NationStates Jolt Archive

Esentially the issue I see is that some drugs are "addictive" and harmful (I'm talking mostly about class A drugs) and an arguement exists such products should not be avalible in the free market to buy and sell to protect ourselves.

Now be awhats your view. I would suggest all drugs should valible on perscription (for recreational use) via doctors, on condition you have a medical test before hand (to make sure you are in good enough health to use such drugs) and clear warnings should be presented on the dangers and addictions of using such products (including free rehabilitation classes should you wish) before being given them.

I think it would take the majority of dangers away from the drug issue. Would clean up drugs make them safer for the current consumers and greatly reduce crime and the cost of tackling such crime.

My only possible worries are giving the state such control of the distribution of drugs. May further the black market elsewhere (including for individuals who may be turned away by the doctor but who does not care about the health risks) if taxes are too high or minimal restriction on use is enforced.

I can't see how it can be much worse than the current situation but whats everyone elses views and solutions or further criticisms of what I think.

Now whats your view. I would suggest all drugs should be avalible on perscription (for recreational use) via doctors on condition you have a medical test before hand and clear warnings on the dangers and addictions of using such products (including free rehabilitation classes should you wish) before being given them again. first line of the Hippocratic Oath is to do no harm...perscribing a severly addictive drug without any benefit goes against that. Also, who is going to pay for "free" rehab? You make your choice, you have to deal with it


other than that, I support legalization. If you want to mess up your life, that is your choice. That said, I also support better drug education so people know the risks before the choice comes up.

Nothing like some good Jim Beam. Pot and all the other drugs are for jerk-offs, though.

Their very illegality is what helps the black market in drugs thrive. Look at the relationship between alcohol and Prohibition in the U.S.A., for example. Bootlegging became a very profitable industry and crime grew dramatically. Repealing prohibition did the opposite. Moreover, I believe people should be able to do whatever they wish with their body, provided they are responsible, i.e., don't take drugs and drive. If they can responsibly use drugs without hurting anyone else, then I say, why the hell not?

Drugs ruin lives. They should be banned, and the dealers punished on an assault charge (at least) for every person they sell to.

Drugs ruin lives. They should be banned, and the dealers punished on an assault charge (at least) for every person they sell to.

How are you going to connect them with every person they've sold to?

How are you going to connect them with every person they've sold to?

Well, the same way you do any criminal investigation, I would have thought.

first line of the Hippocratic Oath is to do no harm...perscribing a severly addictive drug without any benefit goes against that. Also, who is going to pay for "free" rehab? You make your choice, you have to deal with it
.

The same people who would have had their car stolen by an addict. If cost is a worry such funding is minimal to the police and crime that results in addicts roaming the streets. The oath is an issue but surely doctors could see the benefits of giving cleaner safer drugs under medical supervision.
Not to mention most drugs are not gravely harmful when used properly. Should an addiction get too bad supply can be limited and rehab possibly compulsory.

I support legalization. If you want to mess up your life, that is your choice. That said, I also support better drug education so people know the risks before the choice comes up.

*Agrees, except for those drugs whose use directly harms others (like tobacco with its 2nd-hand-smoke)*

*Agrees, except for those drugs whose use directly harms others (like tobacco with its 2nd-hand-smoke)*

I can potentially see lots of amendments (eg- what to do with heroin users who have little children)
That may lead to restrictions that on one hand give lots of people an open market to buy good quality drugs while keeping the black market somewhat existant.

I think we should leave funding to the police and such as it is yet still legalize the fairly safe drugs like pot and shrooms

well okay maybe not shrooms

Drugs ruin lives. They should be banned, and the dealers punished on an assault charge (at least) for every person they sell to.

If people want to ruin their own lives, that's their problem. Just don't expect me to fix it.

depends on the drug doesnt it?

marijuana should be legal. encourage people to grow a bit for their own use.

the rest should be legal for personal use. no sense turning a stupid personal decision into a crime that ruins your prospects for the future.

all substances should be regulated as to dosage and purity. if you want to double up on the dosage to get a bigger high, that is your stupid decision but at least you will still know how much youre getting.

seems to me that if phillip morris is trying to build a market for its brand of crack cocaine, it will keep track of illegal manufacturers and sellers thus saving the government tons of policing money.

there are probably some substances that need to remain illegal due to their inherent dangers. cancer causing, poisonous, no safe dosage to avoid a psychotic reaction, whatever.

still illegal for underage people. no advertising of any sort allowed.

moderate use of most drugs is no big deal. i dont do it myself but i think it should be an option for others. spending all your free time drunk or high is stupid but why should it be a crime?

I can potentially see lots of amendments (eg- what to do with heroin users who have little children)
That may lead to restrictions that on one hand give lots of people an open market to buy good quality drugs while keeping the black market somewhat existant.

I meant that, IF one were strapped down so that the only movement they could perform is the use of the drug AND that caused bodily harm to others in the room, THEN it should be illegal.

But that might be considered...

The same people who would have had their car stolen by an addict. If cost is a worry such funding is minimal to the police and crime that results in addicts roaming the streets.So you imply that the tax payer should be responsible for some random person making the choice to fuck up their life? I doubt that is going to fly. If you made the choice, you are responsible for it...not me.
The oath is an issue but surely doctors could see the benefits of giving cleaner safer drugs under medical supervision. Not to mention most drugs are not gravely harmful when used properly. Should an addiction get too bad supply can be limited and rehab possibly compulsory.there is no medical benefit to a drug like Cocaine. There are ways to make drugs clean and legal without turning doctors into drug dealers.

*Agrees, except for those drugs whose use directly harms others (like tobacco with its 2nd-hand-smoke)*
second hand smoke is not as harmful as the fumes from the millions of cars that are currently driving...

So you imply that the tax payer should be responsible for some random person making the choice to fuck up their life? I doubt that is going to fly. If you made the choice, you are responsible for it...not me.


Well the taxpayer is already responcible. How much money is spend on prisons, police, border control and the many other costs I might not know about.


there is no medical benefit to a drug like Cocaine. There are ways to make drugs clean and legal without turning doctors into drug dealers.


Yes they will be and I think thats somewhat neccessary for the more addictive and dangerous drugs. Or would you prefer local supermarkets to sell unlimited ammounts to anyone.


second hand smoke is not as harmful as the fumes from the millions of cars that are currently driving...

Driving is essential to our way of life. Smoking in a public place less so.

Make all drugs legal, all must be gov. certified pure (for a fee to the suppling company) taxed at 100%. This will
1: Make the drugs safer
2: Make the drugs much (over 50%) cheaper
3: the 100% tax will pay for any treatment/enforcement necessary

4: Crime/Gov. cost will go down as it will no longer be necessary to lock people for selling/using drugs.

Let the tobacco companys handle the canibus and other smokeable products, Other drugs handled by pharmaceutical companys

Drugs are unnecessary and for the most part dangerous. Folks traficking or consuming drugs should be killed altogether at once. Humanity needs people with clear minds.

Well the taxpayer is already responcible. How much money is spend on prisons, police, border control and the many other costs I might not know about. I support a national health care system. However, if you do something knowing fully how harmful it is, such as smoke or take crack, then I think you should pay for it yourself. You made the choice to do it, and you should take some responsibility for your own actions. You made your choice, now live with it.



Yes they will be and I think thats somewhat neccessary for the more addictive and dangerous drugs. Or would you prefer local supermarkets to sell unlimited ammounts to anyone.So you would rather make doctors fill their appointments with people who want some coke rather than someone who is actually sick?
I would suggest creating a third FDA approval rating...currently we have OTC and Rx. Make one that is somewhere in between, like what they did for plan B. Package a single dose, card the person to make sure they are 18, tell them the risks.



Driving is essential to our way of life. Smoking in a public place less so.and second hand smoke is not particularly harmful. Actually, there hasn't been a single study to demonstrate exactly how harmful it is.

Make all drugs legal, all must be gov. certified pure (for a fee to the suppling company) taxed at 100%. This will
1: Make the drugs safer
2: Make the drugs much (over 50%) cheaper
3: the 100% tax will pay for any treatment/enforcement necessary

4: Crime/Gov. cost will go down as it will no longer be necessary to lock people for selling/using drugs.

Let the tobacco companys handle the canibus and other smokeable products, Other drugs handled by pharmaceutical companys

I agree pretty much.

Legalise, regulate, tax and SPEND SPEND SPEND!

I support a national health care system. However, if you do something knowing fully how harmful it is, such as smoke or take crack, then I think you should pay for it yourself. You made the choice to do it, and you should take some responsibility for your own actions. You made your choice, now live with it.
.

And if I choose to play Rugby, Rockclimb or drive a car?


So you would rather make doctors fill their appointments with people who want some coke rather than someone who is actually sick?
I would suggest creating a third FDA approval rating...currently we have OTC and Rx. Make one that is somewhere in between, like what they did for plan B. Package a single dose, card the person to make sure they are 18, tell them the risks.
.

And what if someone whos becoming addicted goes to 10 different stores every day buying the single dose each time? Atleast the doctors can make a record of how much you use and your physical health.



and second hand smoke is not particularly harmful. Actually, there hasn't been a single study to demonstrate exactly how harmful it is.

I agree. Law shouldn't handle it anyway. If you don't like being around smokers you can ask them not to smoke or go to a non smoker section of a place. Alot of private property forbids smoking anyway without a law telling them to.

And if I choose to play Rugby, Rockclimb or drive a car?huge gleaming difference between playing a sport where you might break a bone, and choosing to take a substance that is both known to be extremely addictive and extremely dangerous, such as cocaine. Sorry, if you take cocaine, it isn't my fault that you have a huge hole in your brain.



And what if someone whos becoming addicted goes to 10 different stores every day buying the single dose each time? Atleast the doctors can make a record of how much you use and your physical health. And waste their time. And get sued for malpractice. Doctors CANNOT give a perscription for something they KNOW can be fatal with absolutly no health benefits. As it stands today, if you are a smoker, and they don't tell you to quit, they can be sued when you get cancer.

No, doctors should not waste their time on a bunch of druggies. If you can make the choice to take a drug, you can make the choice to become addicted. And you can be responsible enough to deal with it when it bites you in the ass.




I agree. Law shouldn't handle it anyway. If you don't like being around smokers you can ask them not to smoke or go to a non smoker section of a place. Alot of private property forbids smoking anyway without a law telling them to.I'd more support having to have decent ventalation and get a permit to allow smoking.

My view? Do whatever you want: if you harm others because you are under the influence or trying to get money for more, toss your ass in jail for a prohibitively long time.

If you are so fucked up you can't work/keep yourself in a home/fed and clothed because of your habit, too bad. No government help for you. Drug use, at least initially, is a choice. I'd rather spend tax dollars feeding and educating and housing people whose problems were not caused by a self-destructive choice.

It's my body and i'll put whatever I like into it should I so desire.

$69 Billion spent so that @1.3% of the population is addicted to drugs, just like it was before prohibition. (http://www.leap.cc/)

Doesn't make much fucking sense to me.

What's my stance on drugs? Yes, please.

I agree. Law shouldn't handle it anyway. If you don't like being around smokers you can ask them not to smoke or go to a non smoker section of a place. Alot of private property forbids smoking anyway without a law telling them to.

I was referring to the idea that a drug's use can harm others w/o the user doing anything else, but...

Drugs are bad, ban them all

Drugs are bad, ban them all

Aspirin too? ;)

Aspirin too? ;)

Especially Aspirin :mad:

legalise. if they want to screw up their life its their problem. the war on drugs is communism.

Draconian measures against drugs have all failed. It's stupid to continue failed policies. Legalise soft drugs like weed, ecstacy, mushrooms, etc. I'm not sure what should be done about hard drugs.

Nothing like some good Jim Beam. Pot and all the other drugs are for jerk-offs, though.
What bullshit, weed is safer than alcohol and less addictive.

Drugs are bad, ban them all
every single one? even the ones that always had been legal?

every single one? even the ones that always had been legal?

Yes, all of them :mad:

anything tht grows from the ground should be allowed if not endorsed.

there is no reason to not allow people consume any substance they wish. if people want to damage thier bodies, so be it.

allthough, drugs like coke, e and heroine can be used to hurt other people. like spiking. so they need to be controlled.

i personally think that at the age of 21, everyone should be forced to do lsd. kind of like the way it is done in the book 'island' by huxely.

Criminalization of harmless drugs like marijuana is a cancer on society and makes you and me less-safe by diverting vast sums away from catching and incarcerating violent criminals and thieves.

anything tht grows from the ground should be allowed if not endorsed.

there is no reason to not allow people consume any substance they wish. if people want to damage thier bodies, so be it.

allthough, drugs like coke, e and heroine can be used to hurt other people. like spiking. so they need to be controlled.

i personally think that at the age of 21, everyone should be forced to do lsd. kind of like the way it is done in the book 'island' by huxely.

Cocaine and heroin both come from plants.

Mmmmmmmmm.

I'd rather collect tax from something reulated and relatively safe than spending millions and wasting police time on unenforceable laws that aren't working.

As many as possible, as often as possible.

Yes, all of them :mad:

including tylenol, ibuprofen, morphine, anti-biotics, anti-virals, chemotherapy drugs?

including tylenol, ibuprofen, morphine, anti-biotics, anti-virals, chemotherapy drugs?

Especially them :mad:

Especially them :mad:

you're a special one, aren't ya?

Do you have any reason for this claim?

including tylenol, ibuprofen, morphine, anti-biotics, anti-virals, chemotherapy drugs?

It's a shame that the English language does not distinguish between drugs for clinical medication and drugs as Cocain, amphetamines, THC, etc.
Maybe you should create a new word.

you're a special one, aren't ya?

4444 :eek:

Organic drugs work best.

*nods*

Prior to the great prohibition on drugs in the 1920's and '30's, we had many regular users of cocaine, opium (heroin was not as yet common) and hemp. This caused virtually no problems; if someone wished to stop using, they generally just reduced dosages until they could quit. There were a few specialist doctors who knew ways to help, too.

Post the prohibition, we spend obscene sums, arrest thousands for a consensual crime and send scads of them to prison to learn how to be worse criminals; we have desperate junkies kill, steal and rob to pay for absurdly expensive habits; and we have literally TRILLIONS of dollars flooding into the pockets of drug lords, insurgents and renegade governments, not to mention the very terrorists we are now fighting worldwide.

If, tomorrow, we said to all the addicts, "Here. This is govenment certified stuff, guaranteed of the appropriate dose, and you can afford it." What would happen? Half the problems in our cities would vanish. The gangs would be castrated by lack of funds. Our prisons would gradually empty. And the scum we have been funding would go out of business (including, probably, several nations' enonomies - boo hoo).

Would we still have problems? Sure. There is no magic bullet. But it would make more sense - and cost far, far LESS than the idiot War on Drugs.

It's a shame that the English language does not distinguish between drugs for clinical medication and drugs as Cocain, amphetamines, THC, etc.
Maybe you should create a new word.

no need. Many (actually, most) have a medicinal purpose. Many were created for medicine. Of that list, THC is the most glaring as it has clear medicinal uses, and is actually sold in a synthetic form for cancer and AIDS patients. The issue is that the synthetic has incredibly strong side effects. Most patients it is perscribed to would rather just smoke a joint.

There isn't a difference between "drug" and "clinical medication"

you're a special one, aren't ya?

Do you have any reason for this claim?

*Slaps you with a fish and prances around the thread naked*

*Slaps you with a fish and prances around the thread naked*

yep...thats about what I figured. As you were.

Cannabis, opium, psilocybin mushrooms etc. should be legal and regulated in much the same way alcohol is now (sold in specialty stores, age restrictions etc.)

Hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine should be much more heavily regulated but still should not be illegal.

Both "hard" and "soft" drugs should be taxed and the money made should be used for fact based drug education and treatment programs for those that need them.

The current "War on Drugs" only makes criminals out of people that use drugs and makes huge ammounts of money for the criminals that provide these substances.

I think we should leave funding to the police and such as it is yet still legalize the fairly safe drugs like pot and shrooms

well okay maybe not shrooms

Yeah, I think that the Netherland's attitude toward drugs makes the most sense, because the soft drugs are allowed and hard drugs are not. And it reduces violence because there is no need for violent dealers. (at least for Marijuana)

Yeah, I think that the Netherland's attitude toward drugs makes the most sense, because the soft drugs are allowed and hard drugs are not. And it reduces violence because there is no need for violent dealers. (at least for Marijuana)

I went to Amsterdam not too long ago. Its filled with hard drugs and lots of dealers in the open selling drugs particuarly in the city center.

Nothing like some good Jim Beam. Pot and all the other drugs are for jerk-offs, though.

Pssh, alcohol's for twats.

Drink your poison, I'll still with my (moderately less harmful, although still not healthy) chronic. ;)

Nothing like some good Jim Beam. Pot and all the other drugs are for jerk-offs, though.
Funny. A guy a knew, a murderer, actually, said almost the same thing.

It's a shame that the English language does not distinguish between drugs for clinical medication and drugs as Cocain, amphetamines, THC, etc.
Maybe you should create a new word.

yes thier is, drugs are fun, medicine is for make better. thats how other countries call them. none disapointing drug store bollocks.

Cocaine and heroin both come from plants.


they are not pure, they have to be made from plants, easily though. technically everything comes from plants. i eat cow, cow eat grass, grass is a plant, i come from a plant.

I went to Amsterdam not too long ago. Its filled with hard drugs and lots of dealers in the open selling drugs particuarly in the city center.

the reason why they legalised it was because they allready had a huge drug problem. now you need a dutch passport to buy weed. that came in about last year i think. but its really enforced.

Funny. A guy a knew, a murderer, actually, said almost the same thing.

Yep. You're in a bar shooting pool--who's more likely to go into a rage and try to gouge your eye out with a broken cue? The guy lit to the gills on Beam or the stoner? The drunk's more likely. The stoner is too busy laughing at the balls.

I've spent a lot of time around both types, and I've never known a stoned person who wanted to fight. But I've known plenty of violent drunks.

alcoholics drink and drive. stoners are too lazy to do anything.

the reason why they legalised it was because they allready had a huge drug problem. now you need a dutch passport to buy weed. that came in about last year i think. but its really enforced.

Oh. Well then what are tourists going to do in Amsterdam now?

Oh. Well then what are tourists going to do in Amsterdam now?

What do you think the red light district's for?