Thread: Drug Abuse Poll
View Single Post
Old March 13th, 2014, 05:33 PM  
jayce_xt
Member
 
jayce_xt's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: February 28, 2014
Gender: Male
Default Re: Drug Abuse Poll

Quote:
Originally Posted by phuckphace427 View Post
I've lost count of the number of times I've heard a druggie use the debunked "MDMA causes swiss cheese brain" and "pot causes reefer madness" example to illustrate the supposed need for full bore legalization of all drugs. it's laughable. marijuana is one thing, but substances like meth and heroin are a different matter. the high-functioning meth user is ficitional. there is no "safe" or "victimless" hard drug use period.
"Marijuana is one thing." That means that you actually agree that the harms of marijuana are grossly exaggerated, if not outright false.

On a more practical note, what does criminalizing drugs accomplish? Absolutely nothing. It doesn't reduce the rates of use by any significant amount. It demonizes people who are addicted as some kind of evil, destructive entity that must, itself, be destroyed, as opposed to an ill addict who genuinely needs help to recover. And before you try and say that prisons rehabilitate, or offer rehabilitative services, I've already checked the statistics: they don't. Fewer than 2% of all prisons actually offer any kind of professional assistance for addicts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phuckphace427 View Post
this is a textbook example of flawed libertarian thinking. according to that thinking, social control exists only because the people in charge are power hungry and get off on bossing other people around. in the real world, social control is desired because it grants stability, and the benefits of stability are self-evident. I know it really sticks in your craw to hear this, but people are not naturally wise or logical, and deference to authority is one way that humans have learned to compensate for that.
Wow. I didn't think you'd get so worked up over sarcasm. Maybe I should joke around with you less. I don't actually think that social control exists solely because of people with superiority complexes. That's just an oversimplification of a dynamic and complex series of processes.

Also, I'm quite positive that the majority of Americans agree with you: that they are not naturally wise or logical, and that the only way they can function with any semblance of order is to let someone else make the decisions for them. That was more sarcasm, by the way.

And furthermore, this actually is not the case at all. Humans are biological computers with a social script. That is, they are instinctively guided to adapt to their social surroundings with phenomenal speed. They will believe whatever they are told to believe, conform however they are told to conform, and otherwise do whatever it takes to blend in and survive in whatever kind of social environment they find themselves in, regardless of how harsh or dangerous. Social control is simply what we use to describe the social setting that humans are to adapt to.

Human nature isn't to obey, but to adapt. If human nature was to obey, then we would get nothing done because, according to you, we would all feel a deep-seated desire to defer to someone greater than us. That's one big circle-jerk, let me tell you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phuckphace427 View Post
it's also funny that you missed the tongue-in-cheek tone of the "Buzz Killington" bit and in typical libertarian fashion, went on to insist that that is in fact the sole reason why drugs are illegal.
It is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phuckphace427 View Post
well guess what! drugs are not illegal because of some authoritarian politician's desire to spoil your fun, and any anyone who actually believes that is beyond ignorant. Capslock for emphasis: MANY DRUGS ARE HARMFUL. THE HARM ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR USE CAUSES SOCIAL DYSFUNCTION. THIS DYSFUNCTION HAS FAR REACHING EFFECTS. THE GOVERNMENT RESTRICTS THEIR USE BECAUSE OF PUBLIC PRESSURE. why is that so hard for you to understand? okay so they banned marijuana too, boo fucking hoo get over it.
I already explained: drugs are illegal because a bunch of Authoritarians like yourself saw it as their duty to "protect" the population by getting drugs banned. They had no quantitative proof to demonstrate their beliefs. They just made a baseless assumption. They performed no actual research.

To this day, there has been not one shred of evidence that shows substance abuse causes social harm or dysfunction. There have been plenty of studies, however, showing that people who cause harm to others are also prone to behaviors that indicate low self-control. Substance addiction is one of them.

Is this getting through to you yet?

Drug use is not a cause. It's a possible predictor. People who hurt other people are significantly more likely to have less self control. By insisting that drug use is the problem, you are distracting people from the actual causes, thus making any attempts at fixing the problem that much more difficult.

Also, you have yet to actually prove that drug use is socially dysfunctional. How does drug use cause harm? How does that lead to social dysfunction? I await your answer, and I hope it is logical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phuckphace427 View Post
the Chinese-British opium trade and eventual war in the 19th century is actually a perfect example of the social decay and response to the same that occurs with widespread hard drug use. opium is a highly addictive substance that caused such widespread dysfunction in China that the Emperor moved to ban its use. this is the way it has always been - a substance is introduced, it begins to destroy lives, forcing the state to take action against it. the Emperor didn't take a look at all the opium dens and think, "dammit, all those people in there having fun. I DECREE NO FUN ALLOWED," but rather, he was seeing the stability and social order of his nation eroded by an addictive substance that caused infinitely more harm than benefit.
Do you really have so selective a grasp of history? The Chinese Emperor banned opium because it was causing a massive trade imbalance. Chinese goods were in high demand, whereas the Chinese had little demand for anything else. Opium became extremely popular, but England had a monopoly on it. The only way the Chinese could get Opium, then, was by trading with England on their terms. This severely dented China's otherwise massive advantage in global trade, resulting in tons of wealth flowing back out of China and into England. At the time, opium was completely legal in England, and there was no "social dysfunction" occurring as a result. The Chinese Emperor may have said publicly that it was because it was "harmful", but there was no notable increase in crime or other indicators of "social dysfunction" during this time period. Upon banning opium, China briefly saw a resurgence in its dominance in global trade. Until, of course, England went to war with them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phuckphace427 View Post
because it's self-evident to everyone except people like you
Then enlighten me. Unless, of course, you can't actually explain how it is. Which I'm beginning to suspect is the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phuckphace427 View Post
nice strawman. none of the people advocating Prohibition in the 1920s were ever under the impression that a ban on alcohol would "solve all our problems," that's a gross and dishonest misrepresentation of the facts. what actually happened was that there was a period of social change where behavior became more liberated, and many people resented this change because they saw it as the cause of increased social dysfunction. because alcohol is probably the most highly visible and prevalent recreational drug (and alcoholism the most well-known negative consequence of its use) it became an easy target for legislation that sought to reduce said dysfunction by restricting it. absolutely nobody thought "hey after Prohibition passes everything will be peachy again," but rather that the restriction would lessen the prevalence of alcoholism and keep it at a manageable level.
Instead, we saw an enormous increase in social dysfunction. Crime rates shot through the roof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phuckphace427 View Post
Prohibition failed largely because alcohol is an odd outlier among drugs, in that moderate use without addiction is readily possible and has been part of most human cultures for thousands of years. the same cannot be said for, say, meth.
Actually, alcohol is pretty much exemplary of how most drugs are. Yes, methamphetamine is bad for you. I'm not disputing that. But it is also extremely possible to similarly engage in "moderate use without addiction" with MDMA, LSD, Psilocybin, and Marijuana, for example. Also, Opium, Psilocibin, Marijuana, Peyote, DMT, and Ayahuasca have been a part of most human cultures for thousands of years, too. Unless you want to say that the entirety of North and South America and Asia do not constitute "most" of human cultures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phuckphace427 View Post
BEEP BOOP, INPUT NOT LOGICAL, DOES NOT COMPUTE. SYNTAX ERROR! SYNTAX ERROR! BOOP BEEP

yes indeed it had a strong following for some mystifying reason that you have yet to discover. five bucks says you'll never figure out what that is
It's not hard to figure out. Due to the highly restricted nature of education, commonfolk have always been more readily roused by charismatic speeches than rational arguments. It's a bit much to expect full knowledge of mathematical logic from people who likely didn't know what nouns were.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phuckphace427 View Post
and I bet you actually believe that too!
Have you read up on the backroom deals between politicians and name brand companies that cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars in property destruction or economic loss in this year alone? Have you checked out what that sort of thing was like back in industrial America and England? I would highly recommend it if you wish to become knowledgeable on the subject of political and corporate crime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phuckphace427 View Post
no not at all, I was wrong and it turns out that meth addicts frequently make groundbreaking innovations in the sciences and devise new life saving surgery techniques and a laundry list of other contributions to society
I don't know about methamphetamine addicts, but LSD certainly seems to be popular among the scientists:

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=206788

Quote:
Originally Posted by phuckphace427 View Post
are you fucking kidding me?
No, I am not. Where is your quantitative proof? All you've done so far is make fallacious statements with questionable logic and erroneous premises. You do know what a logical premise and conclusion are, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by phuckphace427 View Post
LMFAO!

there are numerous examples available to you that illustrate that the first, second and third-person harm caused by hard drugs is very real, including here on VT from members who have experienced it firsthand. but I'm sure your answer to that will be some goofy tinfoil hat bullshit that xandyx and anyone else making those claims are really DEA agents in disguise.
I already made this point: drugs were criminalized due to moral crusading and racism. That's a fact. The kids here on VT were not around when the legislators put this together. They do not disprove the evidence I've presented.

Also, as I've already stated: anything can be addictive. Addiction lies within the psyche of the person, not within the morality of the chemical (because chemicals have no morality). I've read the stories here. They are kids who have had problems in the past and turned to drugs. They are kids with addictive personalities who just cannot stop once they start. This is a psychological problem that can only be dealt with using psychological approaches. No psychologist will ever say, "If the person is addicted to sex, then sex needs to be criminalized." That does not logically follow. Thus, it stands to reason that saying, "If the person is addicted to drugs, then drugs need to be criminalized" is equally fallacious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phuckphace427 View Post
the US has the highest per-capita violent crime rate of all tern nations, does that count?
No, because then you are purposely excluding an area that disproves your point. If your argument were true, then crime in the US would be comparable to crime in Africa, since both populations are apparently lacking in "personal responsibility or grasp of the concept of moderation or restraint."

Quote:
Originally Posted by phuckphace427 View Post
yes I'm sure this would be a boon for a small handful of morally-bankrupt capitalists rushing to cash in on the opportunity to sell addictive poison to the masses for profit, for the two short weeks that the country would manage to hold together. if you can honestly read what you just wrote and not feel a single inkling of "that would probably be a bad idea for a multitude of reasons" then you're probably beyond help. the situation we're in now is bad enough, I don't even want to imagine what shape we'd be in with a legally legitimate "Philip-Morris of heroin".
I never said anything about allowing capitalists to monopolize the new industry. Quite the opposite, in fact: let those in the existing industry legitimize themselves and stop engaging in violence. These are two entirely separate things. Unless, in your mind, they aren't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phuckphace427 View Post
why do you care?
Because clearly, you seem to have everything figured out. So tell us: what are the facts of life?
jayce_xt is offline   Reply With Quote