NationStates Jolt Archive

Only a select few, like Mescaline, LSD, DMT, PCP, Ketamine, Cocaine, Heroin, Nitrous Oxide, Alcohol, MDMA, MDA, Resistol brand glue, and others.

Explain your answer.

I'm mostly interested in why people think certain drugs are acceptable, but not others.
Is it addiction potential, the possibility of overdose, moral/religious reasons, or something else?
I see a clear contradiction between these lines of reasoning and current U.S. drug laws.

All of them.

The "lesser" drugs to me are less harmful than alcohol.

The "more harmful" drugs are only Darwin's way of weeding some people out.

It would sharply reduce the violence on the streets.

I vote none of the listed drugs. heck, I know people who NEED their caffeine fix, claiming it gets them going.

damn those Columbians... damn Juan Valdez and that stupid donkey of his...

The "more harmful" drugs are only Darwin's way of weeding some people out.

Darwin's way? He didn't create evolution, he was just the first to notice its existence...

I'd say legalize everything but something like meth. Might as well say its ok to eat arsenic otherwise.

If I could get them legally?

Besides the obvious one of pot, I'd also go for amphetamines, mescalines, LSD, Es, Salvia Divinorum (which is strangely still legal, but only as 'incense')...

non-chemical drugs. ;) (you know what I mean......if you can grow it, fine, if you have to get out gasoline, and draino to make it....not cool)

So, something "natural" is automatically better? Sounds like the reasoning behind "alternative medicine" to me...

non-chemical drugs. ;) (you know what I mean......if you can grow it, fine, if you have to get out gasoline, and draino to make it....not cool)

I want to take back my prescription meds vote, didn't read that this was for recreational use, and useing those recreationaly can hurt their ability to do their real use. Othe than that I'd leave my vote the same.

So, something "natural" is automatically better? Sounds like the reasoning behind "alternative medicine" to me...

I think her reasoning is that a bunch of grown substince that one inhales as a smoke will probably fuck you up less than a bunch of bleach and paint mixed together and huffed.

So, something "natural" is automatically better? Sounds like the reasoning behind "alternative medicine" to me...

no, natural is not better, arsenic is natural, it's not good.

I just (from personal experience) find chemical drugs more dangerous, it's much easier to get a lethal mix of meth than it is to get some "bad pot"

I didn't claim I had any real backing for my opinion.

So, would anyone care to explain the reasoning for permitting some drugs but not all? If this is not a black and white proposition, how do you determine where the shades of grey lie?

Everything. It is not anyone's right to decide what you do with your body but your own.

So, would anyone care to explain the reasoning for permitting some drugs but not all? If this is not a black and white proposition, how do you determine where the shades of grey lie?

that's a hard question.

I guess I find some drugs harmful to society and others annoying.

Without being a doctor or something I really have little standing other than opinion.

Everything. It is not anyone's right to decide what you do with your body but your own.
except those drugs that prove to cause violence. then it's not just you, but people you encounter.

Also, you OD, then that involves the EMT, Police (as they have to investigate to make sure it wasn't deliberate OD by someone else), family and friends... so it's not just you and your body.

I would legalise all drugs, though I do have some concerns. I would not want to make it any easier for people to purchase or otherwise acquire those drugs that are currently being used by people to control others. The clearest example of this would be the use of GHB, Rohypnol and ketamine to facilitate sexual assault, i.e. date rape drugs.

I would also like to see the reintroduction of opium dens, or licensed shooting galleries. This would be to reduce the number of syringes I find in my local park.

Everything. Do what you wish with your own body.

Here are six botanical extracts you may or may not be familiar with:
1. Belladonna
2. Strychnine
3. Prussic acid
4. Sarin nerve agent
5. Hemlock
6. Ioca

"Natural" does not equal safe.

That said, our bodies are less well-suited, on average, to deal with synthetic chemicals than natural ones. It's why natural foods are healthier than processed ones, and organic foods are healthier than non-organic ones.

As for drugs, I think that every kid in high school should be made to see photos of a strung-out, toothless, shriveled-looking meth addict in an orange jumpsuit caught stealing cheap electronics from someone's house to buy a concoction of bleach, iodine, cold pills, ammonia, and hydrochloric acid. Or make them take chem lab and handle all the chemicals that go into the stuff. I think our drug policy is broken in the execution (there's too much "war on" crap and not enough education, rehabilitation, or safe alternatives) but I also think that hard drugs should indeed be illegal. We'll never be able to conquer supply but demand we can make a serious dent in. Marijuana isn't a good idea in general but I can see being lenient on that, particularly for medical cases.

except those drugs that prove to cause violence. then it's not just you, but people you encounter.

Also, you OD, then that involves the EMT, Police (as they have to investigate to make sure it wasn't deliberate OD by someone else), family and friends... so it's not just you and your body.

These are very good reasons for prohibiting the sale of alcohol.

Here are six botanical extracts you may or may not be familiar with:
1. Belladonna
2. Strychnine
3. Prussic acid
4. Sarin nerve agent
5. Hemlock
6. Ioca

"Natural" does not equal safe.

That said, our bodies are less well-suited, on average, to deal with synthetic chemicals than natural ones. It's why natural foods are healthier than processed ones, and organic foods are healthier than non-organic ones.

As for drugs, I think that every kid in high school should be made to see photos of a strung-out, toothless, shriveled-looking meth addict in an orange jumpsuit caught stealing cheap electronics from someone's house to buy a concoction of bleach, iodine, cold pills, ammonia, and hydrochloric acid. Or make them take chem lab and handle all the chemicals that go into the stuff. I think our drug policy is broken in the execution (there's too much "war on" crap and not enough education, rehabilitation, or safe alternatives) but I also think that hard drugs should indeed be illegal. We'll never be able to conquer supply but demand we can make a serious dent in. Marijuana isn't a good idea in general but I can see being lenient on that, particularly for medical cases.

I am familiar with all of those, and I never said that natural is safe. I said that in my opinion, chemical drugs are more harmful most of the time.

I don't know many people who would take Belladonna for recreation, I know lots of people who might take PCP though.

except those drugs that prove to cause violence. then it's not just you, but people you encounter.

Also, you OD, then that involves the EMT, Police (as they have to investigate to make sure it wasn't deliberate OD by someone else), family and friends... so it's not just you and your body.



Well, sure, but if you act violently, you must pay for your actions. It doesn't matter if you are on drugs or stone cold sober. Kind of like driving drunk. Speaking of drunk, I don't know if it is proven, but I think alcohol can (and often does, it seems to me) increase aggressive tendencies, if not "cause violence." What drug causes violence? I mean, yeah, some do mke you more aggressive, but actually cause violence?


And yeah, sure, if you OD it involves other people, but at least in terms of family and friends...fuck 'em. Sure I can understand and appreciate caring about someone else's health, but not to the pouint of regulating what they do to themselves. The EMT, Police, etc...well, if you live, then you have to pay for it. Even if you don't, it is still my belief that one can do what one wishes with one's personal property (and I do consider my body to be my property), up to the point of hurting others or infringing upon their rights. That is really what it boils down to...personal freedom.

I think they should all be legal.

Let people live their lives how they wish as long as they dont hurt anyone else - if they do then punish them for that! THen use some of the tax money gotten from drug sales to fuel education on what those drugs do to you.

I don't think any should be legal.

Legalize everything except for Pot, just to tweak those goddamn pot advocates. How I hate them.

What? Spite is a perfectly good reason to radically change government policy. Just ask Andrew Jackson.

Well, sure, but if you act violently, you must pay for your actions. It doesn't matter if you are on drugs or stone cold sober. Kind of like driving drunk. Speaking of drunk, I don't know if it is proven, but I think alcohol can (and often does, it seems to me) increase aggressive tendencies, if not "cause violence." What drug causes violence? I mean, yeah, some do mke you more aggressive, but actually cause violence? there are Hallucenogens, uppers, and then there are combinations that can cause psychotic episodes in people. but like Alcohol, it's not predictable. so how can you guarentee that your drug taking won't affect anyone else?

a person can be a safe driver, but get a few beers into him and he'll think he's at NASCAR.

so what happens if people get hurt and die? the people will force laws to restrict. and we'll end up right back where we started.


And yeah, sure, if you OD it involves other people, but at least in terms of family and friends...fuck 'em. Sure I can understand and appreciate caring about someone else's health, but not to the pouint of regulating what they do to themselves. The EMT, Police, etc...well, if you live, then you have to pay for it. Even if you don't, it is still my belief that one can do what one wishes with one's personal property (and I do consider my body to be my property), up to the point of hurting others or infringing upon their rights. That is really what it boils down to...personal freedom.which still shows it's not just affecting the person taking the drugs but others around them.

Here are six botanical extracts you may or may not be familiar with:
1. Belladonna
2. Strychnine
3. Prussic acid
4. Sarin nerve agent
5. Hemlock
6. Ioca
Belladonna was used by Italian women to make their pupils bigger and give them black eyes that would go with their olive complexion. It is also known to speed up your pulse, and it is also used to trigger a heart attack. (Got to love having friends who have researched this kind of thing for fun them tell you about it.)

Belladonna (http://www.erowid.org/plants/belladonna/belladonna.shtml)

Legalize everything except for Pot, just to tweak those goddamn pot advocates. How I hate them.

What? Spite is a perfectly good reason to radically change government policy. Just ask Andrew Jackson.

Considering pot isn't typically addictive and tobacco is... why would you want to spite the pot users? I think it would be more beneficial to do the inverse.

Think about how many basket cases we would have that would suddenly exist and how sane LG would be!

Let people live their lives how they wish

I do not know how many people really "wish" to suffer the effects of the worst drugs, but I doubt it is very many - certainly far fewer than the number that actually will.

Most drugs should be legal to purchase. Perscriptions drugs should not. Take Viagra for an example. The most common cause of impotence is cancer. It's important to find the cause before treating the symptom.

Date rape drugs should be illegal. Their primary use is the harm of others.

I don't know where the line should be drawn. I'm morally against meth, but I don't know if I can justify why meth should be illegal and pot should be legal.

I do not know how many people really "wish" to suffer the effects of the worst drugs, but I doubt it is very many - certainly far fewer than the number that actually will.

They more than likely dont wish to suffer the negative after-effects but they wish to take the drugs and they wish to experience the high and the escape. Should we criminalize anything that produces a negative consequence?

Do you believe that the state should run your life to make sure you only eat the healthiest foods and exercise daily, even if it's against your will? Should they ban fatty foods and cigarettes? I mean noone wants a heart attack or lung cancer do they?

Make it all legal, just don't subsidize people who are stupid enough to start doing drugs, or give them a break when they commit a criminal act.

there are Hallucenogens, uppers, and then there are combinations that can cause psychotic episodes in people. but like Alcohol, it's not predictable. so how can you guarentee that your drug taking won't affect anyone else?

a person can be a safe driver, but get a few beers into him and he'll think he's at NASCAR.

so what happens if people get hurt and die? the people will force laws to restrict. and we'll end up right back where we started.


which still shows it's not just affecting the person taking the drugs but others around them.



Yes, it is possible for a person on drugs to harm others around him (or her). So what you get is laws that punish those people for their actions. The idea is that these laws will cause people to do drugs in safe places, in safe combinations, such that they have as little chance as possible of hurting others. My question to you is this: Do you advocate the banning of alcohol?


Note that just because use (abuse?) of a drug can cause one to harm others does not mean it will be banned eniterly--alcohol, for instance, causes a lot of harm to other when people act rashly while under the influence, but it is not banned. It is instead freely available to anyone over the age of 21 (or whatever the legal drinking age is in whatever country you are from). However, people that harm others while under the influence of alcohol must pay for their actions, in the form of anyhting from fines to a suspended liscense to jail time.






Once again: use of drugs can affect others in negative ways. However, it is my belief that the possibility of harm inherent in drug use does not outweigh the restictions on personal freedoms placed by the illegalization of any drug, as long as there are restrictions in place that ensure that those who do cause harm to others must be held accountable for their actions.

I think that some drugs could be legalized, because I do not take drugs, never plan to take drugs more than sensible amounts of alcohol and think that although clearly drugs are not good for people, I think that there should not be so many restrictions on them because;
a) a lot of people use them anyway, and legalizing most, not all reaslly harmful ones may reduce the seedy world of drug use
b) if they were legal the government could tax them, meaning that they got some money towards the extra strain it puts on the health service
c) tobacco is legal and that is suposed to be just as harmful as pot isn't it.
d) you could still ban their use in poublic places like they have done with smoking, so that it woiuldn't impinge on non-drug users.

Finally, if drug use was legal, I don't think that there would be a massive increase in use, as most people who don't take drugs don't because they know it's stuid, not because it's illegal, and so I think that overall, after a while then it may actually be beneifcial in the long term.Of course I also don't support the leglization of hard drugs, because that probably would lead to more demands on the health service and addiciton problems but some may be better legalized.

Every last one. As long as you, the user, is responsible for each and every action you take.

They more than likely dont wish to suffer the negative after-effects but they wish to take the drugs and they wish to experience the high and the escape.

First, not necessarily... they may do it for other reasons, including some that are dependent on the drug being available in the first place (say, the pressures of others.)

Second, I have trouble believing that all that many people who do engage in such activities would have chosen to do so if they had both had full awareness of the consequences and full rational consideration of the decision... and even worse, with the highly addictive drugs once the choice is made, it is very difficult to escape.

Do you believe that the state should run your life to make sure you only eat the healthiest foods and exercise daily, even if it's against your will? Should they ban fatty foods and cigarettes? I mean noone wants a heart attack or lung cancer do they?

There is a difference of degree here. Obviously, having every choice be dictated by the state is a very high price for comparatively low benefit. Highly limited restrictions on certain very dangerous activities is a separate matter entirely.

The current restrictions are bullshit, and should be substantially liberalized.

I'd say that most drugs should be legal, for recreational use or otherwise - as long as they do not literally make a person dangerous. Certain drugs have a high incidence of causing those who take them to become violent and therefore harmful to others, and the government would certainly have an interest in either banning or highly regulating those.

Driving/operating heavy equipment/etc. under the influence of any substance which can affect your reflexes, awareness, etc. should be highly illegal and subject to harsh penalties.

If a particular prescription med has a limited quantity, I could see a government interest in restricting it to prescription-only, as it is more important that sick patients receive the drug than that any who want it for recreational use do.

Legal weed and legal shrums would make my life easier.

Honestly, what the fuck should any of you care if I light up a joint and watch some television. I work, I earn the money to buy the weed at ridiculously high prohibition prices-If I light up a joint and watch tv, or spread some cannibutter on toast and play a video game what fucking business is it of yours?

Seriously, considering the amount of money we're spending keeping me from puffin' up and watching a DVD of Excalibur or something-a drug that it's not really possible to overdose on and has no history of violence in its users-fucking bullshit. But I gotta watch Desorana on the Rocks or SoCo and Cola ads where thick neck trendy ass munches happily down thier hard liquor so they can get in a drunken fist fight later in the evening or smack up thier preppy girlfriend for teasing the bartender by sucking on an ice cube...what the fuck?

Fuck prohibitionists, seriously. I'm sick of this shit.

Only a select few, like Mescaline, LSD, DMT, PCP, Ketamine, Cocaine, Heroin, Nitrous Oxide, Alcohol, MDMA, MDA, Resistol brand glue, and others.

Not so sure about alcohol - that stuff can really mess people up. I mean, think about it - all drugs from caffeine to crack have their downsides, and alcohol has more than its fair share:

It has cocaine's ability to turn you into an aggressive muppet; MDMA's ability to make you think the total idiot you are talking to is your soulmate; and hallucinogenics' ability to... well, just turn your evening into a blurry disaster area, the consequences of which you will never live down. [shudders at the bad, bad memories]

Also, people moan about MDMA comedowns, but they're nothing a few cups of tea, some relaxing music and a few spliffs can't get you through. If I was to drink enough alcohol to get me anywhere vaguely near an MDMA-ish state, I'd be completely out of action for the next day.

Yet, though I can give up everything else with no trouble at all, I return to alcohol like an old friend. Clearly, I am an addict.

First, not necessarily... they may do it for other reasons, including some that are dependent on the drug being available in the first place (say, the pressures of others.)

Second, I have trouble believing that all that many people who do engage in such activities would have chosen to do so if they had both had full awareness of the consequences and full rational consideration of the decision... and even worse, with the highly addictive drugs once the choice is made, it is very difficult to escape.



There is a difference of degree here. Obviously, having every choice be dictated by the state is a very high price for comparatively low benefit. Highly limited restrictions on certain very dangerous activities is a separate matter entirely.

The current restrictions are bullshit, and should be substantially liberalized.

So people, generally, are too stupid/ignorant/uniformed to realize that drugs are bad for them and can be addictive? I have a hard time believbing that. I knew that before I took drugs and took them anyway.

Do you think alcohol should be banned? Or do you think everybody who becomes an alcoholic does so because they don't know how bad excessive drinking can be for you?

WHat about the social costs of prohibition? THe money flowing into the hands of violent criminals rather than legitimate tax payign businesses? THe over crowded prisons? And despite the billinns we put into enforcement of prohibition, how easy is it to get nearly any illegal drug? ANswer: Very easy.

How would you liberalize the drug laws? I wonder also if you believe if suicide should be legal or not. I think it should be.

So people, generally, are too stupid/ignorant/uniformed to realize that drugs are bad for them and can be addictive?

Who said anything about people "generally"?

People generally would not murder others even if murder were not prohibited, yet we prohibit it anyway. The law must concern itself with the exceptions as well as the trend.

Do you think alcohol should be banned?

No.

WHat about the social costs of prohibition? THe money flowing into the hands of violent criminals rather than legitimate tax payign businesses? THe over crowded prisons? And despite the billinns we put into enforcement of prohibition, how easy is it to get nearly any illegal drug? ANswer: Very easy.

I'm against the War on Drugs; I think it's a total failure.

How would you liberalize the drug laws?

I would legalize all drugs that aren't highly addictive and the less harmful addicting ones, for a start. And I would treat use as a health matter rather than a criminal one.

I wonder also if you believe if suicide should be legal or not. I think it should be.

Absolutely, as long as the person is mentally sound.

I love arguing about this topic so much my friends get sick of hearing about it...

All drugs should be legal.

Premise:

Hard drugs, those with a high potential for abuse and significant health risks should be sold exclusively by the government. Everything that is not a hard drug can be sold by private corporations, but monitored by the government. Even with a tax large enough to pay for free rehab and increased drug education, drugs would still be cheaper then in the black market. Penalties for driving under the influence of any drug, or other reckless drug behavior would still be punished severly.

Reasons why this is a good idea:

Government would save untold millions of dollars by not incarcerating non-violent drug offenders, not to mention making millions from the taxes.
If heroin were legal to buy tomorrow, I would bet my left pinky toe that nobody posting on this forum would go out and try it. Thus by making it legal for those already addicted, we would reduce the risk of diseases spread by sharing needles and overdoses. (As a side note, opiate addicting (pure product of course) is less damaging to your body than cigarette smoking...)
The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of its prison population. Over 40 percent are non-violent drug offenders. Why are we wasting billions to incarcerate people who were harming nobody but themselves? All research on successful drug policy shows that treatment is more cost effective than prison.
The laws do more harm than the drugs. (Wasting people's lives by putting them in prison, hurting their job prospects, and levying fines on them.)
Drug use is an intrinsic human right. Cultures have used various psychoactive substances for thousands of years. If I want to sit safely in my own house with a sitter, take LSD and explore the inner workings of my mind, what right does the government have to stop me? I'm not hurting anyone but myself, and even then LSD use in mentally stable individuals is no more dangerous than alcohol use. If your doctor has a glass of wine on Friday night, and then performs a surgery on you on Monday, would you care? Of course not. So why can't he smoke a joint on his own time?
The safety of drug taking greatly increases when there are designated safe places to go to use drugs, and unadulterated drugs available.
The war on drugs is a complete failure. It is estimated that the government only intercepts 10 to 15 percent of all illegal drugs imported into the country. The price of hard drugs on average has decreased, while the quality has decreased yearly, despite increased war on drug funding.
During alcohol prohibition, crime skyrocketed, and by the third year of prohibition, more people were drinking then before prohibition. The drug war is the same way. With legalization, hard drug use decreases. (No drug pushers...) Likewise, crime rates would drastically decrease. Gangs are funded by money from selling drugs and prostitution. With legalization, the amount of gangs would drastically decrease, as well as all drug motivated crime.


Yes, drugs like methamphetamine and crack cocaine do have significant health risks, and I don't think it is anyone's best interest to use drugs such as those. With a full legalization; however, the government will be able to provide realistic drug education, teaching the public the true risks of various drugs, so that people are less likely to start using dangerous drugs in the first place. During the media frenzy about the dangers of MDMA, many people decided to use cocaine instead thinking it was safer. Drug misinformation causes harm.

If you read all that, I congratulate you.

People keep bringing up the violence associated with drugs. What about the violence brought into the picture by the creation of a criminal underground? Alcohol prohibition caused an enormous jump in homicides until it was repealed. If you outlaw drugs, only outlaws will sell drugs (organized crime, street gangs, terrorists...). Why not put the money into the economy instead of these groups' pockets?

It is interesting to ponder how many of the problems caused by drugs could have been prevented without prohibition... my guess is not all that many. Use of drugs like meth, crack, and heroin rise in response to existing societal pressures among already vulnerable populations. The key is to reduce the vulnerability of those populations by improving their standards of living.

Drugs like marijuana, coca leaves (the leaves are like strong coffee), or certain hallucinogenics? I can understand those. I don't think they're a good idea and I certainly wouldn't use them, but they operate on a different sociological mechanism than hard drugs. The main trouble with them is the "gateway drug" effect.

Who said anything about people "generally"?

People generally would not murder others even if murder were not prohibited, yet we prohibit it anyway. The law must concern itself with the exceptions as well as the trend.



No.



I'm against the War on Drugs; I think it's a total failure.



I would legalize all drugs that aren't highly addictive and the less harmful addicting ones, for a start. And I would treat use as a health matter rather than a criminal one.



Absolutely, as long as the person is mentally sound.


Well then, I shouldn't be all up in your koolaid without knowin the flava

I wouldnt say that that alcohol was a less harmful addicting drug but I would consider it a drug or in the same class as a drug.

Also I didnt mean to say all people in general but all people who take drugs in general.

Legalize everything.

In one swoop, we get rid of the organized crime angle and the TRILLIONS of dollars drug trading garners for them annually; we can regulate dosage and purity; and we can tax the profits.

Plus, it's the only ethical choice. If we are truly for individual freedom (as we all say we are) then we have no right to deny people the right to ingest whatever substances they choose. Let everyone who wishes go to hell in their own handbasket.

The best thing about this is that it would almost certainly result in a drop in consumption, just as when EVERY other attempt at prohibition has ben repealed.

Explain your answer.

I'm mostly interested in why people think certain drugs are acceptable, but not others.
Is it addiction potential, the possibility of overdose, moral/religious reasons, or something else?
I see a clear contradiction between these lines of reasoning and current U.S. drug laws.

I think that highly addictive drugs, highly damaging drugs, and drugs that have a high risk of overdose, should be illegal. Everything else is fine.

Considering pot isn't typically addictive and tobacco is... why would you want to spite the pot users? I think it would be more beneficial to do the inverse.

Think about how many basket cases we would have that would suddenly exist and how sane LG would be!
Yes, but pot smoke smells terrible, while the scent of a cigarette smoke is heavenly. Also, as I said, pot-advocates are the most annoying people on Earth.

Basic points:

Umm... the gateway effect is bs; correlation =/= causation.

Maybe the risk of overdose would be reduced when drugs are regulated by the government and drug education focuses on truth instead of scare tactics. People shouldn't have to resort to personal experience to find out what is and is not going to kill them.

People are not going to jump on the heroin bandwagon just because it becomes legal. The people that want to shoot up are already doing it. Criminalization punishes, but does not prevent.

If I could get them legally?

Besides the obvious one of pot, I'd also go for amphetamines, mescalines, LSD, Es, Salvia Divinorum (which is strangely still legal, but only as 'incense')...

Holy Crap! I got quoted. SCORE!
--Knowyourright... (using Rotovia's account because mine was deleted)

As an addendum to my previous thoughts. I'm not for blanket legalisation of drugs because I don't want to pay for anymore idiots to go through treatment than I do anyway.

Another thought. I think far too many companies drug test as it is. But there are a few professions that should be tested for drugs regularly (not all currently are strangely enough), airline pilots, surgeons, bus drivers, basically anyone in charge of the safety of others. If these drugs were all made legal, how would a company go about drug testing?

As an addendum to my previous thoughts. I'm not for blanket legalisation of drugs because I don't want to pay for anymore idiots to go through treatment than I do anyway.

The taxes on drugs would pay for their treatment. Plus, if we are treating them and not throwing them in jail, we would be saving millions in the first place, and you would be paying less. Treatment is far more cost-effective than prison.

Everything. It is not anyone's right to decide what you do with your body but your own.
Until your supposed right to do whatever to your body interferes with my right not to be affected by your lack of good judgement.
So unless you plan on imbibing in your drug of choice in a locked airtight room and not leaving until the effects wear off,you would inevitably violate someones rights
ergo: your arguement is bogus.:cool:

Until your supposed right to do whatever to your body interferes with my right not to be affected by your lack of good judgement.
So unless you plan on imbibing in your drug of choice in a locked airtight room and not leaving until the effects wear off,you would inevitably violate someones rights
ergo: your arguement is bogus.:cool:

You are assuming that any person on any drug is going to be exhibiting "bad judgement." Do people who have a drink or two in the same restaurant as you violate your rights? So how would people who smoked a joint and walked to the restaurant violate your rights? And for the drugs that do promote states in which a person may violate your rights- many people do take them in the safety of their home, why should that be illegal? Your argument is bogus. ;)

The taxes on illegal drugs would pay for their treatment. Plus, if we are treating them and not throwing them in jail, we would be saving millions in the first place, and you would be paying less. Treatment is far more cost-effective than prison.

As long as there's a trade off I'm fine. Taxing the drugs and having those taxes pay for treatment is even better.

Melange, glitterstim, and synthenol.

Melange, glitterstim, and synthenol.

Don't forget soma.

B

U

M

P

K, the most heavenly drug on earth...

But seriously people, there shouldn't even be any debate as long as we all agree that alcohol should be kept legal. Considering the very damaging long-term effects of alcohol (that more than rival those of "hard" drugs) on the body, it can only entails the complete legalisation of all currently illegal drugs up to and including cocaine (excluding meth, ghb and heroine). And even then, I think all should be legal, if only for the government to start educating rather than scaring people.

Nothing for recreational use. Medicinal is fine, but in theory I'm against medicine, except like eating a leaf for a stomach ache and it relieves the symptoms.

I think that if I can grow it in my back yard or in a planter it should be legal from me to have it. As for the other man made combinations of drugs I think they should be available but with some control and taxation. Here in the USA some states have state owned liquor stores and if you want hard liquor thats where you go. Then the tax's should go for treatment and addiction counseling for those that would be addicted no matter what the substance is.


Hell is the possibility of sanity. *Daria*

Melange, glitterstim, and synthenol.
(extremely shameful bump)
Nowadays, all the kids are talking about parepin (http://www.iamtryingtobelieve.com/).

Yes, but pot smoke smells terrible, while the scent of a cigarette smoke is heavenly. Also, as I said, pot-advocates are the most annoying people on Earth.

I don't know whose dope you've been passive smoking, but they need to change dealers. Urgently.

The 'pro-cannabis' types can be annoying, but then so can the 'pro-anything else' people. Of course, if it was legalised then they would no longer need to advocate it, and would cease to bother you.

PS Are you having a laugh? 'Pot'? I didn't know anyone had called it 'pot' since the 70s. Sounds like something a geography teacher would say if he wanted the kids to think he was like, really cool, yeah.

Well, in Bolivia, the new president is trying to make it legal to grow coca leaves for domestic use. When refined, of course, it's a seriously addictive drug, but the leaves are chewed as a stimulant (think a strong cup of coffee) and surefire treatment for altitude sickness. The DEA, in its infinite wisdom, is attempting to blast this centuries-old tradition and legitimate use off the face of the earth with murderous pesticides. The legit farmers aren't trying to make this stuff into cocaine (well, not necessarily); the supply comes from certain areas that are controlled by the drug cartels. I think if it's possible to use a drug responsibly without dependence or adverse acute health effects, it should be permitted.

All of them. My body, not anyone elses.

I think that highly addictive drugs, highly damaging drugs, and drugs that have a high risk of overdose, should be illegal. Everything else is fine.

... but I like booze!

... but I like booze!

Haha...exactly.

all should be legal to possess. none should be legal to buy and sell. and neither should guns nor automobiles. which would also still be legal to possess, provided you could make them yourself, or get someone to make for you who hasn't already made their limit of three.

well caffene and chocklet shouldn't be in a restricted catigory.
(and nothing for use in legitimate ritual or healing, but buying and selling still isn't neccessary)

at any rate there are better ways of trying to deal with problems then to outlaw them, which only makes the market more lucrative, which inturn inevitably attracts someone, to whom for one reason or another, any risk of limited, if any deterance.

that things, any things, are approached in such a bone headed manor as to outlaw possession of anything, this is what pseudo-conservatives do to manufacture enimies, which they feel that they have to, because without them everyone would realize that we don't really need them (neo/pseudo-cons) at all. for anything.

=^^=
.../\...

I wrote an essay on drug legalisation for economics just last week. My conclusion was that most of the problems assoicated with drug use are as a result of drug prohibition rather than the drugs themselves. Legalising all drugs would reduce violent crime and drug related illnesses.

Apparently this is a view held by a large proportion of economists.

All drugs are poisons, all poisons are drugs.

Some of you people are so naïve. Saying that it's okay to legalise hard drugs, if we enforce punishment on those who hurt others in their affected state? Then the damage is already done. If you're high on a powerful halucinogen, you have no idea what you're doing. You could suddenly think you need to go somewhere, hop into your car and start randomely running people over. When you're on something powerful, you have no control. You're not safe, even in the privacy of your own home.

And when it comes to alcohol.... You can't ban it because it's culture. Beer, wine, champagne, brandy, it's all culture. The fact that society abuses this culture is too bad, but I drink beer because it tastes good, not to get drunk. I get drunk maybe once a month (and being an 18-year-old in Norway, that's not much), but I go out for a pint or three more often than that. It makes me feel a bit... happy, but it far from makes me drunk, and if I walk home i'm right as rain half an hour later. Likewise, I'll have wine with my dinner in the weekends, but a couple of glasses isn't enough to get me drunk either. It's not an addiction, and the fewest people actually become alcoholics, because it's genetic whether you do or not. But you find me a person who doesn't get at least a little addicted to heroin, or even tobacco.

It's the same with coffee. i say, "I needz my fix!" But come on. I can go for a week with no coffee, and i don't notice the difference.

If you can grow in it your backyard, I say fine, and no one smoking pot in their living room is hurting anyone, but come one, have some sense. You have to separate these things. What seriously harms you cannot be legal.

Some of you people are so naïve. Saying that it's okay to legalise hard drugs, if we enforce punishment on those who hurt others in their affected state? Then the damage is already done. If you're high on a powerful halucinogen, you have no idea what you're doing. You could suddenly think you need to go somewhere, hop into your car and start randomely running people over. When you're on something powerful, you have no control. You're not safe, even in the privacy of your own home.

The actual danger posed by people under the influence of drugs is wildly overstated.

For instance, of 414 murders which took place in New York City between March and October 1988, around half of these were drug related. However, only 30 were due to people being under the influence of drugs, and of that thirty 22 were under the influence of alcohol. So only 8 murders were committed by people due to the use of hard drugs, yet about 200 were caused by disputes over the black market trade in drugs.

I think they should all be legal.

Let people live their lives how they wish as long as they dont hurt anyone else - if they do then punish them for that! THen use some of the tax money gotten from drug sales to fuel education on what those drugs do to you.
What he said.
Nothing for recreational use. Medicinal is fine, but in theory I'm against medicine, except like eating a leaf for a stomach ache and it relieves the symptoms.
Against medicine? For why?
All drugs are poisons, all poisons are drugs.

You say poison as though it were a bad thing.

no, natural is not better, arsenic is natural, it's not good.

I just (from personal experience) find chemical drugs more dangerous, it's much easier to get a lethal mix of meth than it is to get some "bad pot"

I didn't claim I had any real backing for my opinion.

Not if you buy SleepLess Brand 10mg methamphetamine pills.

There's no reason to assume drug companies would have less QC on their recreational products then their medicinal products. In fact in many cases the lines would be the same, you'd just not pay sin taxes with your prescription.

Not if you buy SleepLess Brand 10mg methamphetamine pills.

There's no reason to assume drug companies would have less QC on their recreational products then their medicinal products. In fact in many cases the lines would be the same, you'd just not pay sin taxes with your prescription.

That too. If drugs were legalised then one assumes they wouldn't getting things like rat poison(warfarin, IMS) or bleach added to them. I mean, what kind of company wants to kill it's loyal customers?

If you're high on a powerful halucinogen, you have no idea what you're doing. You could suddenly think you need to go somewhere, hop into your car and start randomely running people over. When you're on something powerful, you have no control. You're not safe, even in the privacy of your own home.

A person who is tripping that heavily will probably not be able to find their car keys, much less get in the car and make it go anywhere. I've never seen a case where a person on hallucinogenics caused a fatal car crash, but I see people in court over alcohol-related road deaths on a depressingly regular basis.

And yet you want to keep alcohol because it's a cultural thing. Taking magic mushrooms (and other natural hallucinogens) goes back to prehistoric times in North and West Europe, South and Central America and [probably a bunch of other places, but I've just noticed that someone has borrowed my biology textbook and not given it back, damnit]. Anyway, surely that gives hallucinogenics a substantial claim to be a traditional part of human culture?

f you're high on a powerful halucinogen, you have no idea what you're doing.

This isn't true. I'm guessing you've never done a powerful hallucinogen.

You could suddenly think you need to go somewhere, hop into your car and start randomely running people over.

Excellent reason for having trip-sitters and using responsibility. Not a reason for banning things left and right.

When you're on something powerful, you have no control. You're not safe, even in the privacy of your own home.

And when it comes to alcohol.... You can't ban it because it's culture. Beer, wine, champagne, brandy, it's all culture. The fact that society abuses this culture is too bad, but I drink beer because it tastes good, not to get drunk.

I'd consider alcohol pretty powerful.

And I use hallucinogens to explore my mind, not my ability to drive a car. That's my culture. ;)


But you find me a person who doesn't get at least a little addicted to heroin, or even tobacco.

What exactly is "a little addicted?" You're either addicted or you're not.

And I know plenty of people that can smoke a cigarette and not get "addicted." Myself being one of them.

It's the same with coffee. i say, "I needz my fix!" But come on. I can go for a week with no coffee, and i don't notice the difference.

Yeah... I can go for a week with no cigarettes and I don't notice the difference. (Well, except in my wallet.)

What seriously harms you cannot be legal.

The fact that alcohol is legal directly contradicts this statement.

I was going to type up a whole shpeel about why drugs should be legal, but King Binks beat me to it.

Keeping them illegal only makes the problems worse, and costs our countries a fair bit of money.

non-chemical drugs. ;) (you know what I mean......if you can grow it, fine, if you have to get out gasoline, and draino to make it....not cool)

you know...cyanide is all natural....

I don't get this idea that things are better because they're "natural". Nature can kill you in a whole bunch of ways.

A lot of stuff you said.

First of all, I'm not suggesting that tobacco should be banned. Let's face it, the people who are in charge in this world all benefit from tobacco sales, despite all adverts and warnings meant to scare people away from it. And it's like Denis Leary said, it's not like you're gonna go, "yeah, I have cigarettes," look at them and go, "holy shit, this stuff is bad for you? I thought it was good for you. I thought they had vitamin C in them and stuff!" just because there's a warning on the box. It wouldn't go down well with the larger part of the population either. Same with alcohol. It simply isn't possible in this day and age to ban something like that.

And as for the cultural aspect of it, we are talking about what we think should be legal in our own parts of the world, correct? Norway sure as hell doesn't have a culture for pot or magic mushrooms, but we do have a culture for beer. And hard drugs are not integrated into our society. Most people frown apon them, and the people who do them. Should they be legalised, however, they would be much easier to get hold of, and cheaper, and the people who didn't try because they didn't want to get into trouble might. And if something so harmful to the human psyche gets into legal circulation a lot of people will start to think, "well, if it's legal it can't be that dangerous, right?"

Sorry, but if you want to sit around getting high and destroying your brain (and even things as soft as weed does that in the long run, despite not being addictive; don't trust the myths) I don't want to know about it, and you're probably no friend of mine. That is to say, I have several friends who smoke or have smoked pot, though these do it only on occasion. Anyway, like I said, if you can grow it in your backyard I can't be bothered to care. But I don't want to live in a country where hard drugs are legal. I don't want anything to do with someone who is deliberately ruining their life. In fact, I can't believe someone is even suggesting this...

To put things into perspective for you: I lost a friend to suicide, and have spent countless hours convincing people not to take their lives since. I believe even the most fucked up life can somehow be put into order (especially when you're still young) and those people I have talked out of it are doing pretty good these days. They mostly just need someone to tell them to grow up and snap out of it. It hurts to lose someone. You start to question your value as a friend, and you start wondering if you could have done something to prevent it. It's the same with friends on drugs. Wasn't I there for them enough? They had to turn to drugs because no one cared enough? Was it my fault?

A relative of mine has been in a mental institutial since the seventies with a psychosis caused by a bad LSD trip. I don't ever want to see that happen to anyone I really care about, or anyone I even know.

You are fully welcome to call me a hypocrite because of the alcohol thing, but alcohol and hard drugs do not compare in my book. You can drink responsibly. There is no responsible way or doing hard drugs. Statistics make little difference to me, and even if you don't hurt others, you hurt yourself, and this in turn hurts the poor sods who for some reason care about your sorry ass.

The last thing I wish to point out is that we are all entitled to our own opinions, but I hope to God that no one high up decides to agree with yours.

you know...cyanide is all natural....

I don't get this idea that things are better because they're "natural". Nature can kill you in a whole bunch of ways.

I didn't say natural is good...........do you read my posts?

Norway sure as hell doesn't have a culture for pot or magic mushrooms,

Yes it does, amanita muscaria - which I understand can be quite dangerous - is part of Norway's culture, even if it's not something you've come across. Or did you mean that alcohol is part of your economy? That's a more reasonable point although the value of the black market is, pretty much by definition, unquantifiable.

It is a myth that only people with nothing to live for take drugs, or that becoming 'a drug taker' automatically puts you on a self-destruct course. I've been through a terrible low these last couple of years, and I completely stopped hard drugs while it was going on. When I feel I'm fully recovered, I shall re-assess the situation. I might start taking them or I might not - my brain, my choice.

A good friend of mine died in a motorbike accident. He had a silly overpowered Jap bike, which I gather he used to ride quite hard. I miss him, but I don't blame myself for not making him get rid of his bike. Nor do I campaign for motorbikes to be made illegal, or for the man who sold him the bike to be jailed. It wasn't the bike's fault, it was his. A horrible truth for the bereaved to face, but still true.

My heart goes out to you for losing your friend, particularly in what must have been such terrible circumstances. I hope the valuable counselling work you are doing helps you to keep a positive outlook, even while helping others.

Regarding myths surrounding methamphetamine and it's containing of bleach and draino and cough syrup...

Methamphetamine is produced by reducing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) with red phosphorous and blue iodine. There's other methods too, none of them involving draino, bleach, cough syrup or any of the other crazy urban legend ingredients. Additionally, as this process involves multiple chemical reactions none of the starting ingredients are present in the final, it's not baking.

There are however highly toxic gases produced as a result of manufacture, and dangerous solvents are used to wash out chemicals that aren't methamphetamine from the final product. Typically acetone is used, however the acetone is not present in the final.

Methamphetimine is bad for you, but it's not the same as playing 'let's eat what's under the sink'.

Should they be legalised, however, they would be much easier to get hold of, and cheaper, and the people who didn't try because they didn't want to get into trouble might. And if something so harmful to the human psyche gets into legal circulation a lot of people will start to think, "well, if it's legal it can't be that dangerous, right?"

...

You can drink responsibly. There is no responsible way or doing hard drugs. Statistics make little difference to me,

On the first point, there is little evidence to suggest that legalising drugs will have much of an effect on the number of people who consume them. Drugs are not hard to come by - particular drugs can be, but evidence shows that different drugs are substitutable goods. If you can't get the drug you're after, you can probably get something similar. Very few people are put off by the legal implications of drugs, just as very few people are put off by sodomy laws or other laws which are particularly difficult to enforce.

A good example of this in practice is the consumption of alcohol during prohibition in the US during the 20's. While hard facts are difficult to come by when considering black market goods, evidence based on the number of people suffering alchohol related illnesses and drunkenness at work suggests that although alcohol use dropped sharply after prohibition, once black market connections for the production and sale of alcohol had been restored, alcohol use returned to it's pre-prohibition levels.

As for your claim that hard drugs cannot be consumed responsibly, consider for a moment the large estimated number of young professionals who use cocaine yet maintain successful careers. If they can use a powerful drug frequently and still work often stressful jobs, why can't the rest of the population?

Regarding myths surrounding methamphetamine and it's containing of bleach and draino and cough syrup...

Methamphetamine is produced by reducing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) with red phosphorous and blue iodine. There's other methods too, none of them involving draino, bleach, cough syrup or any of the other crazy urban legend ingredients. Additionally, as this process involves multiple chemical reactions none of the starting ingredients are present in the final, it's not baking.

There are however highly toxic gases produced as a result of manufacture, and dangerous solvents are used to wash out chemicals that aren't methamphetamine from the final product. Typically acetone is used, however the acetone is not present in the final.

Methamphetimine is bad for you, but it's not the same as playing 'let's eat what's under the sink'.

Meth is hardly ever pure (nor are virtually any other hard drugs that can be found on the market), generally being cut with dangerous impurities to increase the quantity being sold without having to put as much product into it. These impurities include things such as crystalline bleach, salt, potassium hydroxide, and other common household chemicals that are crystalline when dry. Even the "pure" stuff is awful for you, but the impurities can be even worse. In a sad irony, as government crackdowns are reducing the manufacture of meth, the quality of the supply is dropping and becoming more dangerous for the users.

Heroin is perfectly healthy and safe.

First of all, I'm not suggesting that tobacco should be banned. Let's face it, the people who are in charge in this world all benefit from tobacco sales, despite all adverts and warnings meant to scare people away from it. And it's like Denis Leary said, it's not like you're gonna go, "yeah, I have cigarettes," look at them and go, "holy shit, this stuff is bad for you? I thought it was good for you. I thought they had vitamin C in them and stuff!" just because there's a warning on the box. It wouldn't go down well with the larger part of the population either. Same with alcohol. It simply isn't possible in this day and age to ban something like that.

Well, judging by the current failure of the War On Drugs to convince anyone that "Drugs Are Bad, Mmkay," I would say the "hard drugs" you referred to also fall under the same category as tobacco and alcohol. If those two things are legal, it is only fair and rational to make others as well.

And I mean it's not even as bad as tobacco. When was the last time you heard of anyone getting second-hand hallucinations?

And as for the cultural aspect of it, we are talking about what we think should be legal in our own parts of the world, correct? Norway sure as hell doesn't have a culture for pot or magic mushrooms

That's interesting. I thought cannabis was legal in all forms in Norway, including possession and sale of seeds. Doesn't that indicate perhaps there is a "culture" for pot?

but we do have a culture for beer. And hard drugs are not integrated into our society. Most people frown apon them, and the people who do them. Should they be legalised, however, they would be much easier to get hold of, and cheaper, and the people who didn't try because they didn't want to get into trouble might. And if something so harmful to the human psyche gets into legal circulation a lot of people will start to think, "well, if it's legal it can't be that dangerous, right?"

So by your own argument, if beer is legalized, people are going to do it more. Thus, more drunk driving accidents, more alcohol related violence, domestic abuse, etc. You are essentially saying hard drugs are bad for being "harmful for the human psyche," but it's OK to get drunk and kill a busload of children or beat your wife because hey, "you have a culture for beer."

Sorry, but if you want to sit around getting high and destroying your brain (and even things as soft as weed does that in the long run, despite not being addictive; don't trust the myths)

No, weed doesn't "destroy the brain." Go on and show me reports which show brain destruction as a result of cannabis.

I think it's you who is perpetuating mythology here.

Anyway, like I said, if you can grow it in your backyard I can't be bothered to care.

Magic mushrooms, or poppy seeds, and a wide variety of other "hard drugs" can be grown in the backyard. If you don't care then, why do you care whether it's done legally or not?

But I don't want to live in a country where hard drugs are legal. I don't want anything to do with someone who is deliberately ruining their life. In fact, I can't believe someone is even suggesting this...

Oh, so anyone who does a "hard drug" like "magic mushroom" is thus "deliberately ruining their life?" Utter nonsense. Utter, unwashed, filthy nonsense. I DON'T trust the myths - and you sir, are a mythologist of increasingly epic skill.

To put things into perspective for you: I lost a friend to suicide, and have spent countless hours convincing people not to take their lives since. I believe even the most fucked up life can somehow be put into order (especially when you're still young) and those people I have talked out of it are doing pretty good these days. They mostly just need someone to tell them to grow up and snap out of it. It hurts to lose someone. You start to question your value as a friend, and you start wondering if you could have done something to prevent it. It's the same with friends on drugs. Wasn't I there for them enough? They had to turn to drugs because no one cared enough? Was it my fault?

This is a result of your ignorant and baseless equivocation of doing "drugs" with wanting to commit suicide. So yeah - your tendency to equate X with Y X does not equal Y, *is* your fault, and not a sound basis for criminalization of anything.

A relative of mine has been in a mental institutial since the seventies with a psychosis caused by a bad LSD trip. I don't ever want to see that happen to anyone I really care about, or anyone I even know.

I know of someone who was institutionalized after a pregnancy. Clearly, impregnation should be criminalized! ;)

You are fully welcome to call me a hypocrite because of the alcohol thing, but alcohol and hard drugs do not compare in my book. You can drink responsibly. There is no responsible way or doing hard drugs. Statistics make little difference to me

OK. You are a hypocrite. Your position is irrational. And you have just stated that you're not going to let things like facts get in the way of your bias.

As for "drinking responsibly," why don't you tell that to the 16,694 people who died because of alcohol related injuries in 2004. Oh wait, you don't care about statistics. You only care about your own silly and unfounded belief. Suit yourself, but don't expect me or any other rational, thinking person to take you seriously.


The last thing I wish to point out is that we are all entitled to our own opinions, but I hope to God that no one high up decides to agree with yours.

Well, it certainly wouldn't be the first or last time that people disagree with a reasonable position in favor of irrational scaremongering and personal bias. I hope one day you grow up a little and realize the inconsistent stupidity of your position, but I'm not going to invoke the creator of all things on that basis.

The only place I can think of where I know pot is legal is in the Netherlands. Norway has yet to legalise pot, and I don't think it will happen either.

I'm afraid I cannot supply evidence for my words when iit comes to the pot thing, but I got it explained to me by my psychology teacher when we were talking about how certain drugs can cause pssychosis and brain damage. She told us that although it has been previously stated that pot cannot hurt you in any way, scientists have now done some thurough research and figured out that it does indeed slow down certain brain fuctions if done too much. I later found a nice little video on the net showing with pretty pictures (that an irrational and stupid mind like mine can comprehend) exactly what happens in your brain when it is affected by various drugs, which told me the same thing. Obviously, you will not believe me, since I am far below your intellectual level, and an irrational human being. If you wait a day or so, though, I can try to dig it up; it was my boyfriend who found it, and I think he kept the link.

sir

That would be ma'am, although I have been known to be mistaken for some androgynous being.

This is a result of your ignorant and baseless equivocation of doing "drugs" with wanting to commit suicide. So yeah - your tendency to equate X with Y X does not equal Y, *is* your fault, and not a sound basis for criminalization of anything.

I never said that it was the same thing. I never even said that drugs make people commit suicide, though that is a common misconception. But people do OD, whether they wanted to or not, and even if they don't... well, I'll dig up that video tomorrow so you can see in scientific terms (you who are so intelligent will understand those; I obviously didn't, being stupid) how the different drugs affect your brain.

Suit yourself, but don't expect me or any other rational, thinking person to take you seriously.

Actually, most rational, thinking people I know couldn't agree more with me. Just today, while writing my previous post, I was talking to a good friend of mine, a very intelligent man, who felt you were the ones being irrational. Would you believe it? And now that you have so eloquently proven that I'm the irrational and stupid one!

Don't assume you know who I am, my level of intelligence and rationality, who my friends are, how much experience I have or what I really believe in based on two forum posts around one topic. I disagree with you, but you don't see me insulting your intellect.


The Pictish Revival, just because those mushrooms grow here doesn't mean they're integrated into the culture of this country. I have never come accross them myself, but I know stupid kids who tried it. Some of them sit in a nice comfortable daze, but one almost jumped out a window, because she thought Edguy was actually coming out of the tree to get her, from my friend's Iron Maiden poster. I also heard of a couple who paniced when they'd eaten it in the woods and got hit by a truck. Nasty stuff, that...


Alcohol has been a part of western civilisation for too long to try and ban it. It would never happen, People wouldn't stand for it. Economy has a part in my reasoning as well, seeing as the state still owns every liquor store, but mostly it's just that people wouldn't stand for it. In Norway, drunk driving is decreasingly common, and although people drink more than before not too many actually start fighting. It's also expensive to drink out on town, so people usually just have get-togethers at home where they get drunk and their guests either stay over ir take the last bus home. Lastly, "I was drunk" doesn't count as an excuse for anything, and you don't need to get drunk to beat up your girlfriend, just ask my best friend's psychopath boyfriend.

But you don't seem to understand; the drug problem in Norway isn't very big. No one has demanded we legalise anything, apart from perhaps weed. True, in my particular group of friends, there are people who have been into drugs of some kind, and some who still smoke pot, but mostly people don't. I live in the only place in Norway that is anything like a big city, and even here there's only half a million people. Here, most of the people who do drugs are junkies living in the street, sniffing glue or shooting heroin, and even they are asking for help now. Fewer and fewer people are falling into it. Why legalise something that we're almost rid of?


On a lighter note, wouldn't it be nice, though, if all the people in the world smoked pot? Everyone would have deep philosophical discussions, there would be no wars, nothing construcctive would ever be done, but everyone would have good laughs. And then we'd all get the munchies, and eat everything we could find, but as soon as people run out of things to eat, there would be nothing left, and no one who wasn't stoned, so no one could make more. And eventually we'd all starve to death. But we'd all be very happy doing it. :P

Go back maybe 100 years and you could go into a pharmacy (or even a grocery store) and buy opium, ephedrine (amphetamines weren't invented until the 1920's, but were marketed as an alternative to ephedrine), cocaine etc. without any kind of regulation or prescription.
I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing, but back then, there was no black market in drugs, because there was no demand for one. Also, because drugs were sold legally, they were safe (supplied in discrete dosages and free from toxic impurities). People were not made into social outcasts for using drugs, because drug use was not a crime.
In essence, drugs were not viewed as a menace to society and they were not in fact a menace.

If you chart the rise of the black market in drugs, you find that it is inextricably linked to the growth in regulation and restriction of the legal market. The harder you make it for people to legally obtain drugs, the more the demand for the black market.

We can probably assume that the overall percentage of drug takers in the population has not dropped in the last 100 years - in fact, some might say that it has risen. Of course, even if the percentage stays the same, the number of drug users will rise for the simple reason that the population itself grows.
Before restrictions were imposed on the drug market, every user was a legal user, getting his / her drugs from reputable (and, mark this, tax paying) businesses. As restrictions become ever more tight, people have to turn to the black market for their drugs, which not only reduces the revenue going to legitimate business, but increases the amount of money going straight to the hands of criminals.
It also means that the quality of drugs drops sharply. The black market in any sector is always of lower quality, but while a pirated video tape might just have poor sound, a badly made batch of drugs could kill you.

You can still get prescriptions for nearly any drug (with some exceptions - anything in schedule 1, which includes heroin, rohypnol and LSD). If your condition is severe enough, your doctor can still prescribe morphine, cocaine, amphetamines, etc. These are in Schedule 2. Schedule 3 contains other opiods, like codeine and vicodin. Schedule 4 contains most of the tranquilizers, such as valium.

The trouble is that doctors are very reluctant to prescribe any scheduled drug, because scheduled drugs are watched very closely by the DEA, who can strip a doctor of his license to practice medicine if they think he has prescribed "too many" pills for the "wrong reasons".

Therefore the chances of anyone being able to legally obtain any drug through legitimate channels for recreational purposes is slim to none.
This is why the black market exists.

So which ones would I legalise then? Well, considering that the really "hard" drugs like Heroin, Cocaine, LSD and Speed are indubitably a bit dangerous, plus the near religious hatred the public has of these "demon" drugs, making their legalisation politically impossible, I would choose the following alternatives:

For Heroin, you can have Methadone, Codeine, Oxycodone (Percodan), Hydrocodone (Vicodin) and propoxyphene (Darvon).

For Cocaine / Speed, you can have Dextroamphetamine, methylphenidate (Ritalin), Ephedrine hydrochloride.

Instead of LSD, you can have magic mushrooms, DMT and mescaline.

I would of course legalise pot, but added to that, you can have any and all of the benzodiazepines, of which valium is the best known example. You can also have barbiturates, plus the amazingly chilled out methaqualone (Quaaludes, also known as Mandrax in the UK).

That should just about do it. But one second, some of you might have noticed that many of these drugs are already "legal". Well, yes they are, but they are so heavily restricted that they might as well be illegal.

My main point is that in order to wipe out the black market in drugs, you have to remove the demand for it. This can't be done simply by legalising drugs. You've also got to remove the restrictions on legal drugs. Unless they are as easy to buy as aspirin is today, the black market will not go away.

I think that pretty much everything should be legal with the exception of like, pcp.

As the late, great Bill Hicks said, “Not all drugs are good. Some are great”.

Darwin's way? He didn't create evolution, he was just the first to notice its existence...

Er... no. The idea of evolution had been around for a long while before Darwin, some aspects as far back as ancient Greece, I do believe. However, more "scientific" models did appear before Darwin, such as Lamarck, and that introduced by Darwin's grandaddy, Erasmus.

I enjoy tramping on people's parades.

So long as you do it in the privacy of your own home, it's fine. Walking around in public blowing smoke at people is not.

Everything, including the real good stuff which has almost certainly been invented and suppressed by the pharmas.

I'd never heard of Salvia Divinorum, but it sounds like something I could really use. Unfortunately, my country is one of the very few which has banned it. Grrr. First in the world to ban it (Wikip) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum#Legal_status) ... oh the shame.

I agree with the many posters here on these two points:

What I choose to take is my business, and no-one else's.
Prohibition drives up prices, providing a strong incentive for dealers to break the law -- including other laws like those against murder. And the drugs aren't taxed, as they easily could be.


However, I strongly doubt that legalization of all drugs is going to create a lot of jobs for home growers and backyard labs, any more than tobacco or alcohol are cottage-industries run by enthusiasts. The pharmaceutical companies will wait a year or two, until they're sure the legalization won't be repealed, then dominate the recreational drug market for ever more.

Marijuana IS a gateway drug. It can lead to tobacco smoking. ;)

Er... no. The idea of evolution had been around for a long while before Darwin, some aspects as far back as ancient Greece, I do believe. However, more "scientific" models did appear before Darwin, such as Lamarck, and that introduced by Darwin's grandaddy, Erasmus.

I enjoy tramping on people's parades.

Quite correct. What Charles Darwin brought to the concept was his theory of Natural Selection which provided a mechanism for evolution. Prior to that, despite numerous attempts (some of which were extremely clever, such as Lamarckian Evolution) no system had ever been found that stood up to scientific scrutiny.

And as for the cultural aspect of it, we are talking about what we think should be legal in our own parts of the world, correct? Norway sure as hell doesn't have a culture for pot or magic mushrooms

I think that you need to talk to your history teacher since you a a bit off on Norway and it's past. Here are a few snippets that you may find illuminating.

From: http://www.walnet.org/rosebud/ancienthistory.html
The Scythians brought Cannabis to Europe via a northern route where remnants of their campsites, from the Altai Mountains to Germany, date back 2,800 years. Seafaring Europe never smoked marijuana extensively, but hemp fiber became a major crop in the history of almost every European country. Pollen analysis dates the cultivation of Cannabis to 400 B.C. in Norway; 150 A.D. in Sweden, and 400 A.D. in Germany and England.,[3] although it is believed the plant was cultivated in the British Isles several centuries earlier.[2] The Greeks and Romans used hemp for rope and sail but imported the fiber from Sicily and Gaul. And it has been said that "Caesar invaded Gaul in order to tie up the Roman Empire," all allusion to the Romans' need for hemp.

From: http://www.vindheim.net/hamp/hemp.html
The richest archeological material from Viking times in Norway is the Oseberg find. Two women were buried in a mound in the county of Vestfold around the year 850 in a splendid ship with ample equipment. The find includes a small piece of hempen material, the use of which has not been determined, but even more interesting is the fact that four seeds of Cannabis sativa were also found. One of these seeds was discovered in a small leather pouch.

The well respected archeologist, Anne Stine Ingstad, who was responsible for excavating the medieval Norse settlements in Newfoundland, is prominent among many historians who believe the younger of the two buried women -usually called the Oseberg Queen - was a priestess of the great Norse goddess Freya, and not only a secular queen as the first excavators thought. Ingstad sees the presence of the Cannabis seed in the (talismanic) pouch as an indication of possible ritual use of cannabis as an intoxicant in pre-christian Scandinavia.

The find of hemp seeds in the Oseberg ship may be interpreted in various ways. Without a doubt the presence of these seeds proves that the hemp plant had reached Norway by the early Viking days, but we do not know whether the seeds were grown in Norway, or how they arrived in the country. We also do not know how the hemp, once cultivated, was utilized.
freia.jpg

In the ninth century there were active trade routes both eastwards through Russia and westwards along the European coasts and waterways. It is also reasonable to suppose a cultural connection to Cannabis seeds that were placed in tombs in central Europe more than a thousand years previously.

Worth noting in connection with the Oseberg find is the lack of ropes and textiles made from hemp. This is one reason for suggesting a ritual use for the Cannabis seeds. The women in the Oseberg ship had clothes made from flax, wool, silk and nettle, but not from hemp. The ropes were made from lime fibres in spite of the better quality of hemp rope.

IngstadŒs suggestion that Asiatic ritual use of hemp may have reached Scandinavia corresponds well with the origin of hemp in central Asia and with etymological theories tracing the word cannabis to finnish-ugric roots. The existence of female noaides (saami shamans) has been established by May-Lisbeth Myrhaug, but ritual use of hemp seems to be unknown in saami noaide tradition.

In addition to the theory of ritual use of hemp in Viking times or earlier, it is prudent to consider another, more mundane, theory: the hemp seeds were placed in the pouch of the Oseberg Queen for their rarity. These were highly prized seeds of an exceedingly useful plant, as yet rare in the north. The hemp seeds were valuable for their promise of better cordage and more durable textiles. Such a theory does not, of course, exclude the possibility that hemp may also have had ritual uses. **More on the web site**



On more more note I am a cannabis smoker and have been for over 25 years I am 41 now and I have managed to own my own corporation and I am in great heath. But those that I went to school with that thought pot was bad and went on to drinking some have had the marriages break up one has had to have a liver transplant. So if you think drink is ok and pot is not (I made a rhyme:D )

The only place I can think of where I know pot is legal is in the Netherlands. Norway has yet to legalise pot, and I don't think it will happen either.

I'm afraid I cannot supply evidence for my words when iit comes to the pot thing, but I got it explained to me by my psychology teacher when we were talking about how certain drugs can cause psychosis and brain damage.
True enough. I'd use the term "trigger" rather than "cause," though, because all drugs have a limited period of effect. It's not like you're tripping for the rest of eternity.
I've known two people who had serious psychiatric incidents from taking drugs. One developed clinical schizophrenia (though her symptoms were all there before) after a few months smoking pot. The other jumped off a cliff under the influence of LSD. I believe both of these people were previously aware of their psychiatric vulnerability, and should have taken more care, but peer-group pressure ... you know.
And on the brain-damage question, yes too. Alcohol being the best documented.

She told us that although it has been previously stated that pot cannot hurt you in any way, scientists have now done some thurough research and figured out that it does indeed slow down certain brain fuctions if done too much.
Yeah to that too. Try playing chess stoned. Or drunk.
Try consoling someone on meth, or making small-talk on ecstasy.
Of course drugs affect the competency of the brain. The more unlike yourself they make you feel, the better the drug.

*huge snip*
Lastly, "I was drunk" doesn't count as an excuse for anything, and you don't need to get drunk to beat up your girlfriend, just ask my best friend's psychopath boyfriend.
Exactly, precisely. The state of your mind is nobody's business but yours, but you must take responsibility for your actions regardless. :)

Your post was very long, but the writing is lucid and grammatrical. I for one welcome you here.

The Pictish Revival, just because those mushrooms grow here doesn't mean they're integrated into the culture of this country. I have never come accross them myself, but I know stupid kids who tried it. Some of them sit in a nice comfortable daze, but one almost jumped out a window, because she thought Edguy was actually coming out of the tree to get her, from my friend's Iron Maiden poster. I also heard of a couple who paniced when they'd eaten it in the woods and got hit by a truck. Nasty stuff, that...

Their significance to the culture of your region is very well documented. A quick Google search will show you that.
You seem to be saying that when people do dangerous things while on a drug that you disapprove of, it's the drug's fault. It isn't. Yet, in the next paragraph, you say the opposite about alcohol.


Lastly, "I was drunk" doesn't count as an excuse for anything, and you don't need to get drunk to beat up your girlfriend, just ask my best friend's psychopath boyfriend.

I agree with you, 100%, that a person is responsible for their own actions. I thought that was clear from my previous post. However, as far as the UK is concerned, alcohol use/abuse is involved in nearly all violent crimes. The last statistics I heard (more than 10 years ago, but probably not completely invalid) cited 95% of public order offences, 90% of assaults and 60% of murders. Therefore, if there is any drug which we can point the finger at, it is alcohol.

[QUOTE=Thanade;12376627]Here, most of the people who do drugs are junkies living in the street, sniffing glue or shooting heroin, and even they are asking for help now.

Those people, by definition, are the ones the authorities become aware of. You have no way of knowing how many people are taking drugs in their spare time, and still living their daily lives as usual.

It is a myth that cannabis stops you doing anything. Although it would mess up my writing, I find it helps me if I have to do complicated maths, or design or build anything. By 'complicated maths' I mean 're-living my A-levels' standard, and by 'build' I mean 'rebuild a motorbike engine, starting with nuts and bolts, so that it fires up first time'.

For those of you that are pro-legalisation and want to actually do something about it (at least on paper), you might want to visit:

http://www.leap.cc

This stands for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

It's a rapidly growing movement in the USA today, made up of (mostly) ex-law enforcement officers. If this isn't proof that the current drug laws need at least a bit of a rethink, I don't know what is.

The poll results are interesting. There's an even distribution from the most widely accepted (caffeine) down to the least (hallucunigens, should have been psychedelics) . . . with the exception of 'prescription meds.' As an option which is already legal (legally protected even) it is scoring amazingly low.

Maybe not all plain sailing for Big Pharma, if drugs were legalized.

What I choose to take is my business, and no-one else's.


It is your business if it does not affect anybody. Truth is, the effects of many on the banned drugs could place people around you in certain dangerous situations. I believe that's why some are banned because their usage can pose as a threat to others.

Let's say you pass by somebody high on a psychotic drug. He's sane and reasonable when he's not taking the drug, but then because he took the drug, whatever inhibitions he had was gone. So he goes on and kills you for pocket change. Now, is it only just his business, or does it greatly affect yours too?

I'm not saying that all killers take drugs, and all who take drugs are killers, but definitely, taking in many of these illicit drugs increases the likelihood of certain incidents, incidents which do not concern only the person taking the pills.

I said earlier that all drugs are poisons, and all poisons are drugs. That's true. In prescribing medicines, one has to take into account whether the benefits outweigh the side effects and the risks enough to justify its use. All drugs have a certain effect on the body ~ even aspirin, in certain doses, can kill. Thus, if your benefit is just the 'fun' or the 'high' you derive from it, versus the damage your brain and your body will sustain, I think illicit drugs is a bad idea. Because come to think of it, when we legalize it, then we are actually risking the health (and arguably, the safety) of the people. [Another forseeable consequence would be an increase in drug-related illnesses, which would place an additional strain on finances.]

Stonehaven of Georgia, past and culture are two very different things, and one must differenciate between past cultures and current ones. Norwegians, contrary to popular belief, are not vikings. The only aspect of their culture we have remotely kept is plastic helmets (that don't even resemble the ones they really wore) and elaborate bronze and silver jewlery. Besides, there is no actual evidence there that they smoked weed, and even if they did, it might be that only the very few did, and that aspect of their culture has been lost and, I repeat, is not a part of current norwegian culture, nor has it been for a very, very long time.

On more more note I am a cannabis smoker and have been for over 25 years I am 41 now and I have managed to own my own corporation and I am in great heath. But those that I went to school with that thought pot was bad and went on to drinking some have had the marriages break up one has had to have a liver transplant. So if you think drink is ok and pot is not

I do not think that excessive drinking is okay, and I never said so. I am disgusted by people who spend every weekend getting drunk, just as much as I am with those who spend every weekend getting high on whatever drug (though people on pot are far more fun to be around than people on most other substances, including alcohol). I hardly ever get drunk, I drink for enjoyment, because it tastes good, and for the sake of good company, not to get shit-faced.

Although a liver-transplant is clearly the result of excessive drinking, a lot of people get divorced for other reasons. Actually, most do.


And on the brain-damage question, yes too. Alcohol being the best documented.

I see your point, and I certainly don't mean to say that alcohol is harmless. but it's much easier to drink responsibly than it is to take a drug responsibly, mostly because it takes more alcohol to mess up your brain to the point where you lose all judgement than it does for a hard drug to do the same, which is why i feel that they don't really compare, at least not in the way that people are suggesting. Also, alcohol is not addictive in the same way as most hard drugs, although some people become alcoholics more easily than others. It's an easier drug to kick than many others, and you won't be addcted from drinking alcohol once, but i've seen that happen to people on other substances.

Your post was very long, but the writing is lucid and grammatrical. I for one welcome you here.

Thank you very much. And thank you for not picking my post apart to make me seem stupid or irrational.


You seem to be saying that when people do dangerous things while on a drug that you disapprove of, it's the drug's fault. It isn't. Yet, in the next paragraph, you say the opposite about alcohol.

No, it's not the "drug's fault". It is the fault of the person's stupidity for taking the drug in the first place, for taking something they are unable to handle. However, whereas alcohol brings out the worst in people that's already there (genuinely nice and calm people rarely get fired up even when drinking excessively) certain hard drugs will make people do things they normally wouldn't do, things that aren't even in their nature to do. When taking a halucinogen (or psychedelic, thanks Nobel Hobos), as the name implies you may have strong halucinations and see things that aren't really there. Even though it is your fault for taking the drug in the first place, it is the drug's effect on your brain that makes you do things like fleeing from an invisible enemy straight out into the road in front of a truck. It is possible to keep your good judgement when indulging in alcohol, if you don't drink too much (which, as stated above, I am against). It is much harder to keep your good judgement when you're seeing things, or when you're too high to be aware of what goes on around you.

It is your business if it does not affect anybody. Truth is, the effects of many on the banned drugs could place people around you in certain dangerous situations. I believe that's why some are banned because their usage can pose as a threat to others.

Your wording is so much better than mine.... This is what I was previously trying to point out.

[QUOTE=Stonehaven of Georgia;12377114]I think that you need to talk to your history teacher since you a a bit off on Norway and it's past. Here are a few snippets that you may find illuminating.


Well... History and recent facts are two different things now isn't it.
She said that "norway don't have" and I can back her up on that.. Beeing norwegian.
What happened some 800 and more years ago doesn't really count that much. I mean if that's the things that counts then USA doesn't really exit does it?

Explain your answer.

I'm mostly interested in why people think certain drugs are acceptable, but not others.
Is it addiction potential, the possibility of overdose, moral/religious reasons, or something else?
I see a clear contradiction between these lines of reasoning and current U.S. drug laws.
All drugs should be legal, though I support a monitoring body along the lines of the FDA. Of course, the current FDA is ridiculously corrupt, but in theory it's a good notion.

If alcohol's legal, so should pot be. I don't see why sitting in my room slowly frying my brain is more harmful to society than going out, getting leathered and lairy, starting fights, causing criminal damage and puking all over the place.
See "The Irony Of It All" by The Streets.

It is your business if it does not affect anybody. Truth is, the effects of many on the banned drugs could place people around you in certain dangerous situations. I believe that's why some are banned because their usage can pose as a threat to others.
Let's be specific, here. Most drugs are not, themselves, going to be remotely harmful to anybody around you. Smoking can directly impact those around you, since they may get second-hand contact with the drug, but shooting up or dropping a tab or something isn't going to harm anybody (except perhaps you).

Now, taking some drugs may increase the likelihood that somebody will do something that is harmful to others. But I really, really don't think we should go around banning everything that increases the likelihood that somebody will harm somebody else. I mean, being male increases the likelihood that you will harm somebody...do we really want to lock up all males because their maleness makes them more likely to harm others?

Caffeine. Other than that, KILL THE BITCHES :mp5:

"Because come to think of it, when we legalize it, then we are actually risking the health (and arguably, the safety) of the people. [Another forseeable consequence would be an increase in drug-related illnesses, which would place an additional strain on finances.]"

I for one would refute that argument.

Illegal drugs are indeed dangerous, but more pertinent question is: Why?
Is it the drugs themselves that are dangerous? No, not unless you overdose on them - and overdosing happens because the purity of black market drugs is unknown, which means people don't know how much to use.
It is the toxic contaminants which black market drugs contain that cause the most harm. This is because the black market is not quality controlled.

Legalisation would eradicate the majority of drug-related deaths, for two main reasons:

1. Quality control would be enforced so that no harmful "cutting agents" are used to bulk out the product. Yes, legal pills do contain bulking agents, but this is usually starch, lactose or cellulose, which are not harmful in any way.

2. Legally supplied drugs would be packaged in discrete, well defined dosages with instruction leaflets on how many to take and what the maximum daily dosage is. Just pick a box of aspirin off the shelf and look at all the safety warnings and dosage instructions it has on it.

If these measures were implemented for legalised drugs (as they already are for drugs which are currently legal), then anyone who overdosed would have either done so on purpose, or not read the instructions.

So if you are really concerned about the health and safety of the people, the only rational way forward is legalisation.

Not so sure about alcohol - that stuff can really mess people up. I mean, think about it - all drugs from caffeine to crack have their downsides, and alcohol has more than its fair share:

It has cocaine's ability to turn you into an aggressive muppet; MDMA's ability to make you think the total idiot you are talking to is your soulmate; and hallucinogenics' ability to... well, just turn your evening into a blurry disaster area, the consequences of which you will never live down. [shudders at the bad, bad memories]

Also, people moan about MDMA comedowns, but they're nothing a few cups of tea, some relaxing music and a few spliffs can't get you through. If I was to drink enough alcohol to get me anywhere vaguely near an MDMA-ish state, I'd be completely out of action for the next day.

Yet, though I can give up everything else with no trouble at all, I return to alcohol like an old friend. Clearly, I am an addict.

You have no problem with sniffing glue though?

No, it's not the "drug's fault". It is the fault of the person's stupidity for taking the drug in the first place, for taking something they are unable to handle.


I fully agree, but I believe that problem is best addressed through realistic drug education, conducted in a society which tolerates use but does not tolerate abuse. (I say 'tolerates', not 'encourages' or even 'condones'.) Much like my circle of friends, in fact. We've excluded a number of people for abusing substances. Sorry to keep harping on about this, but most of them were abusing alcohol.
On the subject of drug education, your example of someone who jumped out of a window while tripping suggests they had a very poor understanding of what they were getting into. A realistic education programme, which distinguishes between use and abuse, would have included telling them about the dangers of taking hallucinogenic drugs in an unsuitable environment.


However, whereas alcohol brings out the worst in people that's already there (genuinely nice and calm people rarely get fired up even when drinking excessively) certain hard drugs will make people do things they normally wouldn't do, things that aren't even in their nature to do.

I disagree. I think that's just another example of blaming the drug and not the person.
I also disagree that alcohol allows you to maintain a greater level of self-control than other drugs. Illegal drugs are powerful because they have to be distributed illegally - no dealer is going to lace a pint of water with a few drops of LSD, then walk around trying to sell it. If drugs were legal, they could be rated for purity (like the % by volume on alcohol) and sold accordingly. That way, people would know how much they were taking. Conversely, if alcohol was banned then no doubt people would start getting blinded or killed by illicit homebrew. And alcohol is a lot easier to make at home than most hard drugs.

For the record, I too welcome your presence on this thread. At least you are making me seriously examine my own views, which is a rare achievement for anyone dealing with the likes of me.

You have no problem with sniffing glue though?

I didn't mention sniffing glue. Frankly, even in a society with sensible and realistic drug education, you could still legitimately say to the kids: "Seriously, don't do that. Ever."

All of them. It's your body, and you have the right to do what you want with it. You're not harming anyone but yourself.

All of them. It's your body, and you have the right to do what you want with it. You're not harming anyone but yourself.

Yeah, but why should we trust your opinion? Didn't you die defending Troy from your own former comrades?

[I'll wreck this thread like I wrecked that abortion thread the other day, bwahahahah!]

Sorry, I'll be good.