Org Mobile Site
Thread: Hard Drugs should be legal
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
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 alcoholI 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.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
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?Alcohol can produce the same effects and yet it is championed.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
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 bidnessSome 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?
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
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.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
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
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.Alcohol can produce the same effects and yet it is championed.
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.
Originally Posted by :
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.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
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!
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
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.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!
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
I sure hope you exercise everyday
I heard that's unhealthy...I sure hope you exercise everyday
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
Also people who die from drug use don't collect social security
They don't all die, some just suffer mental damage.Also people who die from drug use don't collect social security
Kukri, should we also stop all AIDS campaigns because we still have new infections despite these?
Should be obvious noone listens to them anyway.
Originally Posted by 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.
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!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.
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...
Originally Posted by 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.
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.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.
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.
Originally Posted by BigTex:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Viking:
Sounds like alcohol to me.
You don't see a distinction between alcohol and heroin?Sounds like alcohol to me.
Originally Posted by Viking:
Sounds like alcohol to me.
You're still in control with alcohol unless the use of it is excessive.Sounds like alcohol to me.
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
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...You don't see a distinction between alcohol and heroin?
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.
Dirty needles and unpurities have nothing to do with the drug itself. The adictiveness and bad effects are minor compared to meth or cocaine.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
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.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.
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
p.s. I meant nothing with the "maniac" crack back there. I only just now re-realized it was part of your username. Apologies
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!
Because I'm a commie and I'm out to steal your freedom!
Originally Posted by 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.
Damn right. The only obvious exceptions should be date-rape drugs.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.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
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.Damn right. The only obvious exceptions should be date-rape drugs.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
Damn right. The only obvious exceptions should be date-rape drugs.
Nah, those are half the fun!Damn right. The only obvious exceptions should be date-rape drugs.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
Worse than cirrosis of the liver?
Does cirrhosis occur with a minor or normal consumption level of alcohol? Honest question.Worse than cirrosis of the liver?
Originally Posted by :
p.s. I meant nothing with the "maniac" crack back there. I only just now re-realized it was part of your username. Apologies
No worries, I didn't think you meant it in a personal way at all. p.s. I meant nothing with the "maniac" crack back there. I only just now re-realized it was part of your username. Apologies
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
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.What if someone puts LSD in your drink instead? Maybe I need the "date rape" drug because I like it.
EDIT: Damn it CR, we did it again...
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
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
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
The government has no right to tell me what I can and can not put into my body.
I disagree! The government has no right to tell me what I can and can not put into my body.
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.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
The government has no right to tell me what I can and can not put into my body.
I agree! The government has no right to tell me what I can and can not put into my body.
Incidentally, this is why I think the government has no right to interfere with a woman's wish of abortion.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
Obviously there would be restrictions on giving the drug to people against their will.
EDIT: Damn it CR, we did it again...
Gah! Maybe I should start a socialism thread.Obviously there would be restrictions on giving the drug to people against their will.
EDIT: Damn it CR, we did it again...
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)
Bootlegging = illegal. Whether it's moonshine, heroin or CDs.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO