Thread: Freedom of choice and the Law

wildtim: controlling due to price is pretty much impossible, that's what happens for millions of addicts every day: they have to do "whatever it takes" to score x amount of money to get their next fix and they will get it, since they don't care about their actions.

Punishments and responsibility only works on people that care, it doesn't work on the glazed-over punk that just stabbed down your family in his quest for enough $$ to get his fix, nor does it work on him/her 24 hours later when the rush has worked out but the addiction kicks in.

This is what makes these kind of drugs so dangerous IMO the radical effect they have on a person's mind while not necessarily incapacitating the body, like alcohol does. Mind you in many countries, like in mine it's a federal offense to be drunk in public, drive drunk, go to work drunk, etc... so alcohol *is* regulated. I think the main difference is that alcohol is more easy to handle since it doesn't have immediate physical addiction as a consequence. Smoking idem dito, easier to handle for people, they don't go berserk over it.

In Belgium a pack of cigarettes is at about 5€ now I think, of which about 3.7€ is taxes(yeah!! ), I have not seen any smoker, I know, quit smoking or even smoke less because of that, it's just a cashcow for the .gov, curse their evil souls!
(I'm not a smoker - never have, never will - but it saddens me to see my government rake in cash over all these peoples' health and smile while doing so, all the while pretending it's "for their health" and "for the children")

They're doing the same thing in Canada but they're up to about 7EUR a pack. On a good note that created a good smuggling biz, that I've been taking advantage of. The funny part is that none of that tax money is going into subsidising nicotine-replacement therapy and/or effective addiction treatment.

I think it should go into cancer treatment and prevention. It's still a choice to smoke and it's not like you don't know what you're getting into. But cancer strikes randomly or so it seems.

OMG FiReSTaRT is a pirate!!

I got into smoking in my early teenage years when even though I new better, it has always been a part of my life. My parents were both heavy smokers. My dad and my uncle quit, which is encouraging and I'll be doing the same starting tomorrow (this has been planned for 2 weeks). If I develop a short fuse and post 500msgs a day, you'll know why

that's OK, you can use this as an excuse:


That way you can be as grumpy as you want.

Originally Posted by harold

wildtim: controlling due to price is pretty much impossible, that's what happens for millions of addicts every day: they have to do "whatever it takes" to score x amount of money to get their next fix and they will get it, since they don't care about their actions.

Punishments and responsibility only works on people that care, it doesn't work on the glazed-over punk that just stabbed down your family in his quest for enough $$ to get his fix, nor does it work on him/her 24 hours later when the rush has worked out but the addiction kicks in.

Basically what you have said here is that you are willing to sacrifice the freedom to do drugs if there is a chance a lunatic will go nuts and stab someone over them. This being the case, think about the rate of death due to Automobiles and decide why you are willing to sacrifice that many people so you can drive a car but not willing to do the same for other freedoms.

Originally Posted by harold

This is what makes these kind of drugs so dangerous IMO the radical effect they have on a person's mind while not necessarily incapacitating the body, like alcohol does. Mind you in many countries, like in mine it's a federal offense to be drunk in public, drive drunk, go to work drunk, etc... so alcohol *is* regulated. I think the main difference is that alcohol is more easy to handle since it doesn't have immediate physical addiction as a consequence.

If you think that these type of drugs are much harder to get than alcohol, think again. They just aren't as well controlled as alcohol because the system doesn't track them in any way. The fact that the government can't stop them just undermines the perception of their effectiveness the same way it does when you see a drunken person who doesn't get arrested in your country. It makes the government seem impotent and the people less likely to trust it to do anything o be able to enforce the laws that really matter.

not chance, certainty. these specific drugs have proven to have that effect. As far as automobiles go: at least they have some beneficial effect and when used correctly pose a moderate threat. (as opposed to drugs who just fsck you over when used correctly )

If I see a drunk I think, "you sad person", nothing more and as long as the drunk isn't bothering or endangering anyone (which they usually aren't when toasted ), I don't care. The laws are there to be invoked when necessary, not instantly on every infraction, no country has a policeforce large enough to do that. Rest assured that I don't think the same when I see someone on various drugs, they can go from docile to extremely dangerous while still having hand-eye coördination, which nets them a higher threatvalue than aforementioned drunk. (I do the morning trains as a trainmanager, I see drunks and drugged/addicted people a lot and I've never been wary of the drunk...) You see, I've never have a non-drunk alcoholic come after me with a knife for my money, but I can't say the same for an addict that wasn't 'scoring' at that moment.

They are different drugs with different effects and outcomes, so yes, I do believe different measures are necessary.

my 2€cent

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

They're doing the same thing in Canada but they're up to about 7EUR a pack. On a good note that created a good smuggling biz, that I've been taking advantage of. The funny part is that none of that tax money is going into subsidising nicotine-replacement therapy and/or effective addiction treatment.

It seems like the direction of cigarette smuggling between the US and Canada changes about every ten years or so.

I'm sure that cigars are still being smuggled into the US because we have open access to the Cuban market. As for other tobacco, I guess it would have to be anything NOT produced in Canada. Our tobacco products are vastly inferior. Especially that vile stuff produced on native reserves

Originally Posted by celticstone

I tend to agree with you. I have always believed in the right to bare arms and the pursuit of personal freedom and happiness if it does not harm anyone else, but when it comes to the war on drugs, I do believe some things should be regulated due to their addictive nature, i.e. meth, cocaine and opium. but I have never believed in the laws against cannabis due to the fact it was used to expel one ethnicity to make room and create jobs for the man, so to speak.

Our founding fathers, (Washington, Franklin, Jefferson) grew it and believed in it for alot of textile and medicinal purposes, and it used to be law that if you wanted own land in this country, you had to grow hemp. ( Decreed by King James in the 1600's.)

To make it even weirder, the first law was a joke( the tax stamp of 1937.) It was illegal to grow the crop unless you had the stamp, but to get the stamp you had to bring in the crop, which would instantly get you incarcerated for possession. This was eventually overturned due to the 5th amendment violation ( self icrimination). Ok enough of my rant, I think my opinion is noted.

FWIW, when in history class years ago, we were actually told that Cannabis/hemp/marijuana were not on the original list of controlled substances; it was added not because of any proven detrimental effect greater than, say tobacco, or even the chance to keep a certain race or creed "down". No, once again it came down to the almighty dollar. It's been a few years but as I recall it was lobbyists from the then-powerful US textiles industry, who got it added to the list to get rid of one potential source of competition. Dupont had just come out with either Nylon or Polyester, one of those, and it is no accident that high-strength ropes are now usually nylon, and not hemp... I also recall that the cotton industry felt threatened also, as there were fields and fields of the stuff at the turn of the century for the shipbuilding industry, and they were branching out into regular fabric...
I may have missed a name or two, but pretty sure that's how it was basically explained to me.
Money.
John P.