California cops are fighting weed legalization coz it means less money for them

[smilesammich 10,727]

But that takes me to my next point - if it is not grown in nature, if it is man made like say meth, it should not be legal IMHO.

i don't think prohibition is helpful with any substance. even if there were someway to get rid drugs like meth or bath salts or whatever, some other concoction of chemicals will be whipped up and take it's place. if you don't want your citizenry addicted to drugs, you have to provide them the means to end addiction not attempt to discipline them out of it..

[OriZ 3,157]

i don't think prohibition is helpful with any substance. even if there were someway to get rid drugs like meth or bath salts or whatever, some other concoction of chemicals will be whipped up and take it's place. if you don't want your citizenry addicted to drugs, you have to provide them the means to end addiction not attempt to discipline them out of it..

The reason I make the distinction is because unlike weed, poppy, etc...there are NO benefits to stuff like meth. The others can also be dangerous if used improperly, but at least they have some benefits. I just find it hard to believe that something was put on this earth that doesn't serve a purpose, that's why I gave the example of the video game where you find something and use it to heal yourself, we just haven't figured it all out yet when it comes to utilizing everything in nature to our benefit but I do believe it has all we need in order to prevent and/or cure diseases without needing all the chemicals. But I disagree with the use of chemicals solely for the idea of getting high, and drugs like meth are extremely dangerous.

You say you have to provide people the means to end addiction and not attempt to discipline them out of it, so are you also against the nanny state stuff like what bloomberg has tried to do? Are you against legislating common sense such as cellphone use while driving, seat belts, etc? It's like saying we need to provide people the means to use guns responsibly, not attempt to deny them the guns. It's a slippery slope.

I do agree that people who are using need to have a safe place to do so. I like some of the stuff they do in British Columbia like this place http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/

And you can read more about it here: http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-02-04/vancouver-combats-heroin-giving-its-addicts-best-smack-world

Edited May 21, 2016 by OriZ

[smilesammich 10,727]

The reason I make the distinction is because unlike weed, poppy, etc...there are NO benefits to stuff like meth. The others can also be dangerous if used improperly, but at least they have some benefits. I just find it hard to believe that something was put on this earth that doesn't serve a purpose, that's why I gave the example of the video game where you find something and use it to heal yourself, we just haven't figured it all out yet when it comes to utilizing everything in nature to our benefit but I do believe it has all we need in order to prevent and/or cure diseases without needing all the chemicals. But I disagree with the use of chemicals solely for the idea of getting high, and drugs like meth are extremely dangerous.

You say you have to provide people the means to end addiction and not attempt to discipline them out of it, so are you also against the nanny state stuff like what bloomberg has tried to do? Are you against legislating common sense such as cellphone use while driving, seat belts, etc? It's like saying we need to provide people the means to use guns responsibly, not attempt to deny them the guns. It's a slippery slope.

I do agree that people who are using need to have a safe place to do so. I like some of the stuff they do in British Columbia like this place http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/

And you can read more about it here: http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-02-04/vancouver-combats-heroin-giving-its-addicts-best-smack-world

being against prohibition (and mass incarceration)doesn't mean i think anyone should ever smoke meth or anything of the sort. it means i think our current approach to solving the problems of addiction through the criminal justice system has clearly failed. now, if someone commits a crime while using a substance or puts others at risk, this is still cjs territory. manufacturing drugs like meth puts others at risk. so it's not a free for

all.

driving laws are needed, everyone shares the road.

we have tons of gun laws, i dont get what you mean by slippery slope.

ideally, we wouldn't need places for people to safely shoot up. getting to that ideal will require providing places for people to get well and support in rebuilding their lives.

typing from my handphone derp..

[OriZ 3,157]

For the record, I don't think users of substances such as meth should be arrested, I do think it is those who make it and deal it that should be prosecuted. Whereas I do not believe in prosecuting say, someone who owns a marijuana lab.

But if you say driving laws are needed, wouldn't you say laws against certain drugs are needed as well? You say we have tons of gun laws so I guess that means you're good with where that's at? Because I recall seeing you and others thinking that it should be stricter. Which again begs the question - where do you draw the line? See, not to go off topic but for the sake of this conversation, I've always considered myself center. Not center of the universe like some might think, but political center. I know there are those who say that those who are center are the ones that can't decide whether they are right or left. I disagree with that. I think there is no reason to conform to only "right" or "left:". It just makes no sense to me that someone can believe in economic freedom(usually right), but at the same time be against allowing people to smoke things that they find in nature(again usually right). Conversely, I think that people who believe everyone should be allowed to smoke(usually left) but at the same time think the government should limit even what we are allowed to eat or drink(again, usually left), are also hypocritical. Same thing with abortions and the death penalty. How can you favor one but not the other, and, how can you be against one but not the other? Hope this clarifies what I mean by slippery slope.

Most places already today that allow people to safely shoot up also have programs (but only if they want to join them, nobody is forced to which is key) aimed at helping them quit and rebuilding their lives. I think that's a good thing.

[smilesammich 10,727]

seems you're talking about "the grande slope" which takes you from laws are good to laws are bad. it's not all that, addiction is a matter of public safety and by and large our approach has only put the public at larger risk.

[OriZ 3,157]

And I'd be the last to disagree the approach has to change. The only question is how and to what extent. ...I believe in having some drug laws, just like I believe in having some gun laws, or traffic laws, etc. But I believe there should not be too many gun laws just like I believe there shouldn't be too many drug laws. I just don't think we have the right to interfere with what nature provides us(although some of us, especially politicians might like to think we have ownership over nature, we don't) but do I think we should allow somebody to make a very dangerous drug? no I don't think so...do I think we should take it out on the users however? No I don't think so either...and like I said before, I have weed around me all the time, and I never as much as even touch it with my pinky, I just don't feel the need to, I don't care for it at this point in my life...all it does is make me tired(hell I don't even drink that much, I have beers all over the house I'd buy a six pack and then I don't finish it for 3 years and inbetween I'd buy other six packs lol)...so obviously it's possible for people to resist temptation and resist their urges, but we do need to educate some and help them and give them the tools, I think that will go a long way and I think say maybe you are a meth user, maybe the best "punishment" for you instead of being arrested or paying a fine is to put you in a program that provides you with those tools(while going after those who sold it to you). The resources will come from the revenue on the now legal drugs(the "plant" drugs).

Anyway, I believe you have to find a balance somewhere in everything. But I respect and understand your point of view.