To liberalise or prohibit, that is the question. And to answer it the masters of live debate have joined forces with the masters of web technology to create a never-seen-before combination of Oxford debating and Silicon Valley prowess.
Prohibitionists argue that legalising anything increases its consumption. The world has enough of a problem with legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, so why add to the problem by legalising cannabis, cocaine and heroin?
The liberalisers say prohibition doesn’t work. By declaring certain drugs illegal we haven’t reduced consumption or solved any problem. Instead we’ve created an epidemic of crime, illness, failed states and money laundering.
Richard Branson, Russell Brand, Misha Glenny, Geoffrey Robertson and Eliot Spitzer. Experts, orators and celebrities who’ve made this their cause – they locked horns in a new Intelligence²/Google+ debate format. Some of our speakers will be on stage in London, others beamed in from Mexico City or São Paulo or New Orleans, all thanks to the “Hangout” tool on Google+.
I used to be a recreational drug user. I occasionally smoke weed from time to time but would be opposed to other drugs. Would any of you anonymously report anyone you know who is selling mdma/extacy as i know this drug can in some cases kill people?
It all boils down to what you believe is the root of morality. For me it is liberty. For these people who like to lock people in cages for growing plants - they believe the root of morality is security and welfare.
....Oldies are so out of touch. Yes Chilliman07, so why does no one mention demography in these debates. Forty per cent of the UK population have used drugs at sometime in their lives, so we must reach a tipping point in the not too distant future. Yes, the dinosaurs are going extinct, and thank god for that!
There should be no debate with anti-drug people. If they were so smart, they wouldn't have started the war-on-drugs, or, seeing it fail, they would have stopped it. Now, they admit that the war-on-drugs is a failure but they make absolutely no attempt to stop it. My point is that war-on-drugs supporters are utterly stupid people and stupid people should not be allowed to have any control over the lives of other human beings.
Heath Ledger? Heath ledger was NOT a drug addict and there is no evidence to suggest he was. Thank God these dinasours are dying out. We ARE gong in the right direction. Drugs are a people's right to take. If you can't behave whilst taking them then you need dealing with as much as anyone who can't behave when drinking alcohol. By punishment or treatment depending on your behaviour.
What is this 1900's bollocks I am hearing wrapped up as 'science'?! What is 'in' someone to be a criminal is the same substance that leads them to become an addict?? What kind of pre historic crock is this?? It's exactly the same bollocks that allowed us to be openly and politically racist - because there was 'something 'in' blacks that leads them to be rapists, criminals and a sub human species. This kind of argument is outdated, prejudiced and NOT backed up by reality.
Of course it can be. Don't be naive. I am pro decriminlisation but i know that you can become addicted to any substance. This is because of the way that our reward system works in the brain regardless of whether a drug is classed as physically addictive or not.
Outright legalization for all forms of drugs that are currently illegal may not be the answer. Hard drugs such as heroin and opium and crystal meth and crack should remain illegal and if someone is caught doing such drugs they should be put in a halfway house and given Cannabis as an alternative to their hard drug use.
proud strong words coming from a hooker fucker (eliot spitzer) all of a sudden he has a problem with people having vices, tell me eliot, why aren't you governor of new york? did you possibly have some kind of vice that got you kicked out of office, i forget?
And this is supposed to be an intelligence 2 debate? It's so fucking biased it's ridiculous. I mean who are these people standing up and asking questions and when they don't get the answer they want they interrupt the person in question and move on to another one until they do? I used to have great respect for intelligence 2 but i can't say i do anymore. Not to mention that the end result will be the same wich is LEGALICE OR DECRIMINALIZE. Personally I'm in favor of legalizing cannabis becuse it's less harmful than alcohol wich should be criminalized and tobacco, and to all idiots that clame cannabis is a gateway drug i dare you to find one person who did not try tobacco or alcohol before they tried cannabis. And is it not interesting that we seem to be unable to put alcohol in the same box as other drugs. Can it have something to do with the majority of the population not wanting to be stigmatized and labeled a drug user? Fucking hypocrites!!
I bet that only 1% of the population knows the real facts when it comes to cannabis and the remaining 99% think they know but doesn't have a fucking clue! All they have done is bought in to the 50+ years of propaganda started by Anslinger back in the day.
It amazes me how uninformed you have to be to say, that crime in Portugal exploded after the legalization of posession. The murder rate, as it was stated, went up by some 16%. I'm not saying it's not true, but for god's sake, look at the statistics. There's been 105 murders in 2001 in Portugal. 124 in 2012. Can you really draw any conclusions from slightly more than 100 cases? Can you also ignore the fact, that 2001 was very special, as there was 116 in 2000 or 125 in 1998? Comparing 2012 to 2001 without mentioning earlier years and long-time trends is not science. It's Idiocy Squared.
Typical antiligalization tactics. They know they don't have the facts on there side so they only use the facts that at face value seems to strengthen there position. When it comes to pepole like that the word hate is not strong enough.
I'm currently on 100 microgram/hour fentanyl patches because of an accident wich caused a lot of broken bones. It's funny how it's ok for me to have a drug that is about 80-100 times stronger than heroin prescribed but if i were to choose to vaporize some cannabis instead all hell would break loose and all of a sudden I'm a criminal. somehow I was not a criminal when using a drug that's more likely to kill me, but if i use one that is less dangures than alcohol or tobacco, in this scenario cannabis i should be labeled a drug addict and a criminal? This world is so fucking inside out and upside down you don't know whether to laugh or cry 😁
And the simple fact that one can purchase a box of aspirin, take a dose of 7-10 gram meaning 14-20 pills and after that the person in questions liver is completely shot meaning no transplant = one dead mofo, and these are over the counter meds. Cannabis has never killed anyone by the way.
make drugs legal. End drug war! only victim of drug use its drug user. Also families of drug users. Alcohol legal. It its a drug more dangerous then any other. Legalize them all our make all illegal. Quit putting drug users (victims) in jail. your make money worth drugs being illegal. usa pushes drugs
Re you're first speaker, if you 'set the clock back' to the first use of prohibition, it might be a surprise to find that in 1917 drugs i.e. Heroin and Cocaine were available over the counter in any pharmacy in the UK until 1917, controlled only due to diversion to aiding of injured Soldiers. Irony being its domestic sale didn't hinder the Empires effectivenes. To sum up, I don't think any of my neibours would rush off to the Chemist if it were legalised.
20 years on heroin and my only problem is not with the drug itself but with all the negative hype around it. Try 20 years drinkin alcohol which is legal and i challenge anyone to see me and do the comparison test to decide whos more fucked. Human bodys own endorphins arent called that for nothing.
If you try heroin you are going to like it, the man said. Not only is that not true, but you are not automatically going to become an addict. As for methadone, that is just a fucking set up drug. Compassion? I dont think that that is what is going on here.
Fear is a human response to a certain situation, not a a sickness, if we did not have a fear response most people would most likely be dead before the day was over, the thing is we are living in a society that we were not evolved to live in, we have evolved to live in small groups, people get a lot kinder to one another when living in small villages compared to large cities, would you not agree.
It's like our minds need a software update so to speak.
+Fredrik Johansson It is a good thing that you feel this way. But fear also is a sickness and it leads people to all kinds of judgement. I try hard to understand everyone. I believe the world needs the light that is our will to understand. It has already had enough of our judgements.
+world peace not that i know of, i thought we were having a discussion, however i
hate when pepole use the label "junkie". That got me a little riled up.
It's a put down label for an individual that has an illness.
should history teach us that drugs/alcohol are necessary for the enjoyment of human life?and did the roaring twenties give us Woodstock give us raves,etc.everyone loves a smile perhaps we as humans should learn to be able to recognise real smiles?
Russell was exactly right when he called that pompous twit a bigot.
When he finally got his chance the make his final remarks, they basically consisted of "the main point I want to make is that you're all stupid and you need the hand of the law the defend you from yourselves"
To that I simply reply: Fuck you!
What a disgustingly arrogant attitude!
Is this your favorite pastime, watching gay porn? I think some ones i the closet😁 but hey that's ok, you go and give your awesome book (the Bible) a big hug, you just love that fucking thing. This is what i hate about homophobes, they are bigots just like racist like the kkk. What happens it the scientific community when you put more and more people in a room they actually get smarter. When it comes to bigot like you however, the more the dumber, you see you have dumb fuck number one telling all the other dumber fucks what's up, that's how you en up with a mob mentality and studying history we all know what that leeds to. One that you might remember however I'm not sure because your so dumb is when you lovely Americans used to hang black people from lamppost, sometimes for looking at a white woman or sometimes just for fun.
When your country has lived in peace for several centuries than come and talk to me. O and by the way, know you secretly love some dick. RIGHTHANDPOSSESSION LOVES DICK😁😁😁 I'll bet the pastor at your church loves to get his cleaned by your mouth at least on Sundays 😁 i just love how religious pepole can find a way to excuse anything even pedophile priests, unbelievable!
The prejudice against "someone who uses a substance i don't use" is not too different from the prejudice against someone who has another skin color, sexuality, religion or ideology. It all comes from the same dark cornner of the human spirit, the place that spawns that dangerous intolerance against difference. It's scary, it's pointless and it has been around for too long, disguised as a somewhat "politicaly correct" standing point that angry old conservatives have tricked young minds into accepting for many generations. Let's hope THIS generation is courageous and smart enough to see through it and put an end to that!
Nice one, friend. It is an interesting point you make. I believe it is a question of how much self awareness one possess. There is a tendancy, simply because of the way the human mind works, and because of the way point of view comes about, to buy into what one finds there. By the time we become capable of introspection a whole world of belief has been established. The evolution of that mind from then, I guess, comes down to how flexible one is in ones perceptions. Most societal developments come when a critical mass of opinion is reached. And even then there will be those defending the old guard, as it were. The real problem, to my mind, is that men are control freaks. There is an endless search for security in all the wrong places.
Listening to the side against makes me feel like we are in a bad syfy movie. We are putting way to many people in jail, and the world is turning into a police state. We all ready have a blueprint on how to legalize the drugs from our experiences so far. The right side is a few old white men who are tryimg to pull us backward. They should have had some minority representatives in this debate also. Old white guys are not affected the same as someone who comes from a minority by this war on drugs, it is a joke that, thats who they have fighting to keep it.
The war on drugs is a modern illusion manufactured to create fear/confusion/control of the population by the corrupt establishment and their media propagandists, many people will base their opinions on this gibberish making the problems that do exist worse,Drugs have been used for 1000s of years by many mystics/shaman/individuals and cultures following a spiritual path as a tool for enlightenment,jesus and his inner circle used magic mushrooms in rituals for exactly that purpose (see dead sea scroll translations by john allegro) this is something the church/establishment keep hidden from mainstream society. This whole issue is really about control of the population by the corrupt in society the social engineers deliberately caused the problem, they don't want you to know the truth as an enlightened society would destroy the greedy,lieing,evil warmongering manipulators who profit from creating conflict/confusion. This latest nonsense started in the 20s when the failing cotton industry decided to destroy the successful hemp industry,untill that point the cannabis plant was used prolifically in many everyday situations with no problems at all.
"90% of people don't take drugs because they're illegal."
False. In the US, drugs are purer, cheaper, and easier to find today than they were forty years ago when Nixon started this "war on drugs" in the first place. That is a fact, acknowledged by law enforcement officials, judicial systems, and the public. I don't use heroin, cocaine, or meth… why? Not because it's illegal, not because it's difficult to find, not because it's too expensive. It's because I understand the possible consequences on my mind and body, and choose not to ingest substances.
The answer is education and prevention, not criminalization of addicts. Let's get real about it, people. That's the only way we can make a real difference.
those two are not even in the same league! Maher is at least pretty funny and pretty reasonable. O'Reilly? neither. who knows what that guy really thinks. he acts like an asshole and talks like a moron
For better or for worst, taking drugs is one of the most human things you can do, along with having sex, dancing and breathing oxygen. It's never too late to re-rememberer, but people who support the War On Drugs have completely forgotten themselves as human beings.
such a good debate. id say everyone needs to watch this but its quite hard to understand for the average person. this is a fantastic panel of very intelligent experts who listen to argument(excluding hitchens and maybe the ex-new york governor)
i get what brand was getting at but im sorry, the hippie approach doesn't really work. we should care for people addicted to drugs just as much as mentally ill people. you cant say to the mentally insane "get a grip" they need medication because as established by neuroscientists they have chemical imbalances in their brains. the only difference with drug addicts is that because of various influences (social or not) they created this imbalance themselves, they often know the risks and take them but if you're not going to treat addiction kindly for the simple reason of "they brought it on themselves" well you're just going to have to stop treating broken bones from sporting accidents.
weed use will go up if its legalized and so will addiction but nowhere near the levels that tobacco brings because its not naturally addictive, but cocaine is, but i think peopel will avoid cocaine simply because its pretty fucked up (although advertising will change our minds on that im sure)
legalization of drugs = low nation wide productivity thats the real secret behind it all making it 2 available will lead to overindulgence and when youve been off ya cake can you be arsed the next day picking up the phone selling all day NOPE u will do it but not as good as you would if you wernt on a bender the night before now times that by millions more people taking easily ready drugs daily massive dip in productivity , u may think this wont happen , but if you study real history you will find that china legalized heroin and in a short peroid of time 3 quarters of chinas population was hooked to heroin a massive epidemic hundreds of millions of people chasing the dragon , so thats the real reason for war on drugs ,and as the ecomony in uk is slowly getting worse and unemployment is rising this is from real analysts not the goverment propaganda news , certain corporations and goverments are thinking they could bring in more cash by legalizing drugs its already happening in the u.s with goverment cannabis farms , and some of these farms have gotten that big you can even buy shares on them on the stock market , so these people arnt doing you a favor by legalizing drugs they just want to line there pockets and if you wanted to become a drug lord or self employed you would be competing with tesco coke , you wouldnt stand a chance , so this is how the future looks ,sum drugs may be legal , self employment will be slowed when cashless society all digital currency , ,machienes are replacing humans now at a rapid rate leading to more unemployment , rfid microchips will be installed in humans , ran by texas instruments , IBM and veri chip look into these stocks rfid tech will boom , corporations are now doing jobs the self employed are doing , you will have tesco plumbers , electricians etc so basically you will work and buy from these corporations thats the future of mankind in the next 50years and like sheep you will follow if you think not look how you have been living your life since birth : nursery . junior school . high school , college , university , job , marriage , mortgage , kids , retirement , death , this way of life is programmed into from birth like a goverment issued blueprint , passed from parent to child and the cycle goes on and on and only the few brake free from this and follow there dreams , and the rest are told thats life get on with it SO BASICALLY THE GOVERMENT HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE TO KEEP YOU IN PLACE THEY AINT YOUR FRIEND , THEY AINT YOUR FAMILY , ITS JUST A SYSTEM CREATED BY THE RICH TO KEEP THE POOR POOR AND THE RICH RICHER , IAM GRATEFULL MYSELF I BROKE FREE FROM THIS FORM OF LIFE WHEN I WAS 15 AND DONE MY OWN THING EVER SINCE AND IAM NOW ENJOYING BEING AN entrepreneur SO REMEMBER PEOPLE , KNOWLEDGE IS POWER AND SHEEP ALWAYS GET SLAUGHTERED WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENED IN WORLD WAR 1 AND 2 THE SHEEP GETTING SLAUGHTERED , WHILE THE RICH PUT THERE FEET UP AND ATE VERY WELL!!!
1:04:29 how the fuck is Portugal isolated? last-time I checked it was mainland Europe... The anti drug argument in this video is pathetic, all they can do is use kids to scare us into their way of thinking, but coming from the ghetto myself I know that kids can much more easily get weed than cigs or beer because it's an unregulated black market.
I just did mention something that backs up MY view not the one you're misrepresenting me as having: Some dualistic view I never expressed. but you weren't bothered to read it. I suspect you haven't read anything I posted.
As for drugs my opinion is more in line with you than you think. I feel we should tackle demand and that may involve laws to deter people but as we know that hasn't been successful so education is clearly also needed and throwing people in jail perhaps is not productive. I know plenty of drug addicts and they don't appear to be any danger of going to jail. Seems like a bit of a canard. Even the statistics show police are leniant on drug users, at least in Europe. Legalizing drugs will not eliminate the black market however and considering the damage alochol and tobacco have such a step may have serious impacts on society if legalization is done recklessly without considering the consequences just so business men can get rich marketing yet more damaging substances.
As for convincing you, Oh I've given up on that I'm just pointing out for anyone else that might stumble on this how you misuse science to say your flimsy position is bullet proof. With regards the drugs issue I'd be more receptive to your opinions but certainly not your take on brain science considering while talking about it all you did was slander and misrepresent my points while claiming I was doing it to you. Who knows who's right. I'm betting on me frankly but I'm biased.
Somehow I had the feeling you would not stop posting comments. Because people like you can make arguments based on philosophical points and assertions until the end of time.
I can't even be bothered to read any more of your nonsense.
I already said what I consider to be free will.
Free will, personal responsibility etc are subject to brain activity.
Brain activity is limited by the various factors that I mentioned that shape the mind and affect it in the present.
So the factors that affect how the mind works also affect any scientific understanding concepts like "free will" or "personal responsibility"
If you think these things are not limited by the factors that affect brain activity, at least mention something that can back up this view instead of simply asserting people are responsible if they are not coerced other people or drugs. If you can't you have no valid argument in my view.
From the research I have seen prohibition has been historically and statistically proven not to reduce drug use. It seems quite evident that there is more legal and illegal drug use today than in the past.
If you can't provide any evidence showing declining drug use under prohibition, you have no valid argument in my view.
If you think throwing people in jail for putting a substance in their body please explain that logic. Because in my view people have the right to put anything they want in their own body. And criminalising them is not a solution. If you can't provide an actual solution for what's NOT working now you have no valid argument in my view.
Explain how you plan to stop the very nature of our economic system which is based on supply and demand. Which is creating a huge black market for illegal substances leading to most of modern crime. If you can't do this you have no valid argument in my view.
I already know you can't provide any evidence that I require to change my view. If you want to write another chapter using your logic don't bother. I will simply repeat these points until I see any actual evidence.
Screw it lets give it one more go. You were saying in the first comment that there's a limit to personal responsibility for people's actions and you've followed that through. So we know that "free will" however we define it can't happen outside the brain. Something you misrepresented me as believing. So we'll agree on that I hope: You are your brain. Free will, being pretty hard to define, whether its real or not we experience it as agency or volition over our actions. We feel we choose to do something. Seen as you're saying I'm conflicting Neuroscience and your position is firmly rooted in logic (as opposed to my religious nutjobbery) then let's take a definition of autonomy posited by neuroscientists:
Autonomy is defined as a) an endorsement of internal states, b) commitment to them in the absence of coercion, and c) follow through with these states after critical reflection. (Dubljevic, AJOB Neuroscience, 2013)
Now I previously dismissed the articles you linked because I believe they actually aren't relevant in the way you think they are. Also you said we can tell what people are going to do before they do it by scanning the brain. No we can't except in the very narrow conditions that were in the experiments and even they weren't 100% accurate. Again MAYBE I'm taking you out of context, bear with me, I mustn't be as bright as you as you said my brain just clearly isn't able to process this material but thanks for not blaming me for my deficiencies that's very kind of you. Because an act is decided 10 seconds before I perceive "I decided to do this, I'm doing it," doesn't explain anything about how the decision was made. This point about it is relevant, very relevant to your initial post. Scientifically and logically I can't make any inferences about the nature of decision making from these studies. I mean you say I'm fixating on this here but its crucially important.
Taking the definition above, when someone commits a willed action (perceived or otherwise), regardless of their brain chemistry or internal states we can say "yes, this person is responsible" if they aren't being coereced by someone or something else (a domineering person, drugs etc.) and provided they have critically reflected on their actions. Now maybe the jury is still out on how someone critically relfects on issues and actions, I don't know I'm not a neurologist or cognitive scientist. Maybe our decisions about them is made before we are aware of it ourselves, but in your initial post you absolve people of personal responsibility which also means you deny them the ability to critically relfect on their choices, as in they're acting impulsively or you're saying they're being coerced, by this definition. Let me be clear I am not strawmanning you. I'm using a definition I've introduced (which you rightly asked for) and you're quite free to now refute me if you think I'm talking bullshit or if the definition above is insufficient or I've come to an incorrect conclusion about your argument. But this is just where I think your use of Neuroscience as your argument leads to. You haven't convinced me that the science shows we can glibly say there's a limit to how we can apply the notion of "responsibility." I think its irresponsible and dangerous for all sorts of reasons to say for instance: "This person may not be responsible because of the current state of their brain chemistry."
I certainly feel its an insult to the hypothetical person who committed suicide in your first comment. That person may have thought very deeply about whether or not to kill him or herself.
Well seeing as I clearly pointed out your straw men in my previous comments you must be blind to think you have'nt straw manned me. I literally said what many of the straw men were and corrected them to what I actually said.
You have provided no actual logical arguments to my evidence. My arguments were based on various scientific facts. I posted a link to a specific study to back up a specific point. Yet you keep dwelling on study and what it does not show. When I clearly said over and over what I'm saying does not depend on what you keep repeating it does not show. And every point I made was not based on this study yet you act like it.
I am not moving the goal post you just don't fully read what I say or don't take it in.
Nothing I based my arguments on were assertions, they were based on our current understanding of how the mind works and the reality of drug use/abuse reported by various medical professionals who understand addiction. You clearly don't know the basics of what shapes the mind and what effects its process' And you clearly don't know anything about why people use drugs or the statistical reality of prohibition not reducing the problem of drug use. And you completly dismiss the vast majority of crimes cause by this and the illogical criminalisation of people who use drugs.
If you had any clue you would actually deal with my points with actual counter scientific claims (if there are any) rather than ignoring my points and what I use to back those points up.
I explained what I consider to be free will which is the ability to process information and act in a manner which society considers rational or "normal" and showed the factors which effect this "free will" And those factors have not just been drugs as you are trying to frame.
You have presented no evidence to counter this argument. All you are doing is appealing to some philosophical factors that appeal to how society works now rather than anything evidence based.
You ARE talking outlandish crap when trying to counter an evidence based argument with but "what about personal responsibility"
Personal responsibility is a word describing a a concept. This concept does not exist outside the workings of the human mind and all the factors that can limit its process'
This is why I told you to define "free will" because I already did and that's what I am basing my arguement on. Not your abstract philosophical views of this concept.
The current scientific evidence supports my view on this fully. You can provide absolutely no evidence other than assert nonsense about personal responsibility and abstract notions of "free will"
Personal responsibility and free will are both subject to the factors that shape the mind and what effect it in the present. They don't exist independently of the factors I mentioned.
Your view just asserts these concepts are separate from these factors. So no matter what is going on on a actual neurological or physiological level you need to have "personal responsibility" This is not a scientific argument at all. You don't even seem to understand logic. You just make assertions and straw men and think factual points about drug use are my asssertions.
Your last comment just like many of your previous ones was just full of straw men and nonsense and shows a blatant inability to process actual scientific information and logic.
"This is my point and if you oppose this, logically it implies you are saying there is such a thing as "free will" outside what is happening in the brain." - for all your talk of strawmen.
This is not a straw man, its a logical deduction from what has been said, something you clearly know nothing about.
Because your arguements are based in emotion and completley undefined views of concepts like free will and personal responsibility.
Anyone can quote people out of context then make illogical arguments like you. Conveniently failing to provide any scientific basis for your views and totally failing to address the problem or present any counter solutions. I don't blame you, clearly your brain lacks the ability to process information in a concise and logical manner.
We must be at an impasse. If I'm misrepresenting your arguments, rather than just carrying them to logical extensions then you mustn't be expressing them very well. I wish I hadn't called you out for saying I sounded like a religious nutjob because since then you've been seeing strawmen where there isn't any. At this point you're making points you weren't originally making. Its not even controversial to say there is no free will independent of brain activity. At what point did I ever assert to the contrary? All will occurs in the brain. Your initial argument was absolving people of their responsibilities in your very first comment. But hey if my supposedly wishy washy philosophically based argument I put forward to that stellar bullet proof point you made in your first comment, with the aid of all the tools of modern science, then I daren't ask you to repeat yourself again. You can say "Any level of decision making is going to be within the confines of brain activity. Which means within the limitations of what has shaped the mind up to that point and what is affecting it presently." Sure thats fine. What I find ludicrous is "With what we know from nuroscience today, its quite clear "personal responsibility" is an abstract notion. It makes sense only under certain conditions in the brain."
Sorry I committed some abhorrent act, my brain made me do it.
Frankly I find your comments about what the "scientific view" is quite dubious. But I fully concede that I could be utterly wrong, I just happen to think you are utterly wrong. What evidence of any weight have you provided? You are simply asserting your opinion on drugs and the people who use them is scientific fact or medical fact. You introduce the experiments on free will and predicting people's actions, I tell you why they're not relevant and then you move the goal posts.
"This is my point and if you oppose this, logically it implies you are saying there is such a thing as "free will" outside what is happening in the brain." - for all your talk of strawmen. This has literally nothing to do with anything I was talking about. But apparently if I call you on using neuroscience to absolve people of personal responsibility I'm saying outlandish crap that free will some how happens hovering outside someones brain. Since my first comment I've essentially been saying the opposite I've just opposed your view that peoples actions are more or less determined and so we can't blame anyone.
I'll stop posting comments now because I'm sure you'd like the last word.
a debate where a DEA psychopath talks about the importance of "creating a social stigma" around marijuana use. one also claimed he was part of the 99% and referred to those who wanted to end the war on drugs and legalize marijuana as "the 1%".. obviously a desperate attempt to gain sympathy for his cause by playing on a popular trend. hilarious failure!!
Seriously how can people still defend the war on drugs? it's painfully obvious that it is failing miserably and it's about time we stopped throwing taxpayer money at the problem. I choose not to buy or smoke cigarettes even though they are legal, similarly I choose not to drink alcohol very often (I can't seem to have a drink without getting absolutely plastered) and so I make the rational decision to not drink alcohol. I do, however, smoke cannabis regularly as there is no immediate negative effects such as there is with alcohol and I just prefer the experience overall. Seriously ask yourself this, if you don't do heroin, are you going to do it tomorrow just because it's now legal? Of course you're not! it's time for people to grow up about drugs!
I DO heroin. It saved my life and it is FAR from the demon society has been tricked into thinking it is. Opiates aren't toxic and the fact that they lead to dependency it's only a problem if you aren't willing to use them all your life (a decision i've already made for myself, so no problem there). It pains me to see that 90% of the problems associated with it are actually caused by the prohibition. People forget that heroin started out being a legal over-the-counter household product, it was for 12 years and not 1 case of overdose was reported, nor did anyone went homeless because of it. It was a cheap, readily available and pure product, and it should still remain that way today! Too bad the War on Drugs managed to turn it into the most feared and misunderstood substance around.
Yes I'm aware America has a long history of slavery, who isn't? That's not the case now. I was referring to the present time and the fact that a modern democracy still relies on the things that I mentioned. Drug legalisation is antithetical to this goal.
And yes people are doped on legal drugs - I think last time I checked America was the consumer of 90% of the world's drugs used to treat depression. I'd be in favour of harshly and thoroughly disciplining the pharmaceutical companies as well - or at least heavily restricting doctor's ability to act as drug dispensaries.
You and I simply differ on what's needed to solve the problem. We both know the current situation isn't sustainable. I tend to think that legalisation will result in far more wide spread drug use - as we can see from the level of use that's resulted from the relaxation of drug laws over the western world.
Now I'm starting to think you're not trying.
In what way are the roman, Egyptian or any other empires like the United states or any other modern democracy? These ancient dictatorships were successful for what reason? A shake lead government and a society driven by slavery. And in such a system, having a doped and stupid population is actually extremely useful. Is that the future you want for yourself? It sure does sound like it. A modern democracy is only possible with an informed, educated and lucid population, so your examples couldn't have been worse.
The Netherlands is a perfect example of a country where its govt is essentially a drug dealer - providing methadone to 'adducts' at the expense of the taxpayer (income tax is above 50% whereas tax in Singapore is 4%). Of course you'll have less crime when other individuals have to fund those who choose to lead stupid lifestyles. Do you think this scheme is sustainable? Forget it. Its a temporary fix.
Believe me I'm trying to understand america. They believe they have freedom and yet the government spies on them endlessly. They believe they have a democracy when elections are effectively bought. They think they have health when 70% are willfully obese. Its a confusing country indeed.
You: "My argument states that civilisation is only created and sustained when certain practices are outlawed - one of which is wide spread drug use."
This is your OPINION and has no basis in FACT.
Did Rome have prohibition? NO Did ancient Egypt have prohibition? NO Are they considered great civilizations? YES The Netherlands is the modern example of a society with relaxed drug laws and they have less crimes and murders than the US not to mention a much lower prison population.
I agree that America could learn from other countries but unfortunately most people over here think the same way you do. Like they have the end-all be-all solution. Try to keep an open mind.
The "war on drugs" IS fictional but I guess you couldn't read that in my text. Why do you think I keep putting "quotations" around it? And it IS only a tax generating scam that is written into law. I can't expect you to understand America when you have never been here. My apologies.
Have a nice day sir :)
Ah yes - the default response from someone completely unwilling to think. I guess in another argument you’ll be providing me the pseudo-scientific definition of ‘addiction’ simply because the American Medical Association has told you there is such a thing.
The definition states clearly what civilisation *is*. So, what does that have to do with what I said? My argument states that civilisation (what you’ve just provided a lovely description of) is only created and sustained when certain practices are outlawed - one of which is wide spread drug use.
It’s like me providing a definition of ‘politics’ and asking you why you’re complaining about corruption because it’s “not in the definition”. Are you really so dim witted?
I live in Singapore, where drug use is non-existent and punishable by the death sentence, rated the least corrupt country on the planet (equal with my country of birth, New Zealand), citizens have a deep respect for the rule of law and have no tolerance for those who break it. And for all this, Singapore enjoys the most developed and prosperous society on planet earth. I would argue it’s even more free than western societies: as you can leave your house at virtually anytime with no fear, lose your property anywhere & have it returned immediately, leave your apartment open when you leave - I need not continue.
Please stop referring to the fictional “War on Drugs”. There’s no such thing. It hasn’t been waged in 40 years. I thought we were all past this old, tired, false argument?
Even if drugs were legalised, the drug cartels will simply be in competition with government and big-Pharma who will seek to tax drugs much in the same way as alcohol and tobacco - which are by far the most smuggled substances by the criminal gangs you mention. Your argument is effectively an empty sack that has been presented to the general public as a means for government to have another tax revenue. If you can’t see that - you’re to be pitied.
America could learn a lot from this side of the world. I would actually encourage you to immigrate away from the west if you value your future. It actually pains me to say it since I do love the core principles (thought, scientific enquiry etc) of my culture - what’s left of it.
civilization or civilisation (in British English) generally refers to state policies which combine these basic institutions, having one or more of each: a ceremonial centre ( a formal gathering place for social and cultural activities), a system of writing, and a city. The term is used to contrast with other types of communities including hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastorialists, and tribal villages. Civilizations have more densely populated settlements divided into hierarchical social classes with a ruling elite and subordinate urban and rural populations, which by the division of labour, engage in intensive agriculture, mining, small scale manufacture and trade. Civilization concentrates power, extending human control over both nature, and over other human beings. (wikipedia)
Now tell me where in that definition does it mention what substances humans ingest.
Sorry, but again you're argument has no validity.
The fact is both sides win from this "war on drugs" while the citizens have to deal with the fallout. The FACT is governments, drug cartels, private prisons, and the banks that launder this drug money all stand to benefit from this "war". So unless you're involved with one of those three mentioned above, you still lose. I don't know how it is where you live but in America, this is factual. Not everyone has the resources to just pack it up and run away from the problem.
Have a nice day :)
If there should be any war there should be a war on the stupidity, and ignorance which leads people to such stupid slogans as "War on drugs".
There should only be a "war on" the social, and psychological factors which cause some people to get into serious trouble with drug taking.
You will never get rid of substance abuse without the sort of repressive all seeing controlling state apparatus, which very few would like to see except perhaps The Daily Mail, and like minded. Plenty of societal control until it comes to business, and commerce then the cry is "Freedom" Idiots..
What causes people to feel so feeble, or afraid, or inadequate they cant get through a day without an alcoholic crutch? Start there you are on the right track. Lets see those boozers without their crutch. That would be the greatest amusement for me. What a pitiful sight that would be, but a better world would emerge.
I am not a prohibitionist. I would like to see a society where people didn't feel the need to pour anesthetic down their throat to get by.
I see that this was 2 years ago and hope that you have a different view now 2years later. If not then I would say you have not taken any time in understanding the situation. First no one is saying ending the war on drugs is to legalize any drug, ending the war on drugs would turn focus on helping those who are addicted or the actual problem of why a user began to use instead of fighting an enemy which is the supplier because the only thing you do is remove one for another to take its place. Consumer consumes, by a supplier gone consumer still consumes. so how can one assume there is logic in that? you probably would argue that treatment doe exist even under the war on drugs, but that's just treatment for those who eventually got to a point like overdose or got arrested. So my question is what about the ones who have yet to overdose or slipped thru the cracks of the law or aren't in plain sight? well I'm sure you would have an answer but I can say you have no clue how its seen on a users view because to simply name call and classify users as "doped Stupid" confirms that. Just like the guys defending the War on drugs as being a good thing you all have not spoken of being in such an experience and its not just the experience of taking any drug but being affected with a family member, friend or anyone close to you. The only base points you all have is "Statics" of everything and even opinions of either from a doctor or some expert who again have no direct experience. but of course I am saying this to you if the views of your post 2yrs ago are the same in present moment.
+Prentice Mathew You seem to be understanding it just fine :P I think the problem is that you cant understand that not all people are the same as you... Did it occur to you that i might not be American ?
+Prentice Mathew What a moronic statement... If you read my comments again you will see that i have my own principles... Why can you not accept that some people have a different way of thinking than you ?
I'm not spamming or telling anyone what to do, only letting You all there know how to create new, much better system than the one which is operating right now (monetary-religio-political) and was warking for thousands of years, benefiting mostly those who have the most, and giving then power to have even more at the expence of the rest. There is a system that, if implemented, could easily benefit everyone without exceptions. If You are not arrogant moron, but rather concern and open person, please look for informations about Venus Project and Jacque Fresco.
the biggest killer of all are prescribed drugs........you take a drug for 1 condition that can cause 30-40 side effects.......but would someone walk into a beting shop and put down 30 or 40 euro, pound to win 1 back??? as long as profit is more important than lifes crime is more important than peace
I have three boys. When I say "DONT YOU DARE DO That"
They'll do it. But when I sit down with them and say "Sure you can do that but..."
When I give them a choice to do or not to do. Most times they pick the right thing to do. But when I say "Don't you dare do that." You bet they will.
good for you as a father, people who think illegality makes a difference are so naive, only education and research can persuade people not to do drugs (if they are even bad in the first place), we've had enough of politicians (the most immoral people i've ever met) telling us what is and isnt moral
Hitchens makes some of the strangest arguments for prohibition I have ever seen. Take for instance this gem http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/03/in-defence-of-prohibition-and-other-matters.html
In the above, link he argues that alcohol prohibition failed for two reasons: It tried to make it illegal "in one step" and it "had nothing to say about possession".
The next piece is how he avoids the hypocrisy of being a drinker while simultaneously for drug prohibition http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/03/a-serious-answer-to-a-silly-argument.html
The logical and moral gymnastics to brush away the hypocrisy of legal alcohol and illegal drugs bothers the conscience.
So if you decriminalise or legalise drugs they will be made more widely available, and so Big Pharma can make billions of dollars supplying. And the more supply you have of the problem, then the more money you can make supplying the solution to the problem. Bloody hell, they win hands down.
Peter Hitchens is a closed-minded idiot and merely regurgitates the beliefs of his late brother. I suppose it was too much to hope that Christopher's dark-ages stance on the attitudes and treatment of addiction suffers died with him. It's depressing that a mind as great as his had such an egregious blind spot.
As someone who has a sibling who is a recovering addict, I have to wonder if his opinion would be different if his circumstances were the similar to mine. It's easy to be so flippant about the matter when you're far removed from the problem with no emotional or personal investment.
Read more into Christopher Hitchen's work. He and his brother disagreed on most things. Peter Hitchens is a donkey. He is so closed minded, I almost can not watch. But this shouldn't be indicative of his brother, Christopher was a great thinker. Peter should be ashamed of his representation of his family name.
For the people who want to see the results for the internet its here:
Does the anti legalization crowd have zero faith in humanity? They speak like legalization will lead to mass destruction of society. This reasoning on their behalf undermines the character in each and everyone of the anti legalization side. They are full of arrogance and ignorance that comes from deep within their character. The problem is not the drugs but your attitude towards your fellow human beings. Embrace humanity and show humbleness, for once you get rid of your ego you will start to see the light. I thank the anti legalization side for having Hitchens on their side for he really underlines my reasoning here. Julian Assange said it right that Hitchens is a twit!
There's something so perverse and pre-modern behind the philosophy of prohibition, it's like when chimpanzees kill the one from their tribe who was painted pink by the researcher; there's also such a fundamental distrust of human judgement, and therefore surrendering our bodies to the state.
The fundamental rule of civilisation is that man shall be rewarded for hard work. Drugs cut that link. Progress only comes to societies when built on a principle of self restraint. Decriminalisation is what's ore-modern; you're so called "monkey state", not prohibition.
It's quite strange that for the last 50 years liberals are for drug consumption (and other social vices) as it is people's freedom but at the same time ''we live in a society'' and the state should incentivise drug use with the welfare state and free addiction treatment and on the other side conservatives are on the side of freedom when it comes to people's money, but not when it comes to people's bodies; this was brilliantly demonstrated in Russel's and Hitchens' quick altercation. I say both approaches are intellectually dishonest and Hitchens' points kicked Russel's butt so hard he resorted to his usual martial arts gestures, shouting, babbling and grimaces.
Here's a suggestion: divert the huge intelligence apparatus that the NSA have mounted against this fictitious war on terror, which is really used to surveil ordinary people, and use it against the drug cartels. Follow the fucking money right up to the heads of banks and corrupt government officials and prosecute. We all know who is complicit in all of this, and that includes the US military. Legalise marajuana and it will no longer be a gateway drug: the only reason it might be considered a gateway drug is do to the fact that you have to get it from a drug dealer. No one involved in this so called war really wants it to end...there is too much money involved. I wish that people would address what is really going on.
Shit, I just googled Hitchens, and He's from Malta..Ya know, The Knights of Malta. The religiouse banking Oligharchs of the New and Old world order.
Hitchens interests are to keep drugs illegal, due to his corporate links..Its all about the money
Peter Mitchel, Is the kind of person, who completely encourages the wrong statistiks, only to continue criminalising people to prolong a war, where thier is no war,Peter mitchel thinks if drugs were legal, then drug addicts would take drugs in front of kids, In Portugal, this is not a statistik. It is a fear from an asshole, who only trusts his own diatribe
Best argument I've heard is one you don't hear very often:
The Police were invented to stop people doing each other harm. It's not their job to prevent people from doing themselves harm - that's a function of family and society.
You may be right but i think you exaggerated the price. A kilo goes for 17k to 22k, thats us dollars. You're trying to say if it was legal you could buy a kilo for 220 dollars. I dont believe. Either way no money is no money, i think a crack head is still robbing. btw a stoner still aint sucking a dick for a bag of weed. Do you really think that if drugs were straight legal we wouldnt have a bunch of addicts in the streets, do you think kids would be safe walking home from school.
+nyghtmare3000 "Crack heads" only steal because cocaine is 100-1000x more expensive than it would be if it weren't illegal. The war on drugs actually promotes drug related crime in my opinion, instead of reducing it
i hear that, but some drugs are worse than others and lead to those people doing others harm. crack vs marijuana, a crack head will snatch a purse n rob people, but no stoner has ever sucked a dick for a bag of weed.
if sanctions go away, POS Eliot Spitzer and his police forces can't make $$$ pulling over users and criminals. He doesn't care about use increasing. He cares about losing the ability to make $$$ off of drugs by putting people in the judicial system.
I disagree with the statement that marijuana is relatively harmless. While I am sure the chemicals it is made with are just that, relatively harmless, it is the effects and desire to have it that make it dangerous. Anything that alters your state of mind, regardless if you think it is for the better, should be avoided. While the drug itself is not chemically addictive, the feeling you get is. The altered state of mind "can be" dangerous, especially when people go on assuming it is harmless.
....people that take drugs for pleasure are normally trying to escape what is not pleasurable in life just like when they drink alcohol in the end it is when it becomes abusive that is the problem say that their is nothing that starts this abuse is contrary to the facts that it is within criminal hands at the same time when people go to a doctor when they are not feeling good for anti depressants people are just trying to change their moods and use drugs as that format.peter is being bias
Community pharmacists are the health professionals most accessible to the public. They supply medicines in accordance with a prescription or, when legally permitted, sell them without a prescription. In addition to ensuring an accurate supply of appropriate products, their professional activities also cover counselling of patients at the time of dispensing of prescription and non-prescription drugs, drug information to health professionals, patients and the general public, and participation in health-promotion programmes. They maintain links with other health professionals in primary health care.