NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a list here of 5 popular drugs. Note how i don't include morpine/heroin/opium.

Now, judging from today in 2004, assuming these drugs are illegal in your country, why would you decriminalize / legalize the following drugs? And more important: how would you do it? Under which laws would you place them? Or no laws at all?

* Alcohol
* Marihuana
* MDMA
* LSD-25
* Cocaine

Please only reply if you have sufficient knowledge about how these drugs work.

Please only reply if you have sufficient knowledge about how these drugs work.

That leaves me out then, d'oh!

Alcohol = 18+ legal, no sale to under 18s, but no criminal penalties for ages 16+.

Marijuana = Same.

MDMA = 18+, no exceptions, purity regulated and only available from approved and controlled dealers.

LSD = Up until a certain dosage considered legal for ages 18+, strong regulation

Cocaine = Legal, but under strong regulation and taxation to curb demand.

I have a list here of 5 popular drugs. Note how i don't include morpine/heroin/opium.

Now, judging from today in 2004, assuming these drugs are illegal in your country, why would you decriminalize / legalize the following drugs? And more important: how would you do it? Under which laws would you place them? Or no laws at all?

* Alcohol
* Marihuana
* MDMA
* LSD-25
* Cocaine

Please only reply if you have sufficient knowledge about how these drugs work.
Alcohol - legal in Holland
Marihuana - legal (in small amounts, which is a good thing) in Holland
MDMA- Don't know this stuff
LSD - Although it is a pretty "safe" drug (not much washing powder/ratpoison in Acid) I makes you really fucked up. So keep it banned
Cocaine - Again: fucked up, so keep it banned

why - easy, the drug war, aside from any arguments involving civil liberties or freedoms, is compleatly ineffecient at dealing with the drug problem. We learned this 60 years ago with alcohol prohibition. WAY more problems are caused for society because drugs are illegal rather than regulated.

how - Also, rather easy. In Canada and I'm sure America there is a regulated private sector for cigarettes and alcohol. I think the way Ontario has the LCBO and Beer Store are great ways that a federal or provincial/state based company that distributed privatly made regulated narcotics.

That leaves me out then, d'oh!

I guess it leaves out a lot people. Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org) has some informative articles on (these) drugs. In ~2000, History Channel came with a series on TV named 'Illegal drugs and how they got that way". Also very informative, but more from a USA point of view.

If you know about 1 or more drugs individually feel free to make a constructive post on that :)

www.erowid.org has lots of information about drugs

www.erowid.org is also good.

EDIT- Aww, fuck. Thats the second time today.

like www.erowid.org it's a really good site

lol!

MDMA- Don't know this stuff

Its the most important ingredient of ecstacy (aka XTC). If you use it purely the effect is quite different than ecstacy. Wikipedia: MDMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA). Please note MDMA is not the same as ecstacy.

lol

did anyone mention erowid.org?

Had I the power, here's how I'd handle the drugs you mentioned.

Alcohol--completely legal, no drinking age. I'm a firm believer that one of the root causes of binge drinking in teenagers is the taboo associated with breaking the law. Remove the taboo and encourage responsible drinking while in the presence of adults. I've done it with my own daughter and it's working just fine for now.

Marijuana--see alcohol. The only difference is that I'd want government regulation of the product so there would be standards, just like alcoholic beverages have to meet standards for purity, etc. Legalize it, tax it, and slap the same regulations about operating machinery while under the influence on it.

MDMA, Cocaine, LSD-25--I'm a firm believer that you ought to be able to ingest whatever you want to, so I'll be consistent, but I've never seen anything to suggest that MDMA is anything but harmful to the body and the psyche. Same goes for cocaine.

LSD is a different matter, perhaps because I have personal experience with it and know that it can be used safely and doesn't have any habit-forming or addictive properties, but I've also known people who overdid it and are burn victims to this day. My stance on the last three mentioned here is basically this: I'd like them decriminalized, but if you get yourself screwed up and can't work or something like that, you're on your own.

Its the most important ingredient of ecstacy (aka XTC). If you use it purely the effect is quite different than ecstacy. Wikipedia: MDMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA). Please note MDMA is not the same as ecstacy.

MDMA/MDA/MDX are the most common ingreadents of that family in e, but a lot of the times its meth or some other amphetamine.

make sure you know how to tell the differance. not for safety reasons, its all about quality.

MDMA is ecstacy, to the person who didn't know.

I would legalise them all, as I see no point in criminalising someone for something which a person either enjoys safely or has a problem with. In either case, punishment is pointless.

I like the IDEA of purity regulation, but I can't help thinking a black market of cheaper, less reliable stuff would emerge.

There would, of course, be restrictions. For example on driving, as with alcohol now. Age-wise is difficult. I'd say 16 for the first three, and 18 for the second two. LSD because it has the strangest effect, and the more mature the taker, the less chance of being psychologically damaging. Cocaine because it is so addictive and because I don't think anyone under the age of 18 should have the right to afford it.

Oh, btw, MDMA is the main ingredient in ecstasy.


:D Heheheh, couldn't resist.

I like the IDEA of purity regulation, but I can't help thinking a black market of cheaper, less reliable stuff would emerge.

Exactly. How are you going to circumvent that? If you put the tax too high, black markets will remain to erupt. If you don't have education, terrible things might happen too. So how would you do it from the current situation is what i'm wondering about, while 1) ending the war on drugs 2) making and/or keeping the society safe, informed, and not a junkie-state.

Legalize them all for 18+. Sell them at the LCBO. Regulate them all for purity.

When ectasy was legal it was much purer, the reason some E pills have stuff other then MDMA is some of it's analoges as well other other amphetimines are cheeper.

* Alcohol: legal, regulated, taxed. Over 16 for wines, ales and consorts. 18+ for stronger drink
* Marihuana: legal, regulated, taxed. 16 or 18
* MDMA: legal, regulated, taxed. Stricter regulations than for marihuana.
* LSD-25: legal, regulated, taxed. Stricter regulations than for marihuana
* Cocaine: legal, regulated, taxed. Stricter regulations than for marihuana

Mandatory unbiased -if possible- drug education focusing on health, responsibility, harm minimisation, politics. Attention going to pro and con points of view. Discussions with users, addicts.

make sure you know how to tell the differance. not for safety reasons, its all about quality.

(Yeah perhaps i should have included the other brothers of MDMA but i wanted to keep it simple.)

If possible, you should always test your pills at a drug test service point. If you buy multiple pills, just take one to a drug test service point. The policy per service point differs. Some service points won't give the pill back to you, while others will only take a small part of it to test what is in it and how many of it is in it. In this way, you're sure you got a safe pill.

i realy see drugs laws for the most part as just filling up needless hours of police time and so

Alcohol: legal from 15 up because frankly by that point most people are able to get it from somewhere or other anyway.

Marihuana: legal to own legal to buy legal to grow not legal to sell exept as seeds to be grown as it has somewhat worse longterm effects than alcohol it is required that the user is responsible enough to be able to raise a plant before being able to smoke it
(the penalty for selling will be an on the spot fine to which the officer in question must issue confirmation of the fine being payed with both the oficer and sellers signature one copy for records one to the seller)

MDMA: due to its effects sometimes making it hard to recognise danger any one found making use of this substance will be subject to confiscation temporary arrest (untill the effects wear off) and a heavy fine
those selling will be subject to incarceration(minimum 5 years) should theyr product be found to be impure any one selling to under 18s will be subject to simalar imprisonment. there will be no laws on use by over 18s

LSD-25: subject to the same purity laws public laws and age limits as MDMA

Cocaine: subject to same purity and age limits as MDMA

all schools will be required to give an impartial and exact definition of all drugs and their various effects to students at various times through their education including explinations of responsibility and addiction

the all elements government likes to see is people as compitent enough to for the most part look after their own bodys provided they are aware of the risks involved in a given situation

1) All would be restricted to above the age of majority. (The age of majority should be a single age - I'd say either 16, 18, or 20 for various reasons that can be discussed elsewhere.)
2) The quality should fall under public health and fraud laws. You can't put out strictly fatal concoctions or dangerous concoctions without clearly stating such. This would be along the lines of smoking and alcohol warning labels in the US, but probably more dire. Mislabeling would be considered fraud.
3) Knowing intoxication should not be excused legally. DWI murders should carry at least an equal penalty to sober murders, for example. Intoxication may even be considered an aggrivating circumstance.
4) Taxation would be at sales tax levels, if at all.
5) Insurers may legally exclude drug users, or self inflicted drug use damage, contractually.

(Yeah perhaps i should have included the other brothers of MDMA but i wanted to keep it simple.)

If possible, you should always test your pills at a drug test service point. If you buy multiple pills, just take one to a drug test service point. The policy per service point differs. Some service points won't give the pill back to you, while others will only take a small part of it to test what is in it and how many of it is in it. In this way, you're sure you got a safe pill.

;)

ya, there are a lot of sites you can go to and order pill tests from europe. Basically they are testing for PMA or DXM (which doesnt go well with e, not at all...) and i believe that there is a third agent that can get cut into e that is bad, but im not sure what it is.

Most of the stories about other more dangerous things, like glass or sand, are fake, in fact there are no police reports that ever have reported finding those things in pills.

My way:

* Alcohol = 18+

* Marihuana = illegal

* MDMA = illegal

* LSD-25 = illegal

* Cocaine = illegal

You want drugs? Go to Canada and kill yourself with 'em.

My way:

* Alcohol = 18+

* Marihuana = illegal

* MDMA = illegal

* LSD-25 = illegal

* Cocaine = illegal

I'm interested as to why you believe this?

Exactly. How are you going to circumvent that? If you put the tax too high, black markets will remain to erupt. If you don't have education, terrible things might happen too. So how would you do it from the current situation is what i'm wondering about, while 1) ending the war on drugs 2) making and/or keeping the society safe, informed, and not a junkie-state.

Legally regulated production will produce products of guaranteed quality and legal distribution will have a much higher guarantee of reliability. Most people are willing to a bit more for these things. Even in a blackmarket setting the more reliable dealers with a quality product can command higher prices. On top of this, legal means of manufacture and distribution are much more cost effective than blackmarket means. Even with the additions of heavy tax, legal manufacturers would be able to undersell most blackmarket distribution and still turn a profit. The only blackmarket distribution schemes that could even compete costwise with legal distribution would be the ones where manufacture and public distribution were done by the same person or perhaps had one manufacturer who then sold down only one level for distribution - beyond that the increasing need for markup at each level as well as the decreasing quality by cutting and mixing would make it non-competitive. By nature these operations are smaller, more geographically limited, and carry greater risk. With a smaller customer base (as many people will stick to the legal distribution, because if nothing else it is easier to deal with and the product is a known) the financial gain for taking these risks lessens. Eventually market forces would turn blackmarket drug distribution into what bootlegging is to the alcohol industry today. Yes it exists, but its effects are highly localized and nearly negligible.

This may not be as true for marijuana as for other drugs. The plant is relatively easy to grow in a wide array of enviornments. Compared to drugs which must be chemically processed, it is easy to produce. The number of hands the product passes through between production and distribution is small in comparison to other black market drugs. Reliablity in distribution is already high. Unlike other drugs, quality is much easier to discern by sight and smell. Cuts, purity and safety is not really a concern with marijuana (whereas with any pure plant product the addition of extra chemicals increase and quality and safety decrease with mass manufacture). On the other hand, marijuana has been proven to be much safer than the drugs which are already legally available, thus under any reasonable system, it would need less regulation- at least at the production level. If the government would accept this they could look at distribution regulation where marijuana has already been legalized. If the larger scale manufacturers could maintain a profit by selling to authorized sources while at the same time being freed of legal reprocusions then that would go a long way into cutting out large scale, non-localized blackmarket distribuiton even with all the forces which make this drug easier to distribute illegally.

As for keeping the public informed, the first step would be to take all the resources devoted to the anti-drug propagand mis-information machine and apply them to distributing accurate, educational information. The more possible dangers are blatantly over-exaggerated, or the actual dangers are ignored in favor of just saying something is "bad"- the less the real dangers are going to be taken into consideration when a person is attempting to make a judgement. When something is taboo, people who engage in an activity are likely to do so more recklessly. When it is permissible, then people are more likely to realize that they are the ones who are in control and thus excercise their ability to determine personal limits more often. As can by studying the history of the prohibiton of alcohol (or be watching underage or newly of age drinkers in the U.S. as compared with people of the same age group in countries where alcohol use is more acceptable among younger users) making the substance illegal exaggerated the problems associated with usage.

The business of every day living will dictate that we are not turned into a junkie state. Just because drugs are made legal would not mean that one could show up to work or school messed up and not face negative consequences. By and large, people know how to regulate when and how they use. The more real information, and the less taboo a substance is, the greater the degree of self-regulation.

Just like with alcohol, there will be some addicts. However, just like with alcohol the majority of the people who partake will not have problems. Every drug (and many non-drug activities) have users and addicts. Just in the cases of illegal and highly stigmatized substances or activities, no one hears about the casual users because they tend to not volunteer information. Furthermore, if one discusses the reasons and attitudes dealing with the usage of a substance with recreational users vs addicts, one gets a very different picture of why these people use the drugs. Recreational users do so for fun and occasional enhancement. Addicts use to solve personal problems and to escape from certain aspects of life. Most addicts aren't irresponsible hedonist who get tricked by how "fun" a drug is into the addiction. Most walk into it completely aware of what can and probably will happen, but the need to escape renders that fact insignificant. The vast majority of people who will become junkies are going to seek out and find the drugs regardless of legality. Addiction is a maladaptive behavior pattern and drugs are a means, not a cause.

Drugs are for the weak and the stupid who are too useless to harness their own bodies natural highs and so have to substitute them with other substances. They also cause negative health effects. Those drugs you mentioned and other narcotics should remain illegal and steps be taken to make sure that no one uses them and those who carry them are prosectured and removed from society.

Alcohol is fine for small consumption, but being drunk should incur penalties.

[...]

Please only reply if you have sufficient knowledge about how these drugs work.

Drugs are for the weak and the stupid who are too useless to harness their own bodies natural highs and so have to substitute them with other substances. [...]

Alcohol is fine for small consumption.

User does not comprehend: alcohol is a drug.

1) All would be restricted to above the age of majority. (The age of majority should be a single age - I'd say either 16, 18, or 20 for various reasons that can be discussed elsewhere.)
2) The quality should fall under public health and fraud laws. You can't put out strictly fatal concoctions or dangerous concoctions without clearly stating such. This would be along the lines of smoking and alcohol warning labels in the US, but probably more dire. Mislabeling would be considered fraud.
3) Knowing intoxication should not be excused legally. DWI murders should carry at least an equal penalty to sober murders, for example. Intoxication may even be considered an aggrivating circumstance.
4) Taxation would be at sales tax levels, if at all.
5) Insurers may legally exclude drug users, or self inflicted drug use damage, contractually.

Why point 5? Unless of course insurers may legally exclude anyone who engages in any potentially unhealthy or risky behavior (over-eating, over-exposure to cancer causing uv rays, motorcycle riding, extreme sports participation, etc) on a contractual basis as well.

[...]

Just like with alcohol, there will be some addicts. However, just like with alcohol the majority of the people who partake will not have problems. Every drug (and many non-drug activities) have users and addicts. Just in the cases of illegal and highly stigmatized substances or activities, no one hears about the casual users because they tend to not volunteer information. Furthermore, if one discusses the reasons and attitudes dealing with the usage of a substance with recreational users vs addicts, one gets a very different picture of why these people use the drugs. Recreational users do so for fun and occasional enhancement. Addicts use to solve personal problems and to escape from certain aspects of life. Most addicts aren't irresponsible hedonist who get tricked by how "fun" a drug is into the addiction. Most walk into it completely aware of what can and probably will happen, but the need to escape renders that fact insignificant. The vast majority of people who will become junkies are going to seek out and find the drugs regardless of legality. Addiction is a maladaptive behavior pattern and drugs are a means, not a cause.

Although i'm obviously biased, a fair and constructive post if i may say so. However, the reason i did not include morphine, opium and heroin is because those drugs are highly (!) addictive as WWII soldiers, the Chinese, and the Americans have proven before. Even more so than cocaine which is like the 5th included drug to add it a bit to the 'addiction' tour. This while say, Peyote, has not been proven to be addictive. This was on intention, because i did not want the thread to be some generalized-drug-addictive-thread. Though now with this post, i'd like to bring that family up: how do you correlate the high addictiveness of these drugs to your solutions? Do they should also fall under the legislation?

Why point 5? Unless of course insurers may legally exclude anyone who engages in any potentially unhealthy or risky behavior (over-eating, over-exposure to cancer causing uv rays, motorcycle riding, extreme sports participation, etc) on a contractual basis as well.


The point is to help make people aware of the dangers.
And insurance policies should at least address all of those. Higher premiums and rates would probably be sufficient. And some already do - for example my previous insurance policy specifically excluded coverage of injuries from SCUBA diving and parachuting.

My way:

* Alcohol = 18+

* Marihuana = illegal

* MDMA = illegal

* LSD-25 = illegal

* Cocaine = illegal

Why should alcohol, which is by any means of comparison (except lung problems) more harmful than marijuana, be legal if marijuana is not?

Currently in Canada:

Alcohol: Legal 18+

Marijuana: Possesion of under 1/2 ounce worth a fine but no criminal record

MDMA: Illegal

LSD: Illegal

Cocaine: Only legal in hospitals.

Opium-based products: Legal in hospitals, ambulances, private clinics.


My rules:

Alcohol: 18+

Marijuana: Grown by government-regulated companies, treated like tobacco.

MDMA: Illegal. No way to guarantee purity or safety.

Cocaine: 18+

Alcohol - Legal 18+
Reason : Has beneficial health implications if used in reasonable quantities.

Marijuana - Legal for medical reasons under doctor prescription, otherwise illegal.

MDMA/LSD - illegal

Cocaine - only legal in medical treatment under observation by medical staff.

LSD mind shattering trips know to create some wonderful sounds not ment to be heard and mute people with the bad trips

I have a list here of 5 popular drugs. Note how i don't include morpine/heroin/opium.

Now, judging from today in 2004, assuming these drugs are illegal in your country, why would you decriminalize / legalize the following drugs? And more important: how would you do it? Under which laws would you place them? Or no laws at all?

* Alcohol
* Marihuana
* MDMA
* LSD-25
* Cocaine

Please only reply if you have sufficient knowledge about how these drugs work.
* Alcohol:Legal in My Country. Changes/Additions to Law: Drunk Driving First Offense mandatory loss of License for Life. Second Offense Mandatory One year in Jail(with applicable fines.). Third Offence Class "C" Felony-standard sentencing applies.

* Marijuana:Currently Illegal in My Country According to Federal Law. Various State and Cities have adjusted local laws to make a measure of change in the Legal status of Marijuana. I would: Legalize under the exact same restrictions as Tabacco-

* MDMA:Currently Illegal in My Country. MDMA, Legalized as a prescribed pharmaceutical;non-narcotic i.e. viagra,prozac,zoloft.Seeking to lead it to the OTC market.


* LSD-25:Currently Illegal in My Country: Legalized as a prescribed pharmaceutical;non-narcotic i.e. viagra,prozac,zoloft. Seeking to lead it to the OTC market.

* Cocaine:Currently Legal in my Country as Prescribed pharmaceutical;Narcotic. Highly regulated.
I would seek to reduce regulation and eventually return it to the OTC market.

Although i'm obviously biased, a fair and constructive post if i may say so. However, the reason i did not include morphine, opium and heroin is because those drugs are highly (!) addictive as WWII soldiers, the Chinese, and the Americans have proven before. Even more so than cocaine which is like the 5th included drug to add it a bit to the 'addiction' tour. This while say, Peyote, has not been proven to be addictive. This was on intention, because i did not want the thread to be some generalized-drug-addictive-thread. Though now with this post, i'd like to bring that family up: how do you correlate the high addictiveness of these drugs to your solutions? Do they should also fall under the legislation?

Of all the controlled substances, the opiates are not even the most addictive (physically at least; psychological addiction is a bit harder to quantify) . That distinction would fall to the benzodiazepines (xanax, valium, etc.). While time to build tolerance varies, withdrawal symptoms can happen in as few as 2-3 days with regular use. That is faster than with herion. Furthermore, benzo withdrawal is far more physically dangerous - in fact it is potentially deadly, potential for fatality obviously increasing with length of addiction. While opiate withdrawal can be highly unpleasant it is never life threatening. From what I have seen, non-prescription use of benzos is far more prevalent than opiate use, possibly coming second in frequency only to marijuana in recreational usage. Yet most people who use benzos recreationally don't end up with an addiction.

I'm not trying to imply that opiates are not addictive. I'm just trying to put it into perspective.

Most people who are prescribed opiate pain relievers -even morphine or oxycodone - do not end up addicted after a week or two. I feel even that number could be reduced dramatically if instead of yanking the patients off the meds, the doctors would taper dosage to reduce possible withdrawal symptoms in the patients who have begun to acquire a physical dependency. Withdrawals coupled with the type of mental stresses that come with conditions where opiates are prescribed could push a patient over into that dangerous area where a drug meets both psychological and physical need.
As for the number of soldiers who ended up addicted, well, war is perhaps one of the most stressful human endeavors ever. Few come through psychologically unscathed. A person seeking escape stands a much greater chance of ending up addicted.

A great number of people who use opiates, contrary to popular wisdom, never become addicted. The fact that opiates are physically addictive is not a secret. Acquiring an addiction would mean getting high once or twice a day every day for about a week (that would be on the slightly faster side of average). A person using that often is not using recreationally, he or she is using to deal with problems. A person using a substance that they know is addictive with that frequency more or less knows the trade off that they are making. With the exception of people on prescription painkillers who trust their doctors not to get them hooked, people who use opiates on a daily basis are not surprised when physical tolerance and addiction develops.

IF opiates do have a higher than average percentage of users who become addicts (and I am not necessarily convinced they do. The whole phenomena of people who use opiates in a controlled manner is vastly underlooked) then it has more to do with the reasons why a person would choose to use opiates as compared to other drugs. Most people looking for chemical "fun" would find opiates relatively boring. For some people looking to escape stresses, problems, and mental pain opiates are perfect. However, like with other "stress relievers" most people will find that occassional use is sufficient. Few seek that escape every day. Even with opiates, the maladaptive behavior is the cause of the addiction, the drugs the means. There is no reason to think that easier availabilty would increase the number of addictions. Even if more people tried heroin, for the great majority occassional use would be enough, just like for most people the occasional use of alcohol is enough. Yes with opiates psychological and physical addiction come together. Yes, this makes it a little harder to break than an addiction which is only physical or only psychological. But guess what? Alcohol also carries the same "double addiction" hazard.

Do I think opiates should be legalized along with other drugs? Yes. In the first place, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that criminalization decreases usage (alcohol prohibition and the war on drugs) or that legalization increases usage in any signifigant amounts (where marijuana has been legalized or decriminalized usage rates have not really increased). Furthermore, in spite of being the target of drug prohibiton the longest and having the strongest campaign waged against it, heroin is not difficult to get. On the blackmarket it is subject to extremely dangerous cuts, and fluctuating purity levels which make what is a relatively safe drug from a phsyiological level (even long term usage has very little delitorious effect on the human body compared with most other even chemicals - even the legal ones like acetaminophen) dangerous, and makes getting the amount of a drug where knowing how much you are taking greatly improves chances of safety a crapshoot.

Basically, I can't see that there is anything to gain by keeping even the addictive drugs illegal. Legalization would greatly improve safety for all users and remove the psychological and legal barriers that drug users who do become addicts have to face in order to seek recovery. Criminaliztion just increases the danger and misery for so many - occasional users, addicts, the people who live in areas where blackmarket forces lead to gang wars. It is a ludicrous policy.

* Alcohol
* Marihuana <--- Official government spelling :D COOL
* MDMA
* LSD-25
* Cocaine

I oppose all US federal drug laws, including the very existence of the FDA. State laws, even if they are the same, don't bother me as much. If those were up to me all of the above mentioned substances would be perfectly legal for anyone who is legally an adult to purchase, consume, produce, or sell. Minors should need permission from their parents or guardians.


Please don't yell at me. I know my views are unpopular.

I'd put a massive tax on cocaine as it is currently mostly a rich wanker's drug. If it stayed expensive the user profile wouldn't change much but we'd have lots more money to spend on useful stuff. And I'd make a fortune with my "instant estate agent - just add cocaine" tshirts

I have a list here of 5 popular drugs. Note how i don't include morpine/heroin/opium.

Now, judging from today in 2004, assuming these drugs are illegal in your country, why would you decriminalize / legalize the following drugs? And more important: how would you do it? Under which laws would you place them? Or no laws at all?

* Alcohol
* Marihuana
* MDMA
* LSD-25
* Cocaine

Please only reply if you have sufficient knowledge about how these drugs work.

Ban them all! Except alcohol, as long as the age is 18+.

I've only experimented with alcohol and marijuana, but regardless of that, on principle, it is not the government's business to stop us from hurting ourselves, only each other.

Legalize all drugs. ALL DRUGS.

And then we can treat heroin addicts without criminalizing them. We can get safe needles out there and slow the spread of disease. Hell, with some government oversight like the FDA does for food, drug ODs could be drastically reduced.

I'd keep the same restrictions on alcohol and marijuana. No operation of machinery while under the influence. Both would be subject to the same tax formula that cigarettes are.

The rest I would keep illegal.

MDMA: Illegal. No way to guarantee purity or safety.


You can guarantee both purity and safety the same way you do it with ibuprofen.

Legalise everything.* But the second I steal something to feed the monkey, lock me up with the other chimps.

*Drugs, I mean.

Ban them all! Except alcohol, as long as the age is 18+.

Again: since alcohol is by virtually every means of comparison more harmful than marijuana, why not ban alcohol too?

They can't ban alcohol cause they already tried.

They would like to, but admit to themselves that it's a hopeless cause.

So they try to draw a firm line in front of pot.

The funny thing is, they try to draw this line by arguing alcohol really isn't a drug. They say "booze and drugs".

Even though alcohol is one of the most deadly and harmful drugs this country has.

Do not interpret that last statement to mean I would ban booze, I think we have the freedom to fuck ourselves up, without Big Brother telling us we can't.

Again: since alcohol is by virtually every means of comparison more harmful than marijuana, why not ban alcohol too?

Alcohol can be used in moderation. You can drink a couple of beers without getting yourself mentally impaired. Others choose to abuse it causing America's alcholism problem. But this is not something that everybody will do! I don't think marijuana should be legal and I don't buy the whole "It doesn't harm you" bit. The sad fact is that people take something that for the most part people drink a couple during a football game and not get wasted night after night. From the origional question posted, I sure as hell don't wand LSD or cocaine legal. I don't think we want people high on this stuff everywhere. Especially that once it's legal it will turn into the governments responsiblity to get them clean again after they do something stupid.

Alcohol can be used in moderation.

So can any drug. Depends if you want to use it in moderation.

I don't think we want people high on this stuff everywhere.

Newsflash: They already are.

Especially that once it's legal it will turn into the governments responsiblity to get them clean again after they do something stupid.

This does not follow from legalizing drugs. You screw up, your problem. Check yourself into rehab like we do now.

I oppose all US federal drug laws, including the very existence of the FDA. State laws, even if they are the same, don't bother me as much. If those were up to me all of the above mentioned substances would be perfectly legal for anyone who is legally an adult to purchase, consume, produce, or sell. Minors should need permission from their parents or guardians.


Please don't yell at me. I know my views are unpopular.

do you realize that the FDA protects our FOOD from impurities like rat feces, Bacterium and knowing that the sausage your eating came from a pig not a mix of rats, Mice, cockroaches and other dirty things.

[QUOTE=Chodolo]So can any drug. Depends if you want to use it in moderation.

You think you can use coke or heroin in "moderation?"

Everything is available to all adults, at the market price.

In addition to the education leaflets which accompany each purchase, there are informational spots in various media about side effects, interactions, etc.

For instance, one guy I know took ecstasy and viagra, and ruptured himself in a very painful place. (true story)

Out the gate.
Facinating how some though that the legal age for Alcohol should be below 18. It would place a portion of a population in a position to be able to drink beyond a responsible capacity, without being able to be held completely responsible for any resulting actions, because they would not legally be considered adults.

* Alcohol
* Marihuana
* MDMA
* LSD-25
* Cocaine
All legal ages for these should be first linked with the defining line between adulthood and childhood. If you aren't old enough to be held COMPLETELY accountable for your actions, you should not be allowed to enjoy these freedoms. If that means you feel the legal age should be 16, then 16 should be the year you are considered an adult, where you could face full prosecution for abusing a legal substance (as well as prosecution for any other crime).

However, I would make the legal age for any controlled substance use several years higher than the age at which a driver's license is available. I would want there to be several years of experience handling a 3000 lb potential machine of destruction between starting to drive, and starting to drink or use drugs. Learning to walk before learning to fly, so to speak. Although many adults do drink at home, more drink at locations they must go to. Which means they must then return home in an inebriated state. Which means they will potentially be on the road, surrounded by a cage of metal and glass, potentially endangering the lives of others. (see Drunk Driving statistics)

Any substance which would need to be processed by any method more complicated than picking and drying (Alcohol, MDMA, LSD, Cocaine in this case) would be subject to strict government standards for quality control, much like simple aspirin and other, over-the-counter medications. An organization such as the FDA would be responsible for overseeing this, again much like simple aspirin, to ensure that someone is indeed purchasing a product as advertised. Without regulation, you could be buying "St. John's Cocaine" which would bear no resemblance in content to actual cocaine.

For the record, picking and drying the leaves of the Coca plant is NOT making cocaine. Pot, on the other hand, requires nothing more than picking and drying before it is ready for use. Pot smokers show a lower tendancey for violence (People who are stoned laugh at the idea of fighting, where as drunken fights are far too common) and also show a remarkable tolerance for the truth (when a pot smoker is too stoned to drive, they have no qualms about telling this fact to ANYONE in the vicinity, where as a drunk individual will defend their ability to drive even as they are losing their ability to speak and stand). In a world where I would dicate Drug laws, Pot would be considered a vegetable, subject to the same regulations as vegetables sold in a supermarket, sold in seed form anywhere vegetable seeds are sold, and growable for personal use the same as any other vegetable. Anyone who wished to grow and sell it in mass quantities would be subject to the same regulations as any other farmer.

Processed substances (defined above) which are stronger and have a more marked effect on the individual would be subject to overly strict, NON-JAILABLE penalties attached to the abuse there of. If the state/government can indefinitely revoke your driver's license for failure to pay child support, they can certainly revoke your right to drive for alcohol abuse/cocaine abuse/LSD abuse/MDMA abuse. High fines, seizure of property (and car), public registration for repeat offenders, Electronic House Arrest and other penalties are good examples of ways to attempt to deter people from repeating crimes directly involving these controlled substances. If an individual continues to abuse a substance, thereby putting others at risk around them, stronger penalties and mandatory re-education would be necessary. This would avoid filling jails with first-time offenders, and allow many to attempt to learn NOT to abuse, before they ever saw prison time.

Crimes INDIRECTLY involving these substances (robbery to buy cocaine, or of cocaine for example, murder under the influence, just for two examples) should face much harsher penalties than Crimes that didn't involve a controlled substance. If you were hallucinating on LSD when you murdered your best friend, you face longer prison time, as well as lengthy reeducation.

This of course, opens up the possibility of consuming a substance involuntarily. Someone spikes your drink with LSD, you SOMEHOW don't realize you are trippin till you are behind the wheel and you kill a family of four. You might not have even been at a bar. You might have been at work where a co-worker wanted your job, and spiked your coffee. This opens up a can of worms and a large number of legal loopholes. Do you make a special case for instances like this (just like temporary insanity for murder) where if you can prove you were not responsible for the drug consumption, your penalty is lowered? Possibly.

I think that covers the basics of my opinions.

The reason alcohol is less dangerous than the other drugs is because its sold legally.

Basically, I can't see that there is anything to gain by keeping even the addictive drugs illegal. Legalization would greatly improve safety for all users and remove the psychological and legal barriers that drug users who do become addicts have to face in order to seek recovery. Criminaliztion just increases the danger and misery for so many - occasional users, addicts, the people who live in areas where blackmarket forces lead to gang wars. It is a ludicrous policy.

WOW

you really know your stuff...

I liked this paragraph though.

Its ridiculous for a government to think that the most effective way to control a substance is to make it illegal.

[QUOTE=Chodolo]So can any drug. Depends if you want to use it in moderation.

You think you can use coke or heroin in "moderation?"



It happens all the time

do you realize that the FDA protects our FOOD from impurities like rat feces, Bacterium and knowing that the sausage your eating came from a pig not a mix of rats, Mice, cockroaches and other dirty things.
Actually, depending on the food, certain levels of contanimants are allowed. Some might find these levels unnacceptable, while others don't really care how much rat crap they eat, as long as it still tastes like food. The proper solution is to dissolve the FDA and the USDA and allow private enterprise to take over. Private organizations are perfectly cappable of ensuring whatever standards consumers want. Consider that what effect the IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) has had on the safety of automobiles.

Personally, I'd like to be able to purchase fresh (not homogenized) cow's milk, but current regulations don't allow that. Food regulations exist to serve the purpose of large scale producers.

It happens all the time

not for very long

not for very long

Absolutely. I know plenty of people who used cocaine occasionally and now that they have reponsibilities beyond their own self-gratification, they no longer use cocaine. All without the intervention of quasimedical professionals and Bill W. Imagine that.

I have a list here of 5 popular drugs. Note how i don't include morpine/heroin/opium.

Now, judging from today in 2004, assuming these drugs are illegal in your country, why would you decriminalize / legalize the following drugs? And more important: how would you do it? Under which laws would you place them? Or no laws at all?

* Alcohol
* Marihuana
* MDMA
* LSD-25
* Cocaine

Please only reply if you have sufficient knowledge about how these drugs work.

I see no reason to legalize the drugs, however, I would make sure the police target the dealers, not the users - punish the criminal, not the victim.

I do drugs. I'm not a victim. I'm an adult making an informed choice.

I have a list here of 5 popular drugs. Note how i don't include morpine/heroin/opium.

Now, judging from today in 2004, assuming these drugs are illegal in your country, why would you decriminalize / legalize the following drugs? And more important: how would you do it? Under which laws would you place them? Or no laws at all?

* Alcohol
* Marihuana
* MDMA
* LSD-25
* Cocaine

Please only reply if you have sufficient knowledge about how these drugs work.

Alcohol = legal
Cannabis = Illegal to sell or carry large amounts, but legal to carry in small quantities.

The rest should remain illegal in my opinion.

I would legalize due to several factors which are specific to the US, but may apply elsewhere.

1. Drug war rationale has undermined the Bill of Rights. Specifically the 4th and 10th Amendments.

2. Drug use has remained fairly constant regardless of resources applied to stop it.

3. Drug prohibition denies to the paties involved the legal means to settle disputes, leaving only violent means.

4. Drug interdiction has been a failure, as indicated by the relatively stable street prices of illicit drugs.

5. Drug money contributes to the corruption of law enforcement in both consuming and producing nations.

6. Drug prohibition means there are no standards of purity or safety.

There are many more reasons to end this idiotic policy, but I'll leave it at 6 for the sake of brevity.

My way:

0-18, it's up to the parents.

18+ whatever you can afford, enjoy!

That's it.

I'd appreciate it if someone who has come out against the legalization of any of these narcotics would expand their opinion as to have some discussion

:rolleyes:

I see no reason to legalize the drugs, however, I would make sure the police target the dealers, not the users - punish the criminal, not the victim.

You see no reason to legalize the drugs?

How about, freedom?

You see no reason to legalize the drugs?

How about, freedom?

lol, it doesnt even have to be about freedom

even if you hate drugs, you have to see how futile and how much of a waste the "war on drugs" is

Legalise everything.* But the second I steal something to feed the monkey, lock me up with the other chimps.

*Drugs, I mean.

Definitely. Nothing justifies crimes which actually have a victim.

And while some addicts do steal to feed their addiction, the numbers are nowhere as larger and the problem nowhere as big as the propaganda has made it out to be. Even so, legalizing drugs would cause even these numbers to decrease. In the first place, even with companies making a handsome profit and high taxes, prices can easily be cheaper than street prices. But more important, is the psychology involved. A person has to cross a psychological barrier in order to commit a crime. The more taboo a crime (and face it, although these substances may all be equally illegal, using some is thought of as worse than using others) the greater the barrier. If a person has internalized the message that by being addicted to a certain substance that they are already no better (and possibly even worse) than thieves, then committing that second crime is that much easier. Psychologically and socially, there is nothing to lose by stealing. Combined with the practical reality that petty theft nets a person less prison time on average than possession of certain substances then the cost becomes even less.

Prior to illegalization of narcotics, addicts were integrated into the community, much like alcoholics are today. A person who is seen as having a problem, but who is still considered part of the community and not part of some deviant subculture set against it - a person who is not marginalized- is far less likely to commit an anti-social act. It's basic psychology.

It is very much worth noting that during the years that both alcohol and morphine were equally legal a study of the historical records reflecting public and legal opinion shows that alcoholics, because of their violent and erratic behavior were considered a greater threat to society than morphine addicts.

I have a list here of 5 popular drugs. Note how i don't include morpine/heroin/opium.

Now, judging from today in 2004, assuming these drugs are illegal in your country, why would you decriminalize / legalize the following drugs? And more important: how would you do it? Under which laws would you place them? Or no laws at all?

* Alcohol
* Marihuana
* MDMA
* LSD-25
* Cocaine

Please only reply if you have sufficient knowledge about how these drugs work.

all drugs, including those you posted, should be completely and totally legal. there should not be any limit to how much any individual may own or consume. legal restrictions should still apply for certain behaviors while under the influence (no driving, opporating heavy machinery, target practice, etc), but there should be no laws restricting consumption of any drugs, at any time, for any reason, by any person.

all drugs should be maintained with standards of purity and quality equivalent to those maintained by the FDA for other products. ingredients and interaction warnings should be clearly marked.

the government should not at any time be responsible for medical costs incurred due to drug use; the individual should bear 100% of the burden if he/she chooses to abuse drugs.

the government is not your mommy or your daddy. people need to learn self control and take responsibility for their own actions.

all drugs, including those you posted, should be completely and totally legal. there should not be any limit to how much any individual may own or consume. legal restrictions should still apply for certain behaviors while under the influence (no driving, opporating heavy machinery, target practice, etc), but there should be no laws restricting consumption of any drugs, at any time, for any reason, by any person.

all drugs should be maintained with standards of purity and quality equivalent to those maintained by the FDA for other products. ingredients and interaction warnings should be clearly marked.

the government should not at any time be responsible for medical costs incurred due to drug use; the individual should bear 100% of the burden if he/she chooses to abuse drugs.

the government is not your mommy or your daddy. people need to learn self control and take responsibility for their own actions.

I fully agree. What's ironic is the comment about taking responsibility. That's like a conservative buzzword...and they are the ones putting addicts in jail, trying to raise the alcohol age even further, and generally waging the hopeless "war on drugs".

So much for "personal responsibility".

Someone should use that line on a Republican during a debate, when they start talking about "reforming welfare" (aka, cutting people from it), and going on about how we need to stop depending on the government and just take some responsibility in our lives. ;)

Alcohol = 18+ legal, no sale to under 18s, but no criminal penalties for ages 16+.

Marijuana = Same.

MDMA = 18+, no exceptions, purity regulated and only available from approved and controlled dealers.

LSD = Up until a certain dosage considered legal for ages 18+, strong regulation

Cocaine = Legal, but under strong regulation and taxation to curb demand.

Probably like this, excepting I would also want to decriminalise growing up to 5 Cannabis plants for personal use to curb black market sales.
The regulation of designer drugs such as amphetamine analogues (MDMA, MDA, etc.) and hallucinigens is certainly a difficult issue. Needs to be a lot more research done on these drugs.

I for one volunteer! :p

There is no other reason for drugs being illegal other than that they are dangerous. Well, so are cleaning supplies. Ever swallowed some Mr. Clean? If you haven't, its probobly because you're not an idiot. People understand that they should not swallow Mr. Clean because it's dangerous. If drugs were legal, the same would apply to them.
WE are ALL paying for the war on drugs; to put drug users in jail where they can get more drugs and free food and housing.
All drugs were legal before 1914. Americans did not have drug problems until after that year.
Keeping drugs illegal keeps the black market profits in criminal hands, instead of in the hands of respectable business owners.

[QUOTE=Terra - Domina]I'd appreciate it if someone who has come out against the legalization of any of these narcotics would expand their opinion as to have some discussion [QUOTE]

Alcohol - Current laws (21 years old) seem OK to me. Sold under gov. license.
Grass - Legalize (30 years old) and dispense in goverment supervised area (Holland model). Heavy penalities for DWI
MDMA - Keep as Class III narcotic. Not enough research to justify legalization.
LSD - Keep as Class III narcotic. Too mind altering to allow free use.
Cocaine - Keep as Class III narcotic. Dangerous to Cartio-vascular system. Like amphetamines can cause heart attack.

[QUOTE=Terra - Domina]I'd appreciate it if someone who has come out against the legalization of any of these narcotics would expand their opinion as to have some discussion [QUOTE]

Alcohol - Current laws (21 years old) seem OK to me. Sold under gov. license.
Grass - Legalize (30 years old) and dispense in goverment supervised area (Holland model). Heavy penalities for DWI
MDMA - Keep as Class III narcotic. Not enough research to justify legalization.
LSD - Keep as Class III narcotic. Too mind altering to allow free use.
Cocaine - Keep as Class III narcotic. Dangerous to Cartio-vascular system. Like amphetamines can cause heart attack.

I myself just can't believe that people are willing to leagalize these dangerous narcotics. The arguement that people are smart enough to make their own decisions in this regard is totally dumb. People are stupid. It is a scientific fact. Why else would people be willing to use cocaine? That people can use such a drug in moderation is foolish. Legality certainly won't change it's addictiveness. While legality would end the violence in the trade instead it will leave us with a bunch of people with a nasty monkey on their backs. Who says drugs would be any cheaper legal anyway? There are plenty of legal drugs out there that are amazingly expensive and other than grass I doubt very seriously that anyone will get a perscription for coke or meth. These drugs are dangerous! With the incredible impact on you there is no way that the chance can be taken on their becoming legal. Explain to me how someone high on PCP who is around others is making a choice that only affects them? Comparing these hard drugs to alcohol is totally wrong. Alcohol won't harm you in the slightest when used in moderation but if your unlucky you first experience with crack will kill you. People need to wake up and not legalize everything that makes them feel good. How selfish is that? Some of these things are very dangerous. Besides, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. The only change I feel we need is more emphasis on drug treatment and even stiffer sentences on drug dealers. My two cents.

I myself just can't believe that people are willing to leagalize these dangerous narcotics. The arguement that people are smart enough to make their own decisions in this regard is totally dumb. People are stupid. It is a scientific fact. Why else would people be willing to use cocaine? That people can use such a drug in moderation is foolish. Legality certainly won't change it's addictiveness. While legality would end the violence in the trade instead it will leave us with a bunch of people with a nasty monkey on their backs. Who says drugs would be any cheaper legal anyway? There are plenty of legal drugs out there that are amazingly expensive and other than grass I doubt very seriously that anyone will get a perscription for coke or meth. These drugs are dangerous! With the incredible impact on you there is no way that the chance can be taken on their becoming legal. Explain to me how someone high on PCP who is around others is making a choice that only affects them? Comparing these hard drugs to alcohol is totally wrong. Alcohol won't harm you in the slightest when used in moderation but if your unlucky you first experience with crack will kill you. People need to wake up and not legalize everything that makes them feel good. How selfish is that? Some of these things are very dangerous. Besides, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. The only change I feel we need is more emphasis on drug treatment and even stiffer sentences on drug dealers. My two cents.
Interesting arguement, but most drug users I know are moderate in thier use, despite the fact that they use a wide range of drugs. Alcohol may not harm when used in moderation but is often much more difficult to use moderately, due to the poor decision making it causes. The poeple who would get a 'Monkey on their back' in most cases already do. In the end if someone is going to abuse drugs they will find a way to, better to regulate it than have bodies dropping everywhere. Many drugs have been used for thousands of years without detrimental effect to individuals or societies, why should they have been wrong?
But your sure right about PCP - stuff like that is definitely not cool!!!

Id leave alcohol alone. But I d alter marajuana laws.

However as stoners rarely cause criminal damage and rarely get ill or hurt themselves as a result, the cost to society is low, so the tax would me.

Initially id keep tax high to stop the whole country rushing for it. Id then allow legitimate companies to sell it. Theyd be able to out compete gangsters who presently make money through smuggling it etc, as so drive them out of business. (drugs fund terrorism)

The cost to society of having to repair your damage as as result of other drugs, however is greater. LSD can have lasting effects, and can be overdosed on funnily enough. Ecstacy doesnt kill like aspirin, but for those of us who arent allergic to aspirin (im athsmatic so I avoid it) its actually good for you. However it gives people a high, and what it giveth, it taketh away later. So Id research it before taking any more action.

Cocaine damages people and as a taxpayer I wouldnt want to pay for other people's excesses. So if it was legalised it would have to be taxed to f**K to cover the damage. Its addictive too, which removes free will. So on principle id keep it illegal.

People are stupid. The government does know better, sometimes they lie to us, but if it were honest and did what was best for us, rather than what will win them votes, this is what I beleive it would do.

* Alcohol - legal for 18+ (i.e. adults)
* Marihuana - legal for 18+
* MDMA - legal for 18+
* LSD-25 - legal for 18+
* Cocaine - legal for 18+

and treatment centres for anyone who has problems with such substances.

and the coccaine ones would be a bit of a problem in a sense, i doubt many stores would stock it with the risks involved, though those should be decreased with the legality of the product.

Interesting arguement, but most drug users I know are moderate in thier use, despite the fact that they use a wide range of drugs. Alcohol may not harm when used in moderation but is often much more difficult to use moderately, due to the poor decision making it causes. The poeple who would get a 'Monkey on their back' in most cases already do. In the end if someone is going to abuse drugs they will find a way to, better to regulate it than have bodies dropping everywhere. Many drugs have been used for thousands of years without detrimental effect to individuals or societies, why should they have been wrong?
But your sure right about PCP - stuff like that is definitely not cool!!!

That's the thing with people using drugs in the past. I don't know any figures, but I am quite sure that there were any crack, PCP, meth and other such hard drugs that really mess with your head. Smoking a little grass is one thing, but this suff is real bad news. I doubt the Romans had to deal with crack addicts.

Id leave alcohol alone. But I d alter marajuana laws.

However as stoners rarely cause criminal damage and rarely get ill or hurt themselves as a result, the cost to society is low, so the tax would me.

Initially id keep tax high to stop the whole country rushing for it. Id then allow legitimate companies to sell it. Theyd be able to out compete gangsters who presently make money through smuggling it etc, as so drive them out of business. (drugs fund terrorism)

The cost to society of having to repair your damage as as result of other drugs, however is greater. LSD can have lasting effects, and can be overdosed on funnily enough. Ecstacy doesnt kill like aspirin, but for those of us who arent allergic to aspirin (im athsmatic so I avoid it) its actually good for you. However it gives people a high, and what it giveth, it taketh away later. So Id research it before taking any more action.

Cocaine damages people and as a taxpayer I wouldnt want to pay for other people's excesses. So if it was legalised it would have to be taxed to f**K to cover the damage. Its addictive too, which removes free will. So on principle id keep it illegal.

People are stupid. The government does know better, sometimes they lie to us, but if it were honest and did what was best for us, rather than what will win them votes, this is what I beleive it would do.

With this opinion I hope you feel the same way with tobacco. Heatlh costs are skyrocketing and with tens of thousands of death in the US do to tobacco I wonder what the costs will turn to if we sock it to the people smoking the cancer sticks.

Before I start this Utracia, I hope you understand the term legal precidence, as it is very important here in pointing out hypocrasies in not only your argument but in the governments position on drugs


The arguement that people are smart enough to make their own decisions in this regard is totally dumb. People are stupid. It is a scientific fact. Why else would people be willing to use cocaine?

First: Which scientific fact points to the fact that people are stupid? In fact all empirical evidence we have (which means scientific evidence) shows that humans are the more intelligent species on the planet.

Second: You claim that people are not smart enough to make their own descisions, though your constitution claims otherwise. Giving people freedom means that they are free but responsable for their actions. Since you have given no evidence to support you claim I am able to compare your statement to the government saying "Gee, people are too stupid to make descisions through a vote" and following your logic we have fascism.

:)

Third: Why people are willing to use cocaine isnt the issue. People shouldnt have to justify their actions to authority so long as they arent doing anything wrong. Tell me what is WRONG with going out one night and using some meth and not hurting anyone (which I have done, and I haven't used meth since). Not to just defer to alcohol, but similar arguments were used against it in the 1930s, and that worked so well.

That people can use such a drug in moderation is foolish. Legality certainly won't change it's addictiveness. While legality would end the violence in the trade instead it will leave us with a bunch of people with a nasty monkey on their backs.

Nobody says that legalizing drugs would make them less addictive, that is a chemical component of the narcotic. But once again, science comes in and shows us that NICOTEEN is WAY more addictive than the majority of controled substances and is either tied with heroin or more addictive. Legal precidence.

Legal narcotics would also make dealing with the addicts much easier. Instead of criminals commiting a crime, or doing something wrong (what a nice confidence boost that must be to the struggling junkie) they are sick people in need of help.

Much less of a monkey than we currently have.

Who says drugs would be any cheaper legal anyway? There are plenty of legal drugs out there that are amazingly expensive and other than grass I doubt very seriously that anyone will get a perscription for coke or meth. These drugs are dangerous! With the incredible impact on you there is no way that the chance can be taken on their becoming legal.

Histroy shows that the black market has a much higher mark up ratio than the corporate sector. Here is how things normally go down in Ontario as cigarettes raise in price.

As the now legal cigarettes approach the $10 a pack level it becomes less expensive for people to buy blackmarket cigarettes, and they do. There is proof of this in the 1980s. As a result the government was forced to cut taxes on cigarettes.

Basically, the black market would act as a limit on how much private companies could distribute the narcotics for, as if they made the prices too high they would loose profit.

Explain to me how someone high on PCP who is around others is making a choice that only affects them?

Well, then new laws come into play that already exist in regards to alcohol or just genuinely rowdy behaviour. Its called public decency law.

So, basically, if you cant be stupidly drunk in public without being thrown in a drunk tank, the same would go for drugs.

I'm also going to assume you have never done pcp, which means you probably have no idea how a user feels during the trip, so to speak as if you do know is ignorant.

And seriously, you can't believe that every time anyone does pcp they hurt someone or do something wrong. thats nieve.

Comparing these hard drugs to alcohol is totally wrong. Alcohol won't harm you in the slightest when used in moderation but if your unlucky you first experience with crack will kill you.

Once again you dont understand the idea of legal precidence. Drugs are compared to alcohol because it can be used in moderation but it can also be horrible if used improperly. My being alive and not addicted to any chemicals is proof that moderate use of "dangerous" substances is possible.

The reason that crack can cause you to die like that is the impurities that are cut into it when its baked. Something health regulations would take care of. This accounts for heroin instant death as well.

People need to wake up and not legalize everything that makes them feel good. How selfish is that? Some of these things are very dangerous.

Legal precidence again, please refer to alcohol and tobacco. oh, and suicide is legal, its pretty dangerous.

Besides, there is no such thing as a victimless crime.

me smoking a joint right now?

you might be able to argue that i am victimizing myself, but as i am able to consent i am no longer the victim.

Me doing coke or acid?

once again, me.

Me beating someone up while intoxicated (be it heroin or cafeene)?

Victim! but the crime is the beating. see, logic... wow

The only change I feel we need is more emphasis on drug treatment and even stiffer sentences on drug dealers.

i agree with you about treatment, though im sure in differant ways

yes, and america needs more people locked away in prisons that it already has, especially for trivial matters of law

My two cents.

lol, not enough it would seem

Id leave alcohol alone. But I d alter marajuana laws.

However as stoners rarely cause criminal damage and rarely get ill or hurt themselves as a result, the cost to society is low, so the tax would me.

Initially id keep tax high to stop the whole country rushing for it. Id then allow legitimate companies to sell it. Theyd be able to out compete gangsters who presently make money through smuggling it etc, as so drive them out of business. (drugs fund terrorism)

The cost to society of having to repair your damage as as result of other drugs, however is greater. LSD can have lasting effects, and can be overdosed on funnily enough. Ecstacy doesnt kill like aspirin, but for those of us who arent allergic to aspirin (im athsmatic so I avoid it) its actually good for you. However it gives people a high, and what it giveth, it taketh away later. So Id research it before taking any more action.

Cocaine damages people and as a taxpayer I wouldnt want to pay for other people's excesses. So if it was legalised it would have to be taxed to f**K to cover the damage. Its addictive too, which removes free will. So on principle id keep it illegal.

People are stupid. The government does know better, sometimes they lie to us, but if it were honest and did what was best for us, rather than what will win them votes, this is what I beleive it would do.

wow...

Alcohol - 18
Weed - 16/18
Crack - 18 - strict regulations
MDMA - 18 - strict regulations
LSD - 18 - strict regulations

And guess what? I'm never going to drugs in this lifetime. So don't just assume that I'm a potsmoking loser.