So, you would be comfortable with your doctor taking a break to smoke Crack or Marijuana?

Or a teacher who does the same?

@Killer: I would stop seeing that doctor, and I'm sure any school that expects people to go there would fire the teacher. And not that many people do drugs anyway, and I'd actually expect the number to go slightly down if they were legalized.

The number would go down (we had this conversation a few weeks ago), also any teacher/doctor worth their salt would be smart enough not to take drugs at work.

Let's say heroin is legalized. People buy it, use it, some people OD and die. Oh darn. People die of alcohol poisoning too.

Some people manage their heroin usage responsibly and carry on with their lives. No problem. Some people can't control themselves and run their lives into the ground. No problem. Some of those people, though, take extreme (illegal) measures to get more, and that's where the trouble starts.

You have people prostituting themselves or ripping off convenience stores for more money to buy more heroin (or if those examples don't satisfy you, use your imagination). The legal dealers of heroin could also come under duress by those people irresponsibly managing their habits and pressed to extremes to support them. The problem with illegal dealing and "turf control" might be gone, but you still have people on the consumer side breaking laws to get their next fix.

Would legalizing drugs "solve" illegal immigration? No. It'd cut down smuggling and traffickers, who may make up a part of the population living here illegally. Illegal immigration is an international issue, and should be treated as such. You can only do so much to stop it if you only work within your own country, but to completely eliminate it, the governments of both, the countries being emigrated from and immigrated to, need to work together.

more realistically, what about construction workers? They don't get paid that much to where they couldn't take drugs.

You want to legalize drugs to stop illegal immigration?

A. Drugs are dangerous for you. A government cannot ethically or in good faith to its citizenry legalize something like cocaine.

B. Illegal immigrant are not all drug traffickers, illegal immigration would continue

C. The economics of the situation is not that simple.

D. Killer is right. And the school can't fire said teacher because it is unlawful termination to sue someone for doing something legal. And the doctor isn't breaking a law either. And what about construction workers or truck drivers or pilots or cops. All high.

E. The drug trade would continue.

Please note that I haven't stated nor advocated my or any opinion on the matter, but only want to try to point out that legalizing drugs doesn't automatically make problems disappear.

@Centurion:
A. I don't think there should be government, but that's a different discussion. But the fact is, there are murders associated with drugs because they are illegal. You make them legal, there are suddenly very few murders in the drug trade.

B. I am also arguing to make all immigration legal (which would obviously end illegal immigration)

C. Then please, explain them to me.

D. Read what largeham said.

E. Yes, but it would be a legal drug trade, which is less violent than an illegal one.

Legalising drugs wouldn't make the problems automatically disappear, but examples have shown that it can help. I can't be bothered finding the old thread, but that had some good arguments. Since legalising drugs will mean a massive change in the laws currently in place, a law could be introduced that penalises people for drug abuse will at work. Alcohol is bad for you, driving can be bad for you, war is bad for you, mandatory ISP filtering is bad for you, yet we put up with these. Why?

As for immigration, I'm not sure the drug trade and illegal immigration are that linked.

D. If a teacher or doctor is addicted, it won't matter how smart they are, they will be hooked.

"A. Drugs are dangerous for you. A government cannot ethically or in good faith to its citizenry legalize something like cocaine."

Why not? Why does a government have to play overseer? Furthermore, automobile-related deaths are >15x more frequent than cocaine-related deaths; how can a government in good faith legalize driving?

"And the school can't fire said teacher because it is unlawful termination to sue someone for doing something legal."

A teacher has consensual sex with an 18-year-old student in the middle of the class. Is it wrongful termination to fire that teacher? Or something less extreme... getting drunk in class. Surely you can fire a teacher for that, legal though it is. Right?

"And the doctor isn't breaking a law either."

I would wager that being under the influence of marijuana while operating -- legal or not -- is in serious violation of enough medical ethics codes to get someone fired.

"And what about construction workers or truck drivers or pilots or cops. All high."

Are they all really going to be high? Furthermore, is it not dangerous to assume that various businesses would not put their own regulations on this to ensure, say, that they aren't sued for malpractice/negligence? It seems like if, say, a clock tower were built by high construction workers, there would be some serious liability issues for the company...

Saying that you can't fire a teacher that was shooting up in class is bullshit.

I mean, if they were drunk in class, or drinking on the job, that is grounds to fire them.

So that argument is rather shit.

I said during a break

you could easily take Bulgaria without weakening your front against me. You could attack Italy and take Venice before he could recover. Frankly, if you want to win, now's your chance to move out. There's no one defending against you.

There are ethical considerations moreso than legal ones. It is not illegal for a teacher to drink alcohol (if they are over 21), but it's an ethics violation that would likely end in termination to walk onto a school campus with alcohol in your posession (which includes consumption prior to arriving). THC stays in your system a lot longer than alcohol.

Ok, how many people think they could keep their job right now if they were nipping from a hip flask on their breaks at work?

You get fired for being under the influence at work. Fired, and in some cases, criminal charges. This would be no different.

Its a bad argument, and the sooner you back down off of it, the better of we'll all be.

Okay that was weird. ignore the first part of that post as it was clearly an ethics violation of the not discussing ongoing games policy in the forum. I have no idea how it got there.

"I said during a break"

Semantics. Get drunk on break tomorrow and tell me how it goes. ;D

You don't even need to get drunk. Show up with alcohol on your breath. If any employer makes drug use grounds for dismissal and follows their policies for checking for and terminating those employees who do then there is no grounds for a suit. It's when you set up procedures for termination and don't follow them that you get into trouble.

Do any of you know how long drugs stay in your system compared to alcohol......

Conservative man I don't even feel like arguing with you since I'm going to sum up your argument with this little jewel If wisdom "I would legalize all immigration" sure an lets legalize murder so then it wont be murder any more cause its legal.

Furthermore pres eden a governments sole responsibility is to protect and serve its people. Morally giving the unfettered access to dangerous narcotics is a violation of that duty. Do you give a child a knife because it wants one?

The car argument is stupid as cars have a purpose illegal narcotics have no purpose or are of any benefit to society

cars are dangerous if used wrong, drugs are dangerous either way

Booze has no benefit to society.

Cigarettes have no benefit to society.

Yet those are legal.

I would make the argument that the government's job is to ensure fairness... as in, you buy X amount of Y narcotic, the labels will clearly tell you what this will do to you for how long.

The choice on if its a good idea rests in the adult citizen.

Cigarettes and alcohol can't kill you for many years usually, drugs can kill you in go possibly

Any nurse who showed up on the job under the influance would get there walking papers on the spot. The same for any other drug that would be legalized. Drug ODs from street drugs more often happen because of the inconsistant purity, and from what they were cut with than from anything else. But legalization of drugs would not solve immigration issues at all. That is another set issues.

"... a governments sole responsibility is to protect and serve its people. Morally giving the unfettered access to dangerous narcotics is a violation of that duty. Do you give a child a knife because it wants one?"

I'd disagree with the term protect in this instance. I agree that a government should train a military to protect me from foregin invasion. I also agree that we should enact laws to encourage a stable law abiding populace. I'm not a child though. I don't buy the government as "nanny" telling me that this or that is bad for me. If that were the case slap a Surgeon General's warning on it and be done with it: "If you want a job as a professional leave these things alone". It's not that I think the government doesn't act as nanny on some levels, but I disagree that this is an appropriate role for them.

"Furthermore pres eden a governments sole responsibility is to protect and serve its people."

According to...? And from what? Not themselves, for certain. From each other, yes; from outsiders, yes; not themselves.

"Morally giving the unfettered access to dangerous narcotics is a violation of that duty. Do you give a child a knife because it wants one?"

Are you then saying that all citizens have the mental capacity and judgment capability of a child? And who said anything about giving people drugs? The proposal is simply not to ban them.

"The car argument is stupid as cars have a purpose illegal narcotics have no purpose or are of any benefit to society "

First of all, "benefiting society" is not a necessary component for not banning a given action. Governments can and often do allow actions that have no inherent societal benefit; watching TV, playing video games, and debating over the Internet with people we're liable never to meet in person does nothing for society, yet they are allowed. So benefit to society is irrelevant.

Secondly, narcotics do have a purpose -- providing pleasure to the user. So what if it's harmful? Why can't you allow the same people trusted to elect leaders to run the nation to run their own lives?

Would you ban masturbating? Or drinking? Or smoking? They aren't productive, yet I'm sure you take part in them (maybe not the first or the third, probably the second). Should our every action somehow be productive to the state/country/economy?

Booze has no benefit to society???

What the fuck kind of madness koolaid have you...

oh nevermind.
lol.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=34343
Gunboat MADNESS

"Cigarettes and alcohol can't kill you for many years usually, drugs can kill you in go possibly "

We're not going to say X is better than Y. You said that drugs are wrong because they serve no purpose. Or that they're "worse" than other things. We draw the line on one side, and say this is ok, but this is not.

I would make the supposition that the line itself is bullshit. Let the government ensure that foods and chemicals are properly pure and labeled, and let the consumer figure it out. I'm big on making sure the government does its job and makes sure that corporations aren't fucking us over, but its job isn't to play mom and dad to us (and I might add I'm what you might call a flaming liberal), but to ensure the playing field is fair.

And if you want to get high on some legal crack, you're as dumb or dumber than a drunkard, but I would say a crackhead and a drunk have equal rights to be a fucking waste. :P