-- Posted by MushroomSatsujin at 9:37 am on Sep. 16, 2008 Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself, and where they are they should be changed. If no, why? -- Posted by MiNNiCK at 9:38 am on Sep. 16, 2008 Yes. -- Posted by Boondox at 9:38 am on Sep. 16, 2008 i agree -- Posted by im your freak at 9:39 am on Sep. 16, 2008 no -- Posted by anc8469 at 9:39 am on Sep. 16, 2008 Yea I agree -- Posted by Dannay at 9:39 am on Sep. 16, 2008 Ok ill admit it.. I don't understand it   -- Posted by MushroomSatsujin at 9:39 am on Sep. 16, 2008 Quote: from im your freak at 9:39 am on Sep. 16, 2008 no Why not? -- Posted by MushroomSatsujin at 9:41 am on Sep. 16, 2008 Quote: from Dannay at 9:39 am on Sep. 16, 2008 Ok ill admit it.. I don't understand it The penalties of drug use should not exceed the damages of the drug itself. For instance, going to jail over marijuana would do far more damage to the person than the drug itself, so the laws must be changed -- Posted by punkypanda at 9:41 am on Sep. 16, 2008 nope i dont -- Posted by MushroomSatsujin at 9:41 am on Sep. 16, 2008 Quote: from punkypanda at 9:41 am on Sep. 16, 2008 nope i dont Care to explain why? -- Posted by IceTeaEdwin at 9:46 am on Sep. 16, 2008 If you are high...are you likely to act almost the same as drunk and therefore put others in danger? If so, then I don't agree with the quote. -- Posted by MushroomSatsujin at 9:48 am on Sep. 16, 2008 Quote: from IceTeaEdwin at 9:46 am on Sep. 16, 2008 If you are high...are you likely to act almost the same as drunk and therefore put others in danger? If so, then I don't agree with the quote. Um...no. Marijuana and alcohol are two different drugs...and this is for drugs in general. Not just weed -- Posted by MiNNiCK at 9:48 am on Sep. 16, 2008 Quote: from IceTeaEdwin at 12:46 pm on Sep. 16, 2008 If you are high...are you likely to act almost the same as drunk and therefore put others in danger? If so, then I don't agree with the quote. If people use responsibly, then there isn't any "putting anyone in danger" -- Posted by BodomChick at 9:49 am on Sep. 16, 2008 agree -- Posted by Just Waiting Here at 9:50 am on Sep. 16, 2008 Well, I think there are so many things in this world that don't follow that statement. People decide to take drugs because they like them, they don't do it because of what it may do to them health-wise.  So ultimately, the punishment associated with it should not be health related.  If the punishment was less severe, then the usage would become more world-wide.  Ie... if a drug was still illegal, but with a more basic punishment, then more people would be likely to do it, ultimately causing exactly what they don't want. I mean... for the honor system on a train.  If you get caught without a ticket, they don't fine you for just the ticket that you ~should~ have bought.  They make the fine so large, that it deters people from doing it.  And also, if someone does do it, the will assume that it's happened before. So in terms of logistics?  I don't really agree.  I think the system wouldn't work.  I assume your mainly referencing marijuana and the fact that there hasn't been any solid proof that it does not cause any major health problems... but there's a difference between altering the "punishment" and removing it completely. Of course, then it comes to things like cigarettes, which is completely legal, even though many would easily be able to prove that a cigarette is more damaging than marijuana would be. Ultimately, punishments are always "worse" than the crime, at least from the individual's person's standpoint, and that's because if it WASN'T worse, then many people would more likely opt taking the risk.... Hopefully that makes sense. -- Posted by MiNNiCK at 9:52 am on Sep. 16, 2008 Quote: from Just Waiting Here at 12:50 pm on Sep. 16, 2008 Well, I think there are so many things in this world that don't follow that statement. People decide to take drugs because they like them, they don't do it because of what it may do to them health-wise.  So ultimately, the punishment associated with it should not be health related.  If the punishment was less severe, then the usage would become more world-wide.  Ie... if a drug was still illegal, but with a more basic punishment, then more people would be likely to do it, ultimately causing exactly what they don't want. I mean... for the honor system on a train.  If you get caught without a ticket, they don't fine you for just the ticket that you ~should~ have bought.  They make the fine so large, that it deters people from doing it.  And also, if someone does do it, the will assume that it's happened before. So in terms of logistics?  I don't really agree.  I think the system wouldn't work.  I assume your mainly referencing marijuana and the fact that there hasn't been any solid proof that it does not cause any major health problems... but there's a difference between altering the "punishment" and removing it completely. Of course, then it comes to things like cigarettes, which is completely legal, even though many would easily be able to prove that a cigarette is more damaging than marijuana would be. Ultimately, punishments are always "worse" than the crime, at least from the individual's person's standpoint, and that's because if it WASN'T worse, then many people would more likely opt taking the risk.... Hopefully that makes sense. Point and case here, why punish someone for using drugs in the first place? What someone decides to do with their body shouldn't be up to anyone else. -- Posted by MushroomSatsujin at 9:55 am on Sep. 16, 2008 Quote: from Just Waiting Here at 9:50 am on Sep. 16, 2008 Well, I think there are so many things in this world that don't follow that statement. People decide to take drugs because they like them, they don't do it because of what it may do to them health-wise. So ultimately, the punishment associated with it should not be health related. If the punishment was less severe, then the usage would become more world-wide. Ie... if a drug was still illegal, but with a more basic punishment, then more people would be likely to do it, ultimately causing exactly what they don't want. I mean... for the honor system on a train. If you get caught without a ticket, they don't fine you for just the ticket that you ~should~ have bought. They make the fine so large, that it deters people from doing it. And also, if someone does do it, the will assume that it's happened before. So in terms of logistics? I don't really agree. I think the system wouldn't work. I assume your mainly referencing marijuana and the fact that there hasn't been any solid proof that it does not cause any major health problems... but there's a difference between altering the "punishment" and removing it completely. Of course, then it comes to things like cigarettes, which is completely legal, even though many would easily be able to prove that a cigarette is more damaging than marijuana would be. Ultimately, punishments are always "worse" than the crime, at least from the individual's person's standpoint, and that's because if it WASN'T worse, then many people would more likely opt taking the risk.... Hopefully that makes sense. It does, but I still dont see the reason to destroy someone's life for drugs, especially if their life was fine before.Plus theres the issue of freedom -- Posted by Themakingofagod at 9:56 am on Sep. 16, 2008 I agree only on the basis of possession of drugs.  If they have the intent to sell, it should be more severe.  If you want to ruin your life with drugs, you shouldn't be heavily penalized for it, but if you're intending on selling them to someone else, that is harmful to society in a much more widespread way. -- Posted by MushroomSatsujin at 9:57 am on Sep. 16, 2008 Quote: from Themakingofagod at 9:56 am on Sep. 16, 2008 I agree only on the basis of possession of drugs. If they have the intent to sell, it should be more severe. If you want to ruin your life with drugs, you shouldn't be heavily penalized for it, but if you're intending on selling them to someone else, that is harmful to society in a much more widespread way. So should users make their own drugs? -- Posted by HoneyMonster at 9:58 am on Sep. 16, 2008 no because penalties are suposed to be a deterrant not an alternative -- Posted by Just Waiting Here at 10:01 am on Sep. 16, 2008 Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 9:55 am on Sep. 16, 2008 It does, but I still dont see the reason to destroy someone's life for drugs, especially if their life was fine before.Plus theres the issue of freedom Right, but this is the issue of removing it completely.  It would be bad for a country to make something illegal, and then have the usage be over the top despite the law of it. Whether or not they should remove the laws completely is a different story, and not one I readily have the ability to argue, or one that I even know which side I would take. As someone else said, what someone else decides to do with their body is their choice.  Now... to some extent.  I mean... for example, in Canada, where health care is free... do they really want to help people that choose to do these things to themselves?  I mean, there are a few things. But I suppose most importantly might be societies rebellion to such a law.  While many people would support drug use, how many people would OPPOSE of it?  And in a "democratic" society, what kind of problems would it create if it were to be suddenly legalized?  Most people immediately assume drugs are bad, even marijuana, because that's all they hear. Personally?  I don't do any, and I'm not interested in it.  But if it were to be legalized, would it be like a child not being interested in something once they have it...?   Or would it cause more problems than we might note...? I dunno... lol, I'm too tired to even think about it.  Anytime you try to make a major change in something, there are bound to be other changes in areas that may initially seem unrelated... so who knows... -- Posted by help me now at 10:04 am on Sep. 16, 2008 yes -- Posted by keilani at 10:05 am on Sep. 16, 2008 i dont get it -- Posted by annabellheart at 10:05 am on Sep. 16, 2008 yup i so do agree -- Posted by Acid World at 10:24 am on Sep. 16, 2008 Disagree on two points. One, similar to what the other poster said about the punishment being worse than the crime. A criminal needs a heavy incentive not to do the crime they are about to commit, so usually a punishment is more hefty than what damage the crime could cause another or yourself. Secondly, the punishment is also based on the effect the crime has on overall society. When you buy pot, you're effectively putting money into the black market. You don't know how far that cash goes. It could go to buying an illegal fire-arm for gang violence that kills 3 people, it could travel all the way to some serious shit with some south american terrorist group buying explosives and blowing up a village. Whether this is the government's fault for making it illegal in the first place or the fault of the buyer is a different story. Of course I disagree with jailing people for marijuana possession, but thats the rationale behind it.