Yay, someone talks sense about drugs!!

[Joe King Jay]

So try taking a balanced view.

What is it with you taking everything I write out of context? Are you reading my whole post or stopping at a certain part and then writing your responses?

I’ve been as clear as I can be on this issue.

Re-read this

My mind is not fixed on this issue, like you seem to think it is. You have not convinced me that the current laws are biased / discriminating concerning illegal drugs. My being unconvinced by your arguments does not equal a fixed state of mind.

Just because we have opposing views, does not make my mind fixed. I could now turn around and use that EXACT same argument on you.

Is that fair?

Is that true?

You need to stop making assumptions with my arguments. You’ve done this on a number of occasions too.

Then what reasons?

I’ve already told you in all of my posts why I believe the Government have not amended the laws. You choose not to see them. I’m not saying their right, but they make more sense to me than your limited view.

This is not an issue about moral rights/wrongs. This issue to me does not have a black or white answer. If you think the reason behind the Governments decision is something as simple as it being discriminatory, then good. I do not think the answer is that one dimensional.

PS - you've already tried covertly attacking me (again, another poor argument) by implying I use illegal drugs:

Here

You never know what you’re taking when you ingest a drug. Even, if it’s the exact same drug. The cut, concentration, and ingredients could be different , even though it’s the exact same drug. Because there are no regulations when it comes to producing illegal drugs, it’s like sticking your hand in a bag of snakes.

Sorry

That YOU does not mean YOU specifically. If you look at the context in which it is written I did not think you would think I was talking about YOU specifically.

Where else have I done this? Know that when I write YOU, it is not YOU specifically. Just a person in general.

All you have said is that they discriminate. You appear to have a highly invested interest in this matter, no? All your arguments have been about how the Government is discriminating and hypocritical on this matter. What conclusion am I to draw from your own words? You haven’t backed it up yet/ told me how they are discriminating. I might have missed where you explained yourself. If so, re-post please.

The how is what I’m wondering. I need some facts, not just your word. I need to see what you’re basing your arguments from.

Are you saying drug laws in general discriminate? A specific drug law? And how so?

My point to that post was about you speculating and being biased. Remember? NOT about your personal drug issues.

How is that a poor argument?

All you’ve said in all your previous arguments is how the Government is discriminating in its laws.

The fact that you have continued to argue about this issue with me tells me

You appear to have a highly invested interest in this matter, no?

Here’s another example of you jumping to conclusions

As I've already said from an epidemiological perspective cigarettes and alcohol have caused vastly more harm than illegal drugs. So if we are to take a proper balanced perspective these drugs should be made illegal too.

Why would you re-bring this point up again, if you read what I wrote here? This is from that exact same post.

You and I are talking about two different things here. I should have been clearer in my explanation, which caused you to misinterpret what I meant. I assumed you could read my mind .

My point was that drugs are generally more dangerous to take than either alcohol or cigarettes. You never know what you’re taking when you ingest a drug. Even, if it’s the exact same drug. The cut, concentration, and ingredients could be different, even though it’s the exact same drug. Because there are no regulations when it comes to producing illegal drugs, it’s like sticking your hand in a bag of snakes. The other danger with drugs is that people make false presumption that all drugs exert the same effects, which is not true. So, when you look at all of the illegal drugs and their different effects, length of high, unknowns (cut, concentration, etc), and production methods, they are more dangerous to take than either alcohol or cigarettes. When you take alcohol or cigarettes, you have a better idea of what you’re getting into. Drugs are unpredictable. Cigarettes/alcohol does not mess with the psyche the same immediate way illegal drugs do. One bad cigarette; you cough, one bad beer; you puke, one bad injection-you die. I’m not saying alcohol or cigarettes won’t kill, or don’t kill more people either, but its illegal drugs unpredictability that makes them so deadly. I was never basing my original point on which one sequentially kills more people.

If you read this whole post why would you re-bring up that point?

You misinterpreted what I wrote.

The bottom line is drugs are more unpredictable.

That is my opinion, based on their ingestion, concentration, variable effects, etc.

Now, based on that assumption of yours, you also came to this false conclusion.

As an example, the harm you talked about

You have already shown that this is a circular argument (I somehow doubt you realised it). If these drugs were legal and their manufacture done under controlled circumstances this "harm" would be non-existant.

Now based on what I wrote in that post (if you read it all), this argument of yours makes absolutely no sense. I’ll explain why after this.

(I somehow doubt you realised it)

Should I assume with that comment you are attacking my intelligence?

There is several ways to take this comment. Now, if I filtered it through my personal experience does that mean you wrote that comment to attack my intelligence?

Is it fair of me to assume that?

Again, back to this point.

As an example, the harm you talked about

You have already shown that this is a circular argument (I somehow doubt you realised it). If these drugs were legal and their manufacture done under controlled circumstances this "harm" would be non-existant.

You have just proved to me that you have
a) Taken what I wrote out of context or
b) Ignored the rest of my post.

Isn’t the point of taking drugs to get high?

I think the Government sees drugs the same way. I think that is one of the many reasons why they continue to make those drugs illegal. They’re unpredictable: dangerous. I’m only saying that there is an unpredictability factor with drugs, which does not apply as much to cigarettes or alcohol. The majority of people can consume alcohol responsibly. The same can also be said for some drugs. But isn’t the point of taking drugs to get high? I’ve never known someone who bought marijuana and said “ I hope to smoke this and not get high.” or “ I hope to snort this and feel absolutely nothing” or “ I hope to pop this and see nothing” When you look at drugs from this point of view and from their unpredictable nature, I can see the logic in the Governments decision. It’s that unpredictable high factor that is one of reasons too. I definitely do not think that is the only reason, but one of them behind their decision.

Does that make the Government right to assume the above? I don’t think I wrote it did. I do not think that sort of pre-caution by the Government means it is being one-sided. I think it is being more cautious because of illegal drugs unpredictable nature. How is changing the law going to make them anymore predictable? I also don’t feel that this is the only deciding factor weighing in on their decision against amending the drug laws. That answer alone is way to one dimensional. Saying the Government is being discriminatory against the current drug laws is also to one dimensional of an answer for me. Can you give me specific examples in the current law were it is acting like this please?

How is the Government manufacturing illegal drugs going to be any better? Getting high from manufactured drugs is still getting high. Is the Government controlling the manufacturing of opium, diacetylmorphine, cannabis, methamphetamine, etc…any better?

To me the point of taking drugs is to get high.

You wrote that you have been to parties where people were taking drugs. Did you hear things like this:

“ I hope to smoke this and not get high.” or “ I hope to snort this and feel absolutely nothing” or “ I hope to pop this and see nothing”

I highly doubt it. I have never in my entire life heard anyone say such a thing, in fact they say the opposite.

Have you not heard the same people at those parties? People talking about how good the drugs were/are? Have you not heard people say “I can’t wait to get high/fucked up”

I think it’s fairly safe to assume that the point of taking drugs is to get high.

Now, you probably thinking (I assume your thinking) that they let alcohol be legal. I’m not arguing about alcohol/cigarettes and there social issues. I never have been. I have only been focusing on why I think the Government is continuing to make drugs illegal. I am talking about drugs as a whole, not marijuana.

But, to go back to the point above. I think the majority of people who drink alcohol can drink it responsibly and not get drunk. I think the majority of people who do drugs do them to get high.

I think it’s perfectly safe to assume the above. That is my personal opinion I’ve gotten from over the years in various observations.

Do not confuse the above point with what results from consuming alcohol/ illegal drugs. I have been arguing about why I think the Government continues to make certain drugs illegal.

That is why I wrote:

The majority of people can consume alcohol responsibly. The same can also be said for some drugs.

Those are two different points to me. Do you now see why I think that?

I think one of the reasons the Government continues to make certain drugs illegal is there unpredictable nature (even if manufactured), plus peoples desire to get high. This makes a dangerous combination.

Once again, how am I being fixed in my argument?

I'm looking at this argument from different angels.

Does that make the Government right to assume the above? I don’t think I wrote it did. I do not think that sort of pre-caution by the Government means it is being one-sided. I think it is being more cautious because of illegal drugs unpredictable nature. How is changing the law going to make them anymore predictable? I also don’t feel that this is the only deciding factor weighing in on their decision against amending the drug laws. That answer alone is way to one dimensional. Saying the Government is being discriminatory against the current drug laws is also to one dimensional of an answer for me. Can you give me specific examples in the current law were it is acting like this please?

I’m not fixed. I think your answer of the Government is being discriminatory is fixed.

I have brought up several reasons why I think the Government continues to make certain drugs illegal.

Does that make the Government right to assume the above? I don’t think I wrote it did.

You have only talked about the Government being discriminatory with its drug laws. You have not really told me how.

Again, this issue does not have ONE factor contributing. The Government has to look at several things here. Does that mean that after viewing all issues concerning this law the Government will continue to make drugs illegal?

I do not know. I never said the Government only sees this issue like that. They have to look at numerous things.

That is why my next point right after in that same post wrote:

Similar lack of efficacy is observed in other countries pursuing similar policies (War on Drugs). In 1994, 28.5% of Canadians reported having consumed illicit drugs in their life; by 2004, that figure had risen to 45%. 73% of the $368 million spent by the Canadian government on targeting illicit drugs in 2004-2005 went toward law enforcement rather than treatment, prevention or harm reduction.

There is little correlation between the use of drugs and crime, except in so far as the possession and cultivation of drugs are crimes.

They are already fighting the war and apparently not doing so well. This means they have to perform it from a different angle, right? Now, maybe this different angle is approaching drugs laws with a different mentality.

Amending the current drug laws?

They can not simply amen the drug laws without a wave affect. Would you not agree? The Government knows that all their current problems are not going to simply disappear because those laws are amended. Those ripples can not be ignored.

Which lead into my next point.

This is another major problem with the “War on Drugs”. This was one of points OneBoyceVoice and I were talking about before.

I really think the Government views the “War on Drugs” like this:

What would happen if we reformed the budget and put more funding into treatment/prevent? What would happen if we assigned more of the budget to policing and preventative measures? Would the police need to re-design their combating drug strategies? Would we then have to look at these strategies to stay on budget? Do they now need to hire more police to complete these strategies? How are they going to treat people if/when they become addicts? How are hospitals going to treat addicts? What hospitals are we going to give more funding to as a result of this? Should we tell hospitals to treat addicts the same as always? Are we going to supply those addicts with methadone for free? ETC….???

These are but a small sample of the things the Government needs to look into. These factors will effect there decision in and if the law is to be amended or they could simply change their “War on Drugs” approach and try something new. It takes time to find out this type of information. Just because the Government has not come to a ruling fast enough for ones personal tastes is inconsequential. Ones lack of patience is not the Governments problem when it comes to a matter of this magnitude. There verdict will affect everyone. The finally decision can not be a black or white decision. It is probably going to be grey. I think the Government thinks there are two many things effected by this law for it to change anytime soon. They have to figure out realistic strategies in dealing with these dilemmas before they change the law.

The Government here (Canada/US) has already looked into/decriminalized marijuana possession to a degree.

So, is the Government still being discriminatory?

Do you think EVERYONE in the Government is against the decriminalization of certain drugs?

Do you think EVERYONE in the Government is discriminatory on this issue?

I think NO to all of the above.

The Government is comprised of many individuals. So, does it not make sense that they have to find a common ground first?

Do you think they should just change the law without looking into the social ramifications?

What would happen if we reformed the budget and put more funding into treatment/prevent? What would happen if we assigned more of the budget to policing and preventative measures? .....................ETC….???

I do not think the Government is simply being discriminatory like you believe. I think they have to consider many other variables before they can come to more educated conclusion.

If you still think it is just them ONLY being discriminatory then I’m officially done this debate with you.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this matter and move on.

 

[Joe King Jay]

Do you carry a bucket of sand around to stick your head in?

I DO!!! How did you know?????

Remember the knife cuts both ways.

I've said take a balanced view and you go on about a fixed view

First off, re-read this

My mind is not fixed on this issue, like you seem to think it is. You have not convinced me that the current laws are biased / discriminating concerning illegal drugs. My being unconvinced by your arguments does not equal a fixed state of mind.
Just because we have opposing views, does not make my mind fixed. I could now turn around and use that EXACT same argument on you.

I have looked at your arguments. Here’s one example.

You have already shown that this is a circular argument (I somehow doubt you realised it). If these drugs were legal and their manufacture done under controlled circumstances this "harm" would be non-existant.

I responded with.

How is the Government manufacturing illegal drugs going to be any better? Getting high from manufactured drugs is still getting high. Is the Government controlling the manufacturing of opium, diacetylmorphine, cannabis, methamphetamine, etc…any better?

To me the point of taking drugs is to get high.

I think your above point is weak. The fact that you wrote

“If these drugs were legal and their manufacture done under controlled circumstances this "harm" would be non-existant.”

I think that is a sophist argument. I also think that point is highly naïve. Just because I think your point is worthless, does not mean my mind is fixed. It simply means that that specific point of yours is weak.

You for some reason think I want drugs to stay illegal. I do not. I think the Government has to look at several things before they can simply amend the law.

P.S what drugs are you talking about here? I can only assume from your post you are talking about illegal drugs in general.

I have looked at your arguments. I think they are weak. Just like you think mine are “sophists”.

This once again proves you are not reading my posts properly. Did you just choose to ignore things in my post like:

This is not an issue about moral rights/wrongs. This issue to me does not have a black or white answer. If you think the reason behind the Governments decision is something as simple as it being discriminatory, then good. I do not think the answer is that one dimensional.


That is my opinion, based on their ingestion, concentration, variable effects, etc.

I have only been focusing on why I think the Government is continuing to make drugs illegal. I am talking about drugs as a whole, not marijuana.

I think the majority of people who drink alcohol can drink it responsibly and not get drunk. I think the majority of people who do drugs do them to get high.

I think it’s perfectly safe to assume the above. That is my personal opinion I’ve gotten from over the years in various observations.

Do not confuse the above point with what results from consuming alcohol/ illegal drugs. I have been arguing about why I think the Government continues to make certain drugs illegal.


I think one of the reasons the Government continues to make certain drugs illegal is there unpredictable nature (even if manufactured), plus peoples desire to get high. This makes a dangerous combination.

I have brought up several reasons why I think the Government continues to make certain drugs illegal.

Again, this issue does not have ONE factor contributing. The Government has to look at several things here. Does that mean that after viewing all issues concerning this law the Government will continue to make drugs illegal?

I do not know. I never said the Government only sees this issue like that. They have to look at numerous things.

That is why my next point right after in that same post wrote:

Which lead into my next point.

The Government here (Canada/US) has already looked into/decriminalized marijuana possession to a degree.

So, is the Government still being discriminatory?

Do you think EVERYONE in the Government is against the decriminalization of certain drugs?

Do you think EVERYONE in the Government is discriminatory on this issue?

I think NO to all of the above.

The Government is comprised of many individuals. So, does it not make sense that they have to find a common ground first?

Do you think they should just change the law without looking into the social ramifications?

I do not think the Government is simply being discriminatory like you believe. I think they have to consider many other variables before they can come to more educated conclusion.

If you still think it is just them ONLY being discriminatory then I’m officially done this debate with you.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this matter and move on.

Did you get it? It’s obviously my OPINION on this matter. I did not think I would actually have to spell this out for you. I assumed wrong. Where am I stating these things as facts?????

If you actually read my post you would not have said.

Your posts are so full of sophists arguments that I'm dizzy from reading them.

If you do not care for my opinion then stop responding to them.

Do you make the laws here?

Do you know why they have not amended the current drug laws here?

I highly doubt you know EXACTLY why.

Did you not post this before also?

I'm not even in Canada/US. And I have studied the history of anti-drug legislation - across multiple cultures/countries.

I guess you choose to ignore this too.

The Government here (Canada/US) has already looked into/decriminalized marijuana possession to a degree.

So, is the Government still being discriminatory?

Do you think EVERYONE in the Government is against the decriminalization of certain drugs?

Do you think EVERYONE in the Government is discriminatory on this issue?

I think NO to all of the above.

The Government is comprised of many individuals. So, does it not make sense that they have to find a common ground first?

Do you think they should just change the law without looking into the social ramifications?

I do not think the Government is simply being discriminatory like you believe. I think they have to consider many other variables before they can come to more educated conclusion.

If you still think it is just them ONLY being discriminatory then I’m officially done this debate with you.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this matter and move on.

Try actually reading my posts before you jump to conclusions like the ones above please.

I do not have an invested interest in this matter. If having looked into the branching effects, the Government decides it is a better to make some illegal drugs decriminalized then good. They have already started this process. You should already know that because you studied anti-drug legislation in Canada/US remember?

I have to turn the question around now.

What EXACTLY should the Government do?

Would you simply change the law without looking into the branching effects it could have?

 

[Joe King Jay]

Apparently the knife cuts both ways. Yet you cant take your own previously stated position/advice?? Do you have to have the last word?? No matter how crapulent that word is? Filling the screen with words does not an argument make and you clearly have comprehension problems.

No, I do not need to have the last word.

But thank you for responding with yet another mature comment. It tells a lot about you.

Just because you can't see/do not believe my points is not my problem. It's yours.

Apparently the knife cuts both ways. Yet you cant take your own previously stated position/advice??

You definitely do not get it once again.

You have taken several of my opinions and taken them way out of context again.

You are fixed on this issue.

Impatiently awaiting your next reply!!!!

 

[_AJ_]

No, I do not need to have the last word.

But thank you for responding with yet another mature comment. It tells a lot about you.

Just because you can't see/do not believe my points is not my problem. It's yours.



You definitely do not get it once again.

You have taken several of my opinions and taken them way out of context again.

You are fixed on this issue.

Impatiently awaiting your next reply!!!!

if i could make a recommendation it is very difficult to follow your posts with huge slabs of text and quotes

maybe only one or 2 quotes in a post and 1 or 2 paragraphs. You may not get everything across in one post but it will help in making your point clear and allow people to judge properly

 

[Joe King Jay]

if i could make a recommendation it is very difficult to follow your posts with huge slabs of text and quotes

maybe only one or 2 quotes in a post and 1 or 2 paragraphs. You may not get everything across in one post but it will help in making your point clear and allow people to judge properly

Point taken

 

[Joe King Jay]

Why? You havent shown any startling ability to understand how to advance an argument or how to post sensibly.

The fact that you have resorted to this type of arguing, proves volumes.

 

[Joe King Jay]

Yep, it proves that arguing with you is utterly pointless because every argument of yours that I've countered you've side-stepped and made falacious claims.

What are you talking about here?

You have not countered any of my points. You have made immature comments about them.

I'm not the one who started with the shallow comments.

If you feel I did then, I'm sorry.

I'm not like that.

If you want to debate the original matter, fine. If you are going to continue with these sort of posts, then I'm done arguing with you.

If you had a problem with my posting style or found it confusing you could have responded maturely like AJ did.

 

[Joe King Jay]

And to which you then side stepped rather than directly responding.

Try reading post # 34 again. I did respond to that post.

THen there was your repeated implication/accusation that I am a drug user to which I made this response:

Sorry

That YOU does not mean YOU specifically. If you look at the context in which it is written I did not think you would think I was talking about YOU specifically.

Where else have I done this? Know that when I write YOU, it is not YOU specifically. Just a person in general.

I already addressed this issue. I do not think you are a drug user. Why are you bringing this issue up again?

 

[Joe King Jay]

But again you had to make such an accusation:

You have taken this point out of context.

I was responding to your one post comment about being biased.

The last part.

Not about your personal drug issues.

That comment was written because I was NOT talking about your personal drug issues, like you thought. I was talking about you being biased.

 

[Joe King Jay]

You also havent answered a number of my questions to you. So why dont you start with a single point that I've made rather than your usual voluminous posts that are virtually incomprehensible.

You have not answered several of my questions either.

usual voluminous posts that are virtually incomprehensible.

What question did you want me to address specifically?