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.

[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

[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

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?

[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

[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..

[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.

[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

[Viking]

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

Dam right.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

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.

[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.