NationStates Jolt Archive

Drugs are bad Mmmkay?

hehe.
Anyway, should drugs be legalized? I dont mean Medicinal i mean FULLY legalized.

Pro's
Some drugs are only as bad as Tobacco medically.
Civil rights
Social

Cons'
STOOONEEER....
Common sense
Social.

Im For them, but in private use and in moderation. whats your opinion???!!?

I'm for legalizing everything (drugs, whores, guns, cheese). Without having to waste money on maintaining a unit of Morality Police (and waste prison space wholling up nondangerous criminals), cities could, um, do . . . . city stuff.
I don't know, the money'd probably just be wasted building giant stone phalluses or something, but at least it would be wasted in a manner that doesn't impair people's civil liberties.

I'm for legalizing everything (drugs, whores, guns, cheese). Without having to waste money on maintaining a unit of Morality Police (and waste prison space wholling up nondangerous criminals), cities could, um, do . . . . city stuff.
I don't know, the money'd probably just be wasted building giant stone phalluses or something, but at least it would be wasted in a manner that doesn't impair people's civil liberties.

Or...even more shocking...(ready for this?)...the money could go back to the taxpayers! That's right- we get to keep our money rather than funding the Morality Police. Although the giant stone phalluses might be kinda nice for the ecomony. You know, tourism and stuff.

I'm for legalizing everything (drugs, whores, guns, cheese). .

Steady on now! Im with you for the Drugs and Whores and Guns...But cheese? Your an Extremist!

Drugs are illegal for a reason, you shouldn't legalize something just because people like doing illegal acts. I suppose many don't like any laws whatsoever but they are for our protection.

Legalize them.
Treat them like alcohol with respect to regulations.
Tax them.
Use the taxes to support anti-drug education and drug rehab like we do with tobacco.

Some drugs are only as bad as Tobacco medically.

Quite a few drugs are in fact assumed to be less damaging than tobacco, and far less damaging than alcohol. I would prefer it if those would be sold officially to destroy the criminal organisations behind them and make it possible to guarantee quality - as well as taking away some of the "coolness" factor for kids .

The ones that are very addicting however should not be sold freely. Trying them once would indeed be a personal choice - but subsequent use would be caused by the addiction and not by something as "freedom to decide".

Drugs are illegal for a reason, you shouldn't legalize something just because people like doing illegal acts. I suppose many don't like any laws whatsoever but they are for our protection.

And what is this reason ?
And yes indeed - I dislike obeying laws which have no justification, which cannot back themselves up with a reason as to why they exist. Which probably explains my slight religion-aversion.

There was a time when you could do just about anything, buy anything, sell anything and smoke it, eat it, put it up your ass. Whatever.

There are some pretty serious consequences. Better or worse? Hard to say. But taxpayers wouldn't be getting any money back. The impact of the social problem would remain.

Or...even more shocking...(ready for this?)...the money could go back to the taxpayers! That's right- we get to keep our money rather than funding the Morality Police.
I'm having a pipe-dream here, pal, I've got to maintain at least some standard of realism. The only way you'd convince the government to give up power and lower the taxes that funded that power is by tearing the cash right out of the legislator's filthy fists.
Although the giant stone phalluses might be kinda nice for the ecomony. You know, tourism and stuff.
They could put them up in a park, like those orange archways that they built Hell all over the place last year in Central Park.
Made the place look uglier than usual.

Perhaps. Though it is more difficult to agree with if you care about the person who ruins his/her life through drug addiction. Regardless, I would support a minimum age for purchasing.

Though it is more difficult to agree with if you care about the person who ruins his/her life through drug addiction.

True. But the same holds for someone who ruins his life for a religion, by marrying the wrong partner etc. Yet you have no right to actually stop them from doing that either... just to persuade them not to do it.

i say legalize them in certain parts of the country (USA). some states will allow it, and attract all the stoners, and other states wont have as big of a problem, then what the cops take away in the other states can be sold by the government in the states it is legal

some drugs should never be legalized, meth for instance

Drugs should be legalized for the same reason that Prohibition was ended: because making drugs illegal does absolutely nothing to decrease drug use, and increases pretty much every single risk factor associated with drug use. Prohibition is just a way for self-centered moralists to inflict pain on people who refuse to submit to their authority.

Or...even more shocking...(ready for this?)...the money could go back to the taxpayers! That's right- we get to keep our money rather than funding the Morality Police. Although the giant stone phalluses might be kinda nice for the ecomony. You know, tourism and stuff.

if drugs are legalized and they let you keep your tax money, then your just going to waste your tax money on drugs;)

Look at holland, it seems to work there. I dont know why, but it just does. :gundge: :mp5:

Now, about em. I do not think that they should all be legalized, since I know people that have gone nuts on drugs like cocaine or crystal meth and shit like that. I myself have tried pot, mushrooms, and oil, and for me they all do basically the same thing as alcohol, albeit much stronger.

However, I can see certain drugs being legalized, ones that are less addictive than say, methamphetamines, which have a 90% addiction rate and usually kill or maim those who use them for prolonged periods of time. Perhaps a drug like pot, for starters could be legalized since where I come from [Canada], it is being grown and used literally everywhere, and millions of dollars are wasted enforcing its prevention.

However, a drug like cocaine or meth is a considerably different thing, and should not be legalized or sanctioned in my opinion.

All drugs should be legal. But it wouldnt save any policing money, at least in the short term. Stupid people would become addicted and the cops who would have been after the drugs will instead have to solve those crimes. Harsher punishments for burglars and muggers would help.

Look at holland, it seems to work there. I dont know why, but it just does. :gundge: :mp5:

You are aware that *technically* the sale and possession of all drugs, except for alchohol and tobacco and those prescribed by doctors, is illegal in the Netherlands ? The government has just made ignoring certain transgressions official policy.
In this "ignoring" a distinction is made between softdrugs (e.g. weed) and harddrugs (e.g. opium). Against the latter the police acts.

And what is this reason ?
And yes indeed - I dislike obeying laws which have no justification, which cannot back themselves up with a reason as to why they exist. Which probably explains my slight religion-aversion.

How about what drugs will do to you? Given all the crime that stems from drugs they should be illegal. Even if the politicians foolishly say drugs are alright (never going to happen) then it is not as if all will be fine. Instead of drug cartels dealing, it would be the pharmacutical companies selling for high prices. Being just as addictive the junkies will do the same crap that they do now. Keeping this junk illegal is fully justified, the government just needs to get serious with their "drug war" and actually do something proactive to fix the situation.

How about what drugs will do to you?

That varies vastly from drug to drug. Some will destroy body and mind. others have mild effects. Not positive, but humans do lots of non-positive things to themselves.

Instead of drug cartels dealing, it would be the pharmacutical companies selling for high prices.

But they can sell at 1/10th of the current streetprice and still make a hideous profit.

Being just as addictive the junkies will do the same crap that they do now

Except that they would need less money and would not deal with criminals. So much easier to register who uses what...

Keeping this junk illegal is fully justified, the government just needs to get serious with their "drug war" and actually do something proactive to fix the situation.
Like what ? Hire 15 million more policeofficers ?

How about what drugs will do to you? Given all the crime that stems from drugs they should be illegal.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. All these people are getting arrested for the crime of having and selling drugs, so to REDUCE drug crime we should make sure that all drugs are criminalized...


Even if the politicians foolishly say drugs are alright (never going to happen) then it is not as if all will be fine. Instead of drug cartels dealing, it would be the pharmacutical companies selling for high prices.

Yeah, instead of violent criminals establishing empires by selling dangerously contaminated and un-regulated products, and using various other criminal and violent methods to secure their markets, we would have to put up with well-regulated and standardized products sold in legal pharmacies by licensed professionals.

Boy, that would suck.


Being just as addictive the junkies will do the same crap that they do now.

Except, um, no.

Are you even remotely familiar with Prohibition? Deaths due to alcohol use/abuse INCREASED. Crime dramatically INCREASED. Alcoholism did not decrease a single jot.


Keeping this junk illegal is fully justified, the government just needs to get serious with their "drug war" and actually do something proactive to fix the situation.
Why should the government "fix" what individuals choose to put in their bodies? Should the government "fix" our problem with obesity by banning all fried foods? Should the government "fix" our problem with sport-related injuries by banning all contact sports? Should the government "fix" our problem with automobile-related death and crimes by banning cars?

That varies vastly from drug to drug. Some will destroy body and mind. others have mild effects. Not positive, but humans do lots of non-positive things to themselves.

But they can sell at 1/10th of the current streetprice and still make a hideous profit.

Except that they would need less money and would not deal with criminals. So much easier to register who uses what...

Like what ? Hire 15 million more policeofficers ?

1. Mild effects? Yeah, right.

2. They COULD but would they? Of course not!

3. They would be just as expensive so the result would be the same.

4. Act more aggressively with the drug producing countries. Don't let them deal with their problem but deal with the fields ourselves

All drugs should be legal. But it wouldnt save any policing money, at least in the short term. Stupid people would become addicted and the cops who would have been after the drugs will instead have to solve those crimes. Harsher punishments for burglars and muggers would help.

I'm inclined to agree.

Anyway, should drugs be legalized?
Marijuana should be decriminalized, but recreational use of other drugs should continue to be illegal.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. All these people are getting arrested for the crime of having and selling drugs, so to REDUCE drug crime we should make sure that all drugs are criminalized...

Should the government "fix" our problem with automobile-related death and crimes by banning cars?

Is it really neccessary to exaggerate? I suppose that somehow by making everything legal then everything will be all right?

1. Mild effects? Yeah, right.

Yep, mild effects. A person who exercises and does drugs is considerably more healthy than someone who does neither.

Legalize, regulate, and tax everything, then allocate the revenue to drug education so consumers can make informed decisions. If we are taught only the truth about drugs (as opposed to scare tactics), we will all know safe doseages, what drugs can and cannot be safely mixed, and how to safely use them (especially IV drugs). This, coupled with consistent purity and a lack of additives due to regulation and labeling, will greatly reduce the number of overdoses. Police efforts can be redirected to strongly enforce DWI laws and age restrictions. The dissociation of the criminal element from drug usage will greatly lower drug-related crime.

My body is my property and I can do with it what I want. Based on that I should be able to put whatever I want into my body wheter it is fast food or drugs without the government telling me what I can or can not do. In all reality I'm for legalizing drugs but I'm not infavor of a sin tax on them. That and I'd like to see some serious drug education going on not just the D.A.R.E. cop with a gun saying drugs are bad shit.

My body is my property and I can do with it what I want. Based on that I should be able to put whatever I want into my body wheter it is fast food or drugs without the government telling me what I can or can not do. In all reality I'm for legalizing drugs but I'm not infavor of a sin tax on them. That and I'd like to see some serious drug education going on not just the D.A.R.E. cop with a gun saying drugs are bad shit.

Drugs are bad shit.

Drugs are bad shit.

Yea sure weed is going to cause me to go crazy and stuff. Here is the thing while you ascribe to the belief that drugs are bad I ascribe to the belief that drugs themselves have no moral connotation and are inherently not bad or good. Rather there are only good or bad uses of the drugs. Now if you want to stay away from drugs thats perfectly fine. But neither you or the government has the right to tell me what I can or can not put in my body.

By legalising drugs, the number of drug-related fatalities can be reduced because the'd be less of a stigma and people would be more likely to go get help.

I think we should: Legalize all soft drugs.
Tax them.
Use tax to promote Anti-Drug campaign.
Use tax saved from Police to be used in Education.
Touch peoples nipples.

i think we should leagalize drugs because it would prevent a lot of effects from them being illegal.. ex drugs wouldnt be laced because they would be monitered by the government and you would know they were safe when you do them

Drugs are bad Mmmkay?

hehe.
Anyway, should drugs be legalized? I dont mean Medicinal i mean FULLY legalized.




I think people should be able to have thier life the way they would like it the only social concern is interaction of individuals in a functioning society. A functioning society is of course the dilmena. I think everyone needs to bear personal responsibility for their lives, that is the truth of the situation. Some people just walk around with a liscence to kill, it is militancies veiw regardless. Life of war army of one in a society of no one or all.

We feel the way we feel about things, when you reduce human to an eletrochemical stimulus response robot, wtf does it matter? We do what is right based upon our destiny and our true faith. What is the issue, why bad trip reality. We experience what we experience, of course getting beyond bitterness or hate or egocentrism IMO is really learning ones own death.

I think that on a more earthly level we have major concerns with trust and environmental safety and awareness. If drugs are halluciongenic then safe environments should exist (in many ways that was a good benifit of 'raves' which could accomodate a comfortable community environment perhaps with neat attractions to assist in enjoyment of the altered states experience. It is just a life model at a faster pace, IMO.

Of course the issues of poisoning the environment posioning the shrive. Injected with a Poison etc.. etc.. whatever. I don't piss in your glass etc.. etc.. Of course my sense of ethics and decency may not be correctly aligned with yours given enough time hopefully we can find peace. I'm geussing we are both seeking heavens gate, is everything monotheisic and linear.. etc.. it is what it is.

You live the way you live, sure we can inform of our own opion but we should bear in mind that we all have choice, and that the concept of defence of livelyhood becomes tainted when it subjects others to your rule.

That is just a little of my opinion on drugs.
WHATEVER. I don't like anal.

Yea sure weed is going to cause me to go crazy and stuff. Here is the thing while you ascribe to the belief that drugs are bad I ascribe to the belief that drugs themselves have no moral connotation and are inherently not bad or good. Rather there are only good or bad uses of the drugs. Now if you want to stay away from drugs thats perfectly fine. But neither you or the government has the right to tell me what I can or can not put in my body.

Given that people on drugs can end up hurting others as well as themselves is just another reason they are illegal. Other things if abused can do the same to but not if in moderation. If someone says they use drugs in moderation is simply stupid since the entire goal is to get high which can cause the possible result of hurting others.

Given that people on drugs can end up hurting others as well as themselves is just another reason they are illegal. Other things if abused can do the same to but not if in moderation.
Nobody is trying to legalize the 'hurting others' bit.
If someone says they use drugs in moderation is simply stupid since the entire goal is to get high which can cause the possible result of hurting others.
I assume, then, that you want also to ban alcohol and tobacco? Because your position wouldn't be very consistent otherwise.

Drugs are bad Mmmkay?

hehe.
Anyway, should drugs be legalized? I dont mean Medicinal i mean FULLY legalized.

Pro's
Some drugs are only as bad as Tobacco medically.
Civil rights
Social

Cons'
STOOONEEER....
Common sense
Social.

Im For them, but in private use and in moderation. whats your opinion???!!?

Yeah, go ahead, let people fry their own brains, as long as they don't impose it on anyone but them selves. I mean, hell, people will find a way around these things no matter what, just banning it means that the stuff is of questionable purity, not that there'll be less of it.

Look at smoking. Just because smoking is legal doesn't mean that I will ever take up smoking. Just make the down sides very clear, the intelligent people will avoid while the less intelligent, like I said earlier, will fry their brains and die.

i think they should be legalized. Thats it. I don't see whats wrong with them if they are used in moderation and not out in the big wide open. They can make sad people happy!:p

Given that people on drugs can end up hurting others as well as themselves is just another reason they are illegal. Other things if abused can do the same to but not if in moderation. If someone says they use drugs in moderation is simply stupid since the entire goal is to get high which can cause the possible result of hurting others.

People off of drugs can end up hurting people. Hell if I'm in a car I can kill someone in an accident. Does that mean we should ban driving? No we regulate it and make sure that people are educated on how to drive and the dangers of the road. We have laws that come into play if someone is drunk and hurts someone but alcohol is still legal. I see no reason why other drugs can not enjoy the same thing.

Edit: On you point saying people who say the use drugs in moderation are stupid. That is the most idiotic thing to say ever. What about all the people who drink once in a while who aren't alcoholic? True the goal of drugs is to get high/drunk but that doesn't mean you have to go all out and throw caution to the wind.

I think people should be able to have thier life the way they would like it the only social concern is interaction of individuals in a functioning society. A functioning society is of course the dilmena. I think everyone needs to bear personal responsibility for their lives, that is the truth of the situation. Some people just walk around with a liscence to kill, it is militancies veiw regardless. Life of war army of one in a society of no one or all.

We feel the way we feel about things, when you reduce human to an eletrochemical stimulus response robot, wtf does it matter? We do what is right based upon our destiny and our true faith. What is the issue, why bad trip reality. We experience what we experience, of course getting beyond bitterness or hate or egocentrism IMO is really learning ones own death.

I think that on a more earthly level we have major concerns with trust and environmental safety and awareness. If drugs are halluciongenic then safe environments should exist (in many ways that was a good benifit of 'raves' which could accomodate a comfortable community environment perhaps with neat attractions to assist in enjoyment of the altered states experience. It is just a life model at a faster pace, IMO.

Of course the issues of poisoning the environment posioning the shrive. Injected with a Poison etc.. etc.. whatever. I don't piss in your glass etc.. etc.. Of course my sense of ethics and decency may not be correctly aligned with yours given enough time hopefully we can find peace. I'm geussing we are both seeking heavens gate, is everything monotheisic and linear.. etc.. it is what it is.

You live the way you live, sure we can inform of our own opion but we should bear in mind that we all have choice, and that the concept of defence of livelyhood becomes tainted when it subjects others to your rule.

That is just a little of my opinion on drugs.
WHATEVER. I don't like anal.


I get a strange feeling there is a secret message in here, or if you rearrange it enough, it will make sense. Maybe not. Maybe it's Elvis sending a message from the beyond. One thing is for sure though. This guy may or may not be against or for legalizing or prohibiting drugs. Maybe.

First off, I just wanna make a few things clear about myself. I have smoked weed consistantly, and now I don't. I am not for the legalization of ALL drugs, but it would be a good thing, I think, if they made treatments for drugs like crack kegal (the crack patch), because nobody wants to be addicted to this crap. Addiction is like having an itchy rash or the chicken pox, but amplify the need to itch and the relief you get when you do itch by several hundred. I have done drugs other than weed, but now I don't. I am for the legalization of personal-at-home-usage of pot, but asking for more than that is too much. Now here are the reasons why...



Marijuana is NOT chemically addicting, meaning that if you've ever known anybody who's said they are addicted to pot it is because they are weak minded. This is not an opinion, this is listed as a medical fact of marijuana.

The only reason Marijuana is even called a drug is because that is what the FDA says it is, and therefore it is guilty by association. By definition of the word drug, anything the FDA desides is a drug is considered a drug. What's next? French fries?

If you've ever smoked pot, you know that the first thing you do when you smoke pot is NOT to go out and hurt people. That would require effort. The majority of people who get high sit around and try to think of easier ways to get munchies out of the fridge without having to get off the sofa. Pot heads get really lazy when they're stoned.

In conjunction to what I just said, I also think weed shouldn't be aloud to just anyone, because I remember I smoked it in highschool and I reallyt let my grades slip because I would come home and smoke pot and not feel like doing my homework. Of course, this can't be contributed to just pot, but why should we, the smokers of America, allow the rest of society to have any reason to blame us for their stupid children (and in case you get offended by that, I am including myself in that statement). So what I'm saying is that we don't let anyone smoke weed until at least after highschool. I know this "legal age" rule probably won't stop many kids from smoking as it didn't stop me from drinking, but that in combination with good parenting might help.

FACT: The government will save quite a bit of money just by legalizing Marijuana due to less people in jail for the possession, and or distribution of marijuana.

MYTH: We will see that money back, come tax season.

The way the government looks at it, they can use that money for something else, like welfare. The last thing on the governments mind is giving you back your money. This country is a capitalist country, and so too is our government.

Marijuana is the most commonly abused illegal drug in the US, why? Because it is illegal. If it wasn't illegal, you could take 2 words out of that sentence. Marijuana is the most used drug in the US. Now doesn't that just have a nicer ring to it?

Gateway drug? No. Let me ask you this? When you had ice cream for the first time, assuming you like ice cream, did you think you would enjoy popsicles and sherbert too? My point is that if people do move on to stronger drugs from pot it is only because of their association with these drugs. If you ask me, there's quite a bit of a difference between a drug that you can smoke all day and just get really friggin retarded-stoned vs a drug that if you do too much of at once it can kill you. You can't overdose on Marijuana.

Marijuana is all natural, at least it can be if you trust the person who grew it. On the street, you run into sellers that have no idea whether or not their stuff is laced, and sometimes, neither do you. I once smoked a joint laced with coke, not because I wanted to, but because the idiot didn't tell us until afterwards. If weed was sold in packs, like cigarettes, by companies, like Marlboro, the contents of the product could be regulated, if not investigated.

[QUOTE=Kzord]Perhaps. Though it is more difficult to agree with if you care about the person who ruins his/her life through drug addiction. Regardless, I would support a minimum age for purchasing.QUOTE]
You know...it's actually pretty interesting that you should bring this up because, right now, I am here in the middle of the Pacific, far away from home, and my younger brother is going through a lot of the same crap that I went through when I went through my drug phase. The problem for me is, he's getting caught. He keeps doing things that put him in the lime light and he's been busted for possession. You know what though? It's not entirely his fault, and it isn't the weed's fault. It's mine. Because when I was going through that phase, I let him see me acting wrecklace and I didn't give him the advice that he needed to keep out of trouble. But I can accept this fact, that I have a personal responsibility to my loved ones, and I don't try to blame it on the weed.

[QUOTE=People without names]some states will allow it, and attract all the stoners, and other states wont have as big of a problem, then what the cops take away in the other states can be sold by the government in the states it is legal.[QUOTE]
In all the studies I've done on marijuana, I don't think I've ever heard this particular argument. I'm not totally sure if it's a good idea or a bad idea, but either way, props to you for looking outside the box.

I finish this longwinded position with a final thought: To look at anything, not just drugs, but anything this world has to offer, and claim that it is good or bad is a belief, because when you take religion out of the matter, the only thing we are left with is perspective. We, in the US, are supposed to be seperating religion from state, so if you are simply saying that drugs are bad, try looking out side of what you werte taught. Look outside the box of ignorance and investigate for yourself. I'm not saying to go out and shoot up so you know from first hand experience, but at very least, open your minds up to the possibility that marijuana isn't as bad as your mom and dad told you it was.

I assume, then, that you want also to ban alcohol and tobacco? Because your position wouldn't be very consistent otherwise.

Perhaps you missed the first part of my post? Things other then drugs CAN be used in moderation.

Edit: On you point saying people who say the use drugs in moderation are stupid. That is the most idiotic thing to say ever.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I typed? I said the idea that moderate drug use is possible is stupid. There is no such thing.

Perhaps you missed the first part of my post? Things other then drugs CAN be used in moderation.
Perhaps you misunderstood what I typed? I said the idea that moderate drug use is possible is stupid. There is no such thing.

You are...well...COMPLETELY WRONG. You seem to assume that if I smoke a joint, 1)I will forever be addicted, and 2) I will instantly become the equivalent of so fucked up I can't think. You assume the term "High" means something it doesn't. You are in error on both counts. You also erroneously assume that cigarettes (i.e. nicotine), caffine, etc are not drugs. You claim that things OTHER than drugs can be used in moderation. So does that make me a tylenol addict if I use it for a headache occasionally?

Drugs have variable degrees of addictive qualities. Coke/Crack and Meth are highly addictive- their vary nature makes you think "if I have just a bit more I'll feel great!" But marijuana has a relaxing effect- you will simply lose interest in smoking more or just fall asleep. And cigarettes and alcohol are infantly more addictive than pot. MDMA (Ecstacy) is even less addictive. I may do it two or three times a year at most. Mushrooms and LSD are also not very addictive, if at all.

Most drugs are just like alcohol- you have to use a bit for it to have a significant effect. For instance, one toke of standard weed won't even get someone who has never smoked in their life "high". You assume that the pathetic state of someone addicted to, say, meth, is indicative of what anyone who uses any drug in any amount would be. The meth addict and the alcohol addict are similar. The guy who has an occasional beer, and might drink several once or twice a month is more the equivalent of your everyday pot smoker.

So your belief that the idea of moderate drug use is stupid, is stupid. Unfortunately, you seem to have been brainwashed (i.e. believe the propoganda) by your friendly neighborhood Morality Police.

You are...well...COMPLETELY WRONG. You seem to assume that if I smoke a joint, 1)I will forever be addicted, and 2) I will instantly become the equivalent of so fucked up I can't think. You assume the term "High" means something it doesn't. You are in error on both counts. You also erroneously assume that cigarettes (i.e. nicotine), caffine, etc are not drugs. You claim that things OTHER than drugs can be used in moderation. So does that make me a tylenol addict if I use it for a headache occasionally?

Does everyone have some kind of problem with not reading my posts that carefully? I never said anything about instant addiction, just that the entire point of using drugs is to fuck yourself up but things like alcohol can be used without messing up your brain. As I said OTHER THINGS CAN BE USED IN MODERATION. That tylenol comment is ridiculous as I don't even think you can get addicted like you can on oxycotin or other opiates.

Does everyone have some kind of problem with not reading my posts that carefully?
No, it's just that you imply a lot of rediculous and erroneous things. So much so that I would swaer you were a straw man if not for the unfortunate sincerity of your misguided beliefs.
I never said anything about instant addiction, just that the entire point of using drugs is to fuck yourself up but things like alcohol can be used without messing up your brain.
So, you think people don't drink alcohol because it has an intoxicating effect? Even if it's just a beer or two? And you again assume that you cannot function at all if you take any amount of any drug. And you are wrong. You (obviously) have no experience in this, and can only rely on the government fed propoganda you have injested.

As I said OTHER THINGS CAN BE USED IN MODERATION. That tylenol comment is ridiculous as I don't even think you can get addicted like you can on oxycotin or other opiates.
Actually, you said "other things than drugs can be used in moderation". And, as I pointed out, nicotine, caffine, and tylenol- are drugs. I (and anyone else) obviously have no means of convincing you. The only way possible would be to get one of those "deprogramming teams" that bring people back from cult brainwashing. But I'd rather go smoke a joint.

By the way, you believe those "marijuana kills" ads, don't you?

No, it's just that you imply a lot of rediculous and erroneous things. So much so that I would swaer you were a straw man if not for the unfortunate sincerity of your misguided beliefs.

I'm sorry if you disagree but I am not going to be convinced that this is just a 'right' that people have. Keeping these drugs illegal is for the best.

So, you think people don't drink alcohol because it has an intoxicating effect? Even if it's just a beer or two? And you again assume that you cannot function at all if you take any amount of any drug. And you are wrong. You (obviously) have no experience in this, and can only rely on the government fed propoganda you have injested.

Drinking one beer affects people? I've never been drunk myself and have no desire to be but I have drunk a beer occassionaly and have felt no different. I doubt the same can be said with drugs.

By the way, you believe those "marijuana kills" ads, don't you?

Of course not. Those ads are usually on dying in car crahes but I'm sure alcohol usually plays a role in these accidents. I wouldn't be surprised however if it did slow your reaction time and you can end up hitting something (like a person) you wouldn't have sober.

Either way the people that want them will take them. The only difference will be that there is no heat.

It depends on the drugs. Cannabis should definitely be completely legalized. Perscription pharmaceuticals should be unregulated, with the exceptions of morphine, oxycodone (possibly some other narcotics), and all of the benzodiazpines. Opium should be legalized. Cocaine is a tricky one; in snorted form it is not really any more dangerous than alcohol, but it is extraordinarily addictive (almost as much as tobacco) when freebased and since anyone can cook up crack in their kitchen it might cause a few problems; but I think the positives of legalizing it (the same as for all drugs: eliminating the source of income and power of organized crime, freeing up the resources of law enforcement, and the quality control protecting people from adulterants and allowing them to know exact doses) would outweigh the negatives. All of the psychedelics need to be legalized. Heroin, methamphetamine, and PCP are suitably dangerous enough for them to remain illegal (those are the only drugs outlawed entirely for legitimate health reasons); but if they remain illegal when everything else is legalized organized crime will focus even more intensely on these drugs (which raises the question of whether the legality of other drugs would lower demand for these three) so I am unsure regarding those.

To Utracia; you should stop just reciting the propaganda taught in DARE and actually research drugs and/or talk to people who use them. I have had an interest in psychopharmacology for a few years now and I can tell you that the legality of a drug has absolutely nothing to do with how safe it is. Alcohol is considerably more dangerous and addictive than drugs such as cannabis, LSD, mushrooms, mescaline, and a variety of others. Nor do most drugs even kill brain cells (a side-effect limited to alcohol, methamphetamine, PCP and other NMDA antagonists, GHB, and MDMA and its analogs); of course I'm sure you won't believe that but the fact that people don't get brain damage from having a daily cup of coffee (which is almost always used for the "high" it gives) is an example of this. Drugs, or rather some of them, can be used easily in moderation. I'm a college student double majoring in anthropology and philosophy who is at the top of his class and I smoke weed regularly and occassionally use psychedelics. Most drugs do not make you violent (an effect that seems to be limited to alcohol, barbituates, PCP, and strong stimulants but of course even with all of these acts of violence are the exception rather than the rule); and there are drugs, such as weed, that are usually safe to drive while on.

First off, I just wanna make a few things clear about myself. I have smoked weed consistantly, and now I don't. I am not for the legalization of ALL drugs, but it would be a good thing, I think, if they made treatments for drugs like crack kegal (the crack patch), because nobody wants to be addicted to this crap. Addiction is like having an itchy rash or the chicken pox, but amplify the need to itch and the relief you get when you do itch by several hundred. I have done drugs other than weed, but now I don't. I am for the legalization of personal-at-home-usage of pot, but asking for more than that is too much. Now here are the reasons why...



Marijuana is NOT chemically addicting, meaning that if you've ever known anybody who's said they are addicted to pot it is because they are weak minded. This is not an opinion, this is listed as a medical fact of marijuana.

The only reason Marijuana is even called a drug is because that is what the FDA says it is, and therefore it is guilty by association. By definition of the word drug, anything the FDA desides is a drug is considered a drug. What's next? French fries?

If you've ever smoked pot, you know that the first thing you do when you smoke pot is NOT to go out and hurt people. That would require effort. The majority of people who get high sit around and try to think of easier ways to get munchies out of the fridge without having to get off the sofa. Pot heads get really lazy when they're stoned.

In conjunction to what I just said, I also think weed shouldn't be aloud to just anyone, because I remember I smoked it in highschool and I reallyt let my grades slip because I would come home and smoke pot and not feel like doing my homework. Of course, this can't be contributed to just pot, but why should we, the smokers of America, allow the rest of society to have any reason to blame us for their stupid children (and in case you get offended by that, I am including myself in that statement). So what I'm saying is that we don't let anyone smoke weed until at least after highschool. I know this "legal age" rule probably won't stop many kids from smoking as it didn't stop me from drinking, but that in combination with good parenting might help.

FACT: The government will save quite a bit of money just by legalizing Marijuana due to less people in jail for the possession, and or distribution of marijuana.

MYTH: We will see that money back, come tax season.

The way the government looks at it, they can use that money for something else, like welfare. The last thing on the governments mind is giving you back your money. This country is a capitalist country, and so too is our government.

Marijuana is the most commonly abused illegal drug in the US, why? Because it is illegal. If it wasn't illegal, you could take 2 words out of that sentence. Marijuana is the most used drug in the US. Now doesn't that just have a nicer ring to it?

Gateway drug? No. Let me ask you this? When you had ice cream for the first time, assuming you like ice cream, did you think you would enjoy popsicles and sherbert too? My point is that if people do move on to stronger drugs from pot it is only because of their association with these drugs. If you ask me, there's quite a bit of a difference between a drug that you can smoke all day and just get really friggin retarded-stoned vs a drug that if you do too much of at once it can kill you. You can't overdose on Marijuana.

Marijuana is all natural, at least it can be if you trust the person who grew it. On the street, you run into sellers that have no idea whether or not their stuff is laced, and sometimes, neither do you. I once smoked a joint laced with coke, not because I wanted to, but because the idiot didn't tell us until afterwards. If weed was sold in packs, like cigarettes, by companies, like Marlboro, the contents of the product could be regulated, if not investigated.

[QUOTE=Kzord]Perhaps. Though it is more difficult to agree with if you care about the person who ruins his/her life through drug addiction. Regardless, I would support a minimum age for purchasing.QUOTE]
You know...it's actually pretty interesting that you should bring this up because, right now, I am here in the middle of the Pacific, far away from home, and my younger brother is going through a lot of the same crap that I went through when I went through my drug phase. The problem for me is, he's getting caught. He keeps doing things that put him in the lime light and he's been busted for possession. You know what though? It's not entirely his fault, and it isn't the weed's fault. It's mine. Because when I was going through that phase, I let him see me acting wrecklace and I didn't give him the advice that he needed to keep out of trouble. But I can accept this fact, that I have a personal responsibility to my loved ones, and I don't try to blame it on the weed.

[QUOTE=People without names]some states will allow it, and attract all the stoners, and other states wont have as big of a problem, then what the cops take away in the other states can be sold by the government in the states it is legal.[QUOTE]
In all the studies I've done on marijuana, I don't think I've ever heard this particular argument. I'm not totally sure if it's a good idea or a bad idea, but either way, props to you for looking outside the box.

I finish this longwinded position with a final thought: To look at anything, not just drugs, but anything this world has to offer, and claim that it is good or bad is a belief, because when you take religion out of the matter, the only thing we are left with is perspective. We, in the US, are supposed to be seperating religion from state, so if you are simply saying that drugs are bad, try looking out side of what you werte taught. Look outside the box of ignorance and investigate for yourself. I'm not saying to go out and shoot up so you know from first hand experience, but at very least, open your minds up to the possibility that marijuana isn't as bad as your mom and dad told you it was.


Now, although I agree that marijuana is harmless, I do think that it is a gateway drug. After I had it, I wanted to try something that would make me more stoned, for a longer period of time. So have many other potheads that I know.

And just an interesting fact, my parents (or at least my dad for sure) still smoke pot. However, they frown upon its use. Damned hypocrites.

As far as marijuana being a gateway drug; according to the American Medical Association, less than one in three who uses marijuana ever moves on to another illegal drug. It is true that most people who use illegal drugs other than cannabis used cannabis first, but most people who use cannabis use caffeine and/or alcohol first. If marijuana was a genuine gateway drug (its use led to the use of other drugs) statistics would show that as marijuana use increased the use of other drugs increased; this is not the case. Also, when marijuana was decriminalized in Holland the use of alcohol, cocaine, and heroin decreased.

I see.

To reply to some other comments on the board that perpetuate myths: It is meaningless that marijuana is natural. Whether a drug is natural or synthetic has absolutely nothing to do with its safety. Granted marijuana and mushrooms are both all natural and extremely safe, and methamphetamine is synthetic and extremely dangerous; but cocaine is all natural and certainly not safe and LSD is synthetic and is, in terms of actual physical health, the safest of all drugs. For marijuana being laced with other drugs, that obviously not be a risk if it was legalized, but the potential of marijuana being laced with other drugs seems to be my most frequently heard claim of why marijuana use is dangerous (since weed itself has been shown to be essentially harmless) and so it needs to be dispelled. It is far more likely for someone to smoke weed that is not laced in anything and believe it to be laced in something (the effects of marijuana have a surprising degree of variability from strain to strain) than it is for weed to be actually laced with something. Though there are likely a few exceptions, weed laced in cocaine is almost always identified as such since cocaine is considerably more expensive than weed and the dealer will be able to charge extra. Weed is occasionally (in "shadier" urban settings) laced in PCP, and this is a genuine risk but not one worth worrying about.

I'm sorry if you disagree but I am not going to be convinced that this is just a 'right' that people have. Keeping these drugs illegal is for the best.

You haven't given any compelling reasons for why it's for the best. You just keep repeating your hypothesis. Drugs are bad. Drugs are bad. Not a very good argument, as you can tell from it not being bought by anyone who's read it.


Drinking one beer affects people? I've never been drunk myself and have no desire to be but I have drunk a beer occassionaly and have felt no different. I doubt the same can be said with drugs.


Doubt all you like, but you are arguing from ignorance. You think there's a line between "drugs" and "alcohol." Alcohol IS a drug, and it's a bad one - ask any alcoholic or someone who died due to a drunk driver. Alcohol's effect is literally "intoxicating," which comes from the word "toxic" and means POISON. There are many drugs however - pot, for example - which doesn't poison your brain, doesn't cause liver disease, doesn't cause tens of thousands of accidents and overdoses a year, but yet you're still mindlessly against.

You're OK with people poisoning themselves with alcohol, but because other drugs are called "getting high" or "fucked up," you think other drugs are somehow worse and should be criminalized.

You've also given no real solution to enforcing their prohibition. You mentioned something vague about messing around with drug producing countries. I hope you realize that America is a drug producing country too. What exactly do you think we should do? Invade? Throw money at their governments?

Perhaps you misunderstood what I typed? I said the idea that moderate drug use is possible is stupid. There is no such thing.
Sorry to disapoint you but I'm living proof that your wrong and so are many other posters on this board. I use alcohol in moderation so you've just been disproven.


I'm sorry if you disagree but I am not going to be convinced that this is just a 'right' that people have. Keeping these drugs illegal is for the best.
So you don't believe your body is your property?



Drinking one beer affects people? I've never been drunk myself and have no desire to be but I have drunk a beer occassionaly and have felt no different. I doubt the same can be said with drugs.
I have a friend who is such a featherweight that 1 beer makes him giggle like a school girl. Drugs have varying effects on different people. Just because you don't get intoxicated off of 1 beer does not mean it doesn't happen.

You haven't given any compelling reasons for why it's for the best. You just keep repeating your hypothesis. Drugs are bad. Drugs are bad. Not a very good argument, as you can tell from it not being bought by anyone who's read it.

If you can use drugs that don't result in hurting others in a desperate need for another fix then fine have the less damaging drugs be legal. That will never happen though as even if legal the drug companies will keep prices high.


Doubt all you like, but you are arguing from ignorance. You think there's a line between "drugs" and "alcohol." Alcohol IS a drug, and it's a bad one - ask any alcoholic or someone who died due to a drunk driver. Alcohol's effect is literally "intoxicating," which comes from the word "toxic" and means POISON. There are many drugs however - pot, for example - which doesn't poison your brain, doesn't cause liver disease, doesn't cause tens of thousands of accidents and overdoses a year, but yet you're still mindlessly against.

Only difference is that booze can be used without doing so in excess. To try to lessen the deaths caused by drunks what needs to be done is strengthen the drunk driving laws and the penalties for hurting someone as a result. There really is no excuse.

You've also given no real solution to enforcing their prohibition. You mentioned something vague about messing around with drug producing countries. I hope you realize that America is a drug producing country too. What exactly do you think we should do? Invade? Throw money at their governments?

What can be done but to lengthen prison terms for dealers and to actually do something about them instead of letting them deal in the open for lack of jail space. Lock them up instead of letting them get out in a few days if not quicker. For the long term, perhaps a tactic is to spend the War on Drugs money to buy up the fields in South America and burn them. Certainly it would be difficult to try to get them but it is more direct and might be cheaper then the half-assed way its being done now.

Drugs should be legal. All of 'em. ALL OF THEM. What reason is there for them to be illegal? Everyone does them despite the laws.

Drugs should be legal. All of 'em. ALL OF THEM. What reason is there for them to be illegal? Everyone does them despite the laws.

This arguement doesn't cut it just like the 'drugs are bad' arguement doesn't work. Laws will always be broken but that doesn't mean you give up and let the criminals win.

Drinking one beer affects people? I've never been drunk myself and have no desire to be but I have drunk a beer occassionaly and have felt no different. I doubt the same can be said with drugs.
If your argument for beer is that one beer doesn't affect you as much as other drugs, would you then support the banning of drunkenness?

This arguement doesn't cut it just like the 'drugs are bad' arguement doesn't work. Laws will always be broken but that doesn't mean you give up and let the criminals win.

They're only criminals because the laws are in place, dillhole.

[QUOTE=Utracia]If you can use drugs that don't result in hurting others in a desperate need for another fix then fine have the less damaging drugs be legal. That will never happen though as even if legal the drug companies will keep prices high.
[QUOTE]
And yet alcoholics don't seem to be running around committing crimes to get their "fix." So following this reasoning you would support the legalization of drugs that neither physically nor psychologically addictive (LSD, mushrooms, mescaline, and other psychedelics); I certainly agree with that but I doubt you do. If you understood anything about supply and demand you would realize that the prices would go down. Right now, to give an example from where I live, an 8th of an ounce of high quality marijuana costs $60 (a price at which no one in the suburb I lived in or at the college I currently live in has ever committed any sort of violent or notable crime to obtain) largely due to the low supply from it being hard to obtain since it is illegal. Lets say it is legalized and company A tries selling an 8th for $60; without the prohibition that could be sold for considerably cheaper so company B begins selling 8ths for $50 to beat the competition while still making a large profit; then company A counters (or a company C steps in) and lowers their price to $40; and so this continues until the price accurately reflects supply and demand and the price is far lower than it is currently.

If your argument for beer is that one beer doesn't affect you as much as other drugs, would you then support the banning of drunkenness?

Little hard to inforce that. :) When you get right down to it though, getting drunk occassionally is a lesser threat then occassionally getting high with the hard drugs. The danger is simply greater.

They're only criminals because the laws are in place, dillhole.

Are you insulting me? That will really help your arguement. The simple fact is that making everything legal is not going to make our society better.

[quote]
Only difference is that booze can be used without doing so in excess. To try to lessen the deaths caused by drunks what needs to be done is strengthen the drunk driving laws and the penalties for hurting someone as a result. There really is no excuse.
[QUOTE]

The term "excess" is entirely subjective and I have no idea what you even mean by it. If excess means without causing significant health problems, yes most drugs can be used in moderation at least as easily as alcohol. If excess means used to the point where you are unable to drive, most drugs can be used in moderation far more easily than alcohol.

I (and I believe many other people on this board) am still trying to figure out what you have against drugs. So far what I see is that you believe they will cause more driving accidents (this can be easily reconciled by putting in all sorts of "stoned" driving laws) and that you think everyone who uses drugs will become addicts who mug people and steal to get money to fund their habits (which I have already addressed).

Now, about em. I do not think that they should all be legalized, since I know people that have gone nuts on drugs like cocaine or crystal meth and shit like that. I myself have tried pot, mushrooms, and oil, and for me they all do basically the same thing as alcohol, albeit much stronger.

.
What the hell is oil? Am I getting THAT old, or am I just out of the loop?

[QUOTE=Utracia] When you get right down to it though, getting drunk occassionally is a lesser threat then occassionally getting high with the hard drugs. The danger is simply greater.

[QUOTE]

And how do you come to that conclusion? Do some research into the health risks of alcohol in relation to cocaine or heroin. Also I note you say "hard" drugs, what then of "soft" drugs?

Wgat the hell is oil? Am I getting THAT old, or am I just out of the loop?

"Oil" is likely referring to hash oil. It is generally 15% to 50% thc whereas weed is generally 1% to 3% thc. It is generally used by applying a drop of it to a ciggarette.

I (and I believe many other people on this board) am still trying to figure out what you have against drugs. So far what I see is that you believe they will cause more driving accidents (this can be easily reconciled by putting in all sorts of "stoned" driving laws) and that you think everyone who uses drugs will become addicts who mug people and steal to get money to fund their habits (which I have already addressed).

My main arguement against drugs is that they are simply more dangerous then alcohol. Using cocaine or heroin once can really fuck you up but not alcohol. Other posters seem to think that if legal drug prices will go down so people won't have to commit crimes to get their fix. I don't see how people can think this, all you have to do is look at the costs of perscription drugs. You think these newly legalized drugs will be any different in price? Of course they'll be just as expensive!

When you get right down to it though, getting drunk occassionally is a lesser threat then occassionally getting high with the hard drugs. The danger is simply greater.

1. # Of drunk-driving deaths/year
2. # Of drug-driving deaths/year
3. You're totally and utterly brainwashed
4. Do some research

I say legalize them, but there needs to be a legal limit and rules. For instance, limit use to private use only (no shooting up/snorting/smoking in public places), and have a legal limit to how much is in your system if you drive (like the .08% blood alcohol limit). This would apply to all "drugs," including marijuana. Plus, the government (maybe they don't realize this) could make a killing off the taxes they could impose on the stuff, like they do on cigarette and alcohol sales. That money could be specifically earmarked for education or health care.

My main arguement against drugs is that they are simply more dangerous then alcohol. Using cocaine or heroin once can really fuck you up but not alcohol. Other posters seem to think that if legal drug prices will go down so people won't have to commit crimes to get their fix. I don't see how people can think this, all you have to do is look at the costs of perscription drugs. You think these newly legalized drugs will be any different in price? Of course they'll be just as expensive!

Since legalizing drugs would obviously entail a huge shift in our current laws, the way I envision it all drugs that are currently regulated would be put on the free market. Not only would this allow for lower prices of "recreational" drugs it would also lower prices of perscription drugs (which would also occur if it was legal to buy perscription drugs from Canada). Than the price of drugs would accurately reflect their market value; and even then many recreational drugs would become cheaper than perscription drugs by virtue of being natural and thus far easier and cheaper to produce. I have thoroughly researched psychoactive drugs over the past four years and if you also did some research you would realize that alcohol is no safer than other hard drugs. And no, using cocaine, heroin, or any drug (with the possible exception of anti-cholergenic deleriants and those are legal anyways) once will not "fuck you up" (a term that displays how little you know about health problems linked to drugs). Also, I note that your focus has shifted almost exclusively to hard drugs. Have your opinions regarding "soft" drugs changed?

1. # Of drunk-driving deaths/year
2. # Of drug-driving deaths/year
3. You're totally and utterly brainwashed
4. Do some research

Who said anything about driving? Drugs are dangerous enough without a car. As I've posted before strengthening drunk driving penalties would go a long way to convince people that drinking and driving is a BAD idea. I'm sure everyone can agree with me on THAT?

Who said anything about driving? Drugs are dangerous enough without a car.

Would you care to qualify that statement? I do agree that drinking and driving is a bad combination and laws in Europe show that increased penalities do decrease instances of drunk driving.

A question for those who agree that drugs should be legalized: Marijuana and mushrooms can be readily grown at home; should this also be legal?

Drugs are dangerous enough without a car.

Dangerous to whom? Or what? "Dangerous?" What does that mean, exactly? Specific examples needed here.

They should not be legal. Laws against them should be enforced more strictly acrossed the world. They are dangerous, even tabacco is dangerous. It can cause lung cancer, even to they people around the person using it. Some drugs can cause people to become more violent. It just isn't safe for anyone or anything. There are a lot cooler ways to die than from using drugs, or in a car crash caused by drugs. I don't care if it is freedom or not, if people don't have enough common sense not to use them, then governments should have enough common sense to outlaw them.

Also, I note that your focus has shifted almost exclusively to hard drugs. Have your opinions regarding "soft" drugs changed?

It is only the hard drugs that cause the real damage but I really don't care for any of the other ones either. You could certainly argue that the lighter drugs are no real issue unlike heroin or meth as they really do mess you up. I have tried to come to a solid position but all I have is that marijuana I wouldn't care if it became legal but everything else? No. Besides it is only with that that has any serious potential of becoming legal.

A question for those who agree that drugs should be legalized: Marijuana and mushrooms can be readily grown at home; should this also be legal?

People have argued in past posts that there should be regulation with the drugs by the government. (Kind of ironic really with annoyance about the government having it being illegal but they'll let them have control over it).

They should not be legal. Laws against them should be enforced more strictly acrossed the world. They are dangerous, even tabacco is dangerous. It can cause lung cancer, even to they people around the person using it. Some drugs can cause people to become more violent. It just isn't safe for anyone or anything. There are a lot cooler ways to die than from using drugs, or in a car crash caused by drugs. I don't care if it is freedom or not, if people don't have enough common sense not to use them, then governments should have enough common sense to outlaw them.

So I assume you believe that the government should outlaw fatty food and overly sugary desserts?

So I assume you believe that the government should outlaw fatty food and overly sugary desserts?

Cigarettes. Alcohol. Cooking wine. Household cleaners. Robitussin. Breath spray. Additives. Preservatives. Cholesterol. .. The list just goes on and on.

So I assume you believe that the government should outlaw fatty food and overly sugary desserts?
Maybe (since people obviousle can't use them in moderation, which is what the problem is), but that isn't what we are talking about and drugs are different. They aren't just dangerous to the person who uses them, but to the people around them.

So I assume you believe that the government should outlaw fatty food and overly sugary desserts?

Does either of those things cause people to commit crimes to feed their crazed McDonalds habit?

Maybe (since people obviousle can't use them in moderation, which is what the problem is), but that isn't what we are talking about and drugs are different. They aren't just dangerous to the person who uses them, but to the people around them.

Exactly. The drugs part anyway. :p

I say legalize them, but there needs to be a legal limit and rules. For instance, limit use to private use only (no shooting up/snorting/smoking in public places), and have a legal limit to how much is in your system if you drive (like the .08% blood alcohol limit). This would apply to all "drugs," including marijuana. Plus, the government (maybe they don't realize this) could make a killing off the taxes they could impose on the stuff, like they do on cigarette and alcohol sales. That money could be specifically earmarked for education or health care.
There is not place that is completely private. It isn't healthy for people to use them, and even in 'privacy' there is always the person that you live with or your neighbor, it isn't right for them to have to live with it.

Maybe (since people obviousle can't use them in moderation, which is what the problem is), but that isn't what we are talking about and drugs are different. They aren't just dangerous to the person who uses them, but to the people around them.

Stupidity is the most dangerous aspect of anything, drugs included.

Stupidity is the most dangerous aspect of anything, drugs included.
I agree, but there is more to it than that. What do you really get out of using drugs in the end? NOTHING!! After a small time of pleasure, you suffer. People don't realize this, the governments must make it illegal to protect people from their own stupidity.

People have argued in past posts that there should be regulation with the drugs by the government. (Kind of ironic really with annoyance about the government having it being illegal but they'll let them have control over it).

There was no consensus and this particular point was not addressed. But I don't see it as ironic that some would believe that government has a right to control the drugs; I believe that synthetic drugs should have some degree of regulation to ensure the absence of impurities. I think that the ease of growing marijuana and mushrooms would eventually result in enough people doing it and it would become impossible to enforce.

For marijuana being the only drug likely to be legalized; I would agree that is presently true in America but in many of the scandanavian countries where weed is decriminalized mushrooms are also decriminalized. What I could conceive of happening is that medicinal marijuana use will become increasingly widespread and as this happens and everyone becomes increasingly cognisant of its essential harmlessness that it will become legal. Since at this point many countries, such as Canada and Australia, are only keeping marijuana illegal because of America marijuana will become legal in those countries as well, and its legalization will spread around the world. As this occurs everyone will become more open minded about drugs that were previously illegal (as a glimpse of this, I have heard word of a Peruvian energy drink that contains cocaine [cocaine taken orally in this form has been shown to be safter than caffeine] that is becoming increasingly common throughout south america is beginning to find a market in scandinavian countries), principally in psychedelics (research into them is just now being renewed) and it is likely that the decriminalization (and later legalization) of mushrooms will spread out of scandinavia into many other countries and in doing so cause the legalization of other psychedelics. Of course America will stand as a bastion of illegializtion against psychedelics (it was America that first outlawed them as they fueled or catalyzed the counter culture movement in the 1960's and strongly "encouraged" the rest of the world to outlaw them as well), but eventually America will have to give in. But of course those predictions do not take into account the huge coming changes in geo-politics from the upcoming war in Iran or the nearing economic collapse of America.

Does either of those things cause people to commit crimes to feed their crazed McDonalds habit?
So you are now saying that drugs should be illegal because people commit crimes to feed their habit?
Seeing as we have drug-related crime even while the related drugs are illegal, I don't see that your solution has been too effective.

After a small time of pleasure, you suffer. People don't realize this, the governments must make it illegal to protect people from their own stupidity.

That's such a generalization. Not only that, but it's preposterous and unfounded. As for protecting people from their own stupidity, who will protect Me from people like You! Who decides what's stupid and what's not? You just have no clue.

I agree, but there is more to it than that. What do you really get out of using drugs in the end? NOTHING!! After a small time of pleasure, you suffer. People don't realize this, the governments must make it illegal to protect people from their own stupidity.
What do you really get out of eating unhealthy, fatty foods in the end? NOTHING!! After a small time of pleasure, you suffer. People don't realize this, the government must make it illegal to protect people from their own stupidity.[/parody]

Seriously, why should I care if people are hurting themselves with drugs, and why should I protect people from themselves? It's a waste of money to keep people safe, healthy, and alive against their will.

So you are now saying that drugs should be illegal because people commit crimes to feed their habit?
Seeing as we have drug-related crime even while the related drugs are illegal, I don't see that your solution has been too effective.

You just need better enforcement.

I agree, but there is more to it than that. What do you really get out of using drugs in the end? NOTHING!! After a small time of pleasure, you suffer. People don't realize this, the governments must make it illegal to protect people from their own stupidity.

Ultimately it is a matter of cost benefit analysis. I believe that all information of the positives and negatives of each drug (and they vary widely from drug to drug) should be made widely available so that people can make informed decisions. You, like Utracia, clearly don't see any value in gaining pleasure when it is done at the cost of potential health risks; but there are many who have a different opinion. And ultimately the only thing that is gained out of any recreational activity is a small time of pleasure; granted most other activities don't have the possibility of causing health problems but the pleasure gained from drugs is greater. I smoke marijuana on weekends and when there is a good reason for it (i.e. a good looking girl wants to match a bowl) and I am fine with accepting that I'll get more respiratory infections later on in life if I didn't experience this pleasure. Also, I have gained lasting and positive alterations in my worldview from the use of psychedelics and have come to realizations while on them that have aided me in understanding myself, others, and a variety of other aspects of life and existence that have aided, and will continue to aid me, in my majors of anthropology and philosophy and my career that will stem from those areas of study.

You just need better enforcement.

We already have a higher percentage of our population in the world than any other country in the world and we have (I could be *slightly* off on this) the fourth harshest penalities for drug use of any country in the world (the countries higher than us our third world muslim nations). What do you want the cops do? I completely agree with you that anyone who steals, whether the money be for drugs or anything else, needs to be punished; but it is rediculous to punish someone for doing something that could lead to committing a crime that has a victim. You said before that we should buy and burn all the fields in South America; of course referring to the growth of cocaine. This of course shows that you are of ignorant of the connections the drug lords Columbia (and previously Panama) have to the CIA; but I don't expect you to believe that anyways so I'll ignore it. But in burning those fields, assuming all of it could be done, you'd end up depriving the world of chocolate (though I suppose you argue that since chocolate contains drugs it needs to destroyed anyways), deprive millions of peasants of their lively hoods (who would promptly die from the lack of work and health care in their countries), and do nothing for any drug other than cocaine. Burn all of the opium fields in the world (again ignoring how the growth of opium and the exportation of opium and heroin in Afghanastan sky rocketed after America occupied the nation)? You deprive the world of morphine, codeine, hydrocodone, oxycodone, paperavine, and a variety of other medications. And on and on for every drug; these drugs are not going to go away and nothing can be done to decrease their use and demand. We have to realize that this prohibition, like the previous one, has failed and just do what we can to decrease the potential of crime and health risks connected to the inevitable use of drugs.

I dont understand the point of legalizing drugs. A society isnt going to get better by intreducing another harmful substance only because a legalized one is more harmful. Besides pot is called a gateway drug for a reason. Compared to others it probably doesnt do that much damage but once the high is gone some people will look for something stronger like cocaine, meth etc. It will only open the door for other people trying to mak those stronger drugs legal. An effective method for limiting drug use would be to toughen the laws and penalties for possesion, use or dealing.
Possesion-8 months in jail and community service
Use-6 months in jail and community service
Dealing- 5 years in jail followed by 2 years probation
*All of these for the first offense, 2nd offense should be doubled.

snip

I didn't think of the other uses the ingredients of these illegal drugs have. My bad. However it was just a dream idea as it is too radical for our government to take and I suppose the CIA always needs these criminals and hey, the victims are often people who are of no importance right? A few junkies in exchange for perceived national security?

You have to make a choice however and citizens of your own country have to be looked after. Besides would the results be much different if drugs became legal? If prices would fall as a result then perhaps their livlihood would suffer anyway.

I just want to ask the people who are saying keep drugs illegal a question here. Is your body your property?

That's such a generalization. Not only that, but it's preposterous and unfounded. As for protecting people from their own stupidity, who will protect Me from people like You! Who decides what's stupid and what's not? You just have no clue.
What is stupid is ultimently hurting yourself. People like myself don't want to see others get hurt because we really care (I may not know you, but I truely do care). You don't need protected from us because we don't want to you, but people like you need to be protected from yourselves. People like myself don't want to hurt people like you, only to help.

What do you really get out of eating unhealthy, fatty foods in the end? NOTHING!! After a small time of pleasure, you suffer. People don't realize this, the government must make it illegal to protect people from their own stupidity.[/parody]

Seriously, why should I care if people are hurting themselves with drugs, and why should I protect people from themselves? It's a waste of money to keep people safe, healthy, and alive against their will.

You should care because these people who are hurting themselves are your neighbors and your friends. You should protect them because it is what is the right thing to do. It is not a waste of time. Remember when you were younger and your parents made rules that you couldn't understand, but later after you understood you were grateful? This is the same concept. They may not like it now, but one day they will thank you. It is not a waste of money because it will improve economy. If people are healthy they will generally function more effeciently and that will help everyone.

What do you really get out of eating unhealthy, fatty foods in the end? NOTHING!! After a small time of pleasure, you suffer. People don't realize this, the government must make it illegal to protect people from their own stupidity.[/parody]

That is completely different. The people eating unhealthy foods are only hurting themselves, but the people using drugs hurt all of the people around them.

You should care because these people who are hurting themselves are your neighbors and your friends. You should protect them because it is what is the right thing to do. It is not a waste of time. Remember when you were younger and your parents made rules that you couldn't understand, but later after you understood you were grateful? This is the same concept. They may not like it now, but one day they will thank you. It is not a waste of money because it will improve economy. If people are healthy they will generally function more effeciently and that will help everyone.

Who are you to tell me that I can't do something because your protecting me from myself? This isn't kindergarden here man. We are talking about people who have made the choice to take a drug. They make the decision, they have to live with it. Its their life and if they want to screw up their body so be it but its their responsibility to do so.

That is completely different. The people eating unhealthy foods are only hurting themselves, but the people using drugs hurt all of the people around them.

Lets say I take some crack and just stay at home and get high. How am I hurting the people around me?

You have to make a choice however and citizens of your own country have to be looked after. Besides would the results be much different if drugs became legal? If prices would fall as a result then perhaps their livlihood would suffer anyway.

I agree that a nation should always put the concerns of its own citizens over those of another nation to a certain extent, but ruining the livlihoods of millions to prevent some Americans from doing something that they want to do anyways is not something I could see as just. The fall of the prices of the prices of drugs would be completely disconnected from the peasents who are actually farming them; the prices are artificially inflated by the expectedly huge "middle man" fees inherent in smuggingly an illegal substance into another country has a huge law enforcement looking to the ruin the lives (pointed out to give a picture of how much someone would have to be paid for this type of job) of anyone who is caught and then substances filtering their shadowy hiearchies of organized crime (filled with other middle men) before finally arriving on the street.

Ultimately it is a matter of cost benefit analysis. I believe that all information of the positives and negatives of each drug (and they vary widely from drug to drug) should be made widely available so that people can make informed decisions. You, like Utracia, clearly don't see any value in gaining pleasure when it is done at the cost of potential health risks; but there are many who have a different opinion. And ultimately the only thing that is gained out of any recreational activity is a small time of pleasure; granted most other activities don't have the possibility of causing health problems but the pleasure gained from drugs is greater. I smoke marijuana on weekends and when there is a good reason for it (i.e. a good looking girl wants to match a bowl) and I am fine with accepting that I'll get more respiratory infections later on in life if I didn't experience this pleasure. Also, I have gained lasting and positive alterations in my worldview from the use of psychedelics and have come to realizations while on them that have aided me in understanding myself, others, and a variety of other aspects of life and existence that have aided, and will continue to aid me, in my majors of anthropology and philosophy and my career that will stem from those areas of study.
Yes, I will say that the pleasure that it may bring temporaly tend to look tempting, but is it worth it in the end? I don't think that it is. Yes, you have gained new views, but that is only natural. Things that you experience teach you new things; and the mistakes that you make teach you lessons. What you are doing may seem good now, but will it twenty years down road? I met this elderly man a few years ago. He had been involved in all sorts of drugs, illegally. He said that it was the worst thing that he has done, and it lead him down roads, which looking back he wishes he hadn't taken. He did gain pleasure, but he says that the hurt is caused in the end out weighed his pleasure. He did gain knowledge and a new point of view, but he said that if he could go back in time and change what he did, he wouldn't be involved in drugs. He said that the knowledge gained wasn't worth it. Now he has the knowledge and knows what drugs can do to a person. He uses that knowledge to help others so that they don't have to walk the path that he walked. I for one am going to listen to his warnings. I do not want to become involved in drugs. They should be illegal. Like I said before people would not thank me now for making them illegal, but later in life; the would.

That is completely different. The people eating unhealthy foods are only hurting themselves, but the people using drugs hurt all of the people around them.

Later on tonight, like every friday and saturday night, I'm going to smoke some marijuana. I can assure you that no one will be hurt. Nor was anyone ever hurt the countless nights I got high with friends, or the various times I smoked at home and spent time with my family, or the times I came to high school high (not something I can condone any longer, but it did not impact my future since I am attending the college I wanted to).

For protecting people from themselves; I assume you want to keep people from mountain climbing, scuba diving, and racecar driving.

Who are you to tell me that I can't do something because your protecting me from myself? This isn't kindergarden here man. We are talking about people who have made the choice to take a drug. They make the decision, they have to live with it. Its their life and if they want to screw up their body so be it but its their responsibility to do so.
Chances are that people who are taking these drugs are not thinking long term. They just can't place themselves in the future and think about what it would be like. If drugs were illegal, the wouldn't have to screw up their body because the drugs wouldn't have been available (this is assuming the governments crack down on illegal use of drugs). It isn't just their life, they are part of a much bigger picture. It isn't just about themselves, but about you and me and the world.
Lets say I take some crack and just stay at home and get high. How am I hurting the people around me?
You damage your body making you less able to function in society. It may be a slow process but it still happens. This isn't just about today, it is about tomorrow and twenty years from now. After this one time you stay at home, are you going to stay at home next time? Maybe, maybe not. It is a step down a path on which you do not want to go. Maybe this time no one else gets hurt, but what about the next, or that one time that you lose control of yourself?

Yes, I will say that the pleasure that it may bring temporaly tend to look tempting, but is it worth it in the end? I don't think that it is. Yes, you have gained new views, but that is only natural. Things that you experience teach you new things; and the mistakes that you make teach you lessons. What you are doing may seem good now, but will it twenty years down road? I met this elderly man a few years ago. He had been involved in all sorts of drugs, illegally. He said that it was the worst thing that he has done, and it lead him down roads, which looking back he wishes he hadn't taken. He did gain pleasure, but he says that the hurt is caused in the end out weighed his pleasure. He did gain knowledge and a new point of view, but he said that if he could go back in time and change what he did, he wouldn't be involved in drugs. He said that the knowledge gained wasn't worth it. Now he has the knowledge and knows what drugs can do to a person. He uses that knowledge to help others so that they don't have to walk the path that he walked. I for one am going to listen to his warnings. I do not want to become involved in drugs. They should be illegal. Like I said before people would not thank me now for making them illegal, but later in life; the would.

I'd have to know his story to learn from it or pass judgement on it. My high school of course had many speakers come in who were people who used drugs extensively and now regret it; but there use was different than mine (I know that sounds like a cliche rationalization, but it is the truth) they were all people who used drugs like cocaine, heroin, and meth and who drank extensively; who ended up destroying their careers and health. I have already passed my years of over indulgence with marijuana and am now content with using it in moderation. I have never tried, and will never try, the drugs typically considered "hard." I haven't any alcohol in three years (not really a problem since I never enjoyed it) despite the fact that the majority (or close to it) of my campus is getting drunk right now. There are people who ruin their lives with illegal drugs and those who ruin their lives with alcohol (I know more people in this category), but there are more who use drugs and/or alcohol (I hate making a distinction between them) without regretting it.

If drugs were illegal, the wouldn't have to screw up their body because the drugs wouldn't have been available (this is assuming the governments crack down on illegal use of drugs).
There's a problem here, namely that this isn't an "if" situation. The drugs are already illegal, and the government is already cracking down. Yet what you believe the problem to be still exists.

Chances are that people who are taking these drugs are not thinking long term. They just can't place themselves in the future and think about what it would be like. If drugs were illegal, the wouldn't have to screw up their body because the drugs wouldn't have been available (this is assuming the governments crack down on illegal use of drugs). It isn't just their life, they are part of a much bigger picture. It isn't just about themselves, but about you and me and the world.
So what if they aren't thinking long term? Its not our job to tell these people how to think. Hell if we could do that we'd finally be rid of the damn KKK. Also it is about their life. If they choose to do drugs its their choice. We aren't all part of a collective where individuality doesn't matter. Your perfectly fine to think about the rest of the world for your actions but you can't force other people to do so.

You damage your body making you less able to function in society. It may be a slow process but it still happens. This isn't just about today, it is about tomorrow and twenty years from now. After this one time you stay at home, are you going to stay at home next time? Maybe, maybe not. It is a step down a path on which you do not want to go. Maybe this time no one else gets hurt, but what about the next, or that one time that you lose control of yourself?
1. I asked how if I smoked some crack in my house and I got high how I would be hurting others. You have failed to show me that I have indeed hurt anyone else. Now you propose that perhaps years later my body might have a slower reaction time or it may just have hurt my body. But its my body and you have no reason to worry about it.
2. On your it could hurt someone else remark. There is a reason we have laws regarding drunk driving and the like. Its the whole you have the right to swing your fist as far as someone elses noes. But if its just myself then there should not be any interference.

He did gain knowledge and a new point of view, but he said that if he could go back in time and change what he did, he wouldn't be involved in drugs. He said that the knowledge gained wasn't worth it. Now he has the knowledge and knows what drugs can do to a person. He uses that knowledge to help others so that they don't have to walk the path that he walked.
I'd say that's a better idea than banning it. Educating people about the consequences of their choices makes more sense to me than preventing them from making them.
I do not want to become involved in drugs. They should be illegal.
I don't see how the first statement leads to the second. Should everything you think is a bad choice be banned?
Like I said before people would not thank me now for making them illegal, but later in life; the would.
No, I'd thank you and everybody else to get their hands out of my pocketbook and stop spending my tax money to prevent me from feeling the consequences of my own choices. If somebody chooses to do drugs, it isn't my responsibility to stop them from messing up their lives. Similarly, if I chose to use drugs, it'd be my own fault and my own mess, not anybody else's.

Given that people on drugs can end up hurting others as well as themselves is just another reason they are illegal. Other things if abused can do the same to but not if in moderation. If someone says they use drugs in moderation is simply stupid since the entire goal is to get high which can cause the possible result of hurting others.

"Dark Side of The Moon is worth 100 dead kids"- Bill Maher


He's absolutely right, I dont care if it hurts others, that fact is irrelevent, this is a huge country, shit happens my friends, people die, it's worth it. :)

There's a problem here, namely that this isn't an "if" situation. The drugs are already illegal, and the government is already cracking down. Yet what you believe the problem to be still exists.
The governments across the world need to become united in the enforcement of this. And governments are clearly not doing a very good job because drugs are still a problem. What needs to happen is that governments need to find some way of getting rid of the black market.

Chances are that people who are taking these drugs are not thinking long term. They just can't place themselves in the future and think about what it would be like. If drugs were illegal, the wouldn't have to screw up their body because the drugs wouldn't have been available (this is assuming the governments crack down on illegal use of drugs). It isn't just their life, they are part of a much bigger picture. It isn't just about themselves, but about you and me and the world.

You damage your body making you less able to function in society. It may be a slow process but it still happens. This isn't just about today, it is about tomorrow and twenty years from now. After this one time you stay at home, are you going to stay at home next time? Maybe, maybe not. It is a step down a path on which you do not want to go. Maybe this time no one else gets hurt, but what about the next, or that one time that you lose control of yourself?

Drugs are illegal, the government is cracking down on them; but it still does not prevent their use. I agree that most drug users, and people in general, do not think long term and do not look at the big picture; but that is such a common failing that it is inevitable (and it is largely the cause of society, and every society, being the way it is). The very fact that most drug users don't think long term makes the penalities for drug use fail for deterrence; the users don't plan on being caught so don't care what the consequences of being caught are.

For damaging your body and being less able to function in society; many people don't care about how much they can contribute to society and those people will use drugs regardless of this argument, and those who care greatly about this will not use drugs anyways. But largely what matters is what the person does and what kind of damage the drug they do does. Since I am going into academia I am not using any drug that harms the brain, such as alcohol; but getting respiratory infections will not impede my ability to do research or write. And since you try to take a position of moral high ground by saying that we need to think of others before ourselves; I can adopt the moral position of "Every man is an end unto himself" and say that you have no right to demand that someone deprive himself of pleasure in order to act as the means of making a better society.

I agree that a nation should always put the concerns of its own citizens over those of another nation to a certain extent, but ruining the livlihoods of millions to prevent some Americans from doing something that they want to do anyways is not something I could see as just. The fall of the prices of the prices of drugs would be completely disconnected from the peasents who are actually farming them; the prices are artificially inflated by the expectedly huge "middle man" fees inherent in smuggingly an illegal substance into another country has a huge law enforcement looking to the ruin the lives (pointed out to give a picture of how much someone would have to be paid for this type of job) of anyone who is caught and then substances filtering their shadowy hiearchies of organized crime (filled with other middle men) before finally arriving on the street.

When you get right down to it it is the way the drugs affect you that is the issue and what junkies do to continue their habits. Given these two things, these drugs should remain illegal. You can argue all you want on the poison your own body arguement is a choice but since you harm others it doesn't matter. Besides, as a society don't we have a responsibility to protect each other? Letting this freely on the streets would be a mistake.

1. Mild effects? Yeah, right.

2. They COULD but would they? Of course not!

3. They would be just as expensive so the result would be the same.

4. Act more aggressively with the drug producing countries. Don't let them deal with their problem but deal with the fields ourselves

I don't know If I have ever read something so ignorant.

1. You have definitely never used drugs before. Alchohol's effects, I would say, are much more severe and dangerous than Marijuana's. The only problem with Marijuana is that it is usually smoked which is bad for your lungs. This isn't as severe a problem as tobacco because not as much is smoked.

2. Drug prices would certainly go down, you're complete ignoring market forces, which keep grocery stores from charging $400 for an apple. Competition would drive prices down. Currently, drug dealing is a high-risk buisness, one that people are only willing to enter if guarunteed high profit margins(which are amazingly high). Furthermore pharmacutical companies aren't designed for this sort of thing. They produce synthetic drugs which are often patented, nothing like marijuana. I predict that tobacco companies would begin selling marijuana(and have heard stories about vaults full of marijuana cigarettes stockpiled by tobacco companies awaiting legalization).

3. see 2.

4. This simply won't work. Drug producing countries have neither the will nor the means to curb production. The money the drugs bring in is good for the country, and trying to enforce these laws ourselves would be a bloodbath, probably resulting in war between the country and us, or a coup and then war between the country and us, almost certainly resulting in our defeat.

When you get right down to it it is the way the drugs affect you that is the issue and what junkies do to continue their habits. Given these two things, these drugs should remain illegal. You can argue all you want on the poison your own body arguement is a choice but since you harm others it doesn't matter. Besides, as a society don't we have a responsibility to protect each other? Letting this freely on the streets would be a mistake.
1. Not everyone who uses drugs are junkies. There are plenty of responsible users of numerous drugs.

2. There is the possibility to harm someone. There is no guaruntee that if you smoke crack or toke some pot that you'll kill someone or steal something. Much in the same way when you drive a car you have a possibility to harm someone, we educate people on how to drive and about the different types of cars and their effects when driving. But we don't outlaw them because of the possibility of harm occuring.

3. Its already freely on the streets its just not legal.

When you get right down to it it is the way the drugs affect you that is the issue and what junkies do to continue their habits. Given these two things, these drugs should remain illegal. You can argue all you want on the poison your own body arguement is a choice but since you harm others it doesn't matter.
You seem to think you know exactly what every drug user is going to do, and that just isn't true. Not all drug users commit crimes because of their habits, and those that do are mostly users of the street drugs.
Tell me, how many LSD and mescaline users are going about robbing people to support their habit? Not many, I'd wager. Would you state that most marijuana users are doing other illegal things to support their habit? I'd doubt that claim.
Your argument would make more sense against specific drugs such as heroin and crack.
Besides, as a society don't we have a responsibility to protect each other?
Against our own choices? Not that I know of.

I'd say that's a better idea than banning it. Educating people about the consequences of their choices makes more sense to me than preventing them from making them.

I don't see how the first statement leads to the second. Should everything you think is a bad choice be banned?

No, I'd thank you and everybody else to get their hands out of my pocketbook and stop spending my tax money to prevent me from feeling the consequences of my own choices. If somebody chooses to do drugs, it isn't my responsibility to stop them from messing up their lives. Similarly, if I chose to use drugs, it'd be my own fault and my own mess, not anybody else's.
People are educated about drugs, and that isn't doing enough. In schools kids are told not to take them and are explained the consquinces. Not everything has to be banned, it is just looking at what is going on and seeing what needs banned, like drugs. Some things aren't problems yet, and those are the one that we need to start educating people about. Things that people have already proven themselves irresponsible with and are dangerous to society should be banned.

People are educated about drugs, and that isn't doing enough. In schools kids are told not to take them and are explained the consquinces. Not everything has to be banned, it is just looking at what is going on and seeing what needs banned, like drugs. Some things aren't problems yet, and those are the one that we need to start educating people about. Things that people have already proven themselves irresponsible with and are dangerous to society should be banned.

Your kidding me right? If by education, do you mean having a police officer come in with his gun and his drugs are bad speech? Because I can't remeber a time when teachers told me what the effects of exctasy were. There was no explaination of the good effects just the saying its bad and don't take it. And I love that last line. People are irresponsible when the drive. Should that be banned? People are irresponsible with investing should that be banned?

When you get right down to it it is the way the drugs affect you that is the issue and what junkies do to continue their habits. Given these two things, these drugs should remain illegal. You can argue all you want on the poison your own body arguement is a choice but since you harm others it doesn't matter. Besides, as a society don't we have a responsibility to protect each other? Letting this freely on the streets would be a mistake.

The way the drugs affect you? Care to be more specific on that? And yes a person does have the right to "poison" their own body, and I have no responsibility to protect someone from themselves. For the junkies; where are all of these junkies everybody keeps on talking about? Granted I don't live in the city and I am sure there is a alot of crime there related to drugs (but likely more from the organized crime that traffics the drugs- a problem that would be erased by legalizing drugs- than from junkies); but I know, or have met, well over a hundred drug users and most of what they do to continue their habits consists of ripping off other drug users; though I knew one heroin addict who once stole some CDs to pawn them in for money. In any case, if drugs were legal their addicts would be no more prone to engaging in crime to fund their addictions than alcoholics are (and in fact possibly less likely since it would be easier for someone who is on heroin all the time to hold a job than someone who is drunk all the time). And I'll restate that psychedelics are entirely non-addictive and thus have no junkies.

So what if they aren't thinking long term? Its not our job to tell these people how to think. Hell if we could do that we'd finally be rid of the damn KKK. Also it is about their life. If they choose to do drugs its their choice. We aren't all part of a collective where individuality doesn't matter. Your perfectly fine to think about the rest of the world for your actions but you can't force other people to do so.
I can't force others to do so, but please just hear me out. Picture a world with no one like me in. Picture a world where all people thought about was themselves. Pretty great, right? WRONG!! Everything would fall apart, there would be no just law enforcement and crime would be every where.
Now picture a world where no one thinks of themselves. We wouldn't have to worry about anything for ourselves, because someone else would take care of it. We wouldn't have crime because people would only be concerned with everyone else.
So, I challenge you to for one think only about other, of course because this world is not perfect you still must take care of your basic needs.

Legalize them based upon the principle that you own your body and no one else holds ownership over your body. You should have a right to put whatever you want in your body.

But with that freedom comes responsibility. You are responsible for whatever actions you take while you are under the influence of these drugs.

Your kidding me right? If by education, do you mean having a police officer come in with his gun and his drugs are bad speech? Because I can't remeber a time when teachers told me what the effects of exctasy were. There was no explaination of the good effects just the saying its bad and don't take it. And I love that last line. People are irresponsible when the drive. Should that be banned? People are irresponsible with investing should that be banned?
Really? In my school I remember being shown different lungs of pigs. One had 'smoked' and one hadn't. And the lungs of that smoking pig were pretty disgusting. And that was at a public school.
Later I went to a Christian school and our teachers would always tell us about the effects of drugs. They would tell us how good you would feel when you took them, but they also told us that there would be health problems later in life, and some of these could kill you.

I can't force others to do so, but please just hear me out. Picture a world with no one like me in. Picture a world where all people thought about was themselves. Pretty great, right? WRONG!! Everything would fall apart, there would be no just law enforcement and crime would be every where.
Now picture a world where no one thinks of themselves. We wouldn't have to worry about anything for ourselves, because someone else would take care of it. We wouldn't have crime because people would only be concerned with everyone else.
So, I challenge you to for one think only about other, of course because this world is not perfect you still must take care of your basic needs.
See here is the thing. I do think about others. But I do it in a different way then you do. I see a value in educating people about the choices they make. I see a value in law inforcement to protect people from eachother. But I don't see the value in a government comming into my life and telling me how to live it. Rather then force people to not take drugs I'd encourage people to educate themselves about it and make their own decision. We should worry and care about other people but we should not interfere in others lives. Its their lives let them live it. I'm sure you wouldn't like them telling you and then getting the government to force you to live how they want you to?

Really? In my school I remember being shown different lungs of pigs. One had 'smoked' and one hadn't. And the lungs of that smoking pig were pretty disgusting. And that was at a public school.
Yea thats a hell of an education. Thats a scare tactic its not teaching kids what smoking does.

Later I went to a Christian school and our teachers would always tell us about the effects of drugs. They would tell us how good you would feel when you took them, but they also told us that there would be health problems later in life, and some of these could kill you.
Drug education is vastly inadequate when it comes to actually educating people. Its not good enough to say you may have healt problems later on. Its important to know what the drug does, how it interacts with the body, what types of dosages would be good or bad, and other facts when it comes to taking drugs. Instead we get the comercials with kids talking about how smoking pot isn't good and grotesque characterizations like the one with the kid who shoved his hand in his mouth.

You seem to think you know exactly what every drug user is going to do, and that just isn't true. Not all drug users commit crimes because of their habits, and those that do are mostly users of the street drugs.
Tell me, how many LSD and mescaline users are going about robbing people to support their habit? Not many, I'd wager. Would you state that most marijuana users are doing other illegal things to support their habit? I'd doubt that claim.
Your argument would make more sense against specific drugs such as heroin and crack.

Yes not all abusers would commit crimes but they would still turn into pathetic husks of humanity. I still cannot believe the "moderate" drug use arguement. Besides, the junkies end up causing massive medical expenses that will get passed onto all of us. Perhaps if these drugs are made legal they can pay for the results of their addiction?

And I'll restate that psychedelics are entirely non-addictive and thus have no junkies.

Fine. If its proven that psychedelics cause no permanent damage and that they are actually non-addictive then hey, why not make them legal? Perhaps there is some evidence that these drugs actually are safe?

People are educated about drugs, and that isn't doing enough. In schools kids are told not to take them and are explained the consquinces. Not everything has to be banned, it is just looking at what is going on and seeing what needs banned, like drugs. Some things aren't problems yet, and those are the one that we need to start educating people about. Things that people have already proven themselves irresponsible with and are dangerous to society should be banned.

In American schools, at the very least, there is no genuine drug education simply anti-drug propaganda that can end up doing more harm than good since when some teenagers find out that some of what they are told about drugs is not true they leap to the conclusion that all of it is untrue. An example I have seen myself: It is a common myth about ecstacy that puts holes in your brain, this is not true but it does kill brain cells; I have met many people who after discovering (by doing a little less than thorough research for example) that ecstacy does not put holes in your brain lept to the conclusion that ecstacy does not harm your brain.

I can't force others to do so, but please just hear me out. Picture a world with no one like me in. Picture a world where all people thought about was themselves. Pretty great, right? WRONG!! Everything would fall apart, there would be no just law enforcement and crime would be every where.
Now picture a world where no one thinks of themselves. We wouldn't have to worry about anything for ourselves, because someone else would take care of it. We wouldn't have crime because people would only be concerned with everyone else.
So, I challenge you to for one think only about other, of course because this world is not perfect you still must take care of your basic needs.

Using that logic that I could argue that if everyone took care of themselves that no one would have to take care of each other. But of course it does not work that way, nor the way that you want it to. Whether a person is egotistic or altruistic seems to be deeply engrained in who they are and will not change. We need both of these kinds of people; but tension between them is inevitable.

See here is the thing. I do think about others. But I do it in a different way then you do. I see a value in educating people about the choices they make. I see a value in law inforcement to protect people from eachother. But I don't see the value in a government comming into my life and telling me how to live it. Rather then force people to not take drugs I'd encourage people to educate themselves about it and make their own decision. We should worry and care about other people but we should not interfere in others lives. Its their lives let them live it. I'm sure you wouldn't like them telling you and then getting the government to force you to live how they want you to?


Yea thats a hell of an education. Thats a scare tactic its not teaching kids what smoking does.


Drug education is vastly inadequate when it comes to actually educating people. Its not good enough to say you may have healt problems later on. Its important to know what the drug does, how it interacts with the body, what types of dosages would be good or bad, and other facts when it comes to taking drugs. Instead we get the comercials with kids talking about how smoking pot isn't good and grotesque characterizations like the one with the kid who shoved his hand in his mouth.
It isn't about the governments telling us everything to do. It is about them getting involved in the right areas of our lives. People shouldn't be completely free. Even America has laws. It is about the laws which are made being strictly enforced.

In American schools, at the very least, there is no genuine drug education simply anti-drug propaganda that can end up doing more harm than good since when some teenagers find out that some of what they are told about drugs is not true they leap to the conclusion that all of it is untrue. An example I have seen myself: It is a common myth about ecstacy that puts holes in your brain, this is not true but it does kill brain cells; I have met many people who after discovering (by doing a little less than thorough research for example) that ecstacy does not put holes in your brain lept to the conclusion that ecstacy does not harm your brain.

Are you trying to say that ecstacy is safe? :confused:

Using that logic that I could argue that if everyone took care of themselves that no one would have to take care of each other. But of course it does not work that way, nor the way that you want it to. Whether a person is egotistic or altruistic seems to be deeply engrained in who they are and will not change. We need both of these kinds of people; but tension between them is inevitable.
I am a Christian, so I believe that every one can change. It is just a matter of God helping them to change, no one can fix things on there one. What you referr to as being deeply ingrained is their personality. That changes overtime. Yes, we all have a sinful nature and it is a part of us to think of ourselves first. Since this world will never be perfect we must do our best to think of others and carry out God's will.

It isn't about the governments telling us everything to do. It is about them getting involved in the right areas of our lives. People shouldn't be completely free. Even America has laws. It is about the laws which are made being strictly enforced.

We've already as a society determined that my the right to swing my fist extends as far as your nose. We have the police to protect people from eachother. But the government has no right to protect people from themselves. The government has no right to get involved in my private life where I determine that I wish to put something into my body.

In American schools,
I attend school in America all the way through college. I left America and came to Madrid to get my Master's.

Yes not all abusers would commit crimes but they would still turn into pathetic husks of humanity. I still cannot believe the "moderate" drug use arguement. Besides, the junkies end up causing massive medical expenses that will get passed onto all of us. Perhaps if these drugs are made legal they can pay for the results of their addiction?



Fine. If its proven that psychedelics cause no permanent damage and that they are actually non-addictive then hey, why not make them legal? Perhaps there is some evidence that these drugs actually are safe?

I still cannot believe that you are unable to conceive that someone cannot use drugs in moderation; have you ever been to college? Again do some research into health problems caused by drugs, they are generally no worse (and oftentimes not as bad) as those caused by alcohol.

For psychedelics, if you did research into the matter you would see that none of the various studies done on various psychedelics found evidence of them causing permanent damage and even the DEA (the last source to trust for drug information) admits that they are entirely non-addictive. Also, psychedelics were used for thousands of years by the indigenous people of central and south america without causing them harm.

We've already as a society determined that my the right to swing my fist extends as far as your nose. We have the police to protect people from eachother. But the government has no right to protect people from themselves. The government has no right to get involved in my private life where I determine that I wish to put something into my body.
I see your point and understand where you are coming from, but the police cannot protect us from every one, and who is there to protect us from ourselves, because we, myself included, clearly cannot do a good job of it. It is the governments' job to say enough and work harder at preventing us from having the oppertunities to injure ourselves.

Are you trying to say that ecstacy is safe? :confused:

No not at all. As I stated, some people upon discovering that some of the risks of ecstacy that our taught in school are myths leap to the false conclusion that ecstacy is safe.

I see your point and understand where you are coming from, but the police cannot protect us from every one, and who is there to protect us from ourselves, because we, myself included, clearly cannot do a good job of it. It is the governments' job to say enough and work harder at preventing us from having the oppertunities to injure ourselves.

The government has no right to tell me what to do with my body when it comes to my private life no more then it has the ability to tell me what to eat or what I can read. Its not the governments job to protect me from myself. Its my job to protect myself. And I can either do a good job or a bad job but its up to me in the end. It is absolutely not the governments job to prevent us from harming ourselves.

The government has no right to tell me what to do with my body when it comes to my private life no more then it has the ability to tell me what to eat or what I can read. Its not the governments job to protect me from myself. Its my job to protect myself. And I can either do a good job or a bad job but its up to me in the end. It is absolutely not the governments job to prevent us from harming ourselves.
Look, I understand that people need privacy, all I am saying is that there has got to be some one more responsible than ourselves who steps in and says enough. It wouldn't just go for you; it would go for all of us. I don't want to argue any more. I accept that you have your view point and I can understand where you come from; all I ask is that you accept that I have mine, that does not mean that we agree.

I still cannot believe that you are unable to conceive that someone cannot use drugs in moderation; have you ever been to college? Again do some research into health problems caused by drugs, they are generally no worse (and oftentimes not as bad) as those caused by alcohol.


I'm in college now but there is a difference from the "soft" drugs and the more dangerous ones. I admit that it is easy to throw them all into one category but the real dangerous ones are heroin and the like and nothing will convince me otherwise then that they are anything but terribly addictive and dangerous.

It is the governments' job to say enough and work harder at preventing us from having the oppertunities to injure ourselves.

Well, I have to say that this is a very original idea of the purpose of the government. How did you come to this conclusion? It certainly is not part of any nations political tradition nor does it arise the philosophy of any political theorist.

I am a Christian, so I believe that every one can change. It is just a matter of God helping them to change, no one can fix things on there one. What you referr to as being deeply ingrained is their personality. That changes overtime. Yes, we all have a sinful nature and it is a part of us to think of ourselves first. Since this world will never be perfect we must do our best to think of others and carry out God's will.

Yes I am referring to personality, a subject that I've studied thoroughly over the past year (specifically the typologies of Jung, Kiersey, and Myers-Briggs), and with the exception of Jung, they would agree that personality is fixed and does not change. It is extremely important that some people think of others, but it is also necessary for some to be more self-centered. If you look at all of the great advancement of the humans like the computer, electronics, air planes, and thousands of other things none of them arose from altruism but from pride.

Look, I understand that people need privacy, all I am saying is that there has got to be some one more responsible than ourselves who steps in and says enough. It wouldn't just go for you; it would go for all of us. I don't want to argue any more. I accept that you have your view point and I can understand where you come from; all I ask is that you accept that I have mine, that does not mean that we agree.

I don't believe that is what the government should do in the private sphere of life. I don't want the government steping in and saying thats enough eating those foods you need to go on a strict diet. I don't want the government stepping in and telling me what I can or can not read saying oh no those books are bad for you read this. I don't want the government stepping in saying what I can or can not think saying oh no those ideas are bad for you think this. If your an adult the only person who needs to be responsible for you is you.

I don't believe that is what the government should do in the private sphere of life. I don't want the government steping in and saying thats enough eating those foods you need to go on a strict diet. I don't want the government stepping in and telling me what I can or can not read saying oh no those books are bad for you read this. I don't want the government stepping in saying what I can or can not think saying oh no those ideas are bad for you think this. If your an adult the only person who needs to be responsible for you is you.
I am not saying that you aren't ultimently responsible to yourself. What I am saying is that there must be someone that we answer to because we can't do it by ourselves. Maybe it doesn't need to be the governments (though I would like them to step up a little more), maybe it should be a close friend.

I am not saying that you aren't ultimently responsible to yourself. What I am saying is that there must be someone that we answer to because we can't do it by ourselves. Maybe it doesn't need to be the governments (though I would like them to step up a little more), maybe it should be a close friend.

Are you kidding me? I don't need someone to answer to when it comes to my private health. Do you want the government to step in and say why your not eating right and your out of shape so you need to do some exercise and eat only this and this? If you want to answer to someone thats fine but thats no excuse to get the government to do so to the rest of us.

I'm in college now but there is a difference from the "soft" drugs and the more dangerous ones. I admit that it is easy to throw them all into one category but the real dangerous ones are heroin and the like and nothing will convince me otherwise then that they are anything but terribly addictive and dangerous.

The main thing I was thinking of when referring to college was the excessive alcohol use (as I type this there are people stumbling down the hallway singing out of tune), I assume that your college is probably somewhat similar. I doubt you think that most people who get drunk alot in college will end up being pathetic shells or otherwise destroying their lives; it is the same with other drugs. I agree that heroin is an extremely dangerous drugs and it is one of the only drugs that would cause me to intervene if a friend started using it; but drugs like heroin are in the extreme minority and occupy the top tier of drug dangerousness: heroin, crack cocaine, methamphetamine. The entirety of illegal drugs should not be condemned because of those three.

Well, I have to say that this is a very original idea of the purpose of the government. How did you come to this conclusion? It certainly is not part of any nations political tradition nor does it arise the philosophy of any political theorist.



Yes I am referring to personality, a subject that I've studied thoroughly over the past year (specifically the typologies of Jung, Kiersey, and Myers-Briggs), and with the exception of Jung, they would agree that personality is fixed and does not change. It is extremely important that some people think of others, but it is also necessary for some to be more self-centered. If you look at all of the great advancement of the humans like the computer, electronics, air planes, and thousands of other things none of them arose from altruism but from pride.
I came to this conclusion through much thought, research and prayer. I don't like the idea of the governments being everything any more than you, but it is nessecary for it to do more than it does. I don't want it to have total control, only more than it does. There should be limits on it's power.

Really, it doesn't change? Well, maybe the basic type won't change. If you are a leader, you will always be a leader, and so on. But I do think that parts of it alter through different times of your life. I know that I have changed in my personality since coming to Christ. I used to follow people, but now I lead. I used to worry more about myself than others, but now I worry about them more. I know that a tramatic event can certantly change some one.
Inventions were invented not for pride, but build a higher quality of life.

Are you kidding me? I don't need someone to answer to when it comes to my private health. Do you want the government to step in and say why your not eating right and your out of shape so you need to do some exercise and eat only this and this? If you want to answer to someone thats fine but thats no excuse to get the government to do so to the rest of us.
Yes, I do want the government to tell when I need to excersice more. I want them to step up and tell us what we can do to benefit society. Unfourtantly, I hate politians' lies and have no desire to become one, so I won't be the one you answer to.

Yes, I do want the government to tell when I need to excersice more. I want them to step up and tell us what we can do to benefit society. Unfourtantly, I hate politians' lies and have no desire to become one, so I won't be the one you answer to.

So do you want the government to come in and tell you what religion you can worship or are we allowed to put whatever thoughts we want into our mind?

The main thing I was thinking of when referring to college was the excessive alcohol use (as I type this there are people stumbling down the hallway singing out of tune), I assume that your college is probably somewhat similar. I doubt you think that most people who get drunk alot in college will end up being pathetic shells or otherwise destroying their lives; it is the same with other drugs. I agree that heroin is an extremely dangerous drugs and it is one of the only drugs that would cause me to intervene if a friend started using it; but drugs like heroin are in the extreme minority and occupy the top tier of drug dangerousness: heroin, crack cocaine, methamphetamine. The entirety of illegal drugs should not be condemned because of those three.

So would you be willing to say that these more dangerous drugs should remain illegal?

I am not saying that you aren't ultimently responsible to yourself. What I am saying is that there must be someone that we answer to because we can't do it by ourselves. Maybe it doesn't need to be the governments (though I would like them to step up a little more), maybe it should be a close friend.

What makes you think that the government responsible or knows or cares what is in our best interest? True it might be nice to believe that they are some great father figure, but they are ultimately just people like anyone else looking out for themselves (I would definitely argue that most politicians are not altruistic) and history shows that whenever the government increases its involvement in the peoples lives it is to exploit and oppress their people in order to increase and solidify their own power. For a close friend, why would I answer to a friend? That just seems extremely poorly thought out; would he then answer to me because I am his close friend? Wouldn't it just then be easier if both of us answered to ourselves? It would work alot better too, since I know about my needs and what is going on in my life far more than anyone else.

So would you be willing to say that these more dangerous drugs should remain illegal?

Crack can not be kept illegal if cocaine is legalized since anyone (even junkies with sub-normal intelligence) can turn cocaine into crack; and since I strongly feel that cocaine should be legalized it is inevitable that crack will be (but regulations could be put in place preventing cocaine from being sold in crack form). Methamphetamine, the worst of all of the drugs, for all of its horrible properties needs to be legalized since as it is now meth is produced in amatuer labs that have a tendency to explode; and these burn victims are filling up the burn wards of hospitals and since many of these people are unable to pay for their treatment some of these burn wards in parts of America where meth labs are "common" are being closed. So essentially, meth needs to be legalized so people stop lighting themselves on fire so people who are burned for other reasons can get treatment (the government is definitely doing everything they can stop to these labs but they keep on popping up). Then there is heroin, there is really no reason why it is essential to legalize heroin; so I would advocate (in an imagined case of all drugs being legalized) that it would, at least initially, remain illegal.

Then there is heroin, there is really no reason why it is essential to legalize heroin; so I would advocate (in an imagined case of all drugs being legalized) that it would, at least initially, remain illegal.

Heroin is an incredibly strong pain killer if not the strongest. I see no reason why people who have terminal diseases should not be able to take heroin to deal with their pain.

Crack can not be kept illegal if cocaine is legalized since anyone (even junkies with sub-normal intelligence) can turn cocaine into crack; and since I strongly feel that cocaine should be legalized it is inevitable that crack will be (but regulations could be put in place preventing cocaine from being sold in crack form). Methamphetamine, the worst of all of the drugs, for all of its horrible properties needs to be legalized since as it is now meth is produced in amatuer labs that have a tendency to explode; and these burn victims are filling up the burn wards of hospitals and since many of these people are unable to pay for their treatment some of these burn wards in parts of America where meth labs are "common" are being closed. So essentially, meth needs to be legalized so people stop lighting themselves on fire so people who are burned for other reasons can get treatment (the government is definitely doing everything they can stop to these labs but they keep on popping up). Then there is heroin, there is really no reason why it is essential to legalize heroin; so I would advocate (in an imagined case of all drugs being legalized) that it would, at least initially, remain illegal.

I would simply have to disagree on cocaine if only for the reason it could easily be turned into crack. Meth now I cannot legalize it simply to protect the poor meth cookers from hurting themselves. It is much to dangerous for sympathy to be turned towards these criminals they should simply get tougher sentences as it is not only making illegal drugs but creating a bio hazard dangerous to everyone in the area. The legal system just has to get serious and juries/judges have to put out proper convictions and sentences to discourage such behavior.

Heroin is an incredibly strong pain killer if not the strongest. I see no reason why people who have terminal diseases should not be able to take heroin to deal with their pain.

Morphine is not good enough for you?

Morphine is not good enough for you?
For some people with cancer or other terminal diseases its not. You want to hear something funny. In the US its illegal to give terminal cancer patients with I think its like around 3 to 5 or 5 to something months to live left heroine because the government is afraid of them getting addicted.

Drugs are bad Mmmkay?

hehe.
Anyway, should drugs be legalized? I dont mean Medicinal i mean FULLY legalized.

Pro's
Some drugs are only as bad as Tobacco medically.
Civil rights
Social

Cons'
STOOONEEER....
Common sense
Social.

Im For them, but in private use and in moderation. whats your opinion???!!?
Legalize ALL drugs. I've never used any, other than alcohol, but to me it would be a personal choice to use them, not a legal choice. Besides, if people are stoooopid enough to abuse them, well, sometimes the herd just needs to be thinned anyway.

:cool:

Heroin is an incredibly strong pain killer if not the strongest. I see no reason why people who have terminal diseases should not be able to take heroin to deal with their pain.

As you likely know, it was initially created as a painkiller. But it was outlawed because the health concerns outweighed the benefits (one of the only drugs actually outlawed for health reasons). Morphine is just as good as heroin for relieving pain, the only real differences between the two is that heroin requires a lower dose (which makes it harder to measure a precise dose and easier to overdose) and it kicks in faster (which causes an intense rush when injected that gives it more recreational potential than morphine, but adds nothing to its effectiveness at relieving pain).

As you likely know, it was initially created as a painkiller. But it was outlawed because the health concerns outweighed the benefits (one of the only drugs actually outlawed for health reasons). Morphine is just as good as heroin for relieving pain, the only real differences between the two is that heroin requires a lower dose (which makes it harder to measure a precise dose and easier to overdose) and it kicks in faster (which causes an intense rush when injected that gives it more recreational potential than morphine, but adds nothing to its effectiveness at relieving pain).
Well heroin use doesn't have the nausea and hypertension with morphine. And for some people morphine just isn't enough for them. And while looking online I found an interesting article from the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4607233.stm

I would simply have to disagree on cocaine if only for the reason it could easily be turned into crack. Meth now I cannot legalize it simply to protect the poor meth cookers from hurting themselves. It is much to dangerous for sympathy to be turned towards these criminals they should simply get tougher sentences as it is not only making illegal drugs but creating a bio hazard dangerous to everyone in the area. The legal system just has to get serious and juries/judges have to put out proper convictions and sentences to discourage such behavior.



My sympathy is not for the people who burned themselves making meth (I'd be content to let them die but hospitals aren't able to do that), it is for all of the other people burned in other ways who are not able to obtain treatment because burn wards have to be closed since the people who burned themselves making meth aren't able to pay for their treatment. I explained this in my post, you should it more carefully. The meth makers are getting very harsh sentences and I'm fairly certain that are charged for creating a bio hazard (if they aren't they should be). They are getting proper convictions. But it has been shown that increasing the penalties for drug use (or anything else connected to drugs) does not decrease the use.

Prisons should only be used if a person is considered dangerous, if they are judged not to reoffend, set them free, if they are presumed to continue, give them rehabilitation. This should go for not only drug cases.
How can you define a drug? sure crack, heroine, meth and other highly addictive drugs should be illeagal, but pot and hash, shrooms and salvia, how can make them illeagal when they are less addictive then alcohol, give you less of a high then smoking peanut skins? yes, pick off the shells of unsalted, unroasted peanuts, take off the red skin, (eat the peanut) then when you have enough roll a joint, when you smoke it, hold it in your lungs for 20-30 seconds.
Of all drugs, alcohol is the worst, you can die of withdrawl symtoms, yes DIE from not drinking alcohol, even heroine doesnt do that. But, it is legal and people dont abuse it for that reason.

Well heroin use doesn't have the nausea and hypertension with morphine. And for some people morphine just isn't enough for them. And while looking online I found an interesting article from the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4607233.stm

Heroin might not cause as much nausea as morphine, but it definitely causes some according to both research I have done and heroin users I have talked to.

Treating heroin addiction by giving the addicts heroin; its better than the addicts getting it off of the street but it certainly can not be considered a solution (though of course neither can methadone).

Prisons should only be used if a person is considered dangerous, if they are judged not to reoffend, set them free, if they are presumed to continue, give them rehabilitation. This should go for not only drug cases.
How can you define a drug? sure crack, heroine, meth and other highly addictive drugs should be illeagal, but pot and hash, shrooms and salvia, how can make them illeagal when they are less addictive then alcohol, give you less of a high then smoking peanut skins? yes, pick off the shells of unsalted, unroasted peanuts, take off the red skin, (eat the peanut) then when you have enough roll a joint, when you smoke it, hold it in your lungs for 20-30 seconds.
Of all drugs, alcohol is the worst, you can die of withdrawl symtoms, yes DIE from not drinking alcohol, even heroine doesnt do that. But, it is legal and people dont abuse it for that reason.

Salvia is legal; though I have never tried peanut skins I am confident that they are not as strong as salvia or mushrooms. Plenty of people do abuse alcohol despite the possibility of withdrawal being fatal (a danger shared by barbituates). If prison is only for people considered dangerous, why should highly addicitive drugs be illegal?

Well heroin use doesn't have the nausea and hypertension with morphine. And for some people morphine just isn't enough for them. And while looking online I found an interesting article from the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4607233.stm

I can understand giving heroin to those who are in an end-stage disease but addicts are simply likely to start using again regardless of treatment. I bet if someone else conducted this same study again they could easily acheive an entirely different result. I find the idea of giving heroin to heroin addicts questionable.

Heroin might not cause as much nausea as morphine, but it definitely causes some according to both research I have done and heroin users I have talked to.
I wouldn't doubt it. But the thing is also you did mention that heroin kicks in faster and in a situation where someone with a terminal disease is in pain they are going to want relief fast. I really don't see a problem with giving it to terminal patients if they want some.

Treating heroin addiction by giving the addicts heroin; its better than the addicts getting it off of the street but it certainly can not be considered a solution (though of course neither can methadone).
Oh I know its not a perminant solution to getting people off the drug. But its a start. And I also find it interesting that in the UK doctors can proscribe the stuff still.

I can understand giving heroin to those who are in an end-stage disease but addicts are simply likely to start using again regardless of treatment. I bet if someone else conducted this same study again they could easily acheive an entirely different result. I find the idea of giving heroin to heroin addicts questionable.

Well, all the study really showed was that heroin addicts who are given heroin do better than heroin addicts who are given methadone. The addicts aren't going to start using again because they never stopped; they just get it now from pharmacies rather than the street. Again, far from being a solution.

I wouldn't doubt it. But the thing is also you did mention that heroin kicks in faster and in a situation where someone with a terminal disease is in pain they are going to want relief fast. I really don't see a problem with giving it to terminal patients if they want some.


Oh I know its not a perminant solution to getting people off the drug. But its a start. And I also find it interesting that in the UK doctors can proscribe the stuff still.

I agree that there is no reason not to give heroin to people with terminal diseases; but otherwise there is no reason to.

It's not even a start; it's like if an alcoholic used to be drinking vodka from liquor store A and then switched to drinking scotch from liquor store B and said he was treating his addiction. The use of ibogaine in curing addiction needs to become more wide-spread.

salvia may be legal where you are but not here, and barbituates just proves that unless we legalize softer drugs, such as marijuana, people will risk their lives for that fake euphoric feeling.
I did my fare share of experimenting in the past and peanut skins are more powerful then salvia and shrooms.
As for the prisons being for those who are dangerous, that was my suggestion, it clearly isnt so at this time. Once they are, only for the dangerous, forced rehab will be the punishment for using heroin, meth etc... and that s what i meant by illeagal

I agree that there is no reason not to give heroin to people with terminal diseases; but otherwise there is no reason to.
I look at it this way. You can't just open the door for some drugs its either all or nothing. Otherwise its a hypocritical stance like what we have now with the war on drugs.

It's not even a start; it's like if an alcoholic used to be drinking vodka from liquor store A and then switched to drinking scotch from liquor store B and said he was treating his addiction. The use of ibogaine in curing addiction needs to become more wide-spread.
Hmmm note to self if I ever become an alcoholic get on that treatment plan.

As for the prisons being for those who are dangerous, that was my suggestion, it clearly isnt so at this time. Once they are, only for the dangerous, forced rehab will be the punishment for using heroin, meth etc... and that s what i meant by illeagal

Isn't there an impressive relapse record of addicts? Something like a 3/4 chance of using again? Not exactly impressive numbers. Besides you end up with the question of who is going to pay for the rehab clinics.

Isn't there an impressive relapse record of addicts? Something like a 3/4 chance of using again? Not exactly impressive numbers. Besides you end up with the question of who is going to pay for the rehab clinics.

Who's going to pay for the jails?

Who's going to pay for the jails?

Isn't rehab more expensive, especially with the inevitable relapses?

Isn't rehab more expensive, especially with the inevitable relapses?
Depends. There are private rehab facilities while I don't think there are private jails.

Something like a 3/4 chance of using again? Not exactly impressive numbers. .

of course thats not impressive, obviously our current system inwhich we use to deal with addicts is not working. And this is a bit capitalist of me, but there is an unemployment rate in most countries? educte them on how to rehablilate others. two birds with one stone, less homeless people (i know they arent counted in unemployed statistics), and less low life burnt out stonners

What makes you think that the government responsible or knows or cares what is in our best interest? True it might be nice to believe that they are some great father figure, but they are ultimately just people like anyone else looking out for themselves (I would definitely argue that most politicians are not altruistic) and history shows that whenever the government increases its involvement in the peoples lives it is to exploit and oppress their people in order to increase and solidify their own power. For a close friend, why would I answer to a friend? That just seems extremely poorly thought out; would he then answer to me because I am his close friend? Wouldn't it just then be easier if both of us answered to ourselves? It would work alot better too, since I know about my needs and what is going on in my life far more than anyone else.
Every one has their flase, espessialy politician. Before they could take control a new system would have to be formed, a new way of chosing people. I am working on creating an ideal system right now, but as the word is not perfect no system is fale less.
Friends are people who care about. A true friend will hold you accountable, and if you are friends you will listen, even if you don't agree.

So do you want the government to come in and tell you what religion you can worship or are we allowed to put whatever thoughts we want into our mind?
No one can tell a person what to think. They could not put things in our minds. This is very different from inforcing laws. Some governments do tell people what to worship, but not everyone obeys. This laws are different from drugs in that they have to do more with a person's mind and the spiritual realm. These things can not be contronled in the same way drugs could.

I have no problem with legalizing drugs. As long as people aren't harming anyone else, who am I to tell them what to do with their bodies?

Drugs are illegal for a reason, you shouldn't legalize something just because people like doing illegal acts. I suppose many don't like any laws whatsoever but they are for our protection.
Thank you.

Legaize pot, and not in public.

No one can tell a person what to think. They could not put things in our minds. This is very different from inforcing laws. Some governments do tell people what to worship, but not everyone obeys. This laws are different from drugs in that they have to do more with a person's mind and the spiritual realm. These things can not be contronled in the same way drugs could.

Are you kidding me? The state can tell you what to think very easily. It all depends on how long the brainwashing/breaking you takes. The point I'm trying to make is this. If you can put whatever ideas you want into your head and the government cant legally stop you then there is no reason that the government can stop you from putting drugs into your body. That and I could go into a debate of drug use being a religious activity but I don't want to hijack the thread.

Are you kidding me? The state can tell you what to think very easily. It all depends on how long the brainwashing/breaking you takes. The point I'm trying to make is this. If you can put whatever ideas you want into your head and the government cant legally stop you then there is no reason that the government can stop you from putting drugs into your body. That and I could go into a debate of drug use being a religious activity but I don't want to hijack the thread.
For some it maybe. The governments cannot brainwash you if you know exactly what you stand for. Things you hear do make you think and in that way ideas are put in your head. Put they cannot change my basic princibles. By getting rid of all drugs and shutting down the black market, the governments are not saying you can't practice your religion. Those people just couldn't get the drugs, and if they stopped believing in what ever they believed, then it was never a religion.

For some it maybe. The governments cannot brainwash you if you know exactly what you stand for. Things you hear do make you think and in that way ideas are put in your head. Put they cannot change my basic princibles. By getting rid of all drugs and shutting down the black market, the governments are not saying you can't practice your religion. Those people just couldn't get the drugs, and if they stopped believing in what ever they believed, then it was never a religion.

Your failing to see the parallel here. Throw away the whole brainwashing and religious stuff and listen to what I'm saying. Your body is your property. So would you agree that you can put whatever ideas into your head and the government can not legally do anything to stop you?

Your failing to see the parallel here. Throw away the whole brainwashing and religious stuff and listen to what I'm saying. Your body is your property. So would you agree that you can put whatever ideas into your head and the government can not legally do anything to stop you?
Ideas and substinces are two different things. I never said that you couldn't think about drugs, all I said was it should remain illegal and the governments have to do more to stop them. You can think what you want and you can dream and you can all you want about doing drugs. I don't mind. What I do think is wrong is putting that stuff in your body in the first place. I never said you had to agree, all I said was that the governments need to work harder to stop it, which would mean getting rid of the black market.

Every one has their flase, espessialy politician. Before they could take control a new system would have to be formed, a new way of chosing people. I am working on creating an ideal system right now, but as the word is not perfect no system is fale less.
Friends are people who care about. A true friend will hold you accountable, and if you are friends you will listen, even if you don't agree.

Flase isn't a word, but I'm curious as to what you are trying to say. I certainly will not agree with your conception of the ideal, but I highly respect that you are working on creating one.

That and I could go into a debate of drug use being a religious activity but I don't want to hijack the thread.

I strongly encourage you hijacking the thread to talk about religious drug use.

For some it maybe. The governments cannot brainwash you if you know exactly what you stand for. Things you hear do make you think and in that way ideas are put in your head. Put they cannot change my basic princibles. By getting rid of all drugs and shutting down the black market, the governments are not saying you can't practice your religion. Those people just couldn't get the drugs, and if they stopped believing in what ever they believed, then it was never a religion.

I agree with you as far as "brain washing" goes. America is among the most propagandized nations in the world and clearly the majority buys into the governments line (complete with the delusion of two competing parties despite their agreement on every issue of importance), but clearly those who are naturally skeptical or who have firm ideals (which differ from those of the government) are not "brainwashed." I'm not sure what group you are referring to in relation to religious use of drugs; people from the cultures in central and south america who used psychedelic drugs in their religious continue to use them even today regardless of drug laws, and some of the ones whose ancestors were forcibly converted to Christianity have incorporated the drug rituals into the current faith.

Your failing to see the parallel here. Throw away the whole brainwashing and religious stuff and listen to what I'm saying. Your body is your property. So would you agree that you can put whatever ideas into your head and the government can not legally do anything to stop you?

No government has the power, or ever had the power, to prevent people from putting ideas in their head. In any case it IS distinctly different from taking a drug.

Ideas and substinces are two different things.

:headbang: Why must you be difficult. That was not the question I asked so I'll frame it again. First is the statement that your body is your property and I believe we both agree on that. The second statement is that if your body is your property you should be able to put whatever ideas in your head and the government can not legally stop you, such as you can believe in White Supremecy and the government can not stop you from believing in that. Do you agree with both of those statements?

No government has the power, or ever had the power, to prevent people from putting ideas in their head. In any case it IS distinctly different from taking a drug.

How so? Aside from the difference between the actual substance(on is abstract one is a chemical) if the government can not stop you from putting ideas in your head why can they stop you from putting drugs in your body? If neither effect others(Since we can all agree that on the right to swing first as far as another person's nose idea) I don't see how they are any different.

No government has the power, or ever had the power, to prevent people from putting ideas in their head. In any case it IS distinctly different from taking a drug.
Thank you.

Ideas and substinces are two different things. I never said that you couldn't think about drugs, all I said was it should remain illegal and the governments have to do more to stop them. You can think what you want and you can dream and you can all you want about doing drugs. I don't mind. What I do think is wrong is putting that stuff in your body in the first place. I never said you had to agree, all I said was that the governments need to work harder to stop it, which would mean getting rid of the black market.

The only way the government could conceivably get rid of the black market is if it took complete control of the economy and divided the nation into communities with populations not exceeding the hundreds which are controlled by a government council. Also, there would have to be alot of surveilance. Money would also probably need to be eliminated (this wouldn't be as bad as it sounds, everything could be purchased electronically with credit earned by working, all of the credits going directly to the government run economy).

:headbang: Why must you be difficult. That was not the question I asked so I'll frame it again. First is the statement that your body is your property and I believe we both agree on that. The second statement is that if your body is your property you should be able to put whatever ideas in your head and the government can not legally stop you, such as you can believe in White Supremecy and the government can not stop you from believing in that. Do you agree with both of those statements?



How so? Aside from the difference between the actual substance(on is abstract one is a chemical) if the government can not stop you from putting ideas in your head why can they stop you from putting drugs in your body? If neither effect others(Since we can all agree that on the right to swing first as far as another person's nose idea) I don't see how they are any different.
Yes, I agree. A government cannot force a view point upon you. They can stop you from taking drugs because drugs are not in your mind, if you know what I mean. You have to put drugs into your body. Ideas come from inside of your body. It is very simple.

The only way the government could conceivably get rid of the black market is if it took complete control of the economy and divided the nation into communities with populations not exceeding the hundreds which are controlled by a government council. Also, there would have to be alot of surveilance. Money would also probably need to be eliminated (this wouldn't be as bad as it sounds, everything could be purchased electronically with credit earned by working, all of the credits going directly to the government run economy).
Yes! The government would have to control economy, but more people would have to become involved in the government and a new system would be formed. Leaders would not inheirt power or by elected to it but selected for it.

Yes, I agree. A government cannot force a view point upon you. They can stop you from taking drugs because drugs are not in your mind, if you know what I mean. You have to put drugs into your body. Ideas come from inside of your body. It is very simple.

So when I read a book for the first time the idea is already in my body? So your belief in Christianity was not taught to you rather it was inside your brain before you know about it? I agree that the two things are not put into your body/mind in the same manner but that is irrelevant to the arguement. What the heart of the arugement is that if the government can not regulate the ideas that you come across no matter what they entail, such as a position of saying whites are better then blacks and we should boot all the blacks out of the country, as long as you do not harm others(swing fist nose idea again) the government can not legally stop you from thinking them. The same goes for drugs. The government should not be able to regulate what you put in your body so long as it does not harm anyone else.

How so? Aside from the difference between the actual substance(on is abstract one is a chemical) if the government can not stop you from putting ideas in your head why can they stop you from putting drugs in your body? If neither effect others(Since we can all agree that on the right to swing first as far as another person's nose idea) I don't see how they are any different.

There is quite a bit of a difference between an abstract concept and a physical substance. I agree with you that drugs should be legalized; but your argument is not a valid one. Also, clearly not everyone agrees that everyone has a right to swing their fist up to another persons nose; also I don't think everyone would agree all ideas should be legal.

I just remembered that there is an idea that appears to be illegal to hold in some sense: The belief that the halocaust never occured or was not as bad as I generally believed.

Yes! The government would have to control economy, but more people would have to become involved in the government and a new system would be formed. Leaders would not inheirt power or by elected to it but selected for it.

How would they be selected and by whom? From the looks of where your ideas are going, you should Plato's The Republic if you haven't already (it's the only conception of an authoritarian utopia that truly sounds appealing to me).

Also, since you seem to have an excessively strong Christian bent, do you believe that Christianity should be forced on the members of the state you are envisioning?

There is quite a bit of a difference between an abstract concept and a physical substance. I agree with you that drugs should be legalized; but your argument is not a valid one. Also, clearly not everyone agrees that everyone has a right to swing their fist up to another persons nose; also I don't think everyone would agree all ideas should be legal.
How is it not valid? The line you have the right to swing your fist as far as someone elses nose comes I believe from a supreme court case so when I reference it I'm refering to it in respects to the law. Secondly I'm drawing a paralell with the gov so wheter other people think that is irrelevant. What matters is that the government can not say you can not have this idea in your head and in the same respects if the government can't regulate your thougths then they can't regulate what you put in your body such as food or in our case drugs.

I just remembered that there is an idea that appears to be illegal to hold in some sense: The belief that the halocaust never occured or was not as bad as I generally believed.
Its a controversial one that I don't espouse but I agree to disagree with those who have it.

to deny the holocaust is is illeagal, at least in germany it is for sure.
But take communist regimes, they killed 11 times more then nazi and fascist regimes, and so to deny the holocaust is illeagal but to deny the rise and fall of the USSR is perfectly legal. And so events far worse receive no control...
Just to show that just because its illeagal doesnt mean it should be.

How is it not valid? The line you have the right to swing your fist as far as someone elses nose comes I believe from a supreme court case so when I reference it I'm refering to it in respects to the law. Secondly I'm drawing a paralell with the gov so wheter other people think that is irrelevant. What matters is that the government can not say you can not have this idea in your head and in the same respects if the government can't regulate your thougths then they can't regulate what you put in your body such as food or in our case drugs.


Its a controversial one that I don't espouse but I agree to disagree with those who have it.

You are correct in that "the right to swing your fist as far as someone elses nose begins" should entail that drugs should be legalized; but your parallal between thoughts and drugs is invalid.

For the halocaust, I really don't care but the fact that you can be deported to Germany and sentenced to multiple years in jail of holding it leads me to believe that the illegal idea is correct.

You are correct in that "the right to swing your fist as far as someone elses nose begins" should entail that drugs should be legalized; but your parallal between thoughts and drugs is invalid.
I'd like some reasons why at least. I mean I'd like to hear the critique of an arguement instead of its nice but your wrong.

to deny the holocaust is is illeagal, at least in germany it is for sure.
But take communist regimes, they killed 11 times more then nazi and fascist regimes, and so to deny the holocaust is illeagal but to deny the rise and fall of the USSR is perfectly legal. And so events far worse receive no control...
Just to show that just because its illeagal doesnt mean it should be.

It is only officially illegal to hold to deny the severity of the halocaust (no one denies that the halocaust actually occured, only its immensity and/or someother aspect(s)) in Germany, but people have been deported from Canada, America (even those not from Germany), and possibily from other countries to Germany to be tried for. But the fact this belief can be punished, and no other belief can be, leads me to believe that it is true; since if the truth is the official story they would need no law to protect it. But if I talk about this any further I'll likely be banned from the message board.

I'd like some reasons why at least. I mean I'd like to hear the critique of an arguement instead of its nice but your wrong.

They are two seperate arguments; ideas (unlike drugs) have nothing to do with the right to throw your fist. Remove the idea part and that works fine. But for the argument based on the similarity between drugs and ideas is illogical. You essentiall seem to arguing this:

Ideas are things you put into your mind/body
Drugs are things you put into your mind/body
It is legal to put ideas into your mind/body
Therefore it should be legal to put drugs into your mind/body

But logically that is on the same level as this:

Deers are mammals
Humans are mammals
It is legal to hunt deer
Therefore it should be legal to hunt humans.

Obviously your argument isn't this subjectively repugnant, but it uses the same logic. Now the question is would, I have taken the time to map about syllogisms if I wasn't high?

They are two seperate arguments; ideas (unlike drugs) have nothing to do with the right to throw your fist. Remove the idea part and that works fine.
Of course ideas have everything to do with that. I'm allowed to believe that blacks are inferior and other white supremist ideas but I'm not allowed to go out and act on those ideas by lynching a black person. As long as you don't act on an idea in a manner that hurts someone the government can't take any legal action.

But for the argument based on the similarity between drugs and ideas is illogical. You essentiall seem to arguing this:

Ideas are things you put into your mind/body
Drugs are things you put into your mind/body
It is legal to put ideas into your mind/body
Therefore it should be legal to put drugs into your mind/body
No thats not what I'm arguing. The arugment is simply this. Your body is your property. Because of this you can place whatever ideas into your mind and the government can't regulate it. In the same fashion if you can put ideas in you can put whatever else you want into your body any the government can not legally take action against you.

Of course ideas have everything to do with that. I'm allowed to believe that blacks are inferior and other white supremist ideas but I'm not allowed to go out and act on those ideas by lynching a black person. As long as you don't act on an idea in a manner that hurts someone the government can't take any legal action.


No thats not what I'm arguing. The arugment is simply this. Your body is your property. Because of this you can place whatever ideas into your mind and the government can't regulate it. In the same fashion if you can put ideas in you can put whatever else you want into your body any the government can not legally take action against you.

That is exactly the argument I mapped and my map of it reflects that perfectly.

That is exactly the argument I mapped and my map of it reflects that perfectly.

Not exactly. You have to switch things around and add a statement before hand.

You have the right to do anything with your body as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of other people.

Ideas are things you put into your mind/body
Drugs are things you put into your mind/body
The government can't tell you what ideas you can put in your body
Therefore the government can't tell you what drugs you can put in your body.

Its basically if the government can't tell you what to put in your body in one level so long as you don't hurt anyone with it the same can transfer over to anything else you put in your body.

But logically that is on the same level as this:

Deers are mammals
Humans are mammals
It is legal to hunt deer
Therefore it should be legal to hunt humans.

Not really.

Not exactly. You have to switch things around and add a statement before hand.

You have the right to do anything with your body as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of other people.

Ideas are things you put into your mind/body
Drugs are things you put into your mind/body
The government can't tell you what ideas you can put in your body
Therefore the government can't tell you what drugs you can put in your body.

Its basically if the government can't tell you what to put in your body in one level so long as you don't hurt anyone with it the same can transfer over to anything else you put in your body.



The proposition at the top is distinct from the rest of the argument and allows for a valid argument of its own:

You have the right to do anything with your body so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others
Drugs are something done with your body
Therefore you have right to use drugs so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others

The proposition at the top is distinct from the rest of the argument and allows for a valid argument of its own:

You have the right to do anything with your body so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others
Drugs are something done with your body
Therefore you have right to use drugs so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others

True but back to the logic dealing with the deer hunting. I do agree its the same logical progression but its for 2 completely seperate and distinct instances. Ones dealing with the legalization of drugs and the second one you have an attempt to justify hunting humans. You've just set up two completely seperate instances there in an attempt to shoot down the logic for the first. Just because the logic is wrong in the second situation does not mean its wrong for the first one.

True but back to the logic dealing with the deer hunting. I do agree its the same logical progression but its for 2 completely seperate and distinct instances. Ones dealing with the legalization of drugs and the second one you have an attempt to justify hunting humans. You've just set up two completely seperate instances there in an attempt to shoot down the logic for the first. Just because the logic is wrong in the second situation does not mean its wrong for the first one.

Using the first argument without the added proposition (that allows for an argument of its own), it is the same argument because you take two seperate groups that have a variety of differences but focus on a similiarity, and then from the legality of one group reason the second group should be legal because of the individual similarity; I applied the same form to a situation where the unmentioned differences made a siginificant difference to show that your argument is not, logically, valid.

Using the first argument without the added proposition (that allows for an argument of its own), it is the same argument because you take two seperate groups that have a variety of differences but focus on a similiarity, and then from the legality of one group reason the second group should be legal because of the individual similarity; I applied the same form to a situation where the unmentioned differences made a siginificant difference to show that your argument is not, logically, valid.

But as I said before the arguement involves the statment of swinging the fist as far as another persons nose. And I don't care if you say that it can be used for another arguement its being used for this one right now. I understand that it could on its own be an arguement for the use of drugs however I'm using it in tangent with another thing which you can legitimately put into your body and the government can not do anything about it.

But as I said before the arguement involves the statment of swinging the fist as far as another persons nose. And I don't care if you say that it can be used for another arguement its being used for this one right now. I understand that it could on its own be an arguement for the use of drugs however I'm using it in tangent with another thing which you can legitimately put into your body and the government can not do anything about it.

Whatever, I really don't care. I advise you to take logic in college.

Whatever, I really don't care. I advise you to take logic in college.

:rolleyes: So thats the obligatory conceeding I guess.

I think drugs should be legalized to the point where it's still an underground thing, but if the cops catch you, all they can do is confiscate it. if it's in ur home and they catch you though, they shouldn't be able to do shit.

All things that can be consensually exchanged should be able to be legally exchanged.

All things that can be consensually exchanged should be able to be legally exchanged.

What about nuclear weapons (and the corresponding delivery systems)?

There was a time when you could do just about anything, buy anything, sell anything and smoke it, eat it, put it up your ass.

you dont put shit up ur ass homo it goes up ur nose.:D

What about nuclear weapons (and the corresponding delivery systems)?
If you can get your hands on them I suppose. If you stole the item though, keep in mind that it is no longer your right to exchange it.

It's easy to use the word "drugs" and say that there's one category of drugs, when you're totally ignorant of the distinctions between drugs. Not all drugs should be treated equally, and the lack of differentiation is criminal.
Meth IS legal, and any thirteen year old with trouble in school can get it, or it's slightly weaker cousin, amphetamine. But I think amphetamines (including ecstacy) should stay totally illegal.

I say, personally, legalize marijuana, if for nothing else than the benefits that hemp will bring to the economy. I have used marijuana.

Alcohol's fine where it is, I say.

Keep hallucinogens illegal. LSD, mushrooms, mescaline, DMT, and the scores of other research chemicals. I've done several of them, and believe they should stay schedule 1.

Dissociatives like nitrous oxide, ether, and such should stay illegal, cause they're pretty damaging to mind and body.

Opiates are/were the best painkillers out there, and they're useful. But they're seriously addictive, and I know this from personal experience. I think it should be seriously regulated, but still used til there's no need for it anymore.

GHB is so much like alcohol in effect that I don't think it should be illegal, but it's loads more dangerous than alcohol, since you take such tiny amounts and it's so easy to overdose. That, and mixing it with alcohol is a big threat.

Tobacco and aspirin and alcohol kill waaay more people annually than every other illicit drug combined. The issue of drug control is really just an issue of moral control. The USA is behind the rest of the world in drug issues, and we can easily look at countries that have legalized this and that and see that they haven't fallen apart or gone anarchistic or had their economy crumble. It's just that we have a puritan conservative leadership and they refuse to deal with drugs intelligently.

"Legalize drugs" is an ignorant statement, implying that "drugs" even exists.
There are many more drugs legalized than there are illicit ones. One has to differentiate. Cocaine shouldn't be treated exactly like meth, or anywhere near like heroin, or ibuprofen...blah blah blah, you get my point.

Not all drugs are created equal. I've used the drugs I've listed here and more, and I know how the aren't the same.

It's easy to use the word "drugs" and say that there's one category of drugs, when you're totally ignorant of the distinctions between drugs. Not all drugs should be treated equally, and the lack of differentiation is criminal.
Meth IS legal, and any thirteen year old with trouble in school can get it, or it's slightly weaker cousin, amphetamine. But I think amphetamines (including ecstacy) should stay totally illegal.

I say, personally, legalize marijuana, if for nothing else than the benefits that hemp will bring to the economy. I have used marijuana.

Alcohol's fine where it is, I say.

Keep hallucinogens illegal. LSD, mushrooms, mescaline, DMT, and the scores of other research chemicals. I've done several of them, and believe they should stay schedule 1.

Dissociatives like nitrous oxide, ether, and such should stay illegal, cause they're pretty damaging to mind and body.

Opiates are/were the best painkillers out there, and they're useful. But they're seriously addictive, and I know this from personal experience. I think it should be seriously regulated, but still used til there's no need for it anymore.

GHB is so much like alcohol in effect that I don't think it should be illegal, but it's loads more dangerous than alcohol, since you take such tiny amounts and it's so easy to overdose. That, and mixing it with alcohol is a big threat.

Tobacco and aspirin and alcohol kill waaay more people annually than every other illicit drug combined. The issue of drug control is really just an issue of moral control. The USA is behind the rest of the world in drug issues, and we can easily look at countries that have legalized this and that and see that they haven't fallen apart or gone anarchistic or had their economy crumble. It's just that we have a puritan conservative leadership and they refuse to deal with drugs intelligently.

"Legalize drugs" is an ignorant statement, implying that "drugs" even exists.
There are many more drugs legalized than there are illicit ones. One has to differentiate. Cocaine shouldn't be treated exactly like meth, or anywhere near like heroin, or ibuprofen...blah blah blah, you get my point.

Not all drugs are created equal. I've used the drugs I've listed here and more, and I know how the aren't the same.

Yes I've done my share drugs and I have likely researched them more than you, but your distinctions (though important ones that most people forget) and subjective experiences are relatively irrelevent as far as the question of whether they should be legal. Yes dissociatives (and ether is not a dissociative) damage the brain (which is why I do not use them) but the extent of the damage vary widely among them (PCP causes a significant amount of damage, ketamine causes virtually none) and alcohol aslo damages the brain and is more harmful to the body than any dissociative. The fact that you appear to have had bad experiences with psychedelics is irrelevent to whether they should be legal, I have tripped dozens of times on many substances and have had only three negative experience; all research indicates that the various psychedelics cause (depending on the substance in question) virtually none or entirely none long term effects on the body or brain, they are univesally impossible or close to impossible (depending on the substance) to overdose on, and they are all entirely non-addictive. There is no justifiable reason to keep them illegal.

Yes I've done my share drugs and I have likely researched them more than you, but your distinctions (though important ones that most people forget) and subjective experiences are relatively irrelevent as far as the question of whether they should be legal. Yes dissociatives (and ether is not a dissociative) damage the brain (which is why I do not use them) but the extent of the damage vary widely among them (PCP causes a significant amount of damage, ketamine causes virtually none) and alcohol aslo damages the brain and is more harmful to the body than any dissociative. The fact that you appear to have had bad experiences with psychedelics is irrelevent to whether they should be legal, I have tripped dozens of times on many substances and have had only three negative experience; all research indicates that the various psychedelics cause (depending on the substance in question) virtually none or entirely none long term effects on the body or brain, they are univesally impossible or close to impossible (depending on the substance) to overdose on, and they are all entirely non-addictive. There is no justifiable reason to keep them illegal.

I didn't say or imply that I had bad experiences with psychadelics. I've done LSD, mescaline, mushrooms, 5-MeO-DIPT, 2ct-2, salvia, and a couple others and have not once had a bad experience with any of them. It's just my opinion that they do some damage to your mind and mental state. I know that most psychadelics do much less damage to your body than alcohol and tobacco. I just think people would be better off without them. That's my belief based on my experience and I wouldn't be able to convince you of it, and don't need to.

But I disagree with you on one point. I think the distinctions between the different drugs should have a great deal of relevance to their legal status. I would oppose legislation that would put marijuana on the same plane of drug as cocaine or methamphetamine or MDMA. Same with mushrooms and heroin.
I've done both and treating them the same just seems ridiculous to me. And I think that subjective experiences are quite relevant, because no amount of reading/researching about a substance will tell you what a person is like when under it's influence, or what their motivations are while in withdrawal. Intelligent drug law in this country (USA) would be a good thing, though I won't hold my breath.

Never legalize drugs...
people cannot handle legal drugs like alcohol, how could the handle LSD or Cocaine ?

As far as marijuana being a gateway drug; according to the American Medical Association, less than one in three who uses marijuana ever moves on to another illegal drug. It is true that most people who use illegal drugs other than cannabis used cannabis first, but most people who use cannabis use caffeine and/or alcohol first. If marijuana was a genuine gateway drug (its use led to the use of other drugs) statistics would show that as marijuana use increased the use of other drugs increased; this is not the case. Also, when marijuana was decriminalized in Holland the use of alcohol, cocaine, and heroin decreased.

All heroin users at some point drank milk.

Therefore, milk is a gateway to heroin use.

Never legalize drugs...
people cannot handle legal drugs like alcohol, how could the handle LSD or Cocaine ?

That is part of what I've been trying to argue so far. Alcohol and tobacco and other legal drugs can be abused and you get addicted to both with abuse. But drugs like meth and heroin the addiction is quicker and the danger to your health comes much quicker then it would with alcohol/tobacco. People can argue that it is their own body to mess with but really government is there to protect you from yourselves, hense laws. You could argue to legalize softer drugs like marijuana but these harder drugs are simply too dangerous. I'm sure this will continue to be an issue that won't be solved any time soon.

How would they be selected and by whom? From the looks of where your ideas are going, you should Plato's The Republic if you haven't already (it's the only conception of an authoritarian utopia that truly sounds appealing to me).

Also, since you seem to have an excessively strong Christian bent, do you believe that Christianity should be forced on the members of the state you are envisioning?
They would be selected by previous leaders, but the first leaders would have been people like you and me, they would have been people who wanted the best for others, not themselves. Then as they neared the end of their lives they would chose leaders from amoung the people. There wouldn't be 'politician' because leaders would be selected.

No, Christianity can't be forced on anyone. It is a matter of faith, other religions could practice, only the leaders would be Christian and Christianity the official religion. Other religions could be practiced, they just wouldn't be encouraged or supported.

So when I read a book for the first time the idea is already in my body? So your belief in Christianity was not taught to you rather it was inside your brain before you know about it? I agree that the two things are not put into your body/mind in the same manner but that is irrelevant to the arguement.
What I meant was that the process of understanding occurs inside your brain. Ideas originate in it because of what you read. What you read in knowledge
What the heart of the arugement is that if the government can not regulate the ideas that you come across no matter what they entail, such as a position of saying whites are better then blacks and we should boot all the blacks out of the country, as long as you do not harm others(swing fist nose idea again) the government can not legally stop you from thinking them. The same goes for drugs. The government should not be able to regulate what you put in your body so long as it does not harm anyone else.
Well, yes. I would not support blacks being kicked out, but the government would not being taking away ideas or religions.

Natural selection. People dumb enough to use them despite knowing they are harmful really have no excuse.

If you can use drugs that don't result in hurting others in a desperate need for another fix then fine have the less damaging drugs be legal. That will never happen though as even if legal the drug companies will keep prices high.


Not as high as in the black market. With today's prices, you may have to pay with your life. That's not a price a legal company will demand. And with a free market where sales effect stock growth, price competition may well drop the price even lower.



Only difference is that booze can be used without doing so in excess.

Alcoholics would disagree with your rosy differentiation.


What can be done but to lengthen prison terms for dealers and to actually do something about them instead of letting them deal in the open for lack of jail space. Lock them up instead of letting them get out in a few days if not quicker.

Brilliant idea. Already in place. No effect. You're just putting people whose only crime is trade in a good, into a prison where they learn how to become vicious fighters for their own survival and when they get out, are ten times worse than when they came in.

For the long term, perhaps a tactic is to spend the War on Drugs money to buy up the fields in South America and burn them. Certainly it would be difficult to try to get them but it is more direct and might be cheaper then the half-assed way its being done now.

Oh okay, and the south american governments wouldn't mind this? How much money do you think drug cartels would require to give up all their power and holdings? And what makes you think it being in American hands is going to change anything, anyway?

Not as high as in the black market. With today's prices, you may have to pay with your life. That's not a price a legal company will demand. And with a free market where sales effect stock growth, price competition may well drop the price even lower.?

Must be why perscription drugs are costing so low. Price competition and not greedy corporations holding those with needed medicine hostage. This stuff is addictive and dangerous so paying with your life is a very real possibility like you eventually may have to pay with tobacco. But hey there's always more customers to replace the dead ones right?

Alcoholics would disagree with your rosy differentiation.?

Alcohol CAN be abused but it certainly doesn't have to be. Drugs are much easier to get addicted causing the abuse.

Brilliant idea. Already in place. No effect. You're just putting people whose only crime is trade in a good, into a prison where they learn how to become vicious fighters for their own survival and when they get out, are ten times worse than when they came in.?

What's the alternative? I suppose if drugs became legal and they couldn't get the profit they get anymore, they'd all go get real jobs?

Oh okay, and the south american governments wouldn't mind this? How much money do you think drug cartels would require to give up all their power and holdings? And what makes you think it being in American hands is going to change anything, anyway?

Who cares what they think? This would be a much better cause then the foolishness going on in Iraq. The terror of the drug cartels is a much more terrible reality of terrorism then elsewhere. Breaking the cartels should be a solid goal and using stronger tactics would help such as more funding to help fight an effective War on Drugs instead of just pretending to.

Natural selection. People dumb enough to use them despite knowing they are harmful really have no excuse.

What if they are teh UUUUUBER depressed.

Go drugs, as long as soft drugs are legalized, I'm not fussed.:)

Drugs are illegal for a reason, you shouldn't legalize something just because people like doing illegal acts. I suppose many don't like any laws whatsoever but they are for our protection.

Prohibition doesn't work. The US proved that in the '20s when they made alcoholic beverages illegal. It all just went underground and fed organized crime - just as the prohibition on drugs is doing now. No matter how hard we try, we're never going to wipe it out.

Prohibition doesn't work. The US proved that in the '20s when they made alcoholic beverages illegal. It all just went underground and fed organized crime - just as the prohibition on drugs is doing now. No matter how hard we try, we're never going to wipe it out.
Maybe the government isn't doing enough. They could do more; like end the black market.

Must be why perscription drugs are costing so low.

Yep. Compared to getting them on the black market.

Cocaine used to be distributed in consumer beverages, fully legal. Do you know how much it cost back then?

It's since been made illegal. Do you know how much it costs now?

Illegalizing something makes the price soar.

This stuff is addictive and dangerous so paying with your life is a very real possibility like you eventually may have to pay with tobacco. But hey there's always more customers to replace the dead ones right?


"Addictive," which to you means, it forces people to buy them, use them and continue to buy and use them until they die. In your world, there is no personal responsibility, and a man cannot be responsible for his own choices no matter how stupid.

I may as well rant on about how you pay for your life with automobiles. I mean there's always more drivers to replace the twenty or thirty thousand a year who are killed by cars, right?

Maybe we should illegalize automobiles!


Alcohol CAN be abused but it certainly doesn't have to be. Drugs are much easier to get addicted causing the abuse.

And you make this statement based on... what? Your vast personal experience? D.A.R.E posters?


What's the alternative? I suppose if drugs became legal and they couldn't get the profit they get anymore, they'd all go get real jobs?


That's irrelevant. At least they wouldn't be manufactured by our already-clogged prison system into becoming violent criminals. Or do you think drugs are worse than violent crime?


Who cares what they think?

Let's see, every South American in the world. Or do they not matter?

Most if not all governments in the world. Or do they not matter?

Most people in this country. Or does no one matter as long as you get to feel big and bad, advocating wars you don't have to fight in, toppling governments you don't love, in countries full of people not your own skin color?

The terror of the drug cartels is a much more terrible reality of terrorism then elsewhere. Breaking the cartels should be a solid goal and using stronger tactics would help such as more funding to help fight an effective War on Drugs instead of just pretending to.

So basically, more money. What a brilliant solution. If at first you don't succeed, throw more money at the problem.

It's too bad people like you are in charge of the government, tossing around American taxpayer dollars like they were confetti for every whimsical desire and fear you can imagine.

Maybe the government isn't doing enough. They could do more; like end the black market.

The black market is unregulated, underground and world wide. No matter how hard any government has tried, they have never been able to find, let alone end, the "black market".

That is, at best, fatuous.

Prohibition doesn't work. The US proved that in the '20s when they made alcoholic beverages illegal. It all just went underground and fed organized crime - just as the prohibition on drugs is doing now. No matter how hard we try, we're never going to wipe it out.

I can't support the idea that we should just throw up our hands and say "we can't win so let's just give up!" The government is to protect citizens from this poison and just because others want to commit illegal activity doesn't mean that legalizing it would be better.

Must be why perscription drugs are costing so low. Price competition and not greedy corporations holding those with needed medicine hostage. This stuff is addictive and dangerous so paying with your life is a very real possibility like you eventually may have to pay with tobacco. But hey there's always more customers to replace the dead ones right?

Alcohol CAN be abused but it certainly doesn't have to be. Drugs are much easier to get addicted causing the abuse.

Do you realize the price difference between a prescription drug and heroine? A prescription drug will, at the worst, cost you some fifty dollars/euroes for a packet. Sure, it's expensive.

I'd say legalize most drugs, up to Opium. Then stop there. Opium pipes rock! (ever read that Sherlock Holmes where the chinese guy explains how Opium is so much better than Alcohol, because it doesn't cause people to get violent like Alcohol does and is used in the same moderation as alcohol?)

Drugs CAN be abused, but they certainly don't have to be. Alcohol is much easier to get addicted to, causing the abuse.

This would be true for most drugs, medicinal and soft. Only hard drugs are really more addictive than Alcohol.

Maybe the government isn't doing enough. They could do more; like end the black market.

That's what they tried. They failed. Miserably. Like they are now.

The black market is unregulated, underground and world wide. No matter how hard any government has tried, they have never been able to find, let alone end, the "black market".

That is, at best, fatuous.
Yes. This is way all governments must work together (no not form a one world government). If this would happen we would be much more effiecent in wiping out the black market.

Yes. This is way all governments must work together (no not form a one world government). If this would happen we would be much more effiecent in wiping out the black market.

Yes, just like they have been effective at working together to bring about world peace.

I can't support the idea that we should just throw up our hands and say "we can't win so let's just give up!" The government is to protect citizens from this poison and just because others want to commit illegal activity doesn't mean that legalizing it would be better.

Nicotine: a poison, it is used as a pesticide and can kill a person if they're not wearing a gas mask.

Alcohol: also a poison, but at the same time, slightly better because the body can still use it for something. It will, however, still end up destroying your liver (As it gets overworked) and your cells die when they have too much alcohol.

Arsenic: present in cigarettes. Arsenic is a element on the periodic table and it's very poisonous to humans due to the fact that it replaces the element just above it, which is very important for us. Yet it's there, as the poison it is, in our cigarettes.

CO2: The carbon present in here clogs up our lungs, veins and cells, potentially leading to death. Just the paper that is burnt in cigarettes could be enough to kill you. Having a campfire does it too. You're going to try to ban this poison, hmm?

Certain drugs are poisons. Others have odd effects, but aren't poisons. Most drugs aren't poisons, but cigarettes and alcohol most certainly are. It doesn't work to illegalize alcohol (although I can see an argument for cigarettes and I've never heard someone say how much they love to smoke).

Yes. This is way all governments must work together (no not form a one world government). If this would happen we would be much more effiecent in wiping out the black market.

Heh, yes. The black market should be made illegal. All governments must work together. War should be ended. Everyone should love another.

Any other practical plans you got for us, I'm writing them down so the right people can be made aware.

Yep. Compared to getting them on the black market.

I think you missed my sarcasm. Everyone seems to be complaining at the price of perscriptions which is why Canadian drugs are getting so popular. Drug companies simply charge too much.

"Addictive," which to you means, it forces people to buy them, use them and continue to buy and use them until they die. In your world, there is no personal responsibility, and a man cannot be responsible for his own choices no matter how stupid.

Of course they have their own responsibility. They could choose to have inner strength and kick the habit or to not be stupid and not get themselves in that situation to begin with.


I may as well rant on about how you pay for your life with automobiles. I mean there's always more drivers to replace the twenty or thirty thousand a year who are killed by cars, right?Maybe we should illegalize automobiles!

I really shouldn't even comment here but everyone likes comparing automobiles to issues such as drugs and guns. I'll say the same thing as always: they are totally different things, comparing them doesn't work.

And you make this statement based on... what? Your vast personal experience? D.A.R.E posters?

What you have to be an alcoholic to debate this? If you need personal experience with everything people would have nothing to talk about.

Most people in this country. Or does no one matter as long as you get to feel big and bad, advocating wars you don't have to fight in, toppling governments you don't love, in countries full of people not your own skin color?.

:rolleyes:

So basically, more money. What a brilliant solution. If at first you don't succeed, throw more money at the problem.

I haven't studied carefully the problems in the system but more money always helps as long as you use it in the correct manner.

What you have to be an alcoholic to debate this? If you need personal experience with everything people would have nothing to talk about.
:rolleyes:
I haven't studied carefully the problems in the system but more money always helps as long as you use it in the correct manner.

Actually, you'd be surprised at how many people have personal experience. You however, do not.

And more money is a really creative way to solve education problems, isn't it? Let's just pay teachers more and they'll teach better!

Oh wait, money doesn't make them better teachers...

snip

Since years of research give no evidence that psychedelics harm the mind, your opinion on the matter is irrelevent; and who is to say that people are better off with psychedelics? They are the only drugs that can actually cause long term benefits in people thru realizations of the origins of their behaviors and a variety of other things. If I was never exposed to psychedelics, my life would not be nearly as good as it is now. It is completely true that the dangers of drugs vary greatly between the different classes of drugs (both qualitatively and quantitively) but in the end it is ultimately the users decision. Besides we can both be used as examples of the futility of drug laws in preventing people from using drugs. Subjective experiences with drugs are only relative within the larger picture of others subjective experiences; in other words you, or I, can not use your own experiences alone to make decisions on these matters since many other people have experiences very different than you, rather the experiences of hundreds or thousands of users need to be sifted through to come to any sort of legitimate conclusion regarding the merits of a drug. And researching this, when mixed with personal use, does give a far broader perspective of the effects of a drug than doing one alone.

people cannot handle legal drugs like alcohol, how could the handle LSD or Cocaine

"Handle" is subjective; there are people are who can and people who cannot use alcohol without developing problems. The same goes for cocaine; I have friends who are able to use cocaine in moderation. LSD is far safer in every measurable than alcohol and it can easily be argued that if something as dangerous as alcohol is legal, there is no legitimate reason for LSD to be illegal.

Alcohol and tobacco and other legal drugs can be abused and you get addicted to both with abuse. But drugs like meth and heroin the addiction is quicker and the danger to your health comes much quicker then it would with alcohol/tobacco.

Though meth and heroin addiction do set in faster than alcohol addiction; they do not set in as quickly as tobacco addiction. Also, heroin addiction does not cause as severe of health problems as alcoholism.

Legalise everything! EVERYTHING! Even dogs and head banging!:headbang: .

:rolleyes: :sniper:

Arsenic: present in cigarettes. Arsenic is a element on the periodic table and it's very poisonous to humans due to the fact that it replaces the element just above it, which is very important for us. Yet it's there, as the poison it is, in our cigarettes.

It would be nice it tobacco was illegal given all the deaths that is PROVEN to be cause with that product. Be nice to reduce health care costs with doing that as well.

I just used the word "poison" because it does kill and I was tired of using the word "drug".

They would be selected by previous leaders, but the first leaders would have been people like you and me, they would have been people who wanted the best for others, not themselves. Then as they neared the end of their lives they would chose leaders from amoung the people. There wouldn't be 'politician' because leaders would be selected.

No, Christianity can't be forced on anyone. It is a matter of faith, other religions could practice, only the leaders would be Christian and Christianity the official religion. Other religions could be practiced, they just wouldn't be encouraged or supported.

That method for selecting leaders seems to be the best one, and is what I thought of when I dreamt up a utopia a couple of years ago.

An official religion that is encouraged, but not forced upon anyone, and that the leaders of this imagined nation must follow would likely be a good idea to ensure the continuity of the ideology the nation was founded upon; however I completely disagree that Christianity should be this religion, and in fact I might go so far as to say that the abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) should be outlawed for the sake of the citizens's mental hygeine.

I think you missed my sarcasm. Everyone seems to be complaining at the price of perscriptions which is why Canadian drugs are getting so popular. Drug companies simply charge too much.


People complain about everything and anything.

I think you missed my entire point about history and supply and demand.


Of course they have their own responsibility. They could choose to have inner strength and kick the habit or to not be stupid and not get themselves in that situation to begin with.


Not if government nanny-nanies everyone to begin with.

Then no one has to be responsible ever again!


I really shouldn't even comment here but everyone likes comparing automobiles to issues such as drugs and guns. I'll say the same thing as always: they are totally different things, comparing them doesn't work.


They are both commercial products that one can buy or use. Mis-use can and does result in death. Comparing them works, it's just you don't like the conclusion that your own logic offers. Because.... you are 'addicted' to automobiles.


What you have to be an alcoholic to debate this? If you need personal experience with everything people would have nothing to talk about.

No, I asked you on what basis you made your statement. I assumed you had some kind of reason. Obvisouly not personal experience, since you haven't done any drugs and you've only drank beer like once. So? On what?

The fact is, I've done must drugs there are, illegal and legal. How "addictive" something is is purely based on the person and the situation. Saying "X is more addictive than Y" is an entirely useless statement.

I haven't studied carefully the problems in the system but more money always helps as long as you use it in the correct manner.

Ignoring the sovereignty of other nations, imprisoning more and more people, and buying out cocaine fields - assuming they'd want to sell - is NOT "the correct manner."

Drugs are bad and I think you are sick if you think that whakie backie is a nice thing. Anyways goto go to smoke a spliff :p

Must be why perscription drugs are costing so low. Price competition and not greedy corporations holding those with needed medicine hostage. This stuff is addictive and dangerous so paying with your life is a very real possibility like you eventually may have to pay with tobacco. But hey there's always more customers to replace the dead ones right?

Alcohol CAN be abused but it certainly doesn't have to be. Drugs are much easier to get addicted causing the abuse.

What's the alternative? I suppose if drugs became legal and they couldn't get the profit they get anymore, they'd all go get real jobs

Who cares what they think? This would be a much better cause then the foolishness going on in Iraq. The terror of the drug cartels is a much more terrible reality of terrorism then elsewhere. Breaking the cartels should be a solid goal and using stronger tactics would help such as more funding to help fight an effective War on Drugs instead of just pretending to.

The reasons perscription drug prices are so high are that 1. Many of these synthetic compounds are patented by particular corporations giving them a monopoly on them. 2. This monopoly is further strengthened because lobbyists for pharmaceutical companies promote laws that restrict out ability to buy perscription drugs from other nations. 3. They can abuse these monopolies as much as they want since people need their medications.

Drugs cannot be said to be easier to get addicted to than alcohol; it all depends on the drug.

Yes drug dealers would have no choice but to get "real jobs," but I don't see how what they do is any different than selling liquor or tobacco; they sell a product that people want, they don't force anything upon anyone.

The War on Drugs is already receiving an obscene amount of funding. And we have no right to even condemnt the cartels. They sell a product that for reasons that seem to be escape you is in demand in America (and not nearly as high of demand in most other nations). It is not as if they are seducing us or anything.

Yes. This is way all governments must work together (no not form a one world government). If this would happen we would be much more effiecent in wiping out the black market.

Considering that many nations gain a large amount of their income through their crops being sold on the black market; there is no way all of the governments of the world will work together on this. The best bet is to create a nation of the type described before with a centralized economy that is isolated from the outside world; thus preventing it from having access to the black market.

I'm for legalizing everything (drugs, whores, guns, cheese). Without having to waste money on maintaining a unit of Morality Police (and waste prison space wholling up nondangerous criminals), cities could, um, do . . . . city stuff.
I don't know, the money'd probably just be wasted building giant stone phalluses or something, but at least it would be wasted in a manner that doesn't impair people's civil liberties.

Yes, because society wouldn't colapse. mass disease wouldn't overcome all of us from prostitution. and no one will want to kill people any more because they have all the access to guns. no, no one is like that. and if everyone was on drugs and had guns, no one would do anything stupid, right? and last time i checked, cheese was legal. most of these type of people want everything legal just so they dont have to worry about getting arrested. and like you say, no prisons means no punishment, perfect for stoners and gun nuts. yeah, legalization of everything wouldn't hurt us at all.

People complain about everything and anything.
I think you missed my entire point about history and supply and demand.

No I didn't. I just don't believe that the supply/demand arguement works. The various reasons given to keep perscription drug prices hight would be similar with illegal drugs. If anything the government will tax the hell out of them like they do on tobacco to discourage their use.

They are both commercial products that one can buy or use. Mis-use can and does result in death. Comparing them works, it's just you don't like the conclusion that your own logic offers. Because.... you are 'addicted' to automobiles.

Guns, drugs and automobiles each have their own uses and trying to compare them in one arguement doesn't work BECAUSE of their different functions.


No, I asked you on what basis you made your statement. I assumed you had some kind of reason. Obvisouly not personal experience, since you haven't done any drugs and you've only drank beer like once. So? On what?

Other then the arguements I've made already? My personal beliefs. Isn't that how you get your opinions? Facts and your own personal moral code?

No I didn't. I just don't believe that the supply/demand arguement works. The various reasons given to keep perscription drug prices hight would be similar with illegal drugs. If anything the government will tax the hell out of them like they do on tobacco to discourage their use.

No, they wouldn't. Because something is illegal, trading in it gets anyone involved potentially arrested and thrown into prison for several years.

That's why it costs so much, because people risk their lives and freedoms to do it.

That's also why so many people are attracted to doing it, since the payoffs are so high.

On the other hand, a drug company has no such risk, and can afford to mass-produce things in such quantity (high supply) that demand will go down (low demand) and the price will go down as well. Simple economics.

And even with taxes, tobacco is NOWHERE near as costly as, say, marijuana. Not even close. Your argument fails in the face of reality.


Guns, drugs and automobiles each have their own uses and trying to compare them in one arguement doesn't work BECAUSE of their different functions.


Their uses don't matter. I thought what you were concerned about was the untimely deaths that resulted from their use. Apparently not? Apparently, if I kill someone because I'm late for work and not a good driver, it's OK and an accident, or not OK and I get thrown in jail. But if I kill someone because I'm on two pounds of crack, it's never OK and the drugs are bad. On one hand you blame the tool, on the other you blame the user, and you don't seem to have any consistency from doing one or the other.

You see cars as inherently good things (even though they wind up killing so many people) and drugs as inherently bad (even though they wind up being peacefully and nonharmfully used by so many people).

This is just inconsistent. But I understand if you want to just deny the analogy because it doesn't suit your logic.


Other then the arguements I've made already? My personal beliefs. Isn't that how you get your opinions? Facts and your own personal moral code?

You haven't made any compelling arguments already. You BELIEVE drugs are bad. You've said this many times, many different ways, but you've not given any facts. So your personal moral code is that when you believe something, you're right no matter what?

Their uses don't matter. I thought what you were concerned about was the untimely deaths that resulted from their use. Apparently not? Apparently, if I kill someone because I'm late for work and not a good driver, it's OK and an accident, or not OK and I get thrown in jail. But if I kill someone because I'm on two pounds of crack, it's never OK and the drugs are bad. On one hand you blame the tool, on the other you blame the user, and you don't seem to have any consistency from doing one or the other.

Drugs are without question a danger to the user and to others everytime you use them. You however are taking what I have down and are running with it in another direction. I certainly don't think what you are suggesting, either circumstance should be punished. Drivers are given licenses that are supposed to make them able to drive competantly. If you hit someone accidently is one thing but being high and hurting someone is a something different. That individual knew what would happen after taking the drug yet still put themself in the position to hurt someone...

So your personal moral code is that when you believe something, you're right no matter what?

We have a duty to protect our fellow man from hurting themselves and others. This means taking something as threatning as these hard illegal drugs and keeping them away from people to the best of our ability. I realize it is getting repetative but the counterarguements simply need the same response. Many simply believe they have the right to do whatever the hell they want but this is not so. I find it disturbing that societies today can look at what these substances do to people yet still shrug and say "it's their own choice". I will say it as many times as needed, these drugs should remain illegal for the benefit of all no matter how hard anyone screams that it's their own body and mind to destroy.

Drugs are without question a danger to the user and to others everytime you use them.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

Oh, and bullshit. Maybe you haven't noticed, but saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any more true. Particularly when you're speaking from a position of TOTAL SHIT-HEELS IGNORANCE.

And you continue to ignore arguments when they don't go your way, kind of like ignoring facts when they don't support your conclusions, and ignoring your own logic when it turns against you.

I'm not going to bother responding to you. I've made my points several times already, you've ignored them, there's no way to get through that thick a skull and I'm tired of this game where, I make a bunch of statements, you pick and choose the easiest ones to respond to and ignore the ones that crush your arguments, rinse, repeat ad nauseam.

I will say it as many times as needed, these drugs should remain illegal for the benefit of all no matter how hard anyone screams that it's their own body and mind to destroy.

And who made you God ? What other decisions do you believe you should make for other people ?

Drugs are without question a danger to the user and to others everytime you use them. You however are taking what I have down and are running with it in another direction. I certainly don't think what you are suggesting, either circumstance should be punished. Drivers are given licenses that are supposed to make them able to drive competantly. If you hit someone accidently is one thing but being high and hurting someone is a something different. That individual knew what would happen after taking the drug yet still put themself in the position to hurt someone...

We have a duty to protect our fellow man from hurting themselves and others. This means taking something as threatning as these hard illegal drugs and keeping them away from people to the best of our ability. I realize it is getting repetative but the counterarguements simply need the same response. Many simply believe they have the right to do whatever the hell they want but this is not so. I find it disturbing that societies today can look at what these substances do to people yet still shrug and say "it's their own choice". I will say it as many times as needed, these drugs should remain illegal for the benefit of all no matter how hard anyone screams that it's their own body and mind to destroy.

I'll assume that you are just referring to hard drugs. In this case it is true that the user is putting himself in danger everytime he uses the drug; however, the danger would be lessened if the drugs were legal since regulation would prevent impurities and allow the user to know exactly how much he is taking. Also, a mountain climber or scuba diver is putting himself in danger whenever he engages in his respective interest; should we protect these people from themselves? Even users of hard drugs are not putting others at danger everytime they use drugs; truth meth or crack increase aggression but alcohol makes a person more likely to act on their aggression, and a person on heroin is not at all a threat to others.

We have a duty protect people from being hurt by others, that is why (in some theories of law) we punish those who do so. However, we have no right to punish someone for merely doing something that has the potential to cause to inflict harm on another. And I see no reason why we have the obligation or the right to protect someone from themself; if you are going to convince me, or anyone else, of this you are going to have to explain your political theory.

Bullshit. Bullshit. Oh, and bullshit. Maybe you haven't noticed, but saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any more true. Particularly when you're speaking from a position of TOTAL (--)IGNORANCE.

And you continue to ignore arguments when they don't go your way, kind of like ignoring facts when they don't support your conclusions, and ignoring your own logic when it turns against you.

Yeah, I've found time and again that there's no sense in that brain. I gave up. It's not worth convincing a fool of anything. They'll remain a fool and use the information you've given them in an incorrect manner anyway.

I'll assume that you are just referring to hard drugs. In this case it is true that the user is putting himself in danger everytime he uses the drug; however, the danger would be lessened if the drugs were legal since regulation would prevent impurities and allow the user to know exactly how much he is taking. Also, a mountain climber or scuba diver is putting himself in danger whenever he engages in his respective interest; should we protect these people from themselves? Even users of hard drugs are not putting others at danger everytime they use drugs; truth meth or crack increase aggression but alcohol makes a person more likely to act on their aggression, and a person on heroin is not at all a threat to others.

If I can see some hard proof that the softer drugs causes no serious damage with only a few uses which can occur with the harder ones then I've already agreed to allow their legalization and the consequences for their abuse in whatever situation can be like with alcohol abuse. The difference I see though with taking other risky behavior compared to drugs is simply that you may injure yourself doing something pointlessly risky but not others. I'm sure some circumstance can be thought up that goes against this like risks of rescue workers to help you get out of your mess but that is still a completely different circimstance. I really find it hard to be completely clear but to say that hard drugs prove an immediate risk to yourself and others according to those foolish drug ads and studies to convince us of their danger. My own beliefs are centerist and from what I've seen most of the people on NS are on the far left and the world population as a whole doesn't match that.

We have a duty protect people from being hurt by others, that is why (in some theories of law) we punish those who do so. However, we have no right to punish someone for merely doing something that has the potential to cause to inflict harm on another. And I see no reason why we have the obligation or the right to protect someone from themself; if you are going to convince me, or anyone else, of this you are going to have to explain your political theory.

Do I need to constrain myself to someone's particular dogma? What can I say other then my own personable belief that government is to protect us from bad choices which is why there are laws. If you mean us individually then I would approve helping someone kick an addiction or try to convince them not to use these substances, legal or not.

As to people like Jewish Media Control or Santa Barbara who don't like my arguements, well I'm not impressed with yours either. It really comes down to whether the risk of their legalization outweighs the supposed right we have to use them to begin with. I find them dangerous, you don't. Fine. We know where we stand and it is clear we won't convince each other anyway.

My own beliefs and those of I'd risk to say most other people given that the majority of those on NS are on the far left from what I've seen and the world population as a whole doesn't match that.

The majority of NS is on what many western Europeans would consider "centrist". USAians would call this left; but the USA is not the world population as a whole. Many other cultures would not even understand the right-left thing - which is indeed limited and flawed.

If you mean us individually then I would approve helping someone kick an addiction or try to convince them not to use these substances, legal or not.

Trying to convince them is your right - and noble since you only wish to aid them. Forcing them to do what you consider the right thing however is not - unless you are a dictator. Laws exist to remove these individuals from society if their choices are deemed damaging to it.
But it is *their* choice and their fate to suffer the consequences.

Drugs are bad Mmmkay?

hehe.
Anyway, should drugs be legalized? I dont mean Medicinal i mean FULLY legalized.

Pro's
Some drugs are only as bad as Tobacco medically.
Civil rights
Social

Cons'
STOOONEEER....
Common sense
Social.

Im For them, but in private use and in moderation. whats your opinion???!!?
My opinion is you're a hippy. Go get stoned and form a drum circle. :)

My opinion is you're a hippy. Go get stoned and form a drum circle. :)
the real truth is that the majority drug users are normal everyday people so don't be suprised if your mom, dad, or even your boss lights up evey once in a while
but getting high and joining a drum circle isn't a bad idea:p

If I can see some hard proof that the softer drugs causes no serious damage with only a few uses which can occur with the harder ones then I've already agreed to allow their legalization and the consequences for their abuse in whatever situation can be like with alcohol abuse.

Well, has anyone actually found any hard, unbiased evidence?

www.erowid.org

They give facts about almost any drug you can think of, with links to people who have experimented and used them.

There is a huge difference between hard and soft drugs. I suggest you look at the crack information, and the marijuana information, then compare the two.

Well, has anyone actually found any hard, unbiased evidence?

www.erowid.org

They give facts about almost any drug you can think of, with links to people who have experimented and used them.

There is a huge difference between hard and soft drugs. I suggest you look at the crack information, and the marijuana information, then compare the two.

Yes, Erowid is definitely the best place to begin research into drugs. But I expect that Utracia will mistakenly believe it to be biased.