Opinions - Refute This: Yes alcohol is harmful, but legalizing more drugs adds fuel to the fire.

[dyingtomorrow]

Most extreme conservatives are against drugs for such illogical or uninformed reasons that it is impossible to have a rational argument with them (e.g. it's a "sin" according to Holy Book X [despite not being mentioned anyways], it causes mental illness [according to false government propaganda], it is physically harmful [ignoring the fact that alcohol is more harmful], and so on). As society progresses and people become more educated, their "reasons" and justifications for their faith or ignorance based "beliefs" become non-issues in erudite national discourse on social policy.

More disturbing to me, however, is a recent argument that I've heard from liberals against the legalization of drugs, which goes something like this:

Yes alcohol is admittedly both extremely physically and socially harmful, but it is so ingrained in our society that it is not realistic to illegalize. Legalizing other drugs however will just cause more problems in addition to alcohol, which can only cause more harm, unnecessarily.

In other words, alcohol already "fills up," in a way, our society's capacity to handle the various problems arising from drug use (naming/admitting alcohol is a drug in this case); legalizing more drugs will just result in more social and individual harm akin to the problems we already face with alcohol, and will be overall bad for our society.

There is a kernal of logic to the argument; the incomplete kind that politicians love to shine up, plaster a liberal coat of rhetoric on, and cling to religiously. This makes it more dangerous than the myriad of simp-minded propaganda out there that actually fosters drug use rather than preventing it.

Anyone want to take a crack at it?

Reputation Comments on this post:

	giving you lots of rep for this topic has this is a great debate!
	Definitely an interesting thread.

[tryptamaster]

this isnt a strong argument at all but you could argue if society must be plagued with a drug alcohol should be made illegal and the lesser of the "evils" made to fill societies need for a drug. for instance, making alcohol illegal and marijuana legal due to it being less of a harm to society than alcohol and since tier policy is one of trying to control the danger this would be rational.

[Synesthesiac]

In other words, alcohol already "fills up," in a way, our society's capacity to handle the various problems arising from drug use (naming/admitting alcohol is a drug in this case); legalizing more drugs will just result in more social and individual harm akin to the problems we already face with alcohol, and will be overall bad for our society.

Well thats absurd for the reason that not all drugs are harmful. In fact if drugs are used responsibly then the benefits to their use far outweigh any negatives there may be, which is what decides the distinction of what is responsible use or not in the first place. Even alcohol has strong psychological and social benfits in responsible amounts in comparison with its detrimental effects, its just most people are uneducated about responsible drug use and dont see alcohol as a drug to use it responsibly. For very physically addictive drugs maybe you could make a weak case against them using this argument, but certainly not for non addictive drugs and psychedelics that generally have far more positives than negatives.

[tryptamaster]

yea synthasiac theres a ken kesey quote about this saying that the government is afraid of the radical social changes that may occur if the general public had access to psychedelics and they were widespread. i think its like "they are afraid there is more to reality than they have confronted and because of that they can not control it and thats wt makes them afraid" basically kinda like the matrix people "not being ready" be woken up.

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by dyingtomorrow

More disturbing to me, however, is a recent argument that I've heard from liberals against the legalization of drugs, which goes something like this:

"Yes alcohol is admittedly both extremely physically and socially harmful, but it is so ingrained in our society that it is not realistic to illegalize. Legalizing other drugs however will just cause more problems in addition to alcohol, which can only cause more harm, unnecessarily."

It's not only those of a liberal persuasion that are using this argument, but those of the rabid right too (do a search on Gráinne Kenny on here; liberal she is not). I think most prohibitionists with any nouse have cottoned onto the relative harm arguments of the anti-prohibitionists by now and have adjusted their position accordingly (certainly here in Europe). It is one of the main reasons that I wince when I hear people using the "yes, but then why is alcohol legal" argument.

Anyway, getting back to the point of the thread. I do not think this argument holds any water, compelling as it may be on the surface. The fact is, if we look at countries where there has been a loosening of the drug laws (de-criminalisation or lowering of illegal status), there has been no epidemic of problems from 'new' users. In fact, figures will show that in many cases there is an actual drop-off in usage after legalisation/de-criminalisation. Look at the situation in the Netherlands or when they downgraded cannabis in the UK.

The assumption that a whole raft of people are suddenly going to go out and abuse something just because it becomes legal is nonsense. Most (admittedly not all) that wish to try a particular drug will have already tried it regardless of status. There may be some who do decide to try something just because it has become legal, but I think the numbers would be relatively small and of those you would have to say that only a very small percentage would possibly become problematic users. I certainly know, for example, that most of the people I know would not try psychedelics even if they did become legal tomorrow.

[RaverHippie]

Originally Posted by dyingtomorrow

There is a kernal of logic to the argument; the incomplete kind that politicians love to shine up, plaster a liberal coat of rhetoric on, and cling to religiously. This makes it more dangerous than the myriad of simp-minded propaganda out there that actually fosters drug use rather than preventing it.

Anyone want to take a crack at it?

Here's another cannonball to go against that argument.

Legalizing more drugs, and therefore requiring public information about these newly legalized drugs as already is the case for alcohol and tobacco, will cut down IMMENSELY on the harmful possibilities of these newly legalized drugs.

Also factor into the equation the harm reduction of forgoing the whole purity debate since these are no longer clandestinely produced/cut/distributed (assuming that with legalization comes taxation and commercial distribution with FDA et. al. oversight). The cleanliness of these drugs and known strength of these drugs in combination with the education mentioned earlier will dramatically reduce, if not eliminate altogether things like heroin overdoses.

As far as psychedelics go, having them made available to an informed public, will make them nearly safe. There will probably be the occasional MAOI + token serotogenic drug combination that requires medical attention but other than cases like this they shouldn't be a problem.

I can't think of a chemical that if made legal would wreak havoc if controlled in a similar manner as alcohol (no consumption and operating a motor vehicle, no consumption on the job, etc.)

[Nature Boy]

"One of the many problems with the American left has been its image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring."

Christopher Hitchens

[Routemaster Flash]

Some people say alcohol's a drug. It's not a drug: it's a drink.



EDIT: before anyone gives me any more negative rep points, please realise this post is intended as humour.

Edit the second: thanks a lot to whoever repped me up after repping me down first!

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Meaningless. Is GHB a drink too?
	haha I laughed man, to un-do some neg rep, here you go

[libertalism]

Its not becouse it's illegal it isn't there..

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by libertalism

Its not becouse it's illegal it isn't there..

Would you care to explain and elaborate?

[dyingtomorrow]

Just wanted to thank everyone who has contributed to the thread so far. It is very reassuring to see this line of "logic," which so many prohibitionists hang their hats on, get taken down so easily in the most impromptu of rational discourses.

[cra$h]

Originally Posted by Lunar Loops

Would you care to explain and elaborate?

Probably ment just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's not there.

But look at all of the deaths from heroin, cocaine, etc. and most of them are from overdose. Now how do they overdose? They're used to cut shit, ruining their bodys even more, and they get a "good batch" and can't handle it. Now if it were legal, it would be better controlled, pure, and there would be less crime. Now that, is common sense.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Exactly...

[libertalism]

Originally Posted by Lunar Loops

Would you care to explain and elaborate?

Wel swim can get just about anything wich is illegal so its not like banning something makes it go away. I think that alone is reason enough for the legalisation of drugs in general.

Then you would have more controle and information on it and there would be less deaths and accidents with these substances.
Also its not becouse something is legal people will massivly start taking it, look at holland they have less% of pot smokers then any of the countries surrounding it.
edit : but you allready said that

[Junkhead23]

Originally Posted by Routemaster Flash

Some people say alcohol's a drug. It's not a drug: it's a drink.

Actually its classed as a poison

[vinylmesh]

you could respond with something like this;


Alcohol has been proven time and time again to be one of the most damaging toxic drugs of all.

With all the power science has today we could easily produce safe recreational drugs that are far safer than alcohol. If people start taking these drugs instead of alcohol how is this a bad thing?

you have to remember that the drugs sold on the street are there because they are relatively cheap and profitable. Dealers don't care about your health it's profits that drive them. At the other end of the scale you have pharmaceutical drugs which are usually designed to lack recreational potential.

We could easily have recreationally useful drugs that are as non-toxic as todays pharmaceutical drugs.

for example some people would substitute alcohol with GHB, a far safer drug than alcohol, with simmilar effects but unlike alcohol it is not known for causing violence. How is this a bad thing?

Another aspect we can tackle is addiction.

Numerous studies have shown that the addictiveness of a drug is largely to do with the speed of the come-up. We give our kids drugs like ritalin and adderal which have the same effect on the brain as crack or methamphetamine. But yet these not considered addictive by doctors. Why?

Because they are taken orally, which gives them a slow come-up thus reducing addictiveness. If we could encourage people to take drugs orally instead of inhaling and injecting them addiction rates would drop drastically leaving these drugs not much more addictive than alcohol.

The third aspect is social harm.

We all acknowledge that drugs can cause harm to families and communities but the amount of harm they cause depends largely on the effects of the drug.

Alcohol is one of the most socially damaging drugs as people under it's influence are impaired when it comes to decison making thus making them more likely to do something they normally wouldn't.

The only thing that would cause more harm than alcohol would be a combination of both alcohol and a dopamergenic stimulant (i.e cocaine, amphetamine ect). While such combinations are likely to happen, their negative effects willl be completely negated by those taking less socially damaging drugs such as empathogens, psychedelics, cannabinoids and opiates.

Also as i mentioned before many people will switch over from alcohol to the non-toxic and non-violent ghb, thus preventing unmeasurable social damage.

In short, we need to legalise drugs in order to save our society from the menace that is alcohol.




not exactly the way i think myself, but it should appeal to their logic.

[entheogensmurf]

Originally Posted by Routemaster Flash

Some people say alcohol's a drug. It's not a drug: it's a drink.

So ayahausca and shroom tea is just a drink. Got it.

[Synesthesiac]

Originally Posted by entheogensmurf

So ayahausca and shroom tea is just a drink. Got it.

Check out the context of that picture, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMb-eLJxOao unless of course you've seen brass eye before.

Fucking hilarious

[Routemaster Flash]

Originally Posted by Junkhead23

Actually its classed as a poison

By whom, exactly?

"Poison" is a very imprecise word. Anything is harmful if you ingest enough of it in a short enough time, even water - just ask Leah Betts. Obviously many people kill themselves with alcohol every year, but it's been shown to have an overall beneficial effect in sensible amounts. Frankly I find the anti-alcohol bias of a lot of people who are into 'proper' drugs a bit tiresome...

Edit: my above post and picture of Chris Morris are intended as humorous. Anyone who isn't British or has another very good excuse for not having seen Brass Eye is excused from missing the gag.

Edit edit: cheers Synesthesiac, you're onto it already.

[Evil GIR]

Drugs in the USA come under the crime of moral Turpitude, which basicaly means all the religiou nuts who hate sex, realy hate drugs not becaue of the harm they cause but rather getting high is a dirty thing to do.

Evil GIR added 2 Minutes and 35 Seconds later...

Originally Posted by Junkhead23

Actually its classed as a poison

I dont like the word poision, to me that imply a substance has no thereputic index and only has toxicity.

[entheogensmurf]

Originally Posted by Synesthesiac

Check out the context of that picture, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMb-eLJxOao unless of course you've seen brass eye before.

Fucking hilarious

Ah, makes sense now. My error in taking the post as serious.

And that link is pretty amusing.

P.S. I've never heard of Brass Eye until now.

[aerozeppelin123]

I think the way to argue it is this: Saying that legalising more drugs 'will add fuel to the fire' is based on the assumption that their current prohibition is somehow stopping their use or 'keeping fuel away from the fire'. Which when you start to look into, you find that there is very little evidence to support this idea. Most people who don't take drugs are not sitting there thinking 'dammit if only drugs were legal I would take them', rather they simply do not want to take them. There is no discernible correlation between harshness of enforcement and rates of use/abuse, both comparing different countries and regions within countries (e.g. in America there are widely differing laws but they do not seem to have much of an impact on use). Then you can go into listing the harms that would be reduced or eliminated in a system of careful regulation (reduced profits for gangs, reduced violence, quality controls, age restrictions etc) and I think you could make a convincing argument.

[Little Git]

Originally Posted by dyingtomorrow

Most extreme conservatives are against drugs for such illogical or uninformed reasons that it is impossible to have a rational argument with them (e.g. it's a "sin" according to Holy Book X [despite not being mentioned anyways], it causes mental illness [according to false government propaganda], it is physically harmful [ignoring the fact that alcohol is more harmful], and so on). As society progresses and people become more educated, their "reasons" and justifications for their faith or ignorance based "beliefs" become non-issues in erudite national discourse on social policy.

More disturbing to me, however, is a recent argument that I've heard from liberals against the legalization of drugs, which goes something like this:

There is a kernal of logic to the argument; the incomplete kind that politicians love to shine up, plaster a liberal coat of rhetoric on, and cling to religiously. This makes it more dangerous than the myriad of simp-minded propaganda out there that actually fosters drug use rather than preventing it.

Anyone want to take a crack at it?

If you accept this argument, then surely you can say illegal drug use is ingrained for so many people you can't stop it so you might as well legalise it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ons-spent.html

[Junkhead23]

Originally Posted by Routemaster Flash

By whom, exactly?

"Poison" is a very imprecise word. Anything is harmful if you ingest enough of it in a short enough time, even water - just ask Leah Betts. Obviously many people kill themselves with alcohol every year, but it's been shown to have an overall beneficial effect in sensible amounts. Frankly I find the anti-alcohol bias of a lot of people who are into 'proper' drugs a bit tiresome...

Edit: my above post and picture of Chris Morris are intended as humorous. Anyone who isn't British or has another very good excuse for not having seen Brass Eye is excused from missing the gag.

Edit edit: cheers Synesthesiac, you're onto it already.

Sorry I have been told this before and technically it is correct. Alcohol is both a drug and a poison

A poison is any substance that is capable of causing injury, illness or death to an organism. Which in many cases can be things such as salt, water, alcohol and such like.

Obviously this is another propaganda tool. My apologies

[AquafinaOrbit]

Well SWIM believes it has some importance with drugs. One like Marijuana I believe would actually help it be less of a gateway drug as it would take easily influenced teens out of a drug dealers presence and into the safety of a local store. One that overall impacts society should maybe be a bit more monitored but I am not sure fully outlawed.

[Evil GIR]

Originally Posted by Junkhead23

Sorry I have been told this before and technically it is correct. Alcohol is both a drug and a poison

A poison is any substance that is capable of causing injury, illness or death to an organism. Which in many cases can be things such as salt, water, alcohol and such like.

Obviously this is another propaganda tool. My apologies

From a scientific perspective I think dosage is what makes a substance a poison, too much and it becomes toxic,
The toxicity is usualy determined by its therapeutic index, which is a window (dosage range) in which a drug can be used safely, above this window the
drugs toxic effects then begin to show. I think people who hate drugs and alcohol call things a poison to try and stigmatise the substance and make out its pretty bad.
So yeah there just using it as a tool for the propaganda machine.