Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

macintologist · 04:06 PM

I find it hypocrtical that the law states that women have the right to choose an abortion (ie. murder a fetus) and pro-choicers support it because they think "women should be able to do what they want with their bodies", and the law of the land favors that opinion.

BUT

The law prohibits us from taking drugs like heroine or ever marijuana... it is illegal. Taking hard drugs isn't murdering life. I thought we were able to do what we wanted with our bodies?

HYPOCRTICAL I tell you.

(I hope the thread turns into a drug / individual rights debate and not an abortion debate thanks.

edit: made the brush narrower

adamk · Mar 2, 2005, 03:42 PM

beware the brush with which you paint. i am 'liberal' and i don't conform to your characterization. i think you should be able to do what you want with your body.

as far as drugs, if you look at states that have progressive drug policies, medicalization, de-criminalization, needle-exchanges, etc., you might find they are blue states or... or red - whichever the democratic ie liberal states are. hypocritical indeed.

macintologist · Mar 2, 2005, 04:08 PM

Yes but hard drugs are still illegal and the federal gov't spends billions on the so called "War on Drugs", putting away thousands of non-violent offenders when we should be concentrating our law enforcement on those who wish to do harm to others, ie. murderers rapists and such.

adamk · Mar 2, 2005, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by macintologist:
Yes but hard drugs are still illegal and the federal gov't spends billions on the so called "War on Drugs", putting away thousands of non-violent offenders when we should be concentrating our law enforcement on those who wish to do harm to others, ie. murderers rapists and such.

i agree, and even much of those violent crimes stem from the ilicit drug trade. the war on drugs (in it's 20th year?) has been largely ineffective. i believe that billions devoted to the war on drugs could be better suited for some other purpose - education, health-care. in addition, de-criminalization would save the gov't and states billions since they wouldn't have to board all the people in jail for drug-related non-violent crimes.

attention would have to be given to those who do have problems with drugs, much like is done with current legal drugs. it is not illegal to drink alcohol (+21) but endangering others while drinking is. imo, the same standard should apply for other drugs.

mitchell_pgh · Mar 2, 2005, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by macintologist:
Yes but hard drugs are still illegal and the federal gov't spends billions on the so called "War on Drugs", putting away thousands of non-violent offenders when we should be concentrating our law enforcement on those who wish to do harm to others, ie. murderers rapists and such.

Just out of curiosity, do you consider killing someone while drunk a nonviolent crime?

BRussell · Mar 2, 2005, 04:25 PM

I think you get in trouble when you make comparisons between things like abortion and drug use. They're really such different issues that I don't think it sheds much light to make the comparison.

But about drug legalization, tell me what you think of this idea. How about we decriminalize drug use, but keep it illegal to sell. I don't mind the idea of saying "we have the right to do what we want with our own bodies." What bothers me is if we sanctioned the sale of harmful, addictive substances. I think making a profit from that goes beyond "doing what you want with your own body." It's fundamentally exploitive and I don't think it should be condoned. I don't even think cigarettes should be legal to sell. But if people want to grow it or make it themselves, fine.

I'm not sure if that's a workable solution, but we don't live in the real world here on MacNN anyway, so no loss.

macintologist · Mar 2, 2005, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Just out of curiosity, do you consider killing someone while drunk a nonviolent crime?

Killing somebody is obviously a violent crime, no matter what state their in.

It is illogical to say that A leads to B, in this case A-taking drugs leads to B-killing somebody.

There is no substantitive proof for that.

Of course, the DEA will pull up misleading stats like...of all the hard drug users, 78% of them used weed as a gateway drug.

Well that's great, but doesn't say much. What percentage of weed users move on to harder drugs? Of course it's much much lower, and the DEA won't tell you because it doesn't help their preconceived notions that drugs are bad m'kay.

Anyway, the federal gov't has no right to legislate what we can and cannot do with our bodies. I'd like the DEA to explain their constitutional mandate.

Shaddim · Mar 2, 2005, 05:40 PM

I think we simply need to reclassify what is considered a "hard drug". Since it's been proven that natural drugs such as pot, shrooms, peyote, etc. are less harmfull than alcohol. We just need to adjust laws to reflect that.

malvolio · Mar 2, 2005, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Just out of curiosity, do you consider killing someone while drunk a nonviolent crime?

Also out of curiosity, do you think that the US government is including alcohol in its "war on drugs"?

SimpleLife · Mar 2, 2005, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by macintologist:
I find it hypocrtical that the law states that women have the right to choose an abortion (ie. murder a fetus) and pro-choicers support it because they think "women should be able to do what they want with their bodies", and the law of the land favors that opinion.

BUT

The law prohibits us from taking drugs like heroine or ever marijuana... it is illegal. Taking hard drugs isn't murdering life. I thought we were able to do what we wanted with our bodies?

HYPOCRTICAL I tell you.

(I hope the thread turns into a drug / individual rights debate and not an abortion debate thanks.

edit: made the brush narrower

This thread is now about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

mitchell_pgh · Mar 2, 2005, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by malvolio:
Also out of curiosity, do you think that the US government is including alcohol in its "war on drugs"?

Actually, there are links between drug use and violent crimes.

That was where I was going with it... A very well may cause B

deej5871 · Mar 3, 2005, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Actually, there are links between drug use and violent crimes.

That was where I was going with it... A very well may cause B

Drinking may cause me to get into an accident, but that doesn't mean that drinking will make me get in an accident. It doesn't usually go straight from drinking to car accident. Nor does it go from hitting a joint straight to shooting someone.

That same logic can be applied to many things. I may use a gun to kill someone, that doesn't mean they I will use it to shoot someone.

Sometimes getting drunk is just getting drunk, and getting high is just getting high.

Nicko · Mar 3, 2005, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by malvolio:
Also out of curiosity, do you think that the US government is including alcohol in its "war on drugs"?

I would laugh if they did. Seriously though, with the fundies in charge I could see it happening. Well, in the hillbilly states atleast.

roberto blanco · Mar 3, 2005, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by macintologist:
Of course, the DEA will pull up misleading stats like...of all the hard drug users, 78% of them used weed as a gateway drug.

bullsh1t. in 99% of all cases where people are involved in using "hard/illegal" substances cigarettes and alcohol are the gateway drugs.

Athens · Mar 3, 2005, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Just out of curiosity, do you consider killing someone while drunk a nonviolent crime?

Yet booze is legal? Are you sugesting it be illegal? I think that was tried in the 20's