Russia decriminalizes drugs

I thought this thread was about Russia and hence, comparing other societies against its policy on drugs. Why has it developed into preferential administration of the drugs?

According to the economics of social Darwinism.... All the abusers will surely die of an overdose and the uber mensch i.e. the guys who do not use drugs will survive... Thus Russia will be a better place.

Anyhow, Big D banning substances creates a black market and then we get the nasty gang-land violence we read about. Look at what happened when they banned alcohol. Additionally, I though atheists/modernists liked the idea of liberalisation - so why are you so anti-drugs? It goes against your apparent philosophy.

Quote:

---

"I know that there has not yet been a proven link, hence my use of the word "correlation"."

Then you should look up the meaning of correlation. There is not a proven correlation. Meaning the experiments that have been done are either inconclusive, or not scientifically valid. This means they could've done literally anything to skew the results. But like I said, it shows a correlation - not a causal connection.

---

Uh no, you evidently didn't read the research that I'm thinking of. In the study that I saw reported, the results showed that test subjects who used marijuana had higher instances of the neurological illnesses in later life, compared to test subjects who didn't use marijuana. THAT is a correlation. In the test population, dope-smokers ended up with neurological illnesses more often than non-smokers. Not my fault if anyone doesn't like those results.[q=Besimudo]According to the economics of social Darwinism.... All the abusers will surely die of an overdose and the uber mensch i.e. the guys who do not use drugs will survive... Thus Russia will be a better place.
[/q]Either that, or all the drug users will block up the health system, and demand that the government be held accountable for "forcing" them into this situation, just some like alcoholics and tobacco-smokers in our society.

Quote:

---

Additionally, I though atheists/modernists liked the idea of liberalisation - so why are you so anti-drugs? It goes against your apparent philosophy.

---

What in the heck has that got to do with anything? You seem to be thinking that I'll shape my beliefs to match what someone says they should, to conform with a dogma or philosophy or whatever. I think what I think, end of story. Some of those ideas are based on what others say, some are my own opinions. I choose to believe each of them. What you just said would be kinda like me saying, "But Besimudo, you're a fundamentalist, therefore you should support the death penalty for drug users!"...
[q=Emerald Aeris]"The argument that "one is legal so the other one should be" doesn't hold water, either."

Of course it does. If one form is legal, the other should be too. All theft is illegal, not just theft on children or whatever. That's how laws work.[/q]They never taught us that in LAWS 101... there are enough harmful products in use in this day and age; why add more? Seems a waste, really. Banning everything we currently have would reduce rights that already exist, which is arguably a bad thing. However, choosing not to legalise another drug doesn't actively take anything away. Incidentally, there's a reason all theft is illegal: theft is a crime. If it can't be called "theft", then it's not illegal. If you take something, but think it's yours, you're not guilty of theft. The comparison is flawed.

Quote:

---

The fact that you can use the same argument to say all drugs should be legal is completely irrelevant.

---

Irrelevant? Well, that's certainly convenient. Would you support the legalisation of opiates in Holland? How about lowering the drinking age?[q=Emerald Aeris]"I prefer research and studies that are conducted in an objective manner, rather than beginning with a presumption and trying to find facts that fit it."

You seem pretty biased against marijuana, just from reading your post.
[/q]Of course. Freedom of opinion, and all that. I can think whatever I please. I'm biased against the idea of having a society with yet another group of money-wasting and idle addicts - the dark side of legalising any substance, as shown by alcohol. I hate dealing with certain types of drunk people; stoned people are even less predictable, so I'm biased. However, when I'm looking at research or studies - scientific undertakings - I don't like the idea of the research being done from a biased standpoint. If a bunch of stoners do a study and "prove" that cannabis is good for society because it makes them feel 25% more "whack", I'll snigger and ignore it. Likewise, if a crowd of stuffy, wishy-washy 'leaders of society' release findings saying that cannabis just isn't cricket because it's associated with young ruffians in patched jeans with no jobs, then my reaction will be the same. I'll pay attention, though, to a study that aims to determine whether there are any long-term effects, positive or negative, to the use of alcohol, or cannabis, or whatever.

Good for Mother Russia. Finally Vlad Putin does something useful.

I explained before why nobody has the right to outlaw something that only harms the user. And often, it doesn't even harm him more than inhaling the city pollution.

I smoke pot regularly, and tried a few real drugs on occasion. Never scrounged any money of the health service or dole, never missed a day of work, never run anyover over. Never even ate any babies like in Reafer Madness, which some people still seem to view as a documentary.

:D

If your posted location is where you're truly from, can I ask you, how long have drugs been legal in the Netherlands?

Take care all.

Yes, that's my real location.

'Soft Drugs' (marijuana and hashish) have been decriminalised here since the 1980s, I think. I haven't always lived here, so I'm not sure of the exact date.

Ah, I see. When this first occurred, if you know this, was there a rise in crime or any sort of obvious change in the culture? I figure that the same pattern would occur in Russia and looking back in the past might prepare us for any events that might take place in the near future.

Take care all.

From what people told me, there was a significant decrease in crime. It was so notable, even conservative Dutch politicians can't deny the comparison to the American time of alcohol prohibition. A lot of gangsters who were dealing dope on the street went out of business, because which smoker wouldn't prefer to buy his dope without having to watch out for the coppers?

Marijuana became more expensive because of that, since the Hashbars have to pay taxes. But I don't hear potheads complaining. I think legalisation really works here.

Hmm, most interesting. Hopefully, Russia won't have the opposite effect, where crime goes higher, and people are further oppressed. The problem could be that the Russian society has been so oppressive for such a long time, that giving new freedoms out may become easily corruptable, but we shall wait and see.

Thanks for the info, by the by.

Take care all.

You're welcome.

Russia actually had a huge alcohol problem for many years, so I don't think this law would make it worse. I remember stories of Michail Gorbachev trying to stop alcoholism with new laws. Anyone caught drunk driving, drunk at work, or drunk & disorderly, would be moved to the end of all waiting lists. In the Soviet Union and the rest of the Eastern Block, there were may waiting lists for flats, cars, etc.. But even that didn't stop the drinking.

I've only got a little time to post, so I'll respond to the rest later.

"the results showed that test subjects who used marijuana had higher instances of the neurological illnesses in later life, compared to test subjects who didn't use marijuana."

I'm aware of that, and I said this to it: "No. A few people who smoked dope had a higher chance of getting them than a few who didn't. That means NOTHING. It could be pure luck. I won't argue this further, because it's just not valid. If I smoke and my friend doesn't, and I get AIDS, is that a correlation? Of course not."

See what I mean? That experiment only shows that it's worth further examination. There is no correlation - yet. There could be, but evidence has been inconclusive so far. The higher rate of disease could simply be that the smoking group they chose just happened to have a higher rate, since the rates for the nonsmokers wasn't 0. The fact is, they just don't know. There's too many variables in that experiment to say there's a correlation. It's bad scientific protocol to conclude anything from an experiment like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

Curious, you dismiss the possible risks of cannabis and emphasise the possible benefits, but also downplay the possible benefits of alcohol.

---

I did not dismiss anything Big D, I just wanted to show you my points of view and the things that I thought you dismissed. A simple misundertanding, I am glad this discussion is continuing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

...And where I live, there is no "war on drugs", so the US government propoganda/campaigns/whatever are ineffectual here.

---

You're lucky, that's a sure plus in my opinion, where do you live?

EDIT:

Hey there Cap! Here's some info on the "Dutch Experiment" Haven't read it all yet (little time on my hands) but I assure you I will read it very soon.

Here's more info on the subject: Click here

Big D:

Regarding this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

I'm biased against the idea of having a society with yet another group of money-wasting and idle addicts

---

Do you think this is not currently in your society? Do you think that "money-wasting and idle addicts", reffering to ANY drug addict (alcohol, caffein, marijuana, cocaine, etc.) don't already form part of whatever society you belong to?

The thing is, would you like to have this group be involved in criminal activity that can affect YOU or would you rather them minding their own bussines and not affect you in any way?

"Either that, or all the drug users will block up the health system, and demand that the government be held accountable for "forcing" them into this situation, just some like alcoholics and tobacco-smokers in our society."

Sure Big D, everywhere in the great wide non-OECD world has a brilliant legal system. Russia is known for shooting people who complain! Do you really think that the government OR the Russian lawyers (that almost sounded amusing) will represent a bunch of smack heads?
Just as an aside in the non-OECD world - In Malaysia, people who propagate stolen goods do not front up to the Court of Law... Big men armed with assault rifles turn up and warn them to shut down the operation. Where is your corporations act here?

"But Besimudo, you're a fundamentalist, therefore you should support the death penalty for drug users!"..."

At least I had the courtesy to recall you past posts from last year... How can you call a Catholic a fundamentalist? The term `fundamentalism' has its origin in a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," these booklets were authored by leading evangelical churchmen and were circulated free of charge among clergymen and seminarians.
Interesting opinion, indeed.


"the dark side of legalising any substance, as shown by alcohol. "

So the whole prohibition period where a ruthless black market emerged in the United States due to banning alcohol was a good thing... In my personal opinion I cannot see how.

Ok I smoke pot everyday and I used to smoke tobacco. I've noticed that my lungs feel more clear after smoking pot where as I feel like I cant breath when I smoke tobacco. Did you also know that if a person is having a asthma (spl) attack at a party you should have them smoke pot since it CLEARS out your airways.

I'm not quite sure about that. I believe smoking pot actually increases the toxins in your body and your lungs, even moreso than tobacco. Perhaps you have bionic lungs?

Take care all.

OOC:

While we're on the topic of tobacco, I'd like to share a little anecdote on the side. Last summer, I was right in the middle of the week-long hell march known as Combat Survival Training. It was me and three of my buddies stranded in the Rocky Mountains, many miles away from civilization with little more than a map, a compass, and an old parachute that could be made into a tent, while hundreds of other people were chasing after us. It was our first night out, and we were lucky enough to catch a wild rabbit. After thumping and skinning it (and using the skin as a hand puppet, but that's for another thread), we decided not to eat it right away, but instead we smoked it for jerky that night. So two of us had to stay up and make sure none of our pursuers could see our fire while the other two slept. It was my turn to stay up - as I left the make-shift tent, one of my buddies tosses me a can of Copenhagen and says "this'll keep you awake." So I think, what the hell, there's a first time for everything, and I stuffed a little pinch of it in my lip. Bad idea. I was tired, I was hungry, and the air was thin at 9,000 feet - it was a bad combination, and about thirty minutes later the rush hit me. I wasn't feeling too good - my buddy said I looked like a cat that had just fallen into a field of catnip. Fifteen minutes later I yuked up whatever bits of food I had leftover from that morning. Haven't touched a bit of dip since.