An important caveat to this is that there may be no cons in terms of rural use. Rural meth use is perhaps a more serious form of use, when compared to urban contexts in terms of severity and access to treatment and services. Urban characterizations of meth tend to be as a party drug--rural use becomes a way of life.
Rather than the social disorganization endemic to urban drug use, a strange pattern develops in rural meth use--the communities actually tend to be fairly well organized, i.e., strong social ties, low unemployment, homogenous. Meth is made and passed around through the extensive social networks, sometimes without any actual money changing hands. HOWEVER, because the communities are self-sustaining in their use, they have few outside connections for meth use, and thus, the restricted sale of sudafed, and thus reducing community production, may actually be a promising step to curbing rural use.
Yeah, those Frontline guys are full of shit. Right.
And it does alter the way the brain produces seratonin virtually eliminating its production once someone becomes a regular user of CM. The more potent the drug is, the harder the addiction is to break. So before you call bullshit on a documentary, sit down and watch it. CM is replacing crack because it's easier to make and more addictive. It's not hype.
I happen to think we're our brothers' keepers, but that's not the main reason I want certain drugs to be illegal. I don't want other people's drug problems affecting my life!
Because the vast, vast majority of the populace agrees with it.
If the vast majority of the populace agrees with killing you because of your <insert something here> is that ok too?
The vast majority of people think logical fallacies are pretty stupid.
You are my new hero.
Yes, it is. You probably believe in crack babies, too.
Turning meth into a "superdrug" is simply not a helpful way of dealing with it. Any documentary that has you believing in a universal addiction factor is just more media hype. Look at the science, look at treatment results, look at social context.
Meth is just like any other drug within pretty reasonable limits. The real problem is its home production facilities, which laws like this help to curb.
I thought the main reasons to legalize drugs were to stop the crime associated with the illegal drug trade and undermine the gangs or crime syndicates who import/manufacture/sell the drugs.
The author's biggest problem with the terms "meth baby" and "crack baby" is that they're pejorative, and he objects to media hysteria during this early stage of research. If you plug the terms "methamphetamine" and "newborn" into MEDLINE, you'll see that there is ample evidence that babies born to meth-using mothers have highly significantly greater rates of impairment to the brain. Mouse models have come to the same conclusion. There is no ambiguity here.
I agree with the author's admonishment of media hysteria, but meth, like crack and heroin, is NOT just "like any other drug within pretty reasonable limits."
This is why I support a highly regulated form of legalization. Sell the stuff in well-lit, clean, safe, and extremely boring clinics, and remove the black market trade and the romanticization of the deal.
It's not a fallacy, it's illustrating a point, a very good point.
I believe that some things aren't for the vast majority of the populace to decide. I believe my personal liberty should be one of those.
If you don't believe that, then you don't believe in the Declaration of Independence's notion of inalienable rights.
Clap your hands and say: "I do, I do, I do believe in crack babies."
This isn't true for me, though I agree that those are certainly quite good reasons to do so. My main reason is to get the government out of telling me how to live my life. It's my life, it should be my decision.
If I want advice from George W. Bush or Harry Reid, I'll give them a call.
The society as a whole suffers when individuals make decisions that are (apparently) harmful only to themselves.
I see that you don't want to acknowledge that reality, but it's true whether you want to face it or not.
Your definition of liberty is the logical fallacy, not your statement of the obvious.
For the last time, neither our government nor our society is based on the Declaration of Indepdence.
There's a reason for a completele lack of such verbiage in the Constitution.
How many god damn times do we need to remind Matt that the Declaration of Independence is not a friggin' legal document. And it's a damn good thing, too. You know who wanted the Declaration to be considered part of American law? Anti-abortion advocates in the 1980s.
Most people won't make those decisions though, because most people want to be "successful" in life. Very few have death wishes. That's exactly what capitalism is based on.
I have a question for all of you: Do I own myself? If if I don't, who/what does?
Point out where in that statement I said the Declaration was a "legal document"?
Those damn anti-abortion advocates, not wanting babies being killed. How awful of them.
Yeah, that's why the tobacco indstry never really took off, right?
Of course you can't prove this one way or the other, but you just know that is has to be true. I mean, you just know it.
So should smoking be banned? I'm confused.
Not that I'm advocating smoking or anything, but people have been doing it for quite a while, and life has gone on.