NationStates Jolt Archive

I have always had the opinion that drugs should be legalised, and sold freely by the state. I dont take drugs, but i think we can learn from the prohibition era that banning things which are popular wont solve anything. If drugs are sold by the state, then we can control it, we know that the drugs are pure, and drugs wont fung the criminal underground. Your thoughts?

What kind of drugs are you talking about?

The ones that can be regulated for purity and aren't dangerous, yeah.

Oh! Oh, right. Silly me ;)

all drugs.

Actually, now I think about it, stuff it. If they're dangerous/highly addictive and people want to take them, go for it, it's not my body. Should still be monitored to ensure relatively safe usage however.

Drugs are bad. They are a false idol that takes your mind off Jesus. God gave you a good body and soul and drugs destroy both. I thank God every day that George W Bush is letting government pay for faith based drug treatment programs because only Jesus has the power to save people from adiction

It would also mean the state wouldn't have to waste money trying to fight a battle it won't win. It will instead make money.

Drugs are bad. They are a false idol that takes your mind off Jesus. God gave you a good body and soul and drugs destroy both. I thank God every day that George W Bush is letting government pay for faith based drug treatment programs because only Jesus has the power to save people from adiction

Go away, troll.

Drugs are bad. They are a false idol that takes your mind off Jesus. God gave you a good body and soul and drugs destroy both. I thank God every day that George W Bush is letting government pay for faith based drug treatment programs because only Jesus has the power to save people from adiction
'God' gave me a body that was cursed! The only good thing about it is the mind.

I use marijuana and it is not destroying my body, nor is it destroying my mind.

And, I do not need anyone that doesn't exist to save me, you know why? Because not all drugs are addictive.

It's time for you to stop eating from the trough that is fueled by the mass-media which suffers from the hype of the state. You know, that the only reason drugs are "bad" in the first place is because the government tried to ban them because they didn't want Mexicans using them! THen when it was discovered other were, they then made up false lies in order to justify their undemocratic actions.

Yes. With reservations however. I definitely think they should be decriminalised, but legal? Could get nasty. Anyway, part of the fun is that you've gotta dodge the cops, it'd be boring without. I'd rather have it that the maximum penalty for possession is confiscation and the maximum for (unlicensed?) dealing is £50 fine. More fun all round, plus confiscation allows for resale. Imagine buying dope in a police auction... how fun would that be? :D

All drugs should be legaised and sold cheaply vie pharmacies, simply because drugs are accountable for 95% of all crimes, and most of these are to fund people's habits. Make them cheaper and people won't need to commit crime to feed their habits.

Yes.

Drugs are bad. They are a false idol that takes your mind off Jesus. God gave you a good body and soul and drugs destroy both. I thank God every day that George W Bush is letting government pay for faith based drug treatment programs because only Jesus has the power to save people from adiction


Heh, well, on another note, ignoring the obvious troll nature of that, there's a song that goes "Wanted by the U.S. Government. The Lord God almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. For the creation and cultivation of the plant marijuana on the planet earth."

How true- God made it, so how can it be morally wrong to use it?!?

only Jesus has the power to save people from adiction
Interesting that the bastard forgot to mention this when I quit speed, cannabis, tobacco and finally caffeine. There was me thinking I'd quit with the support of my friends and family!

How come Jesus never told me he'd helped me quit? I feel awful now, knowing that once again it was a Jew that came to my rescue (as with a dire financial situation that one rescued me from, Hurrah!) and once again I've not really thanked him.

What other things can he cure addictions to? I quite like the smell of cheese. Foot cheese.

Drugs are bad. They are a false idol that takes your mind off Jesus. God gave you a good body and soul and drugs destroy both. I thank God every day that George W Bush is letting government pay for faith based drug treatment programs because only Jesus has the power to save people from adiction

So why couldn't jesus help the kids in africa who are dying of aids?

I agree with the poster that the Drug war is a losing war. Prohibition taught us that having a ban on something the public wants will only cause more seedy business to spawn to supply the populace.

Also, considering that cigarettes and alcohol are equally if not more harmful than some illegal drugs it seems a little contradictory to ban those that hurt a person far less. I don't know how the legalization should be handled, whether by the government or business to take over the production and supply of drugs, but either way, the system should be heavily regulated to keep impurities out of produced drugs.

I say legalize them but regulate them. Marijuanna is ok, it's not addictive and you can't overdose. Treat that like cigarettes. Treat LSD, Mushrooms, and MDMA like alcohol (must be 21 to purchase in the USA). Cocaine and Heroin should be more heavilly regulated and taxed in order to reduce the number of people who become addicted.

I think that nothing good can come from drugs (except rock music :D, becuase, really, where would we be without albums like Sgt. Pepper's Lonley Hearts Club?), but I think it should be up to the people to decide, not the government. Punish the irresponsible, the people who rape and kill while intoxicated, not the ones who are still able to function :).

The ones that can be regulated for purity and aren't dangerous, yeah.

Any chemical can be dangerous if it is ingested by the wrong person or used improperly. Drugs like Crystal Meth, which makes people feel invincible have no business ever being legal.

Drugs that are harmless over a short term, like marijuana or absinthe, should be made legal and properly regulated.

I love the new ads these anti-drug people are putting out for marijuana where they compare people who smoke marijuana to people who drink and drive. In a nutshell, they realize that marijuana is no more of a threat to you than drinking alcohol. Only difference is, it is physically impossible to overdose from smoking marijuana. Long term effects still apply and, true, operating motor vehicles while under the influence can be hazardous, but the same can be said of any heavy duty pain medication.

I'm also looking forward to the Reefer Madness remake that is coming out this summer.

agreed, only punish if it harms another person, just like drunk driving.

Any chemical can be dangerous if it is ingested by the wrong person or used improperly. Drugs like Crystal Meth, which makes people feel invincible have no business ever being legal.

Drugs that are harmless over a short term, like marijuana or absinthe, should be made legal and properly regulated.

I love the new ads these anti-drug people are putting out for marijuana where they compare people who smoke marijuana to people who drink and drive. In a nutshell, they realize that marijuana is no more of a threat to you than drinking alcohol. Only difference is, it is physically impossible to overdose from smoking marijuana. Long term effects still apply and, true, operating motor vehicles while under the influence can be hazardous, but the same can be said of any heavy duty pain medication.

I'm also looking forward to the Reefer Madness remake that is coming out this summer.

Or the ads that imply smoking marijuana can lead to rape. Hah, I know the last thing I want to do on weed is rape anyone, or even move from where I'm sitting. Unless rape means destroying a bag of chips.

I say legalize them but regulate them.
Exactly. Stick government taxes on them, award contracts to pharmaceutical companies so the drugs are under stricter controls, stamp warnings on the packaging and treat existing smugglers more harshly than they're treated now. Because drug smuggling would go on, just as tobacco smuggling goes on. When I smoked pre-fabricated cigarettes it was costing me the better part of £50 a week to smoke, and then I started rolling my own, which halved it, and then finally I bought off of "local entrepreneurs" who brough the cost of my addiction down to approximately a pound a day.

Since two of the most harmful drugs that exist are completely legal already, making drugs like weed and speed illegal has always seemed a bit stupid to me. My dad said I'd change my mind as I got older. He was wrong.

Heh, well, on another note, ignoring the obvious troll nature of that, there's a song that goes "Wanted by the U.S. Government. The Lord God almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. For the creation and cultivation of the plant marijuana on the planet earth."

How true- God made it, so how can it be morally wrong to use it?!?
It's a test of Satan!
Like everything else that feels good!

Or something like that, I think.

If drugs were legalized, the effects in the US would be profound, at least as far as street violence is concerned.

Drug gangs would not be able to finance themselves anymore, because companies like Philip Morris would come in and put them out of business.

Over half of all murders in the US are the result of gang warfare. This would also go a long way towards raising the life expectancy of the "young black male" in the US, and towards keeping most of them out of prison.

It would also save us 40 billion per year - money spent in the useless war on drugs.

Of course, there would be idiots who would destroy their own lives doing drugs - I find it hard to believe that many more would join them if drugs were legal. And if someone destroys their own life doing drugs, then that's one less idiot on the premises.

[QUOTE=Whispering Legs]

It would also save us 40 billion per year - money spent in the useless war on drugs.

[QUOTE]
That 40 Billion goes into the pockets of police officers, prison guards, and private contractors that build, maintain, and supply prisons. All solid republican campaign contributors.

What happens when your friend sitting next to you in a car .. says.... "Dont look now but a cop is behind you"..... You look right..... So yes outlaw every so called "drug" on this earth please so everyone can rebel against our self righteous asses and tell us to all stick it where the sun dont shine (our self righteous asses)

[QUOTE=Whispering Legs]

It would also save us 40 billion per year - money spent in the useless war on drugs.

[QUOTE]
That 40 Billion goes into the pockets of police officers, prison guards, and private contractors that build, maintain, and supply prisons. All solid republican campaign contributors.

I plan to spend that 40 billion on grants to Philip Morris and other companies in the US that would provide free drugs to impoverished people in the US.

For example, I would have open bins of free crack and meth placed in poor areas of the country at government expense.

There would also be a bit of an upsurge in the rehab business, which would also get some of the 40 billion.

If the choice is between having people commit crimes upon their own bodies - and harm primarily themselves - or have people commit crimes amongst each other and harm primarily other people, I'll pick the first option every time - and I'll encourage them to do so in an accelerated fashion, so that they eliminate themselves from society as soon as possible.

All drugs should be legalized, and people should be encouraged to take them!!!

Regulation is needed, got some pretty dirty and crazy things out there. Legalisating with control on quality would be best.

Or the ads that imply smoking marijuana can lead to rape. Hah, I know the last thing I want to do on weed is rape anyone, or even move from where I'm sitting. Unless rape means destroying a bag of chips.

i ahve been known to "rape" a few bags of chips in my day...if you really want to see how the drug issues should be handled...visit amsterdam...weed:legal....mushrooms: legal if fresh, you must dry them out on your own...basically the "soft drugs" are the ones that are legal..."hard drugs" like heroin, cocain, meth...all of those are a big fat no-no...but when you have a plant that is as pure and as potent (compared to the plants in the US), who needs the others...?....and if you want a giant energy rush...get a 6 pack of red bull and a bottle of no-doz....take into account everything else that is legal over there, i can only draw one conclusion....Amsterdam is my personal how-society-should-be wet dream....god save it.... :D

I have always had the opinion that drugs should be legalised, and sold freely by the state.
I agree, but why sold by the state? Why not just let licence-holding private shops sell them like alcohol?

The main benefits of legalising drugs are

*regulation ensures that they are held up to standards of safety and purity
*regulation ensures that they are sold at a fair price
*regulation means that they can be taxed
*taxes that would be used for extra police and prisons for drug offenders could be cut because they're not necessary any more
*if they are sold by legitimate businesses, gangsterism is almost completely destroyed, ending all the violence related to the drug trade

Drugs are bad. They are a false idol that takes your mind off Jesus. God gave you a good body and soul and drugs destroy both. I thank God every day that George W Bush is letting government pay for faith based drug treatment programs because only Jesus has the power to save people from adiction
Why doesn't everyone just get out of each others' lives? You're not being forced to take drugs, so why stop others by force?

BTW, George Bush is a bad Christian because he is in favour of offensive wars and is against helping the poor.

I thank God every day that George W Bush is letting government pay for faith based drug treatment programs because only Jesus has the power to save people from adiction
Only Jesus can save us from addiction?
I kicked methamphetamine and heroin on my own, with no help from a clinic or Jesus or anybody. So I sort of doubt that's the case.

Why doesn't everyone just get out of each others' lives? You're not being forced to take drugs, so why stop others by force?

BTW, George Bush is a bad Christian because he is in favour of offensive wars and is against helping the poor.

No, he's against having the Federal Government help the poor, unless it's in the form of block grants to Christian churches who will help the poor.

And he views everything so far as a defensive war against Islam, which is a long standing Christian tradition.

That 40 Billion goes into the pockets of police officers, prison guards, and private contractors that build, maintain, and supply prisons. All solid republican campaign contributors.
Why bring Republicans into this? The Deocrats are, as far as I know, also in favour of the war on drugs.
Amsterdam is my personal how-society-should-be wet dream....god save it.... :D
They definitely have the best drug laws in the world right now, but they are not liberal enough!

Also, they are not the perfect society. They have growing problems in that racial violence is increasing and their parliament is being taken over by right-wing nutjobs.

Also, they are not the perfect society. They have growing problems in that racial violence is increasing and their parliament is being taken over by right-wing nutjobs.

There seems to be some unsubstantiated belief that a society or government should be able to prevent racial violence, and that right-wing people are somehow "nut-jobs".

You can't legislate morality or enforce ethical behavior.

Whether you're against racism, or against homosexual behavior, if people want to be racists, or people want to engage in homosexual behavior, they're going to do it no matter what laws you put in place. So don't ask the government to try, because it's futile (aside from being terribly annoying).

Right-wing people are not "nut-jobs". Not all of their ideas are crazy (just as not all left-wing ideas, or centrists ideas or anarchists ideas, are crazy).

Labeling people "nut-job" does nothing to discredit their individual ideas.

Violence is the natural response of humans to an attack. The people of the Netherlands (some of them, not all), perceive themselves and their culture as being under attack from some Islamic groups. Which is true. There have been some murders and some assaults by Islamic people in response to mere words.

So, some people are fighting back. It may not be the legal thing to do, or the ethical or moral thing to do, or even the politically correct thing to do. But you're not going to stop it by passing more laws, or by calling them "nut-jobs". You have to give them a political alternative that is both immediate and satisfying if you want them to do something else.

There seems to be some unsubstantiated belief that a society or government should be able to prevent racial violence, and that right-wing people are somehow "nut-jobs".
I don't believe s/he meant that right-wingers are nutjobs, I believe s/he was saying that there are nutjobs that are right-wing and they are getting put in power.

Why bring Republicans into this? The Deocrats are, as far as I know, also in favour of the war on drugs.


The reason I singled out the republicans is because in my experience they get the lions share of contributions from those who enrich themselves from the prison industrial complex. In fact, Christine Todd Whitmann, the former governor of my state, granted her husband's company control of the commisary service in NJ's jails and prisons. A lucrative contract. BTW, the quality of products supplied and the punctuality of the delivery suffered when his company took over.

Drugs are bad. They are a false idol that takes your mind off Jesus. God gave you a good body and soul and drugs destroy both. I thank God every day that George W Bush is letting government pay for faith based drug treatment programs because only Jesus has the power to save people from adiction

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. --Gen 1:29

Where in the Bible does it say that drugs are inherently bad?
Sure there are parts that suggest that over-indulgence is bad, but it says the same about eating too much food. We don't hear any bible based arguments against eating from Jerry Falwell. Come to think of it, we don't hear any about getting fat from him either (being a glutton).

But I think it's pretty clear. Seedless grapes and bannanas are an abomonation before God and must be destroyed. :mp5:

There seems to be some unsubstantiated belief that a society or government should be able to prevent racial violence, and that right-wing people are somehow "nut-jobs".

You can't legislate morality or enforce ethical behavior.

Whether you're against racism, or against homosexual behavior, if people want to be racists, or people want to engage in homosexual behavior, they're going to do it no matter what laws you put in place. So don't ask the government to try, because it's futile (aside from being terribly annoying).

Right-wing people are not "nut-jobs". Not all of their ideas are crazy (just as not all left-wing ideas, or centrists ideas or anarchists ideas, are crazy).

Labeling people "nut-job" does nothing to discredit their individual ideas.

Violence is the natural response of humans to an attack. The people of the Netherlands (some of them, not all), perceive themselves and their culture as being under attack from some Islamic groups. Which is true. There have been some murders and some assaults by Islamic people in response to mere words.

So, some people are fighting back. It may not be the legal thing to do, or the ethical or moral thing to do, or even the politically correct thing to do. But you're not going to stop it by passing more laws, or by calling them "nut-jobs". You have to give them a political alternative that is both immediate and satisfying if you want them to do something else.
I guess using the word "nutjobs" was probably unfair, but the politicians I was talking about - Pim Fortuyn's List for example - are the types that want to legislate morality and expel all Muslims from the Netherlands. They have not taken over yet, but they are an increasing force in Dutch politics.

I'm not trying to make the Dutch government stop people from having racist thoughts any more than I want them to ban homosexuality. The problem is when people start to commit assault and murder. That should be punished, I am sure you will agree.

You seem to be under the impression that I only want white Dutch racists to be punished. Wrong. Some of the worst racial violence has come from the Muslim side, and this should be punished like any other crime of this kind.

I think that the government has a part to play in easing racial tension, but imprisonng people for racist words is not the way.

You might notice that assault and murder are already illegal.

I agree, but why sold by the state? Why not just let licence-holding private shops sell them like alcohol?


Because I am a Socialist ;) .

I have always had the opinion that drugs should be legalised, and sold freely by the state. I dont take drugs, but i think we can learn from the prohibition era that banning things which are popular wont solve anything. If drugs are sold by the state, then we can control it, we know that the drugs are pure, and drugs wont fung the criminal underground. Your thoughts?
my thoughts......there's lots of em:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7929092&postcount=1

I think all drugs should be legal in the privacy of one's own home, because people are going to do them anyway, and that should be their own decision. :cool:

Legalized and keep the government out of it... except for ensuring that there's no rat poison, etc slipped accidentally or secretly into the drugs.

Keep DUIs and DWIs and all that stuff though.

The Hedonist Imperative has some interesting views. It's a long read though. Scrap that, it's a whole book.

http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/hedonist.htm

The Hedonist Imperative has some interesting views. It's a long read though. Scrap that, it's a whole book.

http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/hedonist.htm
Wow. It seems intriguing, from what I've read of it so far.

You should have the right to put anything you want into your own body, and by inference, your mind... Atleast in any7 country that wants to call itself "free" or especially "Leader of the Free World". :rolleyes:

They should in my opinion. Controlled, legalized selling of PURE substances such as pure 100% marjiunna..

I think that recreational drugs should indeed be regualted. If people want to hurt their own bodies, it is themselves and their friends who must take care of that, not the government. Where cannabis has been decriminalised, there was a brief spike in use, then it levelled off to how it was before. Yet it saves the police a lot of work. Of course, being an occasional user of cannabis, I am slightly biased in this. But I believed that before, as well.

I'm not trying to say that recreational drugs can't be harmful. One of my best friends is really fucked up from drug use. But whether or not it's legal, she'll still do it the same amount. And it would be easier for rehabilitation if it weren't illegal and such a stigma.

Not to mention the fact that there are illegal recreational drugs that are much less harmful than tobacco and alcohol. Like cannabis and mescaline.

It is also a violation of the 1st Amendment in the U.S., since it also criminalises entheogens.

The ones that can be regulated for purity and aren't dangerous, yeah.
All recreational are harmful in one way or another, though there are a few with such mild and "vestigial" deleterious effects that it really doesn't matter. And all can be regulated for purity. However, even if cannabis and 'shrooms are legalised, they will still be fairly unregulated, since people can easily grow them in their own homes.

Actually, now I think about it, stuff it. If they're dangerous/highly addictive and people want to take them, go for it, it's not my body. Should still be monitored to ensure relatively safe usage however.
Yes! No more social authoritarianism!

Drugs are bad. They are a false idol that takes your mind off Jesus. God gave you a good body and soul and drugs destroy both. I thank God every day that George W Bush is letting government pay for faith based drug treatment programs because only Jesus has the power to save people from adiction
You're pretty bored, aren't you?

So why couldn't jesus help the kids in africa who are dying of aids?
Because only anti-retrovial therapy can do that. ;)

I say legalize them but regulate them. Marijuanna is ok, it's not addictive and you can't overdose. Treat that like cigarettes. Treat LSD, Mushrooms, and MDMA like alcohol (must be 21 to purchase in the USA). Cocaine and Heroin should be more heavilly regulated and taxed in order to reduce the number of people who become addicted.
'Shrooms should be treated pretty laxly as well. They have less deleterious effects than cannabis. I've forgotten what LSD does, and I don't know much about MDMA, so I can't comment. But meth is probably the worst of all drugs, with the lowest rehabilitation rate of all recreational drugs. And, yes, cocaine and opioids should be highly regulated as well. I think that they should be legalised in theory, but they are just so bad that I don't like thinking about letting large amounts of people have easier and less expensive access to them.

That 40 Billion goes into the pockets of police officers, prison guards, and private contractors that build, maintain, and supply prisons. All solid republican campaign contributors.
It is also spent on actual drug control and stuff too. It's not just a political thing like that, though I suspect that cannabis hasn't been legalised for primarily legal and less sociological reasons.

and if you want a giant energy rush...get a 6 pack of red bull and a bottle of no-doz
That can also be very dangerous as well, however. Red Bull essentially has amphetamines in it. That is why it is illegal with it stimulative properties in Canada.

You can't legislate morality or enforce ethical behavior.
I see your point, but the thing is that history proves you wrong. Though I am strongly against legislating morality, I am also a strong social libertarian. Brown v. The Board of Education shows that the government can indeed affect society in that way. Granted, it was a very slow and lengthly process, but it is possible. I do not know how much was actual social change and how much was governmental, but I suspect that the U.S. government helped at least a little with the racism in the U.S. If nothing else, it did desegregate, and gave them rights, even if it didn't change society.

But I think it's pretty clear. Seedless grapes and bannanas are an abomonation before God and must be destroyed. :mp5:
But all grapes and bannanas have seeds. Seeing as they are seed pods. They can be artificically removed, but they can not be grown to my knowledge.

Actually, now I think about it, stuff it. If they're dangerous/highly addictive and people want to take them, go for it, it's not my body. Should still be monitored to ensure relatively safe usage however.

How would you define "safe usage" when the drug itself is "dangerous/highly addictive" as you put it?

'Shrooms should be treated pretty laxly as well. They have less deleterious effects than cannabis. I've forgotten what LSD does, and I don't know much about MDMA, so I can't comment.
I don't know about MDMA, but LSD is extremely safe in terms of physiological effects.
That can also be very dangerous as well, however. Red Bull essentially has amphetamines in it. That is why it is illegal with it stimulative properties in Canada.
Really?
Cool.
Are there any websites about that?

anagramically yes they do. however; drugs, just like mr Smith and Mr Wesson, and Captain Kalashnikovs products of a free world can kill in the hands of people. guns dont kill folks, other folks do. drugs dont kill people, someo ur most famous people were raving smak heads, and they still had a productive life. Clapton, Pete Entwhistle of the Who, ok so some arent so lucky. Kurt, Sid and Nancy. yes drugs mess with your head, but its not the drugs wat kills you, its the impurities, the sharing needles, personal hygene, and all the crap that goes with trying to afford your drug of choice, without resuklting to bashing someone over the head, or popping a cap in their ass.

criminals control drugs because the politicians are too weak to say something. and in their abscenece of moral stature, they do nothing and monsters sell drugs to people who want them. if pharmaceutrically pure drugs were made available, on prescription, the ciminality issue disssapears. and withhin the law we can exercise controls and tax the users, to fund the phychobabblers. personally sit down, skin up tune in and drop off. and if thats your baggie, then so be it. however, if and when you find everything going tits up in some white room with strangers in lab coats, dont whinge about it. life is a choice, exercise it. and before anyone gets moral on me, look at alcohol related deaths, and deaths related to smoking tobacco, they arent banned, why? they generate revenue. as soon as they can figure a way to tax it, they'll legalise it, until then, limbo. rank and file shouldnt die because of political indescision and ignorance.

Fivetoze

I don't know about MDMA, but LSD is extremely safe in terms of physiological effects.


Yeah, but I used to do alot of LSD, and I know first hand that it can be a little rough psychologically.

Yeah, but I used to do alot of LSD, and I know first hand that it can be a little rough psychologically.
Yeah, that's why I specified physiologically. I meant to make a mention about the psychological effects, but I guess I forgot.
Oops.
Thanks for pointing that out.

I don't know about MDMA, but LSD is extremely safe in terms of physiological effects.
I thought so, but I couldn't remember.

Really?
Cool.
Are there any websites about that?
Not that I'm aware of. One of my science teachers, who is certainly trustworthy, told me that. It does not actually have any amphetamines, but there is some way that it has the same biochemical effects. I believe it has something to do with the taurine, but I'm not sure about that. In fact, it is my personal belief that Red Bull got its name from taurine, since it is derived from the Latin taurus, "bull". All I remember is that taruine is an amino acid and some type of neurotransmitter. That's all I have, though I'd like you to share anything you learn if you're curious enough to research it.

yes drugs mess with your head, but its not the drugs wat kills you, its the impurities, the sharing needles, personal hygene, and all the crap that goes with trying to afford your drug of choice, without resuklting to bashing someone over the head, or popping a cap in their ass.
Bullshit. Look up heroin, and I'm sure you'll find plenty of deleterious effets brought about purely from the drug, no impurities. Learn some pharmacology before you go posting things like that.

Also, capitalisation is your friend. Orthography isn't hurtful either.

Yeah, but I used to do alot of LSD, and I know first hand that it can be a little rough psychologically.
Yes, but we are primarily discussing the physiological, not psychological effects. However, what are the psychological effects of excessive LSD use, since you seem to know?

Bullshit. Look up heroin, and I'm sure you'll find plenty of deleterious effets brought about purely from the drug, no impurities. Learn some pharmacology before you go posting things like that.


Actually I've heard heroin's only bad physical effects other than addiction and overdose is constipation. If you can regulate your dosage correctly, keep from running out, and use laxatives when the need arises, you can actually live a long and healthy life on heroin. This assumes that you have access to clean needles and know how to give yourself an injection properly. Otherwise infections can be a problem.

Yes, but we are primarily discussing the physiological, not psychological effects. However, what are the psychological effects of excessive LSD use, since you seem to know?
I was using it on a weekly basis for about a year or so. I experienced delusions and paranoia when I was sober. Not quite as bad as a speed freak who hasn't slept for a week, but disturbing nonetheless.

Actually I've heard heroin's only bad physical effects other than addiction and overdose is constipation.
It can lead to confusion, malnourishment, respitory arrest, nausea, vomiting, and constipation (as you said).

Withdrawl symptoms include sweating, malaise, anxiety, depression, priapism (erection that won't go away, very painful), feelings of heaviness, cramps, yawning, lachrymation (excessive tearing), insomnia (sleep difficulties), nausea, emesis (vomiting), diarrhoea, and fever.

Not to mention the fact that opioids replace the body's endorphins, and it becomes that the only way to be happy at all is to use the opioid, which makes it extremely hard to get off of when addicted.

And overdose can indeed be fatal. There can be fluid transmission from used needles, resulting in infection from pathogens like HIV and hepatitis. Bacterial or fungal endocarditis can result from constant injection, as can skin conditions. Poisoning from contaminants can also be dangerous.

Only pot. But with regulations like alcohol. Although with pot you get intoxicated easier and it cant kill you, like if you have 15 bottles of Jack Daniels Tennesse Whiskey and drink it all you will die of alcohol poisoning. But with pot you cant kill yourself just by smoking it, unless you smoke so much in a little room with no ventation and you choke on the smoke. So back to my point, only pot should be legal.

Only pot. But with regulations like alcohol. Although with pot you get intoxicated easier and it cant kill you, like if you have 15 bottles of Jack Daniels Tennesse Whiskey and drink it all you will die of alcohol poisoning. But with pot you cant kill yourself just by smoking it, unless you smoke so much in a little room with no ventation and you choke on the smoke. So back to my point, only pot should be legal.
Why only pot?

yes i think drugs should be legal!!!! hahahaha

But with pot you cant kill yourself just by smoking it, unless you smoke so much in a little room with no ventation and you choke on the smoke.
That would be insanely difficult unless you actually wanted to.

So back to my point, only pot should be legal.
You never actually addressed the "only" part.

You never actually addressed the "only" part.

Personally I'd say that tobacco, mariajuana, and alcohol all enjoyed widespread use for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Generations of culture have proven that they are safe. Sure people are able to use them in their self-destructive behavior, but that's not reason enough to outlaw them, unless you're ready to hand over your drain cleaner.

Even other natural drugs such as unrefiened cocaine, opium, psychadelic mushrooms, peyote etc. were, before being outlawed, the province of highly trained individuals who employed specific safety measures.

Refiened drugs, like crack, cocaine, heroine, PCP etc. were, for the most part, failed experiments. Heroine, for example, was designed to be a non-addictive alternative to morphine. In the greatest proportion manufactured synthetic drugs prove to be more harm than good. Though personally I don't think that there's much harm in LSD or exctasy exctasy doesn't really have the evidence behind it to justify its recreational use, and most people have too great a capacity for harm to others when they're tripping on acid.

exctasy doesn't really have the evidence behind it to justify its recreational use
Umm, what?
and most people have too great a capacity for harm to others when they're tripping on acid.
Like the capacity to harm others when drunk?

It can lead to confusion, malnourishment, respitory arrest, nausea, vomiting, and constipation (as you said).

Withdrawl symptoms include sweating, malaise, anxiety, depression, priapism (erection that won't go away, very painful), feelings of heaviness, cramps, yawning, lachrymation (excessive tearing), insomnia (sleep difficulties), nausea, emesis (vomiting), diarrhoea, and fever.

Not to mention the fact that opioids replace the body's endorphins, and it becomes that the only way to be happy at all is to use the opioid, which makes it extremely hard to get off of when addicted.

And overdose can indeed be fatal. There can be fluid transmission from used needles, resulting in infection from pathogens like HIV and hepatitis. Bacterial or fungal endocarditis can result from constant injection, as can skin conditions. Poisoning from contaminants can also be dangerous.
All of the above is true, but you left out the fact that unadulterated opiates are some of the least toxic substances known to man.
Also, these symptoms are pretty similar to any of the other addictive drugs, save some are far more dangerous and potentially fatal to withdraw from (like benzodiazepines and alcohol).

You might notice that assault and murder are already illegal.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I noted that racist violence in the Netherlands is on the increase. What is your issue with this statement?

And, yes, cocaine and opioids should be highly regulated as well. I think that they should be legalised in theory, but they are just so bad that I don't like thinking about letting large amounts of people have easier and less expensive access to them.
I think that if cocaine were legalised there would be less deaths. Obviously there would be less impurities, and the government can make it expensive by taxes, so it need not become cheaper.

I think they should make soft drugs legal and tax them to make money and put a decent chunk of that towards rehab places if needed. Hard drugs should still remain illegal though. I heard about some guy awhile ago who cut off a couple of peoples hands with a samurai sword and shot some one with a homemade gun while on meth.

mmmmm cheese.....

I heard about some guy awhile ago who cut off a couple of peoples hands with a samurai sword and shot some one with a homemade gun while on meth.
What about violence while intoxicated with alcohol?
I'd think that would be more present, and I know that it can be dangerous, having seen a few large fights with serious injuries.

Personally I'd say that tobacco, mariajuana, and alcohol all enjoyed widespread use for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Generations of culture have proven that they are safe. Sure people are able to use them in their self-destructive behavior, but that's not reason enough to outlaw them, unless you're ready to hand over your drain cleaner.
Cannabis is as old as ceramics, at least. Some of the first ceramic objects found by archaeologists are bowls for smoking cannabis. Animals have been observed to eat rotten fruit for the alcohol content. And tobacco had been extensively used, especially for social functions, in North America for longer than we know, likely over a thousand years.

Even other natural drugs such as unrefiened cocaine, opium, psychadelic mushrooms, peyote etc. were, before being outlawed, the province of highly trained individuals who employed specific safety measures.
Cocaine from coca has also been used for longer than we're aware, but in South America. Opium was known about in the Mesopotamian civilisations, and even more widely in Greek culture. Mushrooms and peyote have also been used in the Americas since long before the Europeans settled in. The latter two psychoactives were important parts of some central American tribes.

Refiened drugs, like crack, cocaine, heroine, PCP etc. were, for the most part, failed experiments. Heroine, for example, was designed to be a non-addictive alternative to morphine. In the greatest proportion manufactured synthetic drugs prove to be more harm than good. Though personally I don't think that there's much harm in LSD or exctasy exctasy doesn't really have the evidence behind it to justify its recreational use, and most people have too great a capacity for harm to others when they're tripping on acid.
This is mostly true, however.

All of the above is true, but you left out the fact that unadulterated opiates are some of the least toxic substances known to man.
Also, these symptoms are pretty similar to any of the other addictive drugs, save some are far more dangerous and potentially fatal to withdraw from (like benzodiazepines and alcohol).
Heroin has the worst physiological withdrawl symptoms of all recreational drugs. Or, at least, strong opioids do, heroin being the most widely used. You're not going to convince me that heroin is not potentially incredibly harmful to a person. I've seen the effects.

Oh yes, I also forgot to put in that it is very difficult to tell the concentration of heroin, so overdosing is much facilitated by that. And I don't know many side effects that are worse the respirtory arrest.

I think that if cocaine were legalised there would be less deaths. Obviously there would be less impurities, and the government can make it expensive by taxes, so it need not become cheaper.
I'd wager you're right...it's just I don't like the idea.

I heard about some guy awhile ago who cut off a couple of peoples hands with a samurai sword and shot some one with a homemade gun while on meth.
Meth was not that guy's problem, then. Especially seeing that speed does not do that to the psyche. Methamphetamine does not make you overtly violent, unlike drugs like alcohol.

Maybe its all a government set up to make it look bad. But there has been abit of a problem with meth here. That is not the only example of violence while on meth that has had very bad results. I cant really be fucked looking any more up so you will just have to live with that. But it has also been a big problem in schools.

Maybe its all a government set up to make it look bad.
As I've said, one of my best friends is a druggie, and she has gotten fucked up by some of the stuff she's done. It's not governmental propaganda, though I must say they exaggerate quite a bit.

But there has been abit of a problem with meth here. That is not the only example of violence while on meth that has had very bad results.
And how many meth-related violence has there been compared to alcohol-related violence, praytell? Meth is a stimulant, not a depressant, so any violent tendencies already exist in the amped person, though they might be augmented. However, when you're on meth, you're typically much less harmful to others than normal.

I cant really be fucked looking any more up so you will just have to live with that. But it has also been a big problem in schools.
Wow. Convincing.

I would like to state that speed is indeed a very harmful drug, probably the worst out there.

Yhea im sure they do exaggerate it just like pretty much every thing else but that is to be expected. There has been, without a doubt more cases of violence related to alcohol but the ones I have heard about meth have been far more brutal. There was a good documentary on tv awhile ago where some guy on meth locked up and he kept beating his face against shit and another person that was trying to wear his skin off on some metal grate. But I think thats just funny cause they brought it on themselves really.

Were you being sarcastic with that last comment. It is kinda hard to tell when you are talking to some one over the net.

There was a good documentary on tv awhile ago where some guy on meth locked up and he kept beating his face against shit and another person that was trying to wear his skin off on some metal grate. But I think thats just funny cause they brought it on themselves really.
Yes. Most druggies, except alcoholics, are like schizophernics. They typically don't hurt anyone but themselves. But if you think that's funny, then you have some serious problems, my friend.

Were you being sarcastic with that last comment. It is kinda hard to tell when you are talking to some one over the net.
Hells no! I was quite serious about that.

Another big part is that the government isn't allways looking out for us...

take mary-j for example, the government can't tax it

both alchohol and tobacco are taxed like crazy so the gov gets tons and tons of cash from em'. If they took either off the market there would be a huge slice taken out of the gov. budget. So its not even as easy as comparing any other number of drugs to tobacco or alchohol because the government is after the big bucks, not quite the health and safety issues.
Needles are used for medical reasons so to tax them would be a hit against the medically incapacitated so they'd have protester's up the butt. And...there's already such a good size under ground market, if your truly addicted at the rate that some of these drugs get you then you'll be buying from the lowest bidder, so very little money for uncle money-banks.

it really blows but, hey that's why I don't think our gov. will let up any restrictions any time soon.

Yes and regulated. The black market needs to be removed it is the cause of much of the crime problem.

take mary-j for example, the government can't tax it
It can tax it, it's just that so many people would grow it privately that, for all practical purposes, it can't be taxed. Same thing with 'shrooms.

Dont worry, Its okk. I know I have problems and thats fine by me. There is nothing wrong with having alittle humour in your life...

yeah, that's kinda what i meant by can't tax it but you got the drift

but yeah, but how do you eliminate the black market? That's soo much international issue its hard to think about

There is nothing wrong with having alittle humour in your life...
Yes, it's just that I know people like that. And, let me tell you, the state of their minds is anything but funny. What goes on in their minds and what they do to themselves is just...

Yhea I guess some people just have a different sense of humour than others. But it would be different if you actually know people like that.

I would like to state that speed is indeed a very harmful drug, probably the worst out there.
Hey, the Smashing Pumpkins even have a song titled "Speed Kills", so it must be true!

yeah, that's kinda what i meant by can't tax it but you got the drift

but yeah, but how do you eliminate the black market? That's soo much international issue its hard to think about

There is a current market in the USA for drugs. Right now that market is underground or a blackmarket by making them all legal it would bring the market above ground.

Now imagine right now trying to blackmarket alcohol you think you could make a 6 pack of beer for $2.99 ? No way the prices would drop dramatically if legal the illegal traffikers would have no more market to work within.

Also being less expensive would make less crime amongst the users as they could afford their drug of choice.

also I believe the "taboo" factor would be removed.

Heroin has the worst physiological withdrawl symptoms of all recreational drugs. Or, at least, strong opioids do, heroin being the most widely used. You're not going to convince me that heroin is not potentially incredibly harmful to a person. I've seen the effects.

Oh yes, I also forgot to put in that it is very difficult to tell the concentration of heroin, so overdosing is much facilitated by that. And I don't know many side effects that are worse the respirtory arrest.


Uhm, no. Benzos and alcohol have by far the worst physiological withdrawal symptoms of all recreational drugs (and use of benzos results in physical addiction faster than opiate use). With these, in addition to extreme physical discomfort, possible death is an issue. Opiate withdrawal is not deadly, and therefore, in my opinion cannot be considered to have the worst withdrawal symptoms. When one throws in legal drugs, sudden discontinuation of certain anti-depressants causes more physical discomfort than sudden discontinuation of heroin.

Respiratory arrest is a result of overdose. The amount of respiratory depression with use of non-toxic amounts is not overly harmful. Overdose of strong stimulants is far worse. That leads to cardiac stress which over time can weaken the heart even if an overdose does occur. A non-lethal OD of opiates doesn't leave really leave lasting damage to the body, whereas a non-lethal OD of stimulants will leave lasting heart trauma, alcohol will leave liver damage as will a non-lethal OD of acetaminophen.

It is difficult to tell the concentration of any powder drug. A lot of people would not have died if there were regulations regarding the purity of what they bought.

Well, I feel all drugs should be legal. There are two types of people on drugs: People who need help, and people who don't need help. Neither of those people should be arrested. The people who need help, there's much better ways than throwing them in jail, which obviously does more harm than good. The people who don't need help, they obviously can control a little bit of messing around with drugs, so why is it our business to butt in?

I've been in both groups. I have never hurt anyone, stolen from anyone, etc. To the pro-criminalization crowd, give me one good reason why I should have been jailed under current laws.

It's baffling how not a single politician seems to support complete legalization of all drugs.

It comes down to personal choice, and responsibility. And all the correlating problems with prohibition in general.

That would take all the fun out of it. As much as I would love to be able to buy mescaline or 2cb in the store. I don't think it should be legalised. Drugs cause waaaay too much problems.

Even marijuana, admit it to yourself is a huge problem. Some people loose all the motivation to do anything, they're just stoned day and night. Psychadelic drugs are dangerous to those who have a history of mental illnesses. List goes on and on.

I think they should be illegal, but I think if someone has the drugs and takes them, that should be legal. Possesion is legal, but selling them should be illegal.

How would you define "safe usage" when the drug itself is "dangerous/highly addictive" as you put it?

Well, for example, Heroin usage in an injecting clinic under medical supervision, so that needles aren't shared and overdoses cannot occur.

Uhm, no. Benzos and alcohol have by far the worst physiological withdrawal symptoms of all recreational drugs (and use of benzos results in physical addiction faster than opiate use). With these, in addition to extreme physical discomfort, possible death is an issue. Opiate withdrawal is not deadly, and therefore, in my opinion cannot be considered to have the worst withdrawal symptoms. When one throws in legal drugs, sudden discontinuation of certain anti-depressants causes more physical discomfort than sudden discontinuation of heroin.
Ok. I had thought I was right, but I really don't know as much as I'd like about recreational drugs. Could you tell me what "benzos" is, and describe why it is that their withdrawl symptoms are worse? As I said earlier, strong opioids (opiate only refers to something directly obtained from opium) replace the body's endorphins, so the only way to get the effect of endorphins for a while is by use of the opioid. What are the physiological reasons that the two drugs you listed are so bad? (in earnest)

Respiratory arrest is a result of overdose. The amount of respiratory depression with use of non-toxic amounts is not overly harmful.
Ok. My mistake.

Overdose of strong stimulants is far worse. That leads to cardiac stress which over time can weaken the heart even if an overdose does occur. A non-lethal OD of opiates doesn't leave really leave lasting damage to the body, whereas a non-lethal OD of stimulants will leave lasting heart trauma, alcohol will leave liver damage as will a non-lethal OD of acetaminophen.
Good points. Though I did already state that I think that meth is indeed what I consider to be the worst recreational drug.

It is difficult to tell the concentration of any powder drug. A lot of people would not have died if there were regulations regarding the purity of what they bought.
Very true as well...

Ok. I had thought I was right, but I really don't know as much as I'd like about recreational drugs. Could you tell me what "benzos" is, and describe why it is that their withdrawl symptoms are worse? As I said earlier, strong opioids (opiate only refers to something directly obtained from opium) replace the body's endorphins, so the only way to get the effect of endorphins for a while is by use of the opioid. What are the physiological reasons that the two drugs you listed are so bad? (in earnest)

Benzos= Benzodiazepines. They are anti-anxiety drugs and technically they are prescription drugs (schedule IV, I think) but they are really easy to buy on the street. This is stuff that doctors used to prescribe to people for years at a time, in ever increasing doses. So a lot of addicts got there under medical supervision, but some people get addicted from recreational usage too. Which of course can be avoided by spacing out usage (same as with any other physically addictive drug including h), but I guess that is where the psychological addiction bit comes in. The most common ones are xanax, valium, atvian, and klonopin. OD can result in coma or death. One of the biggest problems when it comes to OD is that a lot of people think they are relatively safe since they are so easy to get hold of medically and they don't realize that combining them with other CNS depressants like alcohol causes an effect that is more synergistic than cumulative, so the amount needed for toxic OD drops considerably.

Like all physiologically addictive drugs, the intensity of the withdrawal symptoms will vary according to tolerance built up and length of addiction. At the extreme end of the physical withdrawal symptoms for benzos are convulsions and death - which is why when quitting after prolonged usage a person should taper off rather stop cold turkey. Very common physical symptoms of benzo withdrawal include headache, muscle tension and pain, ringing ears, shakes/tremors, blurred vision, weakness in the legs, gastro-intestinal problems, numbness and tingling in the extremities, blurred vision, and itchy skin. Also possible but less common are things like extreme thirst, nausea, breathlessness, dizziness, heart paplatations, sweating, fevers and chills and more.

Common psychological symptoms almost include extreme anxiety (<-the most common), depression, insomnia, increased sensitivity to bright light, sounds, etc, obsessive negative thoughts, intrusive memories.

Some of the psychological symptoms may continue at decreased levels or occassionally reoccur for several months.

Note - like with every type of withdrawal, not everyone gets every symptom.


Alcohol: Since I rambles so much, I will only talk about the most extreme end of alcohol withdrawal. It is a set of symptoms referred to as delirium tremens (DT's). Symptoms include confussion, agitation, hallucinations, hyperactivity, cardiovascualar distrubances, and convulsions. The DT's can lead to grand mal seizures, heart attack, and stroke. The scariest thing is that once if a person reaches this severe a state of withdrawal from alcohol, there is absolutely no medical treatment which can kick it down into a milder state of withdrawal.


Good points. Though I did already state that I think that meth is indeed what I consider to be the worst recreational drug.



Same here.

Thanks! That was quite interesting.

CONSUMERS UNION—the highly respected, scrupulously impartial organization responsible for Consumer Reports—studied the drug problem in this nation long and hard. Its conclusions—yet unpublished—are:
This nation's drug laws and policies have not been working well; on that simple statement almost all Americans seem agreed. . . . They are the result of mistaken laws and policies, of mistaken attitudes toward drugs, and of futile, however well-intentioned, efforts to "stamp out the drug menace." [What we have in this country is] aptly called the "drug problem problem"—the damage that results from the ways in which society has approached the drug problem.

The Consumers Union report made six recommendations. I quote:
1. Stop emphasizing measures designed to keep drugs away from people.

2. Stop publicizing the horrors of the "drug menace."

3. Stop increasing the damage done by drugs. (Current drug laws and policies make drugs more rather than less damaging in many ways.)

4. Stop misclassifying drugs. (Most official and unofficial classifications of drugs are illogical and capricious; they, therefore, make a mockery of drug law enforcement and bring drug education into disrepute. A major error of the current drug classification system is that it treats alcohol and nicotine—two of the most harmful drugs—essentially as non-drugs.)

5. Stop viewing the drug problem as primarily a national problem, to be solved on a national scale. (In fact, as workers in the drug scene confirm, the "drug pro-blem" is a collection of local problems.)

6. Stop pursuing the goal of stamping out illicit drug use.


The report, which is nearly six hundred pages long, concludes,
These, then, are the major mistakes in drug policy as we see them. This Consumers Union Report contains no panaceas for resolving them. But getting to work at correcting these six errors, promptly and ungrudgingly, would surely be a major step in the right direction.

I'm sorry. I lied. The previous excerpts were not from a "yet unpublished" report. The report was published in 1972. It was published by Consumers Union in book form, Licit and Illicit Drugs. It asked for its proposed changes to be made "promptly and ungrudgingly." Instead in 1972, President Nixon began our most recent war on drugs. How successful has prohibition been? To give but one example: since 1972, according to the office of National Drug Control Policy, annual cocaine use in this country has risen from 50 metric tons to 300 metric tons.


Fortunately, Peter McWilliams has given permission for people to use this info freely, but for more go here: http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/303a.htm