Hard Drugs should be legal

[Strike For The South]

The government has no right to tell me what I can and can not put into my body. They only have a right to reprimand me if I begin to harm others or property.

[Lemur]

But Strike, prohibition works. Why mess with a system that's functioning so well?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Among certain people physical health is their religion and anything that harms it is sacraligious.

[Viking]

The government has no right to tell me what I can and can not put into my body.

Dam right. ~:cheers:

[Fragony]

Legalising hard-drugs is polically supporting twisted regimes, we can't do that. As a recreational user I wouldn't mind having it legalised when homegrown but I would never support it legalisation as it is now. Bit hard, if the government allows you to swim with great whites there is little justification in banning drugs but it doesn't always have to be fair.

[Husar]

Hmm, should it be legal to drive intoxicated as well as long as you do not harm anyone?

[Viking]

Legalising hard-drugs is polically supporting twisted regimes, we can't do that. As a recreational user I wouldn't mind having it legalised when homegrown but I would never support it legalisation as it is now. Bit hard, if the government allows you to swim with great whites there is little justification in banning drugs but it doesn't always have to be fair.

We must ban all products from China. Immediately.


Hmm, should it be legal to drive intoxicated as well as long as you do not harm anyone?

Where's the potential harm for others in you taking a hard drug? As long as you don't start driving while intoxicated..

[Strike For The South]

Among certain people physical health is their religion and anything that harms it is sacraligious.

Then don't buy the drugs:inquisitive:

[KarlXII]

Damn straight. The government shouldn't be able to tell ME I can't drink and drive. I should be able to decide what I want to do while I'm drunk. *tears up ticket*

[Strike For The South]

Damn straight. The government shouldn't be able to tell ME I can't drink and drive. I should be able to decide what I want to do while I'm drunk. *tears up ticket*

This isn't about drinking and driving its about the legalization of but not limited to Pot, Coke, Shrooms, Heroine, Meth, Speed, LSD, Ecstasy etc.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Damn straight. The government shouldn't be able to tell ME I can't drink and drive. I should be able to decide what I want to do while I'm drunk. *tears up ticket*

That was sarcastic, right?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Then don't buy the drugs:inquisitive:

But everyone must be converted!


Hmm, should it be legal to drive intoxicated as well as long as you do not harm anyone?

Should russian roulette be legal if you don't kill anyone? :dizzy2:

[Strike For The South]

But everyone must be converted!
y2:

Some people take steroids (which are extremely misunderstood but trying to argue that is useless) in order to get a better body...on second thought I dont know what youre saying

[FactionHeir]

This isn't about drinking and driving its about the legalization of but not limited to Pot, Coke, Shrooms, Heroine, Meth, Speed, LSD, Ecstasy etc.

Point is that if those drugs are made legal, they are also made more available meaning more people will use them.

As the government's job is to protect stupid people from themselves, banning hard drugs also reduces the number of people that drive or do other potentially dangerous activities while being under the influence of the drugs.

Its called harm prevention. Generally better for society than waiting for the harm to occur and then dealing with it (note: loss of life is difficult to compensate)

[Strike For The South]

Point is that if those drugs are made legal, they are also made more available meaning more people will use them.

As the government's job is to protect stupid people from themselves, banning hard drugs also reduces the number of people that drive or do other potentially dangerous activities while being under the influence of the drugs.

Its called harm prevention. Generally better for society than waiting for the harm to occur and then dealing with it (note: loss of life is difficult to compensate)

If someone wants to ruin their lives with drugs let them. The government should be involved as little as possible in our personal lives. The government is not your mother it should not hold your hand through your life. Not to mention if you're to dumb to understand the risks you might be better off six feet under. A little individual responsibility never hurt anyone

[Fragony]

Point is that if those drugs are made legal, they are also made more available meaning more people will use them.

As the government's job is to protect stupid people from themselves, banning hard drugs also reduces the number of people that drive or do other potentially dangerous activities while being under the influence of the drugs.

Its called harm prevention. Generally better for society than waiting for the harm to occur and then dealing with it (note: loss of life is difficult to compensate)

Despite our lax laws we have the lowest use of cannabis in europe save the Irish. Allowing is sometimes prevention.

[FactionHeir]

SFTS: I think you are missing my point. What I am saying is that while we might not care what people do to themselves, as soon as they do something which may affect others (i.e. driving a car), it affects everyone. If he runs over someone while under the influence of drugs, do you just say "tough luck"?

Fragony: But Texas is not the Netherlands :wink:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Point is that if those drugs are made legal, they are also made more available meaning more people will use them.

As the government's job is to protect stupid people from themselves, banning hard drugs also reduces the number of people that drive or do other potentially dangerous activities while being under the influence of the drugs.

Its called harm prevention. Generally better for society than waiting for the harm to occur and then dealing with it (note: loss of life is difficult to compensate)

"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling
into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from
falling into error."

--US Supreme Court

[Strike For The South]

SFTS: I think you are missing my point. What I am saying is that while we might not care what people do to themselves, as soon as they do something which may affect others (i.e. driving a car), it affects everyone. If he runs over someone while under the influence of drugs, do you just say "tough luck"?


I think the numbers of users who increase due to legalization will be statistically negligible. People aren't going to sit there and say " Herion is 4.99 well dadgum might as well try it". The legality of these drugs plays little role in the people who actually use them.


Fragony: But Texas is not the Netherlands

Bigot

[Viking]

SFTS: I think you are missing my point. What I am saying is that while we might not care what people do to themselves, as soon as they do something which may affect others (i.e. driving a car), it affects everyone. If he runs over someone while under the influence of drugs, do you just say "tough luck"?

Off to ban alcohol as well then. And driving without a purpose accepted by the constitution. Save them lives and let them be lived tight.

[Husar]

Where's the potential harm for others in you taking a hard drug? As long as you don't start driving while intoxicated..

Insurance prices.

[Crazed Rabbit]

If he runs over someone while under the influence of drugs, do you just say "tough luck"?

I think he's been clear he doesn't support that being legal.

I want to say I agree with everything Strike's said in this thread.

CR

[Kralizec]

Legalize them.


As the government's job is to protect stupid people from themselves, banning hard drugs also reduces the number of people that drive or do other potentially dangerous activities while being under the influence of the drugs.

I disagree. The government should protect people from the stupidity of others, and I don't disagree with food and safety standards and suchlike meant to protect consumers. Using drugs is different in that people make a conscious decision to accept a certain risk. Grown adults should be treated as such.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Insurance prices.

I sure hope you exercise everyday and only eat health food.

Also people who die from drug use don't collect social security

[FactionHeir]

I think the numbers of users who increase due to legalization will be statistically negligible. People aren't going to sit there and say " Herion is 4.99 well dadgum might as well try it". The legality of these drugs plays little role in the people who actually use them.


I disagree.
While they are illegal, their prices are significantly higher and they are available only on the black market via dealers. Once they become legalized, the prices drop and you can sell them openly on the street. I would imagine especially young people who can then afford it will give it a try and possibly end up seriously harmed or dead as a result, costing the taxpayers healthcare because in current society we care for the ill and don't just leave them to die as we used to.

Viking: Hard drugs have a lot more negative effects in comparison to alcohol. You'll end up with a lot more harmed newborns (who did not ask to be harmed while in the womb of an addict or someone who gave the drugs a try), kids who happen to see it on the kitchen counter and similarly, a larger number of addicts (hard drugs are more addictive than soft drugs like alcohol, hence the name) that go through the taxpaid health system.

[BigTex]

The government has no right to tell me what I can and can not put into my body. They only have a right to reprimand me if I begin to harm others or property.

Becuase the majority of citizens in almost any given country do not want the side effects that accompany free use of hard drugs. Just look at the late 1800's and early 1900's opium problems, in most countries even in that era.

A person on acid, shrooms and other halucinogens is no longer in complete control of their person and can become a threat to others quite easily. Pcp is something of another beast, people have been known to take round after round of bullets and be nearly unaffected by it. Meth, and the assorted anffedamines also massively hamper ones ability to think of consequences, and are massively addictive. Nearly the same with cocaine and crack.

The reason why hard drugs are illegal, is simply becuase society has decided that they want them banned. The ills committed by those under their use is unwanted and banning the use of them is one way of trying to control it.


Despite our lax laws we have the lowest use of cannabis in europe save the Irish. Allowing is sometimes prevention

Cannabis is not a hard drug, no where near it and uncomparable. Why cannabis is illegal is a totally different reason then most hard drugs. In the USA alot of it has to do with racism in the early 1900's prohibition atmosphere.

Cannabis should be legal imop, there is little wrong with it. If someone get's their jolly's getting stoned downing a bag of potatoe chips and generally being lazy for a bit then it's not the governments concern. Weed has been used by man for most of our history.

[Strike For The South]

I disagree.
While they are illegal, their prices are significantly higher and they are available only on the black market via dealers. Once they become legalized, the prices drop and you can sell them openly on the street. I would imagine especially young people who can then afford it will give it a try and possibly end up seriously harmed or dead as a result, costing the taxpayers healthcare because in current society we care for the ill and don't just leave them to die as we used to.

Viking: Hard drugs have a lot more negative effects in comparison to alcohol. You'll end up with a lot more harmed newborns (who did not ask to be harmed while in the womb of an addict or someone who gave the drugs a try), kids who happen to see it on the kitchen counter and similarly, a larger number of addicts (hard drugs are more addictive than soft drugs like alcohol, hence the name) that go through the taxpaid health system.

Alcohol and tobacco kills more people than all other drugs combined. Alcohol is on the same level as coke. You just think its safer because the media tells you that. LOL alcohol causes just as many birth defects if not more than these hard drugs. I have been offered coke and ex before at parties and the like and their prices were very reasonable in fact I probably could've talked the guy down. Anyone who is been around the club scene knows the illegality of these drugs is a joke. Not to mention the money this would save the criminal justice system.

[Fragony]

Cannabis is not a hard drug, no where near it and uncomparable.

Cocaine is and I have been using it (in weekends) since, well forever. If you get caught with it the police will just take it off you and let you go. It is good, drug problem is virtually non-existant here. But legalising, nah. Better to turn a blind eye like we do, too complicated and too hard to sell.

[Strike For The South]

Becuase the majority of citizens in almost any given country do not want the side effects that accompany free use of hard drugs. Just look at the late 1800's and early 1900's opium problems, in most countries even in that era.

A person on acid, shrooms and other halucinogens is no longer in complete control of their person and can become a threat to others quite easily. Pcp is something of another beast, people have been known to take round after round of bullets and be nearly unaffected by it. Meth, and the assorted anffedamines also massively hamper ones ability to think of consequences, and are massively addictive. Nearly the same with cocaine and crack.

The reason why hard drugs are illegal, is simply becuase society has decided that they want them banned. The ills committed by those under their use is unwanted and banning the use of them is one way of trying to control it.
.

Alcohol can produce the same effects and yet it is championed.

[Xiahou]

Becuase the majority of citizens in almost any given country do not want the side effects that accompany free use of hard drugs. Just look at the late 1800's and early 1900's opium problems, in most countries even in that era.

A person on acid, shrooms and other halucinogens is no longer in complete control of their person and can become a threat to others quite easily. Pcp is something of another beast, people have been known to take round after round of bullets and be nearly unaffected by it. Meth, and the assorted anffedamines also massively hamper ones ability to think of consequences, and are massively addictive. Nearly the same with cocaine and crack.

The reason why hard drugs are illegal, is simply becuase society has decided that they want them banned. The ills committed by those under their use is unwanted and banning the use of them is one way of trying to control it.I think that's a pretty sound argument. The use of hard drugs is an extremely destructive behavior and there is no way in modern life for the effects to be limited to just the user.

[Strike For The South]

I think that's a pretty sound argument. The use of hard drugs is an extremely destructive behavior and there is no way in modern life for the effects to be limited to just the user.

Then we should ban alcohol

[Xiahou]

Alcohol can produce the same effects and yet it is championed.Some of the same effects (when abused), yes. How many alcohol related problems do we have in our society with it being largely legal? Yet you're telling me that legalizing stronger, more dangerous mind-altering substances will make all of the problems associated with them go away?:dizzy2:

[Strike For The South]

Some of the same effects (when abused), yes. How many alcohol related problems do we have in our society with it being largely legal? Yet you're telling me that legalizing stronger, more dangerous mind-altering substances will make all of the problems associated with them go away?:dizzy2:

It wont make them go away but the pros outweigh the cons. Think of the revenue from the tax of these drugs and think of the burden it would release on the CJ system. Think of what it would do to gangs here! The number of users would not skyrocket they may go up but not by any statistically substantial numbers. Not to mention the fact that the government shouldn't be sticking its nose in my bidness

[Fragony]

It wont make them go away but the pros outweigh the cons. Think of the revenue from the tax of these drugs and think of the burden it would release on the CJ system. Think of what it would do to gangs here! The number of users would not skyrocket they may go up but not by any statistically substantial numbers. Not to mention the fact that the government shouldn't be sticking its nose in my bidness

Controling it costs money so it will make for higher price for the product, you will never get rid of the black market that way because the black market will always provide it cheaper.

[BigTex]

Alcohol can produce the same effects and yet it is championed.

Bullox, the side effects of alochol are uncomparable to acid, pcp, meth, bowlo, cocaine or almost any other "hard drug". Even then, society creates laws to prohibit what a person using alochol can do.

My fellow citizens find it hard to even manage to miantian a proper diet. To prevent basic disease, or even find the capability to floss their own teeth. How am I supposed to trust the average citizen with hard mind altering hallucinogens, narcotics, or anfedamines and then hope it will not end up affecting me in a very most negative of ways. Most people cannot even manage to stop drinking when they should.


It wont make them go away but the pros outweigh the cons. Think of the revenue from the tax of these drugs and think of the burden it would release on the CJ system. Think of what it would do to gangs here! The number of users would not skyrocket they may go up but not by any statistically substantial numbers. Not to mention the fact that the government shouldn't be sticking its nose in my bidness

No it will not make them go away. But it will severely reduce the amount of user's, the amount they can get and their ability to afford it. It is unprovable that the legalization of hard drugs somehow outways the negative impact it will have. The value of life, the value of lives forever lost is inmesureable.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I should be able to sell myself into slavery. How dare the government tell me what I can and cannot do with my own life and body!

[BigTex]

I should be able to sell myself into slavery. How dare the government tell me what I can and cannot do with my own life and body!

The banning of powerful "hard drugs" is not the government telling you what you can do to your own body. It is the will of society telling you, you cannot have the power to damage another persons life becuase of a poor decision. You do not have the right to, constitutionally even, to destroy another persons basic rights. So you can argue your right to use them, becuase it is your body and no one may tell you what you can and cannot do to it. But they can repeat the exact same arguement to the contrary. When your decision to alter your body affects another, then it is no longer just your decision to alter your body.

[KukriKhan]

So, despite the trillions of dollars, and a hundred years spent on prevention programs and law enforcement and imprisionment and treatment, young people still demand drugs (old people, too; it's just that a young Texan has proposed legalization here).

We could stop the money-drain going into those obviously ineffective programs, and to non-US producers and distributors, create untold hundreds of thousands of new jobs (producing and distributing gauranteed-quality product) by embracing the inevitable, and always growing, demand for mind-altering substances, instead of fighting it.

Take drugs away from the DEA and charge the FDA with establishing growing, processing, manufacturing, distributing, and retailing - drugs. All of 'em. Set standards for production.

At what age do we allow the purchase? 12? 16? 18, surely (if they can vote, and they can kill or die for society, they can intoxicate themselves). 21? 30?

IMO, an intoxicated person should not be able to operate any equipment more complicated than a keyboard, because of the exponential increase of risk to others. So, for me, DWI laws stay in place.

[Husar]

I sure hope you exercise everyday
I heard that's unhealthy...


Also people who die from drug use don't collect social security
They don't all die, some just suffer mental damage.

Kukri, should we also stop all AIDS campaigns because we still have new infections despite these?
Should be obvious noone listens to them anyway. :shrug:

[ICantSpellDawg]

So, despite the trillions of dollars, and a hundred years spent on prevention programs and law enforcement and imprisionment and treatment, young people still demand drugs (old people, too; it's just that a young Texan has proposed legalization here).

We could stop the money-drain going into those obviously ineffective programs, and to non-US producers and distributors, create untold hundreds of thousands of new jobs (producing and distributing gauranteed-quality product) by embracing the inevitable, and always growing, demand for mind-altering substances, instead of fighting it.

Take drugs away from the DEA and charge the FDA with establishing growing, processing, manufacturing, distributing, and retailing - drugs. All of 'em. Set standards for production.

At what age do we allow the purchase? 12? 16? 18, surely (if they can vote, and they can kill or die for society, they can intoxicate themselves). 21? 30?

IMO, an intoxicated person should not be able to operate any equipment more complicated than a keyboard, because of the exponential increase of risk to others. So, for me, DWI laws stay in place.

Imagine creating a legally recognized industry, with all of the political clout that comes with it, that exists to grow and expand the market of people who will buy hard, terribly addictive substances that can cause otherwise normal people to want to rob and kill others for it. Tobacco has been losing clout recently, so we are seeing a fall in its political power, but this would be massive. Remember when tobacco companies targeted youths to get them hooked young? You honestly believe that growth oriented mega-pharmaceutical companies wouldn't find a way to hook as many people as possible? Look what they've done with medicinal controlled substances that don't cause chemical addictions!


While we are at it - lets get rif of the defense department. Imagine how much money we've spent on defense when it would be much cheaper and probably not that bad to just lose a war...

[BigTex]

So, despite the trillions of dollars, and a hundred years spent on prevention programs and law enforcement and imprisionment and treatment, young people still demand drugs (old people, too; it's just that a young Texan has proposed legalization here).

We could stop the money-drain going into those obviously ineffective programs, and to non-US producers and distributors, create untold hundreds of thousands of new jobs (producing and distributing gauranteed-quality product) by embracing the inevitable, and always growing, demand for mind-altering substances, instead of fighting it.

Take drugs away from the DEA and charge the FDA with establishing growing, processing, manufacturing, distributing, and retailing - drugs. All of 'em. Set standards for production.

At what age do we allow the purchase? 12? 16? 18, surely (if they can vote, and they can kill or die for society, they can intoxicate themselves). 21? 30?

IMO, an intoxicated person should not be able to operate any equipment more complicated than a keyboard, because of the exponential increase of risk to others. So, for me, DWI laws stay in place.

Hardly purely young people. Mostly young, niave, middle classed youths who have never been touched by, nor truly seen what effects those drugs have on people and society.

It is hardly a money drain when it decreases the users, yes it actually does. If you want evidence the simplest method is opium users before and after prohibition of it.

There is no method of controling the intake of those drugs for one person. A lot of times it does not matter either. Some pcp and suddenly hours latter the person swears his own mother is a an alien set out to kill him, and winds up chasing her down the street trying to kill her with a butcher knife (true story). Not to mention the half life of that specific hard drug is over a decade, so there is the possibility of tripping for 10 years straight.....

Legalize cannabis, leave the others alone, they were banned for a reason.

[Viking]

A person on acid, shrooms and other halucinogens is no longer in complete control of their person and can become a threat to others quite easily.

Sounds like alcohol to me.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Sounds like alcohol to me.

You don't see a distinction between alcohol and heroin?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Sounds like alcohol to me.

You're still in control with alcohol unless the use of it is excessive.

[Kralizec]

You don't see a distinction between alcohol and heroin?

Heroin is one of the most harmless "hard" drugs around. I can see why people think legalizing LSD is a bad idea, but come on...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Heroin is one of the most harmless "hard" drugs around.

... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Risks_of_non-medical_use)

[Kralizec]

Relatively.

Dirty needles and unpurities have nothing to do with the drug itself. The adictiveness and bad effects are minor compared to meth or cocaine.

[KukriKhan]

LOL. That link shows H being cooked in a beer can. A legalized, regulated, sanitary heroin deliver system would eliminate all of those risks except dependency. And programs exist for that.

A drug-induced raving maniac is - a maniac - and law enforcement treats as such, whether his motivation is PHP, whiskey, or an imbalanced brain chemisty.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

LOL. That link shows H being cooked in a beer can. A legalized, regulated, sanitary heroin deliver system would eliminate all of those risks except dependency. And programs exist for that.

You have to read the whole thing, not just the list. There's all kinds of stuff like toxic leukoencephalopathy, conditioning, dependence, and possibly decreased kidney function.

[KukriKhan]

Worse than cirrosis of the liver?

p.s. I meant nothing with the "maniac" crack back there. I only just now re-realized it was part of your username. Apologies :bow:

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm very much opposed to making hard drugs legal, but then I'd also support a prohibition on alcohol if I thought it was enforcable.

Because I'm a commie and I'm out to steal your freedom! :whip:

[CountArach]

The government has no right to tell me what I can and can not put into my body. They only have a right to reprimand me if I begin to harm others or property.
Damn right. The only obvious exceptions should be date-rape drugs.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Damn right. The only obvious exceptions should be date-rape drugs.
What if someone puts LSD in your drink instead? Maybe I need the "date rape" drug because I like it.

[Husar]

Damn right. The only obvious exceptions should be date-rape drugs.

Nah, those are half the fun!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Worse than cirrosis of the liver?

Does cirrhosis occur with a minor or normal consumption level of alcohol? Honest question.


p.s. I meant nothing with the "maniac" crack back there. I only just now re-realized it was part of your username. Apologies :bow:

No worries, I didn't think you meant it in a personal way at all. :bow:

[CountArach]

What if someone puts LSD in your drink instead? Maybe I need the "date rape" drug because I like it.
Obviously there would be restrictions on giving the drug to people against their will.

EDIT: Damn it CR, we did it again (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2003047&postcount=22)...

[pevergreen]

It's the one thing I dont understand. Why would you want to lose control of your body? I am terrified of being forced into taking something (drugs/alcohol) that will cause me to lose 100% control of my body and how I think.

People do stupid things, and I know from my peer base if they were legal use would skyrocket. Hell, they are already stashing it in their cars and selling it on the ovals. Taking at form time etc.

It disgusts me.

EDIT: Congrats on 5k posts CA

[Louis VI the Fat]

The government has no right to tell me what I can and can not put into my body. I disagree! :no:

The very definition of an addict is that he is not capable of deciding out of his own free will what he puts into his body. He is a slave to his addiction. It is not only the government's mere right, but duty to protect him from further harm. Even when disregarding all effects on third parties, like driving under influence, operating equipment and social effects.


The government has no right to tell me what I can and can not put into my body. I agree! :yes:

Incidentally, this is why I think the government has no right to interfere with a woman's wish of abortion.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obviously there would be restrictions on giving the drug to people against their will.

EDIT: Damn it CR, we did it again (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2003047&postcount=22)...

Gah! Maybe I should start a socialism thread.

To all those who support the 'War on Drugs' in the US (or your own countries) - how has that turned out? We've been losing it for decades in the US, and for what? We have a raft of new laws that undermine our valued freedoms, innocent people are killed or robbed by the government, and drugs are still easy to purchase.

Prohibition has got us nothing but loss of our freedoms.

CR
(Though I might not support decriminalization of Meth - dangerous to make and it harms your body a lot more than the other hard drugs, IIRC)

[KukriKhan]

Bootlegging = illegal. Whether it's moonshine, heroin or CDs.

[Jolt]

People suggest the dumbest of things...

First of all, the argument "People should be allowed as long as they don't interfere with other people's lives". As it is known for the past handful of decades, that doesn't happen. Once a person gets too addicted (As people need gradually more and more amount of the same drug to get the same effect) and runs out of money, it WILL start interfering with other people's lives to satisfy that adiction. That argument is simply well beyond null. And since it eventually happens so, then it is forbidden.

Now, soft drugs that another thing. But even there, there needs to be a mentality of responsibility to be allowed legal. Otherwise, we have kids and teenagers doing soft drugs in every corner of the streets. That's an utter lack of respect.

I'm really a prohibition nazi. I drink when I go to parties/discos/whatever, but if I had to vote on alcohol prohibition, I'd do it any day. Same goes (Especially, since it has already wrecked apart my parents lives) for tobacco. It is simply stupid to take something bad for you. I'm against allowing stupid people to make stupid decisions. Some argue it's part of gaining life experience. I argue that those people lose something during that life experience to get to the point where everyone already knew it would be bad to make that stupid decision.

[KukriKhan]

Of course; that works in Europe, where everything not granted is forbidden. They have a history and culture of law being handed down from on high. No problem. Works for you guys.

In America, everything not specifically forbidden, however silly, personally injurious, or bad for your health... is authorized.

We have specifically forbidden the possession, sale, distribution, or ingestion of a few dozen drugs here. I say: why?

What compelling societal interest is there in prohibiting that? Maybe there is a societal interest that trumps an individual interest. But so far, the arguments put forward are little more than a half-hearted D.A.R.E. briefing in elementary school (no offense intended there; but the anti-hard drug argument has basically been: "It's bad for you.")

[Lord Winter]

I heard an interesting perspective off a podcast. Basiclly the host is argueing that even if scientist were to come up with a drug that had the same effects as Cocain, LSD, herion or what not, but with no harmful longterm effects it would still be banned.

[Lemur]

Damn straight it would be. You know why? 'Cause prohibition works. It just does. Imprisoning millions of citizens for possession? Works. Spending billions of dollars feeding, guarding and keeping them warm? Works. Diverting a huge market away from legality and into the arms of criminal gangs? Works.

It just works. Stop arguing about it.

[Caius]

You really want to know why doesn't drugs are allowed? That's because there would be war between drug sellers. And police instead of investigate who stole your (insert object of valour), they would be investigating who killed X drug dealer.

[ajaxfetish]

In response to several of the arguments that have reared their ugly heads in this thread:

In the US, the purpose of government is not to protect individuals from their own stupidity. It is to ensure the protection of their liberty and property.

The costs to society of tobacco and especially alcohol far outweigh all illegal drugs combined. This includes deaths due to overdose or accident, property damage, intoxication-related crime, drug-induced disease, and so on.

The attempt to prohibit alcohol (motivated by puritan ideals) was a bitter failure. The current attempt to prohibit other drugs (also motivated by puritan ideals) is and will continue to be a bitter failure. The continuation of the war on drugs does little to nothing to reduce drug use, forces its trade to the black market, upholds violent dealers and gangs and repressive regimes, ties up much of the resources of the criminal justice system, and sends thousands of nonviolent individuals with no other criminal activity to prison, ruining their lives and introducing them to violent criminals.

Drug price would not necessarily plummet if legalized, leading to much wider use, as taxes would likely make up much of the price difference. This does not, however, mean people would be more likely to still turn to the black market. After all, how much power does the illegal alcohol trade have today? It was certainly huge back in the day, but is now only a memory. Legal drug prices would likely still be lower, not to mention the goods being regulated and thus much more uniform and comparably much safer.

Legalizing the use of hard drugs =/= legalizing driving, using heavy machinery, assaulting others, or otherwise causing harm to others while intoxicated.

We keep drugs illegal because we still have a puritan and anti-libertarian mentality on the issue, and because we hate to admit that we were wrong. Is it stupid to take such drugs? Yes, but not nearly as stupid as it is to keep them illegal.

Ajax

[woad&fangs]

Out of curiosity, how many people here have read Freakonomics?

[Crazed Rabbit]

EDIT: *raises hand for W&F*


I'm really a prohibition nazi. I drink when I go to parties/discos/whatever, but if I had to vote on alcohol prohibition, I'd do it any day. Same goes (Especially, since it has already wrecked apart my parents lives) for tobacco..

You know what the definition of insane is, right? Trying the same thing and expecting different results.


I'm against allowing stupid people to make stupid decisions.

So when do you want your personal government agent to come by and make sure you're getting enough exercise?

The drug war has been a monumental failure. Drugs are not harder to get. Innocent people are dead or robbed by the government. How can it truly be justified that we continue it?

CR

[Samurai Waki]

There is absolutely no justification at the moment to keep many hard drugs illegal. However, it all comes down to personal responsibility, every dollar spent on drugs could be spent on something more important, but people don't realize this. I'm not trying to be preachy (eh' each to their own). When it comes to some drugs the whole "my body is my temple" advert is bollocks, and I don't trust the guy down the street to be responsible enough to keep his body within his temple while on a Cocaine High.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If it's legal, you give the vibe that it's OK when it isn't.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ever seen any of the anti-smoking ads we've got in the US?

Somehow we've managed to cut down on smoking without (straight up) banning it (though I dislike the heavy handed taxes and rules against it).

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If it's legal, you give the vibe that it's OK when it isn't.

There are tons of things which are legal but looked down upon by society, and many which are illegal that no one cares about.

[pevergreen]

I see (in my naive youth) that the government is like a friend, advising that it's not a good thing to take hard drugs, and saying you will be sorry you did. Not by what the drugs do, but by what they do.

See? The government can be a good.

(I still see government and good as an oxymoron though)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There are tons of things which are legal but looked down upon by society, and many which are illegal that no one cares about.

That is true, but it still legitimizes something that should not be legitimized.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hehe. Well maybe bad and short lived ideas go both ways. If we are talking about what works vs what doesn't we could legalize most drugs and see if that idea isn't as bad as prohibiting alcohol. Two way street - better try it before I have children.

[Xiahou]

Damn straight it would be. You know why? 'Cause prohibition works. It just does. Imprisoning millions of citizens for possession? Works. Spending billions of dollars feeding, guarding and keeping them warm? Works. Diverting a huge market away from legality and into the arms of criminal gangs? Works.

It just works. Stop arguing about it.The fact that people break a law is no argument for doing away with the law. Our war on rape has also been a total failure- despite years of enforcement and billions spent, people still do it. When will we come to our senses and legalize it? Similarly, the war on theft has also been a miserable failure and should be ended. :dizzy2:

I'm all for rethinking how we prosecute illegal narcotics if when can do so more efficiently. But just because the current strategy hasn't been totally successful doesn't mean that the only alternative is legalization.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I see (in my naive youth) that the government is like a friend, advising that it's not a good thing to take hard drugs, and saying you will be sorry you did. Not by what the drugs do, but by what they do.

See? The government can be a good.

(I still see government and good as an oxymoron though)


Umm, the government is more like a friend that says "Please jimmy, don't do drugs" and then gets pissed when you do and throws you in jail.


Hehe. Well maybe bad and short lived ideas go both ways. If we are talking about what works vs what doesn't we could legalize most drugs and see if that idea isn't as bad as prohibiting alcohol. Two way street - better try it before I have children.

I think we should go for decriminalization for those over 18 as a start. It's easy to see **** getting out of hand with dumbass teenagers. I think your right in that a sudden legalization would lead to a snap back pretty quickly.


That is true, but it still legitimizes something that should not be legitimized.

Choosing to get high is perfectly legitimate.


In America, everything not specifically forbidden, however silly, personally injurious, or bad for your health... is authorized.

~:cheers:


I'm really a prohibition nazi. I drink when I go to parties/discos/whatever, but if I had to vote on alcohol prohibition, I'd do it any day.

Alcohol is very important for our nations happiness.



It's the one thing I dont understand. Why would you want to lose control of your body? I am terrified of being forced into taking something (drugs/alcohol) that will cause me to lose 100% control of my body and how I think.

It's really not scary...don't diss it till you've tried it.

[pevergreen]

Jumping off a cliff into sharp rocks isnt scary. Would you do it?


Umm, the government is more like a friend that says "Please jimmy, don't do drugs" and then gets pissed when you do and throws you in jail.

Yeah, well. *rambles on about reasons how it makes sense in pever's mind*

[Crazed Rabbit]

Our war on rape has also been a total failure- despite years of enforcement and billions spent, people still do it.

Um, no. Rapists have been imprisoned and stopped from harming others. That has cut down on the number of rapes that would otherwise have occurred. The war on drugs has imprisoned a lot of people, hurting society, for non violent offenses.

The war on drugs is a total failure, with the main causality being our liberties.



Umm, the government is more like a friend that says "Please jimmy, don't do drugs" and then gets pissed when you do and throws you in jail.

LoL!

CR

[Big_John]

Jumping off a cliff into sharp rocks isnt scary.yes it is.

[AlexanderSextus]

Al capone killed lots of people for money made in the illegal Alcohol trade (i'm drinking a BEER right now, and no i'm not drunk, i only had one, this is #2) and Pablo Escobar killed lots of people for the money made in the illegal cocaine trade.

Alcohol was made Legal, amd Capone went straight to jail. Escobar supplied kilos and kilos of cocaine into the US with the help of Manuel Noreaga, A US ALLY at the time. Cocaine still floods into the US to this day. And i'd bet the CIA profits off of it just so they can bust the dealers they sell it to.
Thats why nothing's been legalized.


Yeah they got those guys but the problem has not been solved yet. i think its about time to change our ideas of what works. Prohibition does not.



Same Problem, Same Solution. Tax and regulate. Illegal markets will diminish, and Kingpins will get arrested.

Pot should be legal, as long as you dont drive or operate heavy machinery high. Especially for people like me who need it medically. Cerebral Palsy, BTW.... Works better for me than the BOTOX injections that really suck.

They have the NHS in England. Dope Junkies get clean needles and product that is not poisoned. Here in the US you have Junkies who get their kids to tie off their arm while they shoot up, not knowing how potent the product is. They end up ODing infront of their kids. This happens here in New Jersey. If they had an NHS-like program, the junkies would get graduated doses that would slowly wean them off of the drug and the potency would be the same every time so they would know exactly how much to use without killing themselves.

It is not the govts job to tell people what to put or not put in their own bodies, but it is the governments job to keep people who are addicted to a drug from dieing a horrible and tragic death that will mentally hurt their families.

[Samurai Waki]

People, Society, Freedoms, Governments are all equally accountable. I tend to go with Einstein's theory on humans/Universe/Stupidity.

Anyways, its all cause and effect dating back the last 100 or so years. Drugs were used in some very easily accessable items way back when, nobody knew that Cocaine was highly addictive and caused radical personality changes. So its sale and production was banned, but they never actually sought to cure the root of the problem so you have coke addicts without coke, so you get an intermediary who can supply it... of course the intermediaries aren't usually the types most want to associate with, so then you try to snuff it out, and all that happens is that you create a huge change of events that really do end, but its something that has to change within a society, and some ideas you just can't kill... unfortunately Puritanism is here to stay in some people (although its going away, like Slavery).

I can still maintain however, that Marijuana gets a bad rap and should be perfectly legal. And lets be honest, the people who aren't giving second thought to the support of other narcotics use, probably have at some point or still do like to smoke up. :yes:

[Tribesman]

They have the NHS in England. Dope Junkies get clean needles and product that is not poisoned. Here in the US you have Junkies who get their kids to tie off their arm while they shoot up, not knowing how potent the product is. They end up ODing infront of their kids. This happens here in New Jersey. If they had an NHS-like program, the junkies would get graduated doses that would slowly wean them off of the drug and the potency would be the same every time so they would know exactly how much to use without killing themselves.

Do they ? I thought you had the same methodone "support" programs that most other places have , with the slight difference that over in the States they will actually give a bigger supply to the patients than elsewhere . It has been suggested that the US policy of giving a months supply to junkies rather than a daily or weekly supply has led to the sharp increase in fatalities from people overdosing on this "safe" clean product .
Another problem with your post on weaning them off and the regulated potency of the supplied narcotic is that like the illegal narcotic it is used to replace it is addictive and its potency diminishes with use .

As for the topic itself ? a tricky one isn't it .
Regulate and tax it , control supply and attempt to control demand , good idea but will it work ?
Smack is illegal , some smackheads are complete wasters , utter dicks who really deserve to to take a long walk off a short pier , others can get on with their lives hold down a decent job support their familes and be fully productive members of society .
Alcohol is legal..........and all the same applies .
Now it can be said that legalising drugs and taxing them will remove the criminal element , alcohol and tobacco are legal and taxed after all . Yet both are produced illegally and sold , and both are legally produced andsold but then illegaly smuggled due to diffences in taxes . And you only have to look at some of the real unsavoury characters involved in cigerette smuggling to seethatthe "eliminatingcriminality" aspect of the arguement has some serious leaks in it .

[Viking]

You don't see a distinction between alcohol and heroin?

I see a major distinction. However, both will make the takers loose some/a lot of the control of their body.


You're still in control with alcohol unless the use of it is excessive.

There's no law forbidding excessive use.


I disagree! :no:

The very definition of an addict is that he is not capable of deciding out of his own free will what he puts into his body. He is a slave to his addiction. It is not only the government's mere right, but duty to protect him from further harm. Even when disregarding all effects on third parties, like driving under influence, operating equipment and social effects.



Free will is a relative term. So is addiction. So is harm. The goverment can still help even if these drugs are allowed, either way.



I see (in my naive youth) that the government is like a friend, advising that it's not a good thing to take hard drugs, and saying you will be sorry you did. Not by what the drugs do, but by what they do.

See? The government can be a good.

(I still see government and good as an oxymoron though)


The government may still campaign against drugs even if they're legal.

[Husar]

Well, in a way they should really legalize drugs and exclude people who take them from healthcare. We'd have to sweep them off the streets now and then but maybe the genetic pool would be improved to the point that earth would be ruled by evil conservative ban-nazis like me. :2thumbsup:

[KrooK]

Strike sorry but...
1) drugs makes addiction
2) they costs much and addicted junkie pay everything he has to buy them
3) addicted finally has no cash, so he uses cash of his family, friends and similar
4) family, friends and similar stop giving cash to addicted, so he is starting stealing
5) when strong addicted, he starts commiting serious crimes and generally is dangerous

All in all - community has problems because
1) man became junkie
2) junkie is not paying cash but we have to pay big cash to heal him or to prevent him from commiting crimes
3) junkie's family became poor and we have to pay them
4) junkie spread aids and similar

With drugs legal, it would be dangerous for whole community, because we would have to pay for that junkies.

[Tribesman]

~:rolleyes:
With drugs illegal it is dangerous and you have to pay for the junkie:dizzy2:

[CountArach]

4) junkie spread aids and similar
If it is legal there could be tighter regulation and control on needle exchanges. We have injecting rooms here in Sydney where people can shoot up and have their needles dealt with safely.

[ICantSpellDawg]

We've talked about this many times before.

Where do you sell drugs? Next to beer?

You want heroin and crack on a shelf next to tylenol? OR would you need a prescription; but who would write one?

The reality is, if you can buy meth without a prescription (because nobody would write one) why couldn't you buy effexor or viagra without a prescription? Pharmaceutical companies can't wait for more ham fisted talk about legalization - it will help ruin any regulations on pharmaceuticals.

"Drugs" are drugs because they provide no tangible benefit - so they can't be prescribed, and while they provide no medical benefit, they can't be put in a general store because that would be unconscionable.

[Tribesman]

"Drugs" are drugs because they provide no tangible benefit - so they can't be prescribed,
Most of the "illegal" drugs have a very long and ongoing use in medicine for their benefitial properties and can be prescribed.

[Husar]

But if they are prescribed the government-doctor conspiracy is still telling you when and how many of them you can put in your mouth. There is no such law for LEGO blocks, I can put as many of them into my mouth as I want and it is not illegal, I want the same to apply to heroin as well and I want my kids to enjoy the freedom to buy heroin for themselves whenever they damn well want to. :furious3:

[rory_20_uk]

Most of the "illegal" drugs have a very long and ongoing use in medicine for their beneficial properties and can be prescribed.

I'd go further. The long term acute effects are often less toxic than legal drugs.


But if they are prescribed the government-doctor conspiracy is still telling you when and how many of them you can put in your mouth. There is no such law for LEGO blocks, I can put as many of them into my mouth as I want and it is not illegal, I want the same to apply to heroin as well and I want my kids to enjoy the freedom to buy heroin for themselves whenever they damn well want to. :furious3:

I'd personally stick to over 18 only. But with that attitude I don't imagine your kids will make it to adulthood in any case...

~:smoking:

[Reverend Joe]

We've talked about this many times before.

Where do you sell drugs? Next to beer?

You want heroin and crack on a shelf next to tylenol? OR would you need a prescription; but who would write one?

The reality is, if you can buy meth without a prescription (because nobody would write one) why couldn't you buy effexor or viagra without a prescription? Pharmaceutical companies can't wait for more ham fisted talk about legalization - it will help ruin any regulations on pharmaceuticals.

"Drugs" are drugs because they provide no tangible benefit - so they can't be prescribed, and while they provide no medical benefit, they can't be put in a general store because that would be unconscionable.

Tuff, this doesn't make sense.

Viagra et al are intended to be used only for medical purposes (and for the record, there IS a black market for viagra... but that's a whole 'nother story.)

Alcohol, on the other hand, isn't intended for medical use, so it isn't sold next to tylenol, of course. But as to where other drugs should be sold -- haven't you ever heard of an ABC (that's Alcoholic Beverage Control) store? In my home state, and other states, hard liquor can only be sold in such a store, not in grocery stores or anywhere else. So, what's wrong with restricting the sale of illegal drugs to government-owned stores? Say, a Cannabist shop for the standard "light" drugs (probably just cannabis and its derivitaves) and a "Narcotics Control" store for the harder stuff.

And for that matter, restrict the production and distribution of said narcotics to the Government -- NOT pharmaceutical corporations, NOT Government-funded organizations (god knows, nobody wants a Fannie Meth... :hide:) just the good ol' Uncle Sam Drug Brewery.

And if people want to burn their brains out on meth and crack, then they can pay back society via the government-owned stores while they're doing it. And if they harm others, well, that's another issue entirely. Hell, idiot drivers hit people all the time, and people who don't do anything worse than cigarettes and beer rob people all the time. That's why there are already laws against such activities. Harming a society is a problem that is restricted to the people who do it, even if other people are harmed, because it was the choice of the person harming society to begin with. And don't give me the out-of-control crap. Drug users are generally far more in control than you might like to think; and if they aren't, then it was their own choices that removed that self control, and people who would never otherwise be affected by them should not have to suffer the consequences of trying to save a few stupid people who would, in all likelihood have found a way to get hooked anyway, because if there are no Narcotics Control stores, there's always Tyrone/Miguel/Billy Bob on the corner.


Jumping off a cliff into sharp rocks isnt scary. Would you do it?

There's a big difference between leaping off a cliff and smoking pot... namely, the difference between being impaled on sharp rocks and sitting at home, eating a cheeseburger and watching W. C. Fields movies. OOOOOH, scary!

Edit: @Rory, I actually think all those drugs should be 21+, unless the legal age for alcohol is lowered. Even if many of these drugs are less hamful, they're still fairly intoxicating in many cases.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So my post doesn't make sense but your government owned store and drug production facility makes sense. Our tax dollars shouldn't go toward the war against drugs - rather we should use those dollars to produce and distribute drugs...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So my post doesn't make sense but your government owned store and drug production facility makes sense. Our tax dollars shouldn't go toward the war against drugs - rather we should use those dollars to produce and distribute drugs...

Umm, I think when you sell things at a store you get something called revenue? ~:confused:

[Husar]

I'd personally stick to over 18 only. But with that attitude I don't imagine your kids will make it to adulthood in any case...

~:smoking:

Come on, everybody knows that your kids end up taking every forbidden substance in huge masses anyway just because it is forbidden.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I find it rather amusing that some of the logic of the pro-drugs group is that "we have two harmful substances which are legal and causing problems in society, so let's add some more!"

[ICantSpellDawg]

Umm, I think when you sell things at a store you get something called revenue? ~:confused:

So the government that we all trust and love should gain revenue through the sale of drugs? Just become nicer drug dealers? We could then use that revenue to deal with drug related crime and health issues. Win win for everybody.

State owned meth labs. Cool - lets try it.

[rory_20_uk]

Re: my choice of 18 years for drugs. That's the age for alcohol in the UK.

The argument against drugs appears to be:

They're bad: the class of drugs has no relation to this; the toxicity of the drugs has far more to do with the additives and the unknown bulkers. Compare the toxicity of whisky to that from an unknown still.

If it's illegal we can stop people getting it: utter tripe. I'm probably about as far away from street smart as you can easily get, and I imagine it'd take me a few hours to get into contact with a person I trust to get me some. For harder drugs longer, but again I am confident that one or two of my friends can get it.

If it's illegal, people won't use it: more like if the government states that looking at it kills and you know hundreds who enjoy it you'd wonder what the government is on.

For many drugs I personally would never use. I find that the long term toxicity for many is too high, and I'm not keen on IV drugs. If there was a wand I could use to get rid of them from the planet I'd use it. But they're here, they're addictive and loads of people like them.To me, persons who'd keep them illegal are as useful as King Canute's supporters.

~:smoking:

[Reverend Joe]

So the government that we all trust and love should gain revenue through the sale of drugs? Just become nicer drug dealers? We could then use that revenue to deal with drug related crime and health issues. Win win for everybody.

State owned meth labs. Cool - lets try it.

Actually, yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Regulated, clean drugs that will pay for themselves. As for the crime and health issues, I guarantee you that would not be a problem. Pretty much everyone who is willing to use the stuff is already.

Edit: I sometimes wonder why I even bother arguing with a guy who named himself after an anti-drug mascot.

[Jolt]

You know what the definition of insane is, right? Trying the same thing and expecting different results.

What does that setence relate to?


So when do you want your personal government agent to come by and make sure you're getting enough exercise?

The drug war has been a monumental failure. Drugs are not harder to get. Innocent people are dead or robbed by the government. How can it truly be justified that we continue it?

CR

Fortunatly, doing exercise isn't addictive, nor does it cost money. Drugs eventually leads you to stealing (Or doing some other crazy scheme to drain money out something/someone) once you're out of money, because of it's addictedness and cost. Drugs are so, and in such a way this comparison makes little sense.
And how can one say it isn't harder to get? If it was legalized, it would be sold in every major city by shops. With it banned, the only places selling them is only in shifty alleys and in marginalized neighbourhoods.

[Strike For The South]

I find it rather amusing that some of the logic of the pro-drugs group is that "we have two harmful substances which are legal and causing problems in society, so let's add some more!"

The government has no right to tell me what I can and can not put into my body. They only have a right to reprimand me if I begin to harm others or property. Tuff this isn't about slavery or the defense department. It is about the legalization of drugs. The government has no right to micromanage me.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I find it rather amusing that some of the logic of the pro-drugs group is that "we have two harmful substances which are legal and causing problems in society, so let's add some more!"

Smokers harm only themselves (and barely that if they quit soon enough) and alcohol is the foundation of our society ~D

[Jolt]

Smokers harm only themselves (and barely that if they quit soon enough)

See, the problem is that they don't just harm themselves. They harm everyone around them even more since the people around him are actually inhaling smoke without filters. That is the reasoning behind the banning of smoking in all small closed comercial surfaces in most of Western Europe.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

See, the problem is that they don't just harm themselves. They harm everyone around them even more since the people around him are actually inhaling smoke without filters. That is the reasoning behind the banning of smoking in all small closed comercial surfaces in most of Western Europe.

The only people significantly harmed would be the people working at the bar or restaurant, not the customers.

[Strike For The South]

The only people significantly harmed would be the people working at the bar or restaurant, not the customers.

and even then the effect is minimal.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The government has no right to tell me what I can and can not put into my body. They only have a right to reprimand me if I begin to harm others or property. Tuff this isn't about slavery or the defense department. It is about the legalization of drugs. The government has no right to micromanage me.

They have the right to do whatever the American populace as a whole tells them to do. The beauty of democracy is that if you want drugs legalized, you can make a political party that will legalize them.

[Strike For The South]

They have the right to do whatever the American populace as a whole tells them to do. The beauty of democracy is that if you want drugs legalized, you can make a political party that will legalize them.

Well I'm trying to get enough people here to see things my way so I can get this enacted and the base of my argument is my statement in the first post. SFTS in 2026!!!!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

They have the right to do whatever the American populace as a whole tells them to do.

No they don't, reread the declaration of independence.

[Divinus Arma]

This isn't about drinking and driving its about the legalization of but not limited to Pot, Coke, Shrooms, Heroine, Meth, Speed, LSD, Ecstasy etc.

Late addition to the convo here. But SFTS, you are going down a very dangerous path my young friend.

Can't join the Corps if you've done these drugs. I would be very careful about the decisions you make here. They have life-long implications, that you, as a young adult, have yet to grasp.

Anytime I hear this, I know it comes from someone who just doesn't know any better.

Unlike alcohol, which will merely make you sick or kill you of poisoning if you drink too much, these other drugs can offer a fate worse than death. If you overdo it on hallucinogens like LSD, mushrooms, or PCP, you can have a premanent alteration of your perspective making you unable to determine reality from your imagination. You will live in a nightmare of paranoia and fear. Heroine is instantly addictive. Your body chemistry adapts to require it like food or water. You will be unable to even think about anything else until you get your fix. As for meth: http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/DrugIssue/MethResources/faces/photo_3.html

Trust me on this. Drugs are bad, m'kay.

I won't argue with on the reefer. That should be legalized. For one reason alone: As young people, we are told that ALL DRUGS will kill you and are evil and yada yada. Kids try pot and realize the truth: it ain't that big of a deal. Then kids think that other drugs are the same, "If pot is safe, then other drugs must be okay too". They are not the same. The only reason that pot is a gateway drug is because the government has made it that way by exagerating and lieing to the public.

If you want to recreationally use, stick with alcohol, kava, and pot.

If you move on to hard drugs after you are properly informed, you deserve every bit of misery that awaits you.

Good luck with your choices on this. They will follow you for life.

[Strike For The South]

I don't personally do any of these drugs. I dont smoke (although I have before). I dont do these drugs because I want a degree from my uni and I want to continue to thrive in strength sports and training. The hardest thing I've ever tried is weed. I will never touch coke or meth or psychedelics but that is not the point. The point is the government has no right to micromanage its citizens lives.

[rory_20_uk]

Drugs eventually leads you to stealing (Or doing some other crazy scheme to drain money out something/someone) once you're out of money, because of it's addictedness and cost. Drugs are so, and in such a way this comparison makes little sense.
And how can one say it isn't harder to get? If it was legalized, it would be sold in every major city by shops. With it banned, the only places selling them is only in shifty alleys and in marginalized neighbourhoods.

The usual oft used drivel.

Illegal drugs are more expensive, as you're paying for the fact that getting into the country is complicated. Legal ones would be far less expensive - less crime!

It's already dead easy to get! And it is not from marginalised estates. Cocaine is used by many middle / upper class people. They are not going down darkened alleys. True, some do - perhaps it would be safer for all to g to a shop?

Addictive... ever seen people give up cigarettes or alcohol? And how much do they cost? Tens if not more per day.

~:smoking:

[Big_John]

With it banned, the only places selling them is only in shifty alleys and in marginalized neighbourhoods.surely, you jest.

[KukriKhan]

Well I'm trying to get enough people here to see things my way so I can get this enacted and the base of my argument is my statement in the first post. SFTS in 2026!!!!

Assuming we keep 4-year POTUS election cycles, you'll have to wait 'til 2028, Candidate Strike. That'll make you an old man of what, 37?

Unless you meant 2026 for Texas Guv, first.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Late addition to the convo here. But SFTS, you are going down a very dangerous path my young friend.

Can't join the Corps if you've done these drugs. I would be very careful about the decisions you make here. They have life-long implications, that you, as a young adult, have yet to grasp.

Anytime I hear this, I know it comes from someone who just doesn't know any better.

Unlike alcohol, which will merely make you sick or kill you of poisoning if you drink too much, these other drugs can offer a fate worse than death. If you overdo it on hallucinogens like LSD, mushrooms, or PCP, you can have a premanent alteration of your perspective making you unable to determine reality from your imagination. You will live in a nightmare of paranoia and fear. Heroine is instantly addictive. Your body chemistry adapts to require it like food or water. You will be unable to even think about anything else until you get your fix. As for meth: http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/DrugIssue/MethResources/faces/photo_3.html

Trust me on this. Drugs are bad, m'kay.

I won't argue with on the reefer. That should be legalized. For one reason alone: As young people, we are told that ALL DRUGS will kill you and are evil and yada yada. Kids try pot and realize the truth: it ain't that big of a deal. Then kids think that other drugs are the same, "If pot is safe, then other drugs must be okay too". They are not the same. The only reason that pot is a gateway drug is because the government has made it that way by exagerating and lieing to the public.

If you want to recreationally use, stick with alcohol, kava, and pot.

If you move on to hard drugs after you are properly informed, you deserve every bit of misery that awaits you.

Good luck with your choices on this. They will follow you for life. Thanks Div. Trust Louis on this too: DON'T DO DRUGS.

Some get away with it, the lucky ones. Others do not. And there's no telling in advance.

You only need to see it once. One friend or relative. The mere sight of it is beyond what anybody should have to endure. ~:mecry:
Never mind what it must be like for the afflicted themselves. It ruins good people. It submits them to a fate worse than death. Same goes for that even craftier killer: alcohol.

Don't do drugs, and be very, very careful about alcohol. :shame:

[Strike For The South]

My family has had problems with drugs and alcohol to but that doesn't give my government the right to say I cant do something. Ive been to cousins funerals and uncles rehabs and Im still not changing my mind.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If the majority of people in a country don't want to put up with idiots that want to fill themselves with hard drugs, then I think that's fair enough. Since when did the freedom to take heroin become a basic human right? Human rights are made up remember, they are not some set infallable law. If the majority of people in a society want to do something, I say go with it. If the rest of the world sees this as something horrific, then they can try to stop them. But for issues like hard drugs, they are banned because people want them to be banned, and its not an unreasonable demand.

[Louis VI the Fat]

My family has had problems with drugs and alcohol to but that doesn't give my government the right to say I cant do something. Ive been to cousins funerals and uncles rehabs and Im still not changing my mind.The government couldn't protect you if it wanted to. You need to protect yourself.

For the record, I am all for full legalisation of all harddrugs. For practical purposes I am. Prohibition didn't work. The War on Drugs doesn't work. Criminalisation doesn't work. All it accomplishes is too enrich street scum, and to make fabulously wealthy organised scum, and to such an extent that it destabilises legal society.

Should the government have the right to interfere with what you put into your body? Yes. Not to chase after recreational use, but certainly for substance abuse. For the same reasons that the government has a 'right' to interfere when they see somebody drowning.

[Strike For The South]

The government couldn't protect you if it wanted to. You need to protect yourself.

For the record, I am all for full legalisation of all harddrugs. For practical purposes I am. Prohibition didn't work. The War on Drugs doesn't work. Criminalisation doesn't work. All it accomplishes is too enrich street scum, and to make fabulously wealthy organised scum, and to such an extent that it destabilises legal society.

Should the government have the right to interfere with what you put into your body? Yes. Not to chase after recreational use, but certainly for substance abuse. For the same reasons that the government has a 'right' to interfere when they see somebody drowning.

What if the one addicted is not harming anyone but themselves?

[Hosakawa Tito]

But if we make them legal you teenage rebels will be without a cause...Strike may be onto something here.~:wacko:

[Husar]

What if the one addicted is not harming anyone but themselves?

Just like the drowning guy, eh? :dizzy2:

[Reverend Joe]

Just like the drowning guy, eh? :dizzy2:

If you jump into a lake with full knowledge that you can't swim...

Unfortunately, that can't be proved; but it's pretty hard to prove that you don't know about the dangers of hard drugs, not least the addictive qualities. I'm fairly sure that nobody will decide to smoke meth thinking that it will give them a light buzz and taste like candy.

@Div: I think the people arguing for legalization are mainly arguing that if you are dumb enough to do it, you shouldn't tax society's resources and feed illegal organizations in the process; none of us actually want to use them.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

@Div: I think the people arguing for legalization are mainly arguing that if you are dumb enough to do it, you shouldn't tax society's resources and feed illegal organizations in the process; none of us actually want to use them.

But if we legalize it then we can no longer crack down on the idiots. The War on Drugs isn't working, with that I agree - but I don't think legalization is the answer. We just need new tactics.

[Reverend Joe]

But if we legalize it then we can no longer crack down on the idiots. The War on Drugs isn't working, with that I agree - but I don't think legalization is the answer. We just need new tactics.

But why "Crack down" to begin with? If they harm someone, fine, put them through the system. Otherwise, why bother?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Man Attempts To Amputate Own Arm In Denny's (http://cbs13.com/local/dennys.amputation.cocaine.2.807272.html)

It must have been all of the sugar and baking powder in his cocaine.

It is funny though - when people cite how drugs are only dangerous when they are adulterated. Adulterated with what? Other drugs that you want to be legal?

[rory_20_uk]

Things that have been used to adulterate drugs: rat poison, chalk, dirt, sugar and probably countless others.

Who said they'd be legalised? Warfarin has its place, but not as a bulking agent for Heroin / cocaine. chalk is OK, but I'd not reccommend mainlining it.

Just as something is legal doesn't automatically mean it is 100% safe. You can overdose on iron, but banning iron isn't a great idea.

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Things that have been used to adulterate drugs: rat poison, chalk, dirt, sugar and probably countless others.

Who said they'd be legalised? Warfarin has its place, but not as a bulking agent for Heroin / cocaine. chalk is OK, but I'd not reccommend mainlining it.

Just as something is legal doesn't automatically mean it is 100% safe. You can overdose on iron, but banning iron isn't a great idea.

~:smoking:

So you can maybe sell heroin as a cleaning fluid in the back of a liquor store? You can't sell it for human consumption, because that would be irresponsible.

[rory_20_uk]

It isn't a cleaning fluid.

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Will you sell it for consumption? Can you do that responsibly?

[rory_20_uk]

Ever heard of pholcodiene or any of the drousy cough syrups? Their active ingredient are all opiates.

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ever heard of pholcodiene or any of the drousy cough syrups? Their active ingredient are all opiates.

~:smoking:

Don't they serve a therapeutic purpose?

How would you suggest we implement this great new idea?

[rory_20_uk]

Most of my patients state they don't serve a theraputic purpose. I think that the cough syrup market is already well established.

Selling drugs? Sell from a pharmacy to those over the age of 18. Each comes complete with large warnings of dangers, what to do / not to do and a sterile, pre filled syringe if appropriate.

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Most of my patients state they don't serve a theraputic purpose. I think that the cough syrup market is already well established.

Selling drugs? Sell from a pharmacy to those over the age of 18. Each comes complete with large warnings of dangers, what to do / not to do and a sterile, pre filled syringe if appropriate.

~:smoking:

Over the counter without a prescription?

[rory_20_uk]

Yup, just like the other killers cigarettes and alcohol.

I've been to the local supermarket at christmas time to get a job lot of presents. I went to the counter with probably over 6 litres of spirits, a 16 pack of paracetamol and a 16 pack of Ibuprofen. The potentially lethal dose of spirits didn't raise an eyebrow, but I wasn't allowed both the tablets... Even though there is no interaction.

If you make getting safe drugs difficult, people won't do it. Sure, people will still overdose, but unlike the current situation where the dose could be 2mg to 20mg, it is a fixed dose.

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yup, just like the other killers cigarettes and alcohol.

I've been to the local supermarket at christmas time to get a job lot of presents. I went to the counter with probably over 6 litres of spirits, a 16 pack of paracetamol and a 16 pack of Ibuprofen. The potentially lethal dose of spirits didn't raise an eyebrow, but I wasn't allowed both the tablets... Even though there is no interaction.

If you make getting safe drugs difficult, people won't do it. Sure, people will still overdose, but unlike the current situation where the dose could be 2mg to 20mg, it is a fixed dose.

~:smoking:

Ok, you guys do it first and we'll see if the rate of drug usage drops. Then, maybe, we will introduce similar measures. If you can't get your quasi-socialist mother state to give in to your ideas, why do you think we would try it?

[Fragony]

Over the counter without a prescription?

For cough syrope? Can't get rid of the urge and there is always an alternative, like cough syrope. Cocaine and heroin should be seen as currency, that is the highest priority instead of the idiots that get hooked on it, white gold.

[rory_20_uk]

Who is trying to get drug usage down? Not me. I'm interested in getting crime down, and forcing the industry off the criminal black market and on to the taxable legitimate market.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Who is trying to get drug usage down? Not me. I'm interested in getting crime down, and forcing the industry off the criminal black market and on to the taxable legitimate market.

~:smoking:

You can't make the black market dissapear because any control or government will make it more expensive, and some like it cheap, especially the hooked nothing will change black market will provide cheaper. There is simply no solution here it can't be solved.

[Reverend Joe]

You can't make the black market dissapear because any control or government will make it more expensive, and some like it cheap, especially the hooked nothing will change black market will provide cheaper. There is simply no solution here it can't be solved.

Cigarettes contain one of the most addictive substances on the planet. And yet they have become prohibitively expensive. But how many people actually buy bootleg cigarettes?

https://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7079/hillbillyteethho8.jpg

Seriously, it's not a very big market.

Anyway, the alcohol industry has shown us the light already: you can always sell incredibly cheap, low-grade versions of any addictive substance to kill a black market. Which, by the way, is why the entire narcotics industry should be government-run, because a lot of the "hobo wines" are basically poison, and HOPEFULLY a government-run narc industry would have the common decency not to add such adulterants. Whether or not they are capable of such a thing, I know that it is still a safer bet than private companies, and certainly better than your average pusher.

[Fragony]

Seriously, it's not a very big market.

Cocaine and heroin not a big market? It is the very currency of the black market worldwide.

[rory_20_uk]

So, selling a pure product that's cheaper than an impure product is going to massively dent the market.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

So, selling a pure product that's cheaper than an impure product is going to massively dent the market.

~:smoking:

Are you dealing with the outcome or the argument, I say you can't win this. Doesn't really matter what you do. But again, and again, it's currency, and as currency it is much more dangeroud then a few junkies.

[rory_20_uk]

The underpinnings of cocaine / heroin links with its real world price. If you flood the market, the price goes down. So the value as a currency is undermined. Zimbabwe has a currency. Doesn't mean it has any worth.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

The underpinnings of cocaine / heroin links with its real world price. If you flood the market, the price goes down. So the value as a currency is undermined. Zimbabwe has a currency. Doesn't mean it has any worth.

~:smoking:

And how would you flood the market? You would have to buy it somewhere els first

[Tribesman]

Cocaine and heroin not a big market? It is the very currency of the black market worldwide.

I think he meant the illegal tobacco market , so he is wrong as it is actually a huge industry and very very lucrative .

[KukriKhan]

I think he meant the illegal tobacco market , so he is wrong as it is actually a huge industry and very very lucrative .

Good point. Looked at from another angle, the "llegal tobacco market" isn't actually that at all, but rather a "huge luxery tax-avoidance market". The product is the same whether bought from Los Angles or Moldovia; the difference is the tax-based price (and who gets the profits).

[ajaxfetish]

If you can't get your quasi-socialist mother state to give in to your ideas, why do you think we would try it?
Because instead of having a quasi-socialist mother state to take care of us, we in America believe in personal freedoms. The war on drugs is much like many states' wars on firearms. We don't need it here.

Ajax

[Tribesman]

Good point. Looked at from another angle, the "llegal tobacco market" isn't actually that at all, but rather a "huge luxery tax-avoidance market". The product is the same whether bought from Los Angles or Moldovia; the difference is the tax-based price (and who gets the profits).

Well its wider than that , you have the common smuggling which is the tax avoidance , thats a damn good earner , I know of quite a few trafficers who switched from narcotics to cigarettes , and ordinary people who gave up work to get into this easy money .
Then you have the fake brands , which is fraud but also comes into the tax avoidance bracket .
Then you have the outright fakes which are so full of crap that they couldn't even be classed as a legal version of that dangerous and addictive substance , which is fraud , tax avoidance and a whole other pile of crimes thrown in for good measure .
It just illustrates that even when legalised you cannot get rid of the criminal involvement where there is a potential for easy cash , its a bit like the prescription drugs issue with illegal copies and outright fake versions being sold all over the world .

[KukriKhan]

Touche' Sir. And well-played. We have to yield some of the "it'll reduce crime" argument. Legalization may eventually reduce local crime by elevating the mfg & distro systems into more transparent climes, but the knock-off industry, both local and international, will still thrive, especially in the era of interwebs.

Maybe more aggressive postal and customs regulations could put a dent in such industries. But the track record so far = not so hot.

[Lemur]

Unlike alcohol, which will merely make you sick or kill you of poisoning if you drink too much, these other drugs can offer a fate worse than death. If you overdo it on hallucinogens like LSD, mushrooms, or PCP, you can have a premanent alteration of your perspective making you unable to determine reality from your imagination.
I missed this earlier. Div, you're right that overuse of LSD can result in permanent psychosis, but you undercut your own argument by lumping mushrooms in there. Show me a respectable medical study that shows harmful long-term side-effects from mushrooms. Go ahead, look for one. 'Cause there ain't one.

Mushrooms are less addictive than ciggies, less physically harmful than alcohol, and don't do lung damage like pot. They're maybe the safest drug out there, right next to caffeine. They're a baby aspirin drug.

Don't confuse the quality of the high with the toxicity of the substance.

[Fragony]

Mushrooms are also legal here, sometimes a tourist believes he can fly but apart from that little problems, but I do hear story's of people getting pretty messed up in the head pretty bad, but I know of no study of it's effects.

[rory_20_uk]

If you take a load of LSD you'll go absolutely crazy. If you take a load of paracetamol you will be dead in roughly 4 days. If you drink too much water you'll die...

Smuggling cigarettes is profitable. They might have what? 10% of the market! Currently criminals have 100% of the market, and they set the price. Knock off cigarettes are cheaper than those on the shelves.

The Triads started out in Hong Kong. They smuggled opiates to the island, both high class stuff and low cost, raw opium. The British gave them the biggest boost and criinal gang has ever gotten: they banned the substance. Suddenly the margins shot through the roof. Now as we may all know the Triads are a massive multinational organisation with their tendrils all over the world.

~:smoking:

[drone]

Touche' Sir. And well-played. We have to yield some of the "it'll reduce crime" argument. Legalization may eventually reduce local crime by elevating the mfg & distro systems into more transparent climes, but the knock-off industry, both local and international, will still thrive, especially in the era of interwebs.

Maybe more aggressive postal and customs regulations could put a dent in such industries. But the track record so far = not so hot.

The tax-avoidance crime is generally determined by how greedy the government is with it's sin tax. For tobacco, the tax is being used as a overt usage deterrent as well as a steady revenue stream, and is probably too high as a result. Simple economic analysis should determine the tax level where smuggling becomes cost-ineffective.

[Tribesman]

The Triads started out in Hong Kong. They smuggled opiates to the island, both high class stuff and low cost, raw opium. The British gave them the biggest boost and criinal gang has ever gotten: they banned the substance. Suddenly the margins shot through the roof. Now as we may all know the Triads are a massive multinational organisation with their tendrils all over the world.


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Well at least your last line is OK , it is true that the groups known as triads have legal and illegal business interests anywhere in the world where there is a chance for them to make some cash...but the rest of your post :no:

[rory_20_uk]

What part are you deriding? Their existence, or that the UK banned the drugs? I'm at work. I'll get some references from home.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

What part are you deriding? Their existence, or that the UK banned the drugs? I'm at work. I'll get some references from home.

Their origins , their early criminal activities and the nature and timing of Britains and Chinas changes in the opium trade and those changes relation to changes in the triads business practices .

[rory_20_uk]

I did not allude to their origins, I said what had given them their boost. I am aware that they had been around for several hundred years previously.

I was referring to the period after Japanese capitulation in 1945 in Hong Kong, when not only had the Japenese destroyed most criminal records regardingt he Triads, but the British military administration banned narcotics, that the Triads had been importing under the Japanese. Sure, they were involved in most other crimes, but the British gave them an entire market, that they then exploited to the full.

~:smoking:

[Goofball]

I disagree.
While they are illegal, their prices are significantly higher and they are available only on the black market via dealers. Once they become legalized, the prices drop and you can sell them openly on the street. I would imagine especially young people who can then afford it will give it a try and possibly end up seriously harmed or dead as a result, costing the taxpayers healthcare because in current society we care for the ill and don't just leave them to die as we used to.

Viking: Hard drugs have a lot more negative effects in comparison to alcohol. You'll end up with a lot more harmed newborns (who did not ask to be harmed while in the womb of an addict or someone who gave the drugs a try), kids who happen to see it on the kitchen counter and similarly, a larger number of addicts (hard drugs are more addictive than soft drugs like alcohol, hence the name) that go through the taxpaid health system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_syndrome

Your argument holds no water (nor vodka for that matter).

Alcohol is a scourge on western society. It is just as bad (if not worse) that "hard" drugs. It certainly has more negative societal effects that marijuana.

[Goofball]

Strike sorry but...
1) drugs makes addiction
2) they costs much and addicted junkie pay everything he has to buy them
3) addicted finally has no cash, so he uses cash of his family, friends and similar
4) family, friends and similar stop giving cash to addicted, so he is starting stealing
5) when strong addicted, he starts commiting serious crimes and generally is dangerous

All in all - community has problems because
1) man became junkie
2) junkie is not paying cash but we have to pay big cash to heal him or to prevent him from commiting crimes
3) junkie's family became poor and we have to pay them
4) junkie spread aids and similar

With drugs legal, it would be dangerous for whole community, because we would have to pay for that junkies.

Sorry Krook but...

1) Booze makes addiction
2) they (booze) costs much and addicted boozer pay everything he has to buy them
3) boozer finally has no cash, so he uses cash of his family, friends and similar
4) family, friends and similar stop giving cash to boozer, so he is starting stealing
5) when strong boozing, he starts commiting serious crimes and generally is dangerous

All in all - community has problems because
1) man became boozer
2) boozer is not paying cash but we have to pay big cash to heal him or to prevent him from commiting crimes
3) boozer's family became poor and we have to pay them
4) boozer spread aids and similar

With booze legal, it is dangerous for whole community, because we would have to pay for that boozers.

That people who have no problem with legal alcohol but think "drugs" should stay illegal are blind to the sameness of the two is sublime in its ridiculousness...

[CountArach]

$4 Billion Well Spent (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090203273.html?hpid=topnews)

Across the Andean region, the size of the coca crop has increased 18 percent in the past five years, a period during which the United States has spent $4 billion on anti-drug programs. With farmers turning to pesticides and modern irrigation to improve crop yields, the amount of cocaine produced in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia -- source countries for nearly all of the global supply -- hovers at 1,100 tons a year, according to a recent U.N. report.

Here in the lush Yungas region of western Bolivia, farmers are allowed by law to plant a total of nearly 30,000 acres of coca -- leaf that is then sold in the domestic market for tea or to be chewed to ward off hunger. But production here far exceeds that threshold, and much of the surplus feeds a cocaine trade thriving in part on the new regional demand of a rising Latin American middle class.

The Andean cocaine supply now exceeds the amount produced in the 1990s, when U.S. policymakers pushed anti-drug aid to the region to counter powerful Colombian cartels. In 1993, when a U.S.-supported police unit shot dead the drug lord Pablo Escobar in his home town of Medellin, the Andes produced 200 fewer tons of cocaine than it did last year.

[CrossLOPER]

Clearly, the only solution is to outsell the drug dealers.

[Xiahou]

From 2006 to 2007, cocaine use among adults ages 18-25 decreased 23 percent to 1.7 percent, the annual report found, and methamphetamine use fell by a third to 0.4 percent.link (http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/09/04/street-drug-use-down--rx-drug-abuse-rising-us.html)

The 50-59 year old set still seems to be loving their drugs, but the younger kids seem to be getting it based on this. Interestingly, abuse of prescription drugs are also up- so we should legalize them. :idea2:

[Fragony]

Drug problem is virtually non-existant here, here we have traffic jams. A very wise politician said that he can't fix it we will just have to deal with it and get up earlier to make it in time. When it comes to drugs other politicians should have the same honesty and just admit that it just cannot be solved.

[LittleGrizzly]

As far as im concerned alcohol is a class A drug, just it isn't illegal, it is certainly worse than most recreational drugs, and if those drugs were legally produced and supplied they would be safer again, my argument isn't that alcohol is more harmful than other drugs so they should be allowed too, my argument is that look at all the fun and good times people who responsibly use alcohol have, why should we restrict other people because there are idiots that abuse these kinds of things....

I think of it as almost similar to driving, there are idiots that take substances well driving or just drive like idiots, but we don't ban everyone from using cars, just the idiots who put others in danger, although obviously cars can be considered more important most people take drugs (from alcohol to pot to H) to have a good time, which i consider just as.... or even more important....