Who told you it was good? They just were not successful in getting rid of alcohol. They did try before and it was a complete failure. It does not mean its a good thing. In the past people drank alcohol since it was cleaner than the water. Beer was originally made to be a sort of liquid bread. So alcohol was not originally something that people made to get drunk and party.
Most of these things and drugs had a purpose. Crack is pretty simple it was to keep workers going longer and stay up more so they get more work. It was also something they used in war to get the service men pumped. Things like hallucinogens were believed to open your mind and make you smarter. However it seems to have bad side effects like addiction, cancer so on. So they were banned from being sold.
They are slowly trying to ban cigarettes but I think they thought of the alcohol failure when they did this. So instead of banning it all together they just made it harder and harder to smoke. Like you can not smoke in public, you can not smoke in private if kids are around, you can not smoke if people are around you, you can not smoke at bars so on. However from this we get the ELECTRIC cigarette. Which I have not really looked into that and not sure how damaging the electric ones are too your health but they seem to be an alternative.
basically i believe that Electric cigarettes are the same (When it comes to damaging) as normal ones, with the exception that you can smoke them indoors and wherever it pleases you.
My whole point is that as long as you are not HURTING other people besides yourself you should be allowed to put everything that you see fit into your own body.
Let's face it, if you wish to do drugs you get them no matter if they are legal or not. But if they are illegal you support drugdealers and what not.
I do get your point in why they are not banning alcohol because this has failed miserably in the past, but still ...
That would be chaos. You said if you are not hurting someone else you should be able to take the drug. So if someone ends up killing or harming another under said drug the drug should be banned correct?
There was never a prohibition on alcohol in the UK, the government never attempted to 'try'.
In the US, there was a prohibition in the late 1800s and early 1900s, which created a black market with criminal organisations running the distribution of alcohol. When they decided to get rid of prohibition, it was because they a) wanted to tax alcohol, and b) wanted to stop criminal syndicates making money from alcohol.
This is a prime example supporting the argument for legalisation and regulation of certain (or some say all) drugs. With prohibition, you push the industry underground, and nefarious organisations make money off the illegal trade, whilst also fighting for territory. Hence gang violence, wide-spread corruption, numerous cartels amassing wealth and murdering innocent people and each other, destroying neighbourhoods. With regulation, what is sold is quality controlled, traders require an official license and are taxed, the trade is legitimised and this takes power away from the gangs, brings the black market into the sunshine and makes everything safer (in theory).
Also, alcohol was being used to 'get drunk and party' long before beer even existed. It wasn't originally for drinking instead of unclean water - this was a later benefit which was only realised because alcoholic beverages were already popular and ubiquitous.
Oh and crack cocaine wasn't developed to 'keep workers going longer and stay up more.' Look it up.
Uk doing it of not it was attempted none the less. That is like saying no one is allowed to mention Hitler lost the war unless you are from Germany. That means someone did try to get rid of it. So are you saying we legalize things like speed?
Drugs create crime since the people under the influence of them often end up with mental problems or are addicted. Some people are born unstable and its not always possible to fix these people.
So if we legalize every illegal substance we are going to have more unstable people. I think we should try to stay away from creating more mental cases. I don’t see how screwing up more heads is going to stop crime rates.
There's no doubt addiction to drugs creates crime. But you get that with or without the legalisation and regulation of drugs, and because something is legal, doesn't mean everybody wants to do it.
Anyway, I'm not arguing for the legalisation of all drugs. I don't feel like I'm in a good enough position, or knowledgable enough, to confidently say if all drugs were legalised and regulated that would be better.
However, SOME drugs could easily be legalised with minimum negative impact, and that would be beneficial to society for various reasons.
I think you should read more about these things; you incorrectly spoke about the origin of alcohol and crack cocaine, and I think perhaps you shouldn't be making such statements without first researching.
Legalizing it means more people are able to do it. Which again brings up do you believe in speed or maybe heroin? I did research this.
http://www.tofugu.com/2012/04/10/japan-land-of-the-rising-crystal-meth/ <====Factory workers and Those going to war. Why dont you do some actual research?
Illegal "Drugs create crime"!
Legal drugs, even shit like speed and smack, dispensed by the government do not create crime; it is the need for money to buy illegal drugs that creates the crime!
The British have been dispensing "drugs" legally for nearly half a century and have much less drug related crime and disease than the US. They also have a lot fewer people in jail for drug related crimes, that the taxpayers must support.
Most unstable people are not created by the drugs, they were unstable long before taking the drugs. They are usually alcoholics as well and their problems will not be solved or alleviated by making drugs harder to come by.
If pot was completely legal, how much and how often would you use it?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Who told you it was good? They just were not successful in getting rid of alcohol. They did try before and it was a complete failure. It does not mean its a good thing. In the past people drank alcohol since it was cleaner than the water. Beer was originally made to be a sort of liquid bread. So alcohol was not originally something that people made to get drunk and party.
Most of these things and drugs had a purpose. Crack is pretty simple it was to keep workers going longer and stay up more so they get more work. It was also something they used in war to get the service men pumped. Things like hallucinogens were believed to open your mind and make you smarter. However it seems to have bad side effects like addiction, cancer so on. So they were banned from being sold.
They are slowly trying to ban cigarettes but I think they thought of the alcohol failure when they did this. So instead of banning it all together they just made it harder and harder to smoke. Like you can not smoke in public, you can not smoke in private if kids are around, you can not smoke if people are around you, you can not smoke at bars so on. However from this we get the ELECTRIC cigarette. Which I have not really looked into that and not sure how damaging the electric ones are too your health but they seem to be an alternative.
--
(s)aint
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
disthing
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
basically i believe that Electric cigarettes are the same (When it comes to damaging) as normal ones, with the exception that you can smoke them indoors and wherever it pleases you.
My whole point is that as long as you are not HURTING other people besides yourself you should be allowed to put everything that you see fit into your own body.
Let's face it, if you wish to do drugs you get them no matter if they are legal or not. But if they are illegal you support drugdealers and what not.
I do get your point in why they are not banning alcohol because this has failed miserably in the past, but still ...
--
RomeoDeMontague
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
If you truly believe that things like pot should not be legal and neither should things like alcohol.
--
(s)aint
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
...I think that everything should be legal.
--
RomeoDeMontague
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That would be chaos. You said if you are not hurting someone else you should be able to take the drug. So if someone ends up killing or harming another under said drug the drug should be banned correct?
There was never a prohibition on alcohol in the UK, the government never attempted to 'try'.
In the US, there was a prohibition in the late 1800s and early 1900s, which created a black market with criminal organisations running the distribution of alcohol. When they decided to get rid of prohibition, it was because they a) wanted to tax alcohol, and b) wanted to stop criminal syndicates making money from alcohol.
This is a prime example supporting the argument for legalisation and regulation of certain (or some say all) drugs. With prohibition, you push the industry underground, and nefarious organisations make money off the illegal trade, whilst also fighting for territory. Hence gang violence, wide-spread corruption, numerous cartels amassing wealth and murdering innocent people and each other, destroying neighbourhoods. With regulation, what is sold is quality controlled, traders require an official license and are taxed, the trade is legitimised and this takes power away from the gangs, brings the black market into the sunshine and makes everything safer (in theory).
Also, alcohol was being used to 'get drunk and party' long before beer even existed. It wasn't originally for drinking instead of unclean water - this was a later benefit which was only realised because alcoholic beverages were already popular and ubiquitous.
Oh and crack cocaine wasn't developed to 'keep workers going longer and stay up more.' Look it up.
--
RomeoDeMontague
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Uk doing it of not it was attempted none the less. That is like saying no one is allowed to mention Hitler lost the war unless you are from Germany. That means someone did try to get rid of it. So are you saying we legalize things like speed?
Drugs create crime since the people under the influence of them often end up with mental problems or are addicted. Some people are born unstable and its not always possible to fix these people.
So if we legalize every illegal substance we are going to have more unstable people. I think we should try to stay away from creating more mental cases. I don’t see how screwing up more heads is going to stop crime rates.
--
disthing
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
thegypsysailor
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
There's no doubt addiction to drugs creates crime. But you get that with or without the legalisation and regulation of drugs, and because something is legal, doesn't mean everybody wants to do it.
Anyway, I'm not arguing for the legalisation of all drugs. I don't feel like I'm in a good enough position, or knowledgable enough, to confidently say if all drugs were legalised and regulated that would be better.
However, SOME drugs could easily be legalised with minimum negative impact, and that would be beneficial to society for various reasons.
I think you should read more about these things; you incorrectly spoke about the origin of alcohol and crack cocaine, and I think perhaps you shouldn't be making such statements without first researching.
--
RomeoDeMontague
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Legalizing it means more people are able to do it. Which again brings up do you believe in speed or maybe heroin? I did research this.
http://www.tofugu.com/2012/04/10/japan-land-of-the-rising-crystal-meth/ <====Factory workers and Those going to war. Why dont you do some actual research?
--
disthing
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Crack cocaine isn't crystal meth, dumb dumb.
There's no point discussing this with you.
Illegal "Drugs create crime"!
Legal drugs, even shit like speed and smack, dispensed by the government do not create crime; it is the need for money to buy illegal drugs that creates the crime!
The British have been dispensing "drugs" legally for nearly half a century and have much less drug related crime and disease than the US. They also have a lot fewer people in jail for drug related crimes, that the taxpayers must support.
Most unstable people are not created by the drugs, they were unstable long before taking the drugs. They are usually alcoholics as well and their problems will not be solved or alleviated by making drugs harder to come by.