ZA Furries

Its 50 50 now !?
These young furries... there is no hope...

I'm not a fan... but only because I've seen where abuse leads too. Yes, maybe legalizing will slow down the abuse... but alcohol is legal and look at me... I'm drunk every day (not really, it makes my ibs act up but the lady I work with is drunk every day).

I just think until the human race learns self control... it ain't a good idea.

Well, both cigarettes and alcohol are drugs which are legal.

I think the topic is a bit too broad but personally I think weed should be legal. So I'll vote yes for this specific reason.

Disclaimer. I hate. Absolutely HATE any drugs.
Cigarettes included.

But I think, outlawing it is doing nothing but damaging the economy, and empowering criminals.

I think the world will be a better place when it's legal but regulated.
I'd guess, crime would go down dramatically when the gangs lose their primary form of income.
Violence as a whole will decline, because of the lack of financial gain to the gangs.
Drug use will decline, because its not some taboo rich pricks can indulge in when they are looking for attention.
Drugs will become safer, when they are made by regulated bodies, rather than in some Mexicans basement.
And, of course. The economy will gain a needed boost, with the new comodety worth trading.

Now, as with every story, theres a down side.
There's now a way for junkies to get their fix legally. So the likelihood of them ODing is greater.
But then again. When its regulated, the authorities can identify problem cases, and help them.

There's easier access to drugs for minors. Drugs will become the new "cigarettes" for kids.
We can handle drugs like any other medication I suppose? Get a prescription?
I've never heard of a kid getting on Vicadin to impress his friends. But it's likely?

Quack pots are going to market drugs as some form of crazy cureitalls, for example Requirum for a dream? (Pretty sure I gunked up the title of that movie)

Bonus.
All the money we're spending on drug control can go into making drugs non-addictive?

I haven't read the backlog of messages by the way.

Wow. Looks like a sudden upswing in yes votes.

It was Adagio. His speech, much like evil mortys swayed the voters.
It's that whole cyborg thing...

Raven Song wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:57 pm It was Adagio. His speech, much like evil mortys swayed the voters.
It's that whole cyborg thing...

I'm a supervillain! What can I say! Its in my genes!

Ah yes, the famous snep swing vote.

Tigris Astartes wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:35 pm Ah yes, the famous snep swing vote.

Look, I can understand why you sneps would like to swing, but by the tail? Really?
Unless there's some drug use already, of course

I'd like to make clear the distinction between what we call 'drugs', as medication is also under that umbrella term. For what I want to talk about, I'll run them in their separate categories.
Medication/stimulants: There are several addictive medications (Morphine to name a popular one), yet they are controlled (from over the counter, to Schedule 9), e.g. Ritalin falls under this category.
Psychedelic: These induce hallucinations and cause alterations in perception, most commonly known substances to be magic mushrooms, LSD and DMT.
Opioid: Thought also used in medical practice for sedation ( KET IS FOR HORSES!!!) or pain treatment, these class drugs produce tolerance and dependency when used, most common ones being Cocaine (and the cheapest being Tik)

I know there are many more classifications, but for now I'll just try separate those three from another to try and help my viewpoint.
We know alcohol causes problems with continuous use, and are a major factor in road related deaths every year, we know cigarettes cause cancer of the cheek, lung, tongue, and throat yet we control who it is sold to.

Now recreational drugs, your psychedelics, alter reaction time similar to what alcohol does. As far as I am concerned, we can legalize acid, weed and shrooms the same way we have legalized alcohol and cigarettes. Maybe the sample space is too small but I do not hear of people dying because they overdosed on acid the way I head of people dying from alcohol poisoning. For all I care we can put the tax to use, like paying off the SAA's deficit or Zuma's trail costs!

I am all for legalizing psychedelics the way we have alcohol, but I am against legalizing opioids the same way. You need a very good reason medically to have access to heroin or schedule 7 painkillers.

If we were to do a new poll on which drugs should be legalized, I could vote yes (regarding my stance outlined above), however since this spectrum is too broad I vote no.

I will admit I once took Bute after falling off a hirse. Bute is an equine and bovine pain killer. I saw fishes.

Nihilus Razorbeak wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:04 pm I am all for legalizing psychedelics the way we have alcohol, but I am against legalizing opioids the same way. You need a very good reason medically to have access to heroin or schedule 7 painkillers.

If we were to do a new poll on which drugs should be legalized, I could vote yes (regarding my stance outlined above), however since this spectrum is too broad I vote no.

If there were a like button, I'd press it for this post.

oof, it's in favour of 'yes' now. That's interesting how time has changed us.

I still haven't voted, because it really isn't as simple as yes or no...

jacojerb wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:39 am I still haven't voted, because it really isn't as simple as yes or no...

yes it is. the state should not mandate what its citizens are allowed to chose to consume.
its the same thing as criminalizing the use of chocolate because it makes people fat.
criminalizing the use of narcotics or any kind of drug does more harm than good and goes against freedom of choice no matter how you try to rationalize it.

Animew wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:55 am

jacojerb wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:39 am I still haven't voted, because it really isn't as simple as yes or no...

yes it is. the state should not mandate what its citizens are allowed to chose to consume.
its the same thing as criminalizing the use of chocolate because it makes people fat.
criminalizing the use of narcotics or any kind of drug does more harm than good and goes against freedom of choice no matter how you try to rationalize it.

If you look at the way Americans love abusing legal drugs, it isn't outrageous to presume they would do the same with things like heroin and cocaine, if it was readily available. Sure, you can say that is it their choice, but with heroin, for example, it is really, really good. I mean, it is literally just a massive release of "this is good" to the brain. If you can feel 10 times better than you should ever naturally be able to feel due to a substance, naturally you'll want more of that. It has been proven that doing this not only makes you feel great when high, but it does make everything else feel bad, not only due to the contrast, but due to the specific parts of the brain being overstimulated. This can lead to a dependency easily enough, which may not be a bad thing in and of itself, you could argue. Loads of people have a dependency on nicotine, for example. But, when the substance can also kill you any time you use it, regardless of dosage, well, it is a threat to public safety

It's easy enough to say that people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own lives, but I don't believe this is something anyone should be exposed to, unless they've really only got a few months left to live anyway. No good can come of it

jacojerb wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:30 pm It has been proven that doing this not only makes you feel great when high, but it does make everything else feel bad, not only due to the contrast, but due to the specific parts of the brain being overstimulated. This can lead to a dependency easily enough, which may not be a bad thing in and of itself, you could argue. Loads of people have a dependency on nicotine, for example. But, when the substance can also kill you any time you use it, regardless of dosage, well, it is a threat to public safety

UwU/ if you know its going to quite literally fuck you up and you still decide to use it, the world's genepool is better off for it.
but that's just my personal opinion.
tho i feel for people to truly be free, they have to be allowed to make these choices. live a short and orgasmic life or live a longer more balanced life.

as for threat to public safety, criminalizing the drug is more of a safety risk because you just take away quality control and user awareness. not to mention all the dangerous criminal activity prohibition facilitates. if you can buy industry regulated quality heroin at the pharmacist, you can get to see all the warning labels on it before you decide to use it. even better if user licensing is implemented because when applying for a license you are educated on its effects and can make a more educated choice.

i mean really, i think anyone who has ever used any kind of recreational narcotics know that the places you get exposed to these things are in social settings and folks don't just wake up one day and say: "well shit' i think i wana start using heroin!"
UwU/ and giving your drugs to other people is actually a criminal offense even with legal drugs. also you would effectively destroy the motive for people to do that, folks wont go around getting kids addicted to drugs just to be a spiteful ass and once these drugs are publicly available illegal dealers stand to gain nothing from this... Owo you may get pharmacists going to parties then tho, who knows.

Animew wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:29 pm if you can buy industry regulated quality heroin at the pharmacist, you can get to see all the warning labels on it before you decide to use it. even better if user licensing is implemented because when applying for a license you are educated on its effects and can make a more educated choice.

If you want to bring any kind of licensing into this, it's not as simple as a yes or a no, when it comes to legalizing it. If you were to administer psychological tests on the users before allowing them to use it, then it might be okay. My worries is that people turn to it as a form of escape, and it really shouldn't be a form of escape. If people can prove that they are responsible enough to take it... Well, I still wouldn't advise it to anyone, but I suppose it can be okay. I'd also add that users need to be checked up on at least once a month, to see that they are still using it responsibly. Also, rehab would need to be different, less of a scary place, but I suppose if it's legal, then people would be more willing to go to rehab, as it wouldn't mean incriminating yourself to go there

I'm not saying a world where one could get legal access to all drugs would be impossible, or even a bad thing, but I honestly don't think it's something South-Africa or America can pull off... Maybe places like Switzerland are in a better position to attempt such things?

Animew wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:29 pmif you can buy industry regulated quality heroin at the pharmacist, you can get to see all the warning labels on it before you decide to use it.

Considering how some people (like my mother) read the ENTIRE information leaflet inside ANY medications they get and still sometimes thereafter don't take it, I wouldn't be surprised if package warnings would be enough to scare off prospective users. Just like the nauseatingly graphic warnings on cigarette packaging in Australia.

jacojerb wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:39 am If you want to bring any kind of licensing into this, it's not as simple as a yes or a no, when it comes to legalizing it. If you were to administer psychological tests on the users before allowing them to use it, then it might be okay.

nope, IMO all you should need is a basic written test to obtain a license.
the test should ascertain your grasp of the effects of the drug both long term and short term, the dangers of the drug and the laws surrounding its use. also things to do when the drug should cause a problem. if you can muster the commitment to learn about the drug before using it, you will be able to make a responsible choice.
UwU/ the reason why most "solutions" to a problem fail is because folks over think it.

problem: drugs can mess people up and that's bad.
solution: make sure people know what they are getting into as most people don't want to mess themselves up.

simple. it wont stop the use of drugs but why should it? if people want to make the conscious decision to fuck up their lives then they should be free to make that choice. the only part that's a problem is when people do it accidentally and you will put a stop to that with user licensing.

Leeward wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:51 pm like the nauseatingly graphic warnings on cigarette packaging in Australia.

this one time i came across a packet of cigarettes that had the warning: "don't smoke pregnant breasts" on it...

Animew wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:53 pm ]simple. it wont stop the use of drugs but why should it? if people want to make the conscious decision to fuck up their lives then they should be free to make that choice. the only part that's a problem is when people do it accidentally and you will put a stop to that with user licensing.

I'll beg to differ with this. Not to mention that long term drug users become a burden to not only themselves, but those around them. Yeah, you can get fined for your actions while on drugs, which should negate this, but regarlessly, I don't believe any good can come from it. I personally know people who would fuck up their lives with such things, given the opportunity, and I'd really rather they didn't. I know that's selfish of me, but yeah...

jacojerb wrote: ↑Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:13 am I'll beg to differ with this. Not to mention that long term drug users become a burden to not only themselves, but those around them.

UwU/ happens when drugs are illegal too so its not an issue that can counter legalizing drugs as its unrelated.

jacojerb wrote: ↑Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:13 am I personally know people who would fuck up their lives with such things, given the opportunity,

<w< that begs the question, should people be in charge of their own fate or should the state be in charge of peoples fate? if you give the state the right and mandate to define what we can and can't do to ourselves where do we draw the line? do you want the state to be able to say who you can and cant love and or marry for instance? i can thumb suck several valid reasons for outlawing homosexuality... and there are people in government far better at thumb sucking justifications than me. do you really want them to have the power to do that?
by allowing prohibition we give government a moral foothold to take away our choices. UwU/ don't be foolish people, be pro choice.

Careful, that sounds an awful lot like a slippery slope argument.

Just because you would have subsidised farmers growing cannabis for maximum profit, doesn't mean you couldn't still grow your own or get from someone who does if you're all about quality. Same as with micro- and home-brewing beer.

Am I crazy, or could you apply literally all of these arguments to legalized prostitution as well?
Not saying that's a good or a bad thing, just... interesting.

Contrast wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:30 pm Am I crazy, or could you apply literally all of these arguments to legalized prostitution as well?
Not saying that's a good or a bad thing, just... interesting.

Smoking prostitutes should stay illegal.

Contrast wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:30 pm Am I crazy, or could you apply literally all of these arguments to legalized prostitution as well?
Not saying that's a good or a bad thing, just... interesting.

You're crazy.

Am I?

At the risk of grossly oversimplifying things, you can argue the anti-legalization side of drugs by saying that drugs are bad, and people F themselves up most righteously when they do them, and can lead to indirectly effing up innocent bystanders as well (stealing to fuel addictions, murder, car accidents and the like).

Conversely, you could argue the pro-legalization route by saying that people should have the right to choose their own fate, and that by keeping drugs illegal you only help out the criminals by giving them a monopoly on drug dealing, and you're hurting the economy to boot.

In my humble opinion, you could easily apply those arguments to legalized prostitution as well. On the one side you've got people arguing that it's bad, that it's immoral, that it leads to violent crimes, etc. But then on the other hand you could also argue that legalizing prostitution would greatly reduce those risk factors, making it safer for the prostitutes and their clients. Licensed prostitutes could earn a fair living without the need to worry about violent pimps, they could get frequent health checkups and support from the government (maybe even have the clients pass a health screening before being allowed to engage in their services). You would have less STD's, less violence, less crime, less people crowding the prisons, and the economy would get a boost.

Maybe I am just crazy, but that's fine. Life is more fun that way.

Oh. See, I didn't realise you were referring to the entire thread. I thought you were just talking about Splicer's video which was the new bit added. Considering you're talking about the whole thread, then you're not crazy, there will be several similarities. Ignore my earlier post.