Queen of Swords

It's supposed to be "Mr. Bastard, sir", right?

three4jump

livius, you've gotten me confused, and I am not sure where you're finding fault with my reasoning. Anyway, I gather that you are in favor of cheap, pure, clean drugs. I said earlier that I would like drugs to remain expensive if they were legal so that the amount of the purchase price above the much lower production and distribution costs could go toward an insurance, education, and rehab program. What I didn't say before, but I will add now, is that I would also like the drugs to remain expensive in order to discourage use. I understand that you don't share that view. Since we are talking about a hypothetical world in which drugs are legal, I don't see that either of us could have much data or research to support either stance. If you feel I've been inconsistent with my reasoning, or I'm out of my mind, let me know.

three4jump

PB, I like your name, and I hope you didn't get the impression I was being derogatory. It's just that I don't often get the chance to say "Mr. Bastard" and I couldn't pass it up. But QoS was right, it should have been Mr. Bastard, sir!

Pseudonymph

Malacalypse...Thanks for your reply!

I am a little irked by the abundance of "good for you's" throughout your post however.
I sense some resentment...why? Are you really happy for me in the way I live my life, or are you patronizing me?

I am glad to hear that your children have done better in school, and in the general social setting. Can I ask you something? How did you know that it was the ritalin they took, and not there own efforts? (note: this is not one of those questions that has a "point"...I am really courious...where there tests, or some standardized way of knowing?)

I am also glad to know that you can enjoy yourself in a social setting w/out alchohol or drugs. However, from much personal experience and studying in school, I know you to be the genuine excpetion, not the rule.

Sure, a lot of people may be able to at least "enjoy"themselves without drugs and booze, but how many would prefer it? hardly any.
Example? More anecdotal evidence, but still a good point: My friends parents owned a restaurant down the street. They were on a long waiting list to get the liquer liscence(sp?) and they went out of business in two months...! My friend worked there as a waitress, and seeing as how it was a mexican restaurant, a lot of people wanted margaritas and such. she said that well over half the time people would get up and leave...in search of alchohol. There was even an article in the local "art" publication of good places to eat and see music etc. They were listed as one of the worst...quote: ...would have been fantastic save for the absense of a liquer liscense. Am I at an adult restaurant or mcdonalds? end quote

What the hell is that all about? this otherwise good place to eat was dinged on a stupid review and in society because they couldnt serve alchohol? This is what I mean when I say society depends on these mind altering substances. You may not need them to get by, however most people require them in some way or another. At least to make things easier in a social setting.

I agree with three4jumps ideas about legalizing drugs, however I have to wonder, where do we draw the line?
If any of you remember, in the sex ed thread that was started, I was all for sex-ed, it taught me how tp take sex seriously and be responsible. How is drug eduaction similar? to me it isnt. Why? because sex is human instinct. Its how we as a species survive. It is a necessary part of human life. Illegal drugs and alchohol are not.

Yes I agree that kids should be educated about the harmful effects of drugs, but not in a way that says"take them, but be responsible"

They should be told how many people that start on them, become hooked. and how it destroys families and friendships.

just my thoughts...

Viti

Siren Speak, I am a drinker...I feel a complimentary wine enhances a meal. A margarita enhances a Mexican meal. Somehow a soda or iced tea does not ::shrug::

Not every drink is meant to "alter the mind", and I can have a blast without drinking...but I like drinking as well. I can have fun with or without it, but do not feel the need to deny myself a different sort of fun because some people have been hurt by it.

Also, just on a personal note, I have lost 2 people close to me to alcoholism related deaths, both before they were 50. I know people who have ruined their lives due to drugs. It's not like my opinion is based on ignorance of the dangers, I have seen what addictions of all kinds can do to people...I simply do not have an addictive "gene" or personality or whatever it is that differentiatates those that have problems from those that don't.

Danya

Mexican restaurants usually feature Margaritas. They taste good. Not everyone who drinks them does so to get bombed. It isn't unreasonable to assume a restaurant will have them. Had they said we only serve Martinis the people would still have likely left so you can't just say all they care about is the alchohol. If they only wanted Mexican Food they could have gone through the drive-thru at Taco Bell.

cricket

Exactly! I might leave a Mexican restaurant if they served alcohol but not margaritas. Just as I'd likely leave a Mexican restaurant if I learned they were out of cheese. The restaurant wouldn't meet my expectations; therefore I would seek a different restaurant.

kat10

Three4jump: I totally understand what you're saying, good point by the way, but isn't it a bit much to think that everything involving risk in life should come with a disclaimer of sorts? I really think that people should always ask questions before heading into new terrain. Maybe it's because that's how I work... But anyway, I still think that it's one's own responsibility to look out for oneself. I kind of think that the days of glamourized drug use is over, and not too many people are that naive and sheltered to not know the potentially dangerous effects of drugs. (young children excluded of course). But in your story, your brother wasn't a child when he was exposed to drugs. I'm not saying that his situation is entirely his fault of course. I hope I didn't give that impression. That's why again, I really would advocate an educational program about use and abuse, and possible dangers.

Pomp

three4jump,

PB, I like your name, and I hope you didn't get the impression I was being derogatory. It's just that I don't often get the chance to say "Mr. Bastard" and I couldn't pass it up.

I like my name too. Half the fun of a name like "Pompous Bastard" is watching people try to find different ways to address me without "offending" me. Trust me, none of it is offensive. (The other half of the fun, in case you were wondering, is reading responses from people who intentionally try to offend me by calling me "pompous bastard," or some variant thereof (Obtuse Pompous Ass, anyone?).

But QoS was right, it should have been Mr. Bastard, sir!

Of course.

three4jump

kat10, I agree with you that it is one's own responsibility to look out for oneself, but even people who ought to know better can sometimes be unaware of the trouble they are about to walk into. When I was in high school, I could have been bombarded with all sorts of facts on the dangers of drugs, but if my brother would have suggested, in just the right way and with all the right nuances, that I should try drugs, I most likely would have. He was the fastest runner the school had ever seen, he was getting straight A's, he was popular, and his drug use didn't seem to be slowing him down at all. I am fortunate that he didn't get me started on drugs. I know why he didn't, though: he probably knew that I would not have handled it so well, gotten into some sort of trouble, and my parents would have traced it back to him.

Anyway, all of the education in the world would not have been as persuasive to me as the anectdotal evidence that my brother was a genius and a track star in spite of, or perhaps because of his use of marijuana and mushrooms. If the autorities and experts said that recreational drugs were dangerous and harmful, I might have suspected them of trying to trick me with propaganda since their position of authority made them suspect. If my brother had started me on drugs with a seductive rationalization contradictory to established facts, it would have been my fault for believing him, I suppose. I'm just glad he didn't get me started since it is now evident that his triumphant senoir year was just a reprieve before drugs started running his life.

This thread started as a question about the morality of illegal drugs. I would say that people have a moral obligation to educate themselves so that they don't become victims so easily. However, whether or not an inexperienced individual has done his homework should not relieve the experienced drug user from any moral obligation. Let's suppose that a veteran drug user is out for a social evening with a non-user friend: if the non-user asked to sample some of the drugs the user had, I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask that the user who finds himself in the position to impact someone's future should consider the potential consequences of what happens next. In my apparently-warped view of the world, the user should say, "I won't give you any of my stuff until you can prove to me that you are aware of all the dangers." Most people would probably laugh at that approach as naive or idealistic, but I find that the best moral choices often are.

If this topic were "The Practicalities of Illegal Drugs" I might have to modify my stance just a little. Since we're discussing morality, I'll stand by this: Not taking illegal drugs and not making them available to others would never be immoral, while taking or distributing illegal drugs can have foreseeable negative consequences in many cases.