Current Events > ITT, you (attempt to) explain why we shouldn't legalize ALL drugs...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Wewillrocku posted...

looks like people here are defending shit that's literally illegal.

Not reading this topic. I'm all for the legalization as it removes the stigma and fear of prosecution when stepping forward and seeking help. There are too many pros to ignore beyond that. However, if anyone here is calling substance abuse a victimless crime, they're a total fucking buster that needs to shut the fuck up with that shit.

---

GiftedACIII posted...

Same thing as the army having military weapons and investigators looking through CP.

What about medicinal krokodil?
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Holy shit dude, quit while youre behind

Child porn cannot exist without children being raped. Full stop. Period. End of discussion.

And deaths and execution vids cant exist without people being killed but its not a crime to view it. The crime for possession of both snuff and CP is how it contributes to more victims just like consuming hard drugs. This should be common sense.
---

GiftedACIII posted...

Except substances like meth and PCP are extreme immediate dangers to other people around the user. It takes multiple officers to be able to restrain one on the very likely chance they go mad. Even things like steroids need prescriptions. By your logic we should just make every substance under the sun completely available over the counter for recreational use which would cause chaos.

Very weird line of thought. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it has to be "completely available over the counter for recreational use." That's not even true for alcohol and tobacco. There's an age restriction so that not everybody can buy them. Other drugs require prescriptions, so they're intentionally harder to access, but they're still legal.
---

I'm completely behind marijuana being legalized, but with limits (like alcohol). While I'm okay with other recreational drugs being decriminalized to some aspect, I'm not sure if I'd go as far as allowing it on the level of alcohol - probably only at designated centers where people can safely use and discard materials and peripherals necessary for consumption of said drugs.

---

Regardless of organically making these drugs there will always be a market where they cut it with other products at a lower price

---

TheOnionKnight posted...

Very weird line of thought. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it has to be "completely available over the counter for recreational use." That's not even true for alcohol and tobacco. There's an age restriction so that not everybody can buy them. Other drugs require prescriptions, so they're intentionally harder to access, but they're still legal.

His argument is that things that fuck you up shouldnt be restricted and that there shouldnt be an artificial restriction for the supply of things people demand for- both things that regulating drugs do. I actually acknowledged this with steroids that is a user altering drug that needs prescriptions.
---

You seem to be operating on the false assumption that all drug use is problematic, or that use necessarily leads to addiction

as an examplein 2018, 40 million Americans reported using cocaine at some point in their lifetime

https://www.statista.com/statistics/611637/cocaine-use-during-lifetime-in-the-us/

surely if this was so bad, roughly 15% of Americans having used would be a crisis, right?

---

shockthemonkey posted...

How are you still so confused about this?

Someone rapes a child to make CP. There is a victim by virtue of CP existing.

There is not an inherent victim in drug existing. Simply using them does not create any victims. If Johnny Buttstuff smoked some crystal and plays Call of Duty for 17 hours, who the fuck got hurt?

Things that can only exist by virtue of creating victims are not the same as things where a victim could be created after the fact. Ice causes slippery slopes, and we should not ban ice because there might be a victim of it.

I cant believe this is a difficult concept at all.

How are YOU so confused about this? You claim the extraordinarily stupid argument that doing drugs by itself is victimless when its all the things that it leads to that isnt. Ok sure, doing drugs in a vacuum doesnt cause victims. Neither does the mere act of watching something. Are the people who investigate CP creating more victims every time they look through it? Youre lumping watching it with the production of it which is exactly how it should be... just like lumping the use of hard drugs with the effects it has. The fact that you wanted to treat it like its a vacuum and completely ignoring the effects it has is already a ridiculously disingenuous and moronic argument which I really shouldve just immediately called out rather than trying to get you to understand why its so stupid.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Someone rapes a child to make CP. There is a victim by virtue of CP existing.

There is not an inherent victim in drug existing. Simply using them does not create any victims. If Johnny Buttstuff smoked some crystal and plays Call of Duty for 17 hours, who the fuck got hurt?

There is no inherant hurting of someone being exposed to CP. You weren't the one to commit the crime. It's mostly illegal as a distribution. You are enabling it by viewing it though

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Someone rapes a child to make CP. There is a victim by virtue of CP existing.

There is not an inherent victim in drug existing. Simply using them does not create any victims. If Johnny Buttstuff smoked some crystal and plays Call of Duty for 17 hours, who the fuck got hurt?

The reality is your typical drug user is someone who takes molly or whatever to have a good time on Saturday night and then still makes it into work on monday

this user is operating on the false assumption that a junkie addict is a typical case

as long as there are things that people enjoy, there will be people addicted to said things

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Someone rapes a child to make CP. There is a victim by virtue of CP existing.

There is not an inherent victim in drug existing. Simply using them does not create any victims. If Johnny Buttstuff smoked some crystal and plays Call of Duty for 17 hours, who the fuck got hurt?

I can see youre going to be stuck on that so Ill just state that its completely irrelevant. Many crimes and recorded and viewed by millions of people. None of them are accountable for the crime and victims they witnessed. Since the only thing you care about it the direct cause of a victim then only production of CP directly causes a victim. Possession and distribution enable it but does not directly cause it. You ignoring the negative effects of hard drugs and treating it like its just another snack is equivalent to ignoring the negative effects of CP and treating it like its just some crime that was recorded on tv. No one gets hurt by looking at a screen.
---

https://youtu.be/Uh7l8dx-h8M

Exhibit A

---

I've seen drugs rip a couple families apart.

Losing a loved one (via drug overdose or other means) is the worst kind of pain imaginable. And I'm speaking from recent experience.

---

What a good looking question...

shockthemonkey posted...

But hes conflating the existence of CP - which has a victim by its nature - with the use of drugs - which does not.

That was HIS comparison.

No, this is a goalpost change. I never said anything about conflating the existence of it.

These are the posts before you immediately jumped to raping children

So we need to punish all the people who dont do bad things on drugs because we cant just punish people for the bad stuff they do on drugs.

So we shouldnt punish people who dont do bad things with illegal weapons, pirated media, CP, and snuff? Only when an actual crime is being done with them? One can say the very act of consuming hard drugs can be considered a bad thing due to reckless endangerment.

These are all illegal things where consuming it in a vacuum does not harm anyone but the negative effects of it does.
Youre the one that derailed the topic into focusing on CP.

Plus the fact that you didnt address the others after all this time shows you got the general point of what I was saying but wanted to gish gallop as many small holes in the CP comparison as you can so you can go for the ad hominem victory, which is honestly your usual tactic but I hoped youd be more civil with me.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Youre still doing it. Your argument still requires you to believe that doing drugs in and of itself has a victim, comparable to a child being raped. Im not going to take you seriously while you peddle disgusting bullshit. Youre the one who brought up raping children, unless you think child porn is something other than child rape. Your example doesnt make any sense unless you believe that there is no victim in child porn. And for the love of fucking God, you better believe theres a victim in child porn.

The act of getting high does not require a victim. Do you understand that yet? Can you stop comparing it to child rape?

Im curious. Are you currently high or drunk? I think my point should be extremely obvious by now. Ive stated it multiple times. No, it does not require believing drugs in of itself has victim. Illegal weapons in of itself do not require a victim. Pirated media in of itself does not have a victim. CP and snuff do but thats beside the point. The point is how they lead to victims and how high the chance of doing so is (that shit like ice and skydiving doesnt).
Really not sure how you can be missing the point so badly.
---

Psychedelics should definitely have a place in society as wellness tools. If you know nothing about them, you should read Michael Pollan's book How to Change Your Mind.

---

All drugs?

Aggression drugs and heavy hallucinaginic drugs should probably be heavily monitored, if not illegal. Some of that stuff turns people into face eating zombies.

---

thing is, many of the issues with drugs are directly related to illegality

consider this hypothetical scenario: alcohol is illegal, so it can only be obtained through underground sources

you know alcohol can be deadly, but only in high doses, so you will be careful.

you obtain a bottle of what you understand to be illicit wine. You know wine is typically 11-15% abv so you can have a few glasses without it being a problem

however, unbeknownst to you, this wine also has LSD added. You have a few glasses and suddenly youre hallucinating

neat, you say to yourself. I didnt know alcohol had that effect (it is illegal, after all, and therefore information on its effects isnt readily available)

you buy another illicit bottle of wine. This time, however, its not cut with LSD. instead, its actually grain liquor, 90% abv, 7-9x more potent than what you were expecting. Again, however, you arent educated on what wine should taste like, so you just assume this is a bad tasting batch. Youre just drinking it for the effects after all. But after a couple glasses youre not feeling that hallucinogenic effect. You polish off the bottle hoping to feel it, and suddenly you have alcohol poisoning from consuming an entire bottle of grain liquor. if no one is around to help you deal with it, you will die

we KNOW that alcohol can be consumed in a way that mitigates its dangers. We have laws and regulations surrounding it. However, in this hypothetical world, Its easy to see how alcohol would quickly be painted as a potentially deadly drug with unknown effects.

---

TheGoldenEel posted...

thing is, many of the issues with drugs are directly related to illegality

consider this hypothetical scenario: alcohol is illegal, so it can only be obtained through underground sources

you know alcohol can be deadly, but only in high doses, so you will be careful.

you obtain a bottle of what you understand to be illicit wine. You know wine is typically 11-15% abv so you can have a few glasses without it being a problem

however, unbeknownst to you, this wine also has LSD added. You have a few glasses and suddenly youre hallucinating

neat, you say to yourself. I didnt know alcohol had that effect (it is illegal, after all, and therefore information on its effects isnt readily available)

you buy another illicit bottle of wine. This time, however, its not cut with LSD. instead, its actually grain liquor, 90% abv, 7-9x more potent than what you were expecting. Again, however, you arent educated on what wine should taste like, so you just assume this is a bad tasting batch. Youre just drinking it for the effects after all. But after a couple glasses youre not feeling that hallucinogenic effect. You polish off the bottle hoping to feel it, and suddenly you have alcohol poisoning from consuming an entire bottle of grain liquor. if no one is around to help you deal with it, you will die

we KNOW that alcohol can be consumed in a way that mitigates its dangers. We have laws and regulations surrounding it. However, in this hypothetical world, Its easy to see how alcohol would quickly be painted as a potentially deadly drug with unknown effects.

Good post.

---

Damn what happened to everyone

---

Conflict posted...

At least, that's what I'm gathering from it. Naturally it's not a 1:1 comparison since obviously CP is worse than hard drugs, just a comparison of principles

I was actually going to edit in that the bulk of this might be because he got offended at the comparison since CP and snuff are both much worse as a concept and consuming them have a higher chance of creating more victims but killing 10 does not make killing 2 ok.

Anyway personally Im for using them for medicinal and recovery purposes which Im not sure if it counts as decriminalize or not. I really dont think letting any random citizen have access to meth and some acid is a remotely good idea though and Im not sure how it can be regulated more than that. Need a license for it? I dont think that would really change much.

shockthemonkey posted...

I keep comparing child rape to drug use and have no defense when you point out that one can be victimless while the other cant be, but youre high or drunk is certainly a new low.

Bro, acting like UnfairRepresent doesnt dispel my suspicions. Multiple reasonable people have gotten the point and tried to correct you now.

TheGoldenEel posted...

Damn what happened to everyone

A mod fell for Shocks malicious strawmen and gaslighting of selectively quoting only a section of my posts. They took the individual posts on their own without any of the context and claimed I was defending CP when I was clearly condemning it by explaining the context of how its illegal in relation to why hard drugs are illegal. They also did an asshole move where they did a bunch of NKLs which I disputed before adding the warning while not responding to my dispute which is still up so I cant dispute the warning.

I believe in decriminalizing because that doesn't increase usage rates, but heroin and other substances like it shouldn't just become another piston of the mass market capitalist engine.

---

I see I came into this topic a little too late.

---

Like I've said multiple times, that's an irrelevant and separate aspect of them. The actual point is that illegal possessions are illegal due to their potential negative effects so your argument in this topic was shit from the start. You focusing on the irrelevant differences between hard drugs and CP is deflection.

shockthemonkey posted...

Dude take a fucking hint and learn when you?re wrong

Drugs can be used without a victim
Child porn cannot exist without a victim

Stop fucking arguing anything else

If you're talking to the aciii guy, he's warned, so he won't be arguing anything at all for a few days.
---

Stop deflecting onto irrelevant tangents. The point of contention here is the risk of causing more victims that illegal possessions lead to, nothing else.

stop talking about that. this is about drugs.

---

Because it's completely irrelevant. The thing in common with all illegal possessions is their risk in creating more victims, not that they inherently have victims, because a lot of things that inherently have victims aren't illegal.

Legalize it all

---

You really should be asking yourself how worthwhile it is to spend 2 accounts to argue that CP is better than drugs.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

You really should be asking yourself how worthwhile it is to spend 2 accounts to argue that CP is better than drugs.

I outright said it is worse in multiple aspects. The reasoning for their criminal status is the same, just like every other illegal possession.

shockthemonkey posted...

So you want to punish people who havent harmed anyone and arent going to harm anyone because some people who do similar things will harm people.

Yes, because they perpetuate victims.