NationStates Jolt Archive

Why should cocaine, heroin, marijuana, crack, PCP, LSD, extacy, or any "illegal substance" in the United States be illegal? All this talk of smoking rights in the US, and UK, as gotten me thinking about the rights of the citizens in the US. And I've come to the conclusion that making all these substances illegal is just plain stupid.

The government has absolutely NO right to govern what we wish to do with our own bodies.

Opinions?

I don't really understand america's war on drugs either.

Why should cocaine, heroin, marijuana, crack, PCP, LSD, extacy, or any "illegal substance" in the United States be illegal? All this talk of smoking rights in the US, and UK, as gotten me thinking about the rights of the citizens in the US. And I've come to the conclusion that making all these substances illegal is just plain stupid.

The government has absolutely NO right to govern what we wish to do with our own bodies.

Opinions?

It makes us too dumb to excersise rights the way they were meant by the founding fathers and promotes crime and immorality. Drugs are unpatriotic and evil.

And Ron L Hubbard uses them in his scientology rituals (http://lronjr.ytmnd.com/) and beleives it gives him demonic powers. You don't want to be like Ron do you?

The harder stuff should stay illegal due to the ramifications of drug use on society overall. We aren't self-contained units that never interact with the other units. Battling the societal effects caused by hard drug use is in our collective interest. If you want a society that doesn't recognize collective interest, well that's a different matter entirely.

What's wrong with cocaine, see: celebrities.

What's wrong with cocaine, see: celebrities.

Name three US celebs with brains and that are on the level.

LEGALIZE POT!!:D:D:p:p....Well up here were getting there...

Name three US celebs with brains and that are on the level.

Repeat that in a way that makes sense.

Excuse my lack of brain activities in the middle of the night, but what is Finland doing there? :confused:

(I always try to vote for the oddest choice when I don't have a solid opinion. :D)

No one ever tells you the real problem with drugs: they're boring :eek:

The government has absolutely NO right to govern what we wish to do with our own bodies.

If the narcs only did stuff to their own bodies, I'd have no trouble, but the way they get money to buy more drugs (usually not being able to keep a job) usually includes harming other people in one way or another. So I'd have to vote no on the hard stuff. Basically anything that needs injecting or substantial processing to make into a drug would be a no-no. Like chewing coca-leaves would be okay, but shooting up cocaine would not, if you get what I mean.

It makes us too dumb to excersise rights the way they were meant by the founding fathers and promotes crime and immorality. Drugs are unpatriotic and evil.

you and your founding fathers.

:):) Weed ftw. :):)

Excuse my lack of brain activities in the middle of the night, but what is Finland doing there? :confused:

(I always try to vote for the oddest choice when I don’t have a solid opinion. :D)
Welcome to NS:G polls, ma dear.

The government has absolutely NO right to govern what we wish to do with our own bodies.

There's where you're wrong. Governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens - even from themselves, if need be. When it comes to drugs, however, that doesn't even necessarily come into play. People on drugs are a danger to other people, not only themselves. That's why they're regulated or banned by the government.

If the narcs only did stuff to their own bodies, I'd have no trouble, but the way they get money to buy more drugs (usually not being able to keep a job) usually includes harming other people in one way or another.

That problem there stems mostly from the way the drug laws are setup. People with drug convictions have a much harder time finding a job or getting an education and are in fact barred from many opportunities that other people have access to in order to obtain better jobs and education. Add on top of that the inflated prices caused because of their illegallity, it's no wonder people have problems.

If the narcs only did stuff to their own bodies, I'd have no trouble, but the way they get money to buy more drugs (usually not being able to keep a job) usually includes harming other people in one way or another. So I'd have to vote no on the hard stuff. Basically anything that needs injecting or substantial processing to make into a drug would be a no-no. Like chewing coca-leaves would be okay, but shooting up cocaine would not, if you get what I mean.

First, just a small point, I think you mean "junkies" and not "narcs" as "narc" is short for narcotics agent (generally undercover)...

also, that means no acid, or DMT (well, okay, I suppose ayahuasca brews would still work, but no DMT extract). What do you have against mind-expanding psychedelic drugs that are generally harmless?

EDIT: Oh yes, that applies to various psychedelic research chemicals and MDx etc. Although I grant you that not enough is known about research chemicals to make them readily available to the public.

If the narcs only did stuff to their own bodies, I'd have no trouble, but the way they get money to buy more drugs (usually not being able to keep a job) usually includes harming other people in one way or another. So I'd have to vote no on the hard stuff. Basically anything that needs injecting or substantial processing to make into a drug would be a no-no. Like chewing coca-leaves would be okay, but shooting up cocaine would not, if you get what I mean.

Alright, then the government should supply the narcs with their drugs and put a small tax on it, to make it affordable, they'll sooner die then run out of money for drugs.

Excuse my lack of brain activities in the middle of the night, but what is Finland doing there? :confused:

(I always try to vote for the oddest choice when I don't have a solid opinion. :D)

This is NSG all polls here are required to have a completely irrelevant option, usually reffered to as a joke option.

Well, there is no official rule for it, but you will face lots of ridicule if you make a poll without one

This is NSG all polls here are required to have a completely irrelevant option, usually reffered to as a joke option.

LOL, that explains why it made no sense and why I nevertheless chose it... XD

First, just a small point, I think you mean "junkies" and not "narcs" as "narc" is short for narcotics agent (generally undercover)...

Eh, maybe for you. To me narc = narcotics addict.

What do you have against mind-expanding psychedelic drugs that are generally harmless?

Since it's waaaay past midnight, I won't start debating the "generally harmless" bit, but what I generally have against psychedelic drugs is that the people using them on healthy brains have no idea how lucky they are in the first place to have a balanced chemical brain state, and it makes me angry when they want to mess it up. :mad:

Some of us have to take (legal & medical) drugs just to stay sane, you know. :p

I hate drugs and think it's incredibly stupid to use them. On a personal level we westerners have something to learn from Muslims on this topic. The government should work to limit drug related damages and crimes. But the government should be pragmatic and realize that it's ideological war on drugs doesn't work. It is time to try another tactic. Maybe this suggestion I posted earlier today in another thread, it was off topic there and belongs here:

Legalize and heavily regulate light recreational drugs so people use those instead of the heavier stuff. Any bars or other places that wants permission to serve alcohol or other drugs should be under tight requirements and frequent inspections. To make sure they take steps to prevent problems such as minors slipping in, overdose, violence, rape, addiction (call detox when an addict is spotted) and drunk driving (arrange for guests to get home without driving). There should be a monthly ration/limit on how much drugs a person may buy to take home as an attempt to keep drug (ab)use on a reasonable level, reselling your ration should be illegal. ...But all that is only if there would actually be less drug related crimes with the legally regulated places then it is with criminal drug dealers who don't even have an age limit on their wares.

PS. Alcohol is a drug, no matter what your opinion on drugs is it would be hypocrisy to treat alcohol differently then other drugs.

PS. Alcohol is a drug, no matter what your opinion on drugs is it would be hypocrisy to treat alcohol differently then other drugs.

So if caffeine. If coffee was discovered now and not in the ages past, it probably wouldn't make it through the food screening institutions.

On a personal level we westerners have something to learn from Muslims on this topic.

Westerners can't learn anything from Muslims except how the blow themselves up on a bus.

PS. Alcohol is a drug, no matter what your opinion on drugs is it would be hypocrisy to treat alcohol differently then other drugs.

If you don't like it, go to Pakistan.

There's where you're wrong. Governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens - even from themselves, if need be. When it comes to drugs, however, that doesn't even necessarily come into play. People on drugs are a danger to other people, not only themselves. That's why they're regulated or banned by the government.

Authoritarian Facism much?

Eh, maybe for you. To me narc = narcotics addict.

Interesting. I've never heard narc used in that way.



Since it's waaaay past midnight, I won't start debating the "generally harmless" bit, but what I generally have against psychedelic drugs is that the people using them on healthy brains have no idea how lucky they are in the first place to have a balanced chemical brain state, and it makes me angry when they want to mess it up. :mad:

Some of us have to take (legal & medical) drugs just to stay sane, you know. :p


Okay, so in a minuscule fraction of the population psychedelic drugs cause psychotic breakdowns, and some people do stupid things when they are on psychedelics. However, psychedelic drugs generally have few to no unsafe side effects, particularly physically.

So you admit that your only major problem with them is due to personal bias? Not saying that it is necessarily unjustified, but I would argue that such personal bias is in no way the kind of thing a government should rely on in policymaking.

Authoritarian Facism much?

I think he was rather anti-facist, actually... concerned of the safety of the majority of the citizens rather than the few drug-crazed ones.

PS. Alcohol is a drug, no matter what your opinion on drugs is it would be hypocrisy to treat alcohol differently then other drugs.

You just made this hypocrite thirsty.

*goes off to find a beer*

but I would argue that such personal bias is in no way the kind of thing a government should rely on in policymaking.

Hey, this is NationStates. :p

The Grand Duchy of Araraukar is a large, environmentally stunning nation, renowned for its compulsory military service. Its cynical population of 29 million are ruled without fear or favor by a psychotic dictator, who outlaws just about everything and refers to the populace as "my little playthings."

*insert psychotic laughter here* ;)

I think he was rather anti-facist, actually... concerned of the safety of the majority of the citizens rather than the few drug-crazed ones.

Yeah your right, I mixed up my terms:rolleyes:, but its definitely authoritarian.

Legalize and heavily regulate light recreational drugs so people use those instead of the heavier stuff. Any bars or other places that wants permission to serve alcohol or other drugs should be under tight requirements and frequent inspections. To make sure they take steps to prevent problems such as minors slipping in, overdose, violence, rape, addiction (call detox when an addict is spotted) and drunk driving (arrange for guests to get home without driving). There should be a monthly ration/limit on how much drugs a person may buy to take home as an attempt to keep drug (ab)use on a reasonable level, reselling your ration should be illegal. ...But all that is only if there would actually be less drug related crimes with the legally regulated places then it is with criminal drug dealers who don't even have an age limit on their wares.

PS. Alcohol is a drug, no matter what your opinion on drugs is it would be hypocrisy to treat alcohol differently then other drugs.


Yeah that's really going to work *hint hint sarchasim*

Why should cocaine, heroin, marijuana, crack, PCP, LSD, extacy, or any "illegal substance" in the United States be illegal? All this talk of smoking rights in the US, and UK, as gotten me thinking about the rights of the citizens in the US. And I've come to the conclusion that making all these substances illegal is just plain stupid.

The government has absolutely NO right to govern what we wish to do with our own bodies.

Opinions?

Of course the government has an interest in what you do to yourself. We, the people that form the government, will eventually be required to incarcerate you for crimes that you commit while under the influence, or we will be required to nurse you back to health after you have injured yourself while under the influence of drugs.

Note that I consider alcohol to be a drug and that if we are willing to tolerate all that you do while under the influence of alcohol, we should also be willing to tolerate the other drugs. If you can use drugs, other than alcohol, and be responsible for your actions, as well as cause no harm to any of the rest of us, then have at it -- Ruin your health and be happy in it.

So if caffeine. If coffee was discovered now and not in the ages past, it probably wouldn't make it through the food screening institutions.
It should have been obvious what kind of drugs this thread is about:
The ones that mess up your mind.

After drinking too much coffee you can still drive a car, think clearly and act responsibly. In worst case you'll have trouble sleeping. So that liquid is not relevant to this debate. The same with nicotine, it is extreamly addictive and certainly unhealthy but it doesn't mess up your mind so it's not the issue here.

It should have been obvious what kind of drugs this thread is about:
The ones that mess up your mind.

After drinking too much coffee you can still drive a car, think clearly and act responsibly. In worst case you'll have trouble sleeping. So that liquid is not relevant to this debate. The same with nicotine, it is extreamly addictive and certainly unhealthy but it doesn't mess up your mind so it's not the issue here.

What about caffeine withdrawals that cloud your mind and make you ache until you've had your morning cup of coffee?

And caffeine certainly messes up your mind--that is why you feel different after consuming it.


EDIT: and, in fact, this thread is not about caffeine, but neither is it simply about substances that "mess up your mind." It is about drugs which are illegal, specifically in the USA.

...it makes us too dumb

...the way they get money to buy more drugs (usually not being able to keep a job) usually includes harming other people in one way or another.

...people on drugs are a danger to other people, not only themselves.

... it makes me angry when they want to mess [their brain states] up.
Blimey, you wouldn’t think that the vast majority of humans take drugs every single day, would you? :p

Calm down guys, smoke a joint or have a cup of tea or something. Drugs are fun, drugs are good, as long as you use them properly. A small minority misuse drugs, or cause criminal acts to sustain their drug misuse, but the majority of drug users can handle their substances. You wouldn’t judge all users of alcohol on the merits of alcoholics, why would you do any differently for those of us who use, and not misuse, illegal drugs?

Scare stories of drug misuse leading to criminal damage are abound, but the worst you’re going to get out of an average night of drug use is a long lie-in.

It's not your choice. It's one mistake and then the drug takes over.

It's not your choice. It's one mistake and then the drug takes over.

I can't quite tell if you are serious or not. Are you serious? And if so, please explain your meaning more fully--I'm not entirely sure I understand.

It's not your choice. It's one mistake and then the drug takes over.

And masturbation makes you go blind.

Screw this, I am going to Sweden to take LSD.

And masturbation makes you go blind.

Oh....

Oh....

shit. :eek:

If the narcs only did stuff to their own bodies, I'd have no trouble, but the way they get money to buy more drugs (usually not being able to keep a job) usually includes harming other people in one way or another.

The only reason drugs are so expensive is that they're illegal. Illegal means supply is low, so the price goes up. (Supply shifts to the left, remember.)

It's basic economics. Legalize, price goes down, addicts don't have to steal, and users aren't enriching the black market, and sales can be taxed. Also, since users won't be criminals just for using or buying, they won't be as likely to say, "Ah fuck it, I'd get arrested anyway, why shouldn't I steal?"

The only reason drugs are so expensive is that they're illegal. Illegal means supply is low, so the price goes up. (Supply shifts to the left, remember.)

It's basic economics. Legalize, price goes down, addicts don't have to steal, and users aren't enriching the black market, and sales can be taxed. Also, since users won't be criminals just for using or buying, they won't be as likely to say, "Ah fuck it, I'd get arrested anyway, why shouldn't I steal?"

And they won't be fired/prohibited from getting jobs and/or education opportunities due to drug violations.

The harder stuff should stay illegal due to the ramifications of drug use on society overall. We aren't self-contained units that never interact with the other units. Battling the societal effects caused by hard drug use is in our collective interest. If you want a society that doesn't recognize collective interest, well that's a different matter entirely.

What counts as hard drugs is subjective. An example of this is alcohol.

Consider the collective cost of alcohol. We're talking a lot of physical damage to alcohol abusers/addicts from the toxin itself. In terms of behaviour we have everything from stealing to pay for the fix, to increased incidence of car accidents, to increased incident of assuault (including perpetrating or falling victim to sexual assault) and self injury, to increased incidence of unsafe sexual practises, to neglect of job, children or self....the list goes on and on. In terms of life impact, the alcohol abuser, their family/friends/loved ones/employers/employees/innocent by-standers all can impacted. It could be your near relative run off the road and killed or paralysed for life by that drunk driver (it could even be you). It could be your marriage torn apart by your partner's alcohol abuse, it could your doctor who shows up high on booze to operate...the list could go on.

Now alcohol could be illegal, it's certainly provably harmful in ways that some illegal drugs are not; compare the ease of a fatal alcoholic toxic overload (overdose) with the believed impossibility of doing the same with marijuana. In fact in the US early last century, it was illegal. This didnt really work out too well. It arguably did more harm than good (consumption both overall and amongst non-problem drinkers decreased, consumption amongst problem drinkers and the number of problem drinkers increased). Alcohol related crime soared, including violent crime. Non-commercially produced you couldnt know how clean, knowlegable or consiencious the brewer was, or even the alcohol content of what you were drinking for that matter. It was a complete and costly failure. It raised the incidence and severity of problem consumption in the population while only reducing non-problematic consumption.

It's not in the collective interest to hypocritically allow alcohol while arresting people who have not manifested any known societal harm for imbibing a drug arguably no worse than alcohol. And arguably the US's experiment with prohibition last century demonstrated the that it's not in the collective interest of a society like the US to prohibit alcohol (and I say this as someone who dispises alcohol and cant stand to be in the vicinity of drunk people).

It's probably not in the collective interest to alienate large numbers of the very people whose problem can only be resolved through connection, whilst also arresting and punishing those who actually wouldnt have manifested any problem or caused any harm at all. It'sprobably not in the collective interest to supply a profitable easy to exploit black market that encourages and props up organised crime both domestically and internationally.

Some should be legalized, especially marijuana, whilst others should stay off the market. They are far too harmful for them to be available. I'm sorry, but there is no reason that methamphetamines should be legal, they truly are a disservice to society that's far to great to be acceptable.

Isn't it interesting on this thread that the same people (partisan right) who argue on NSG for individual freedoms, deregulation of the market etc etc support regulation of drugs...

Also, if your going to use the Scandinavian countries as an example, overall usage and abuse of drugs is far lower in these countries that don't have laws against them, and they are abused far more in countries in which they are outlawed. It's like the 'no signs' intersection street in Denmark experiment.

Screw this, I am going to Sweden to take LSD.

Prepare to fear imprisonment for years. Drug laws here are... harsh-ish.

Isn't it interesting on this thread that the same people (partisan right) who argue on NSG for individual freedoms, deregulation of the market etc etc support regulation of drugs...

Also, if your going to use the Scandinavian countries as an example, overall usage and abuse of drugs is far lower in these countries that don't have laws against them, and they are abused far more in countries in which they are outlawed. It's like the 'no signs' intersection street in Denmark experiment.

What are you talking about? Drug laws in the Scandinavian countries are not lenient by any stretch of the imagination.

Some should be legalized, especially marijuana, whilst others should stay off the market. They are far too harmful for them to be available. I'm sorry, but there is no reason that methamphetamines should be legal, they truly are a disservice to society that's far to great to be acceptable.

Methamphetamine is currently legal with a prescription(generally used for narcopelsy and ADHD), although it's called deoxyephedrine to avoid having it demonized like it's illicit use is.

Methamphetamine is currently legal with a prescription(generally used for narcopelsy and ADHD), although it's called deoxyephedrine to avoid having it demonized like it's illicit use is.

I'm basing my position around recreational drug use, not medicinal purposes. I'm all for universal legalization for a medicinal purpose, but for recreational I'm opposed to a lot of them.

Isn't it interesting on this thread that the same people (partisan right) who argue on NSG for individual freedoms, deregulation of the market etc etc support regulation of drugs...

What's interesting is that I argue for both but you'd rather pound on a strawman stereotype. ;)

What counts as hard drugs is subjective. An example of this is alcohol.

Consider the collective cost of alcohol. We're talking a lot of physical damage to alcohol abusers/addicts from the toxin itself. In terms of behaviour we have everything from stealing to pay for the fix, to increased incidence of car accidents, to increased incident of assuault (including perpetrating or falling victim to sexual assault) and self injury, to increased incidence of unsafe sexual practises, to neglect of job, children or self....the list goes on and on. In terms of life impact, the alcohol abuser, their family/friends/loved ones/employers/employees/innocent by-standers all can impacted. It could be your near relative run off the road and killed or paralysed for life by that drunk driver (it could even be you). It could be your marriage torn apart by your partner's alcohol abuse, it could your doctor who shows up high on booze to operate...the list could go on.

Now alcohol could be illegal, it's certainly provably harmful in ways that some illegal drugs are not; compare the ease of a fatal alcoholic toxic overload (overdose) with the believed impossibility of doing the same with marijuana. In fact in the US early last century, it was illegal. This didnt really work out too well. It arguably did more harm than good (consumption both overall and amongst non-problem drinkers decreased, consumption amongst problem drinkers and the number of problem drinkers increased). Alcohol related crime soared, including violent crime. Non-commercially produced you couldnt know how clean, knowlegable or consiencious the brewer was, or even the alcohol content of what you were drinking for that matter. It was a complete and costly failure. It raised the incidence and severity of problem consumption in the population while only reducing non-problematic consumption.

It's not in the collective interest to hypocritically allow alcohol while arresting people who have not manifested any known societal harm for imbibing a drug arguably no worse than alcohol. And arguably the US's experiment with prohibition last century demonstrated the that it's not in the collective interest of a society like the US to prohibit alcohol (and I say this as someone who dispises alcohol and cant stand to be in the vicinity of drunk people).

It's probably not in the collective interest to alienate large numbers of the very people whose problem can only be resolved through connection, whilst also arresting and punishing those who actually wouldnt have manifested any problem or caused any harm at all. It'sprobably not in the collective interest to supply a profitable easy to exploit black market that encourages and props up organised crime both domestically and internationally.

We've collectively decided, hypocritical or not, that we will pay the collective price for legalized alchohol consumption. That is far different than adopting the assumption that drug-use is something that will only affect the individual consuming it.

We've collectively decided, hypocritical or not, that we will pay the collective price for legalized alchohol consumption. That is far different than adopting the assumption that drug-use is something that will only affect the individual consuming it.
We have not collectively decided. It was decided before us by others who were not particularly informed and in a time when a greater level of community interference was considered proper across a range of spheres.

Prepare to fear imprisonment for years. Drug laws here are... harsh-ish.

But the prisons are like country clubs, or so I hear. :)

But the prisons are like country clubs, or so I hear. :)

Just because they are at a standard meant to fulfil basic human rights and treat the prisoners decently doesn't mean that they are country clubs. It just means they are not the kind of hell holes certain "civilised" nations allow their "federal pound me in the ass prisons" to degenerate into...

We have not collectively decided. It was decided before us by others who were not particularly informed and in a time when a greater level of community interference was considered proper across a range of spheres.

We collectively decide by not making the choice to change it. Try a motion to legalize all drug use and see how far you get.

Authoritarian Facism much?

Yes, actually - my beliefs are rather authoritarian (though the fascist issue was already brought up and you retracted it). That doesn't invalidate the point. :)

And Andaluciae - no, marijuana should not be legal.

Basically my motto toward such things is this: "whatever, just don't bug me."
If the druggies just don't bug me I'm fine with it, and it might be an excellant thing to tax. Of courseif they BUG me...*bang*
The same goes for suicide (don't land on anyone's car though)...hmm suicide tax....

Also, if your going to use the Scandinavian countries as an example, overall usage and abuse of drugs is far lower in these countries that don't have laws against them

Uh, I _live_ in a Scandinavian country and I think your opinion of our drug laws is from the same source that makes people think there are polar bears here marching on the streets at winter... >_>

I think you should legalize all drugs except heroine. I think society is better off if we leave that illegal.

Uh, I _live_ in a Scandinavian country and I think your opinion of our drug laws is from the same source that makes people think there are polar bears here marching on the streets at winter... >_>

Yeah, if you look up you'll see I already had a good laugh at his claims.

Excuse my lack of brain activities in the middle of the night......

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/RiverIsMyGoddess/avatars/misc_cantbrain.jpg

No one ever tells you the real problem with drugs: they're boring :eek:

Ever tried psychedelics ?



What do you have against mind-expanding psychedelic drugs that are generally harmless ?

Erf. Even though I am a psychedelic user... I wouldn't go as far as saying they are harmless. I would even go as far as saying that they definitely fuck you up. Especially if you abuse them.

Sadly, abusing a psychedelic is very easy. I'd say a safe dosage would be one trip every 2 or 3 months... at least.

(o yea, and if yur into expanding your mind... try 2CB ;) )

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/RiverIsMyGoddess/avatars/misc_cantbrain.jpg

Do you collect these in some hideously overgrown folder on your desktop, or do you google random things from people's posts in hope of finding this stuff?

What's wrong with cocaine, see: celebrities.

They don't cost the state anything do they?

Given that it is, to my understanding, polluted forms of cannabis and the like that cause most problems, state regulated access and state regulated quality seems an excellent idea.

However, Hydesland is correct in regard to Heroine. Much as I would hold the death of an heroine addict to be natural selection, the social implications of heroine are vastly worse than other drugs.

I'm for full legalisation.

The tax revenues and new business would be far less criminal and violent than the existing system and would easily fund clinics, support, etc for those that get too far in.

Certainly while tobacco and alcohol are still legal - they are far more dangerous than, say, cannabis, but of course their lobbyists are rather more powerful than your average stoned guy.

OK, people are dumbasses, what can i say. all the education they get about illegal substances is true even though they refuse to believe it. if they want to destroy their bodies. i say go ahead. but when it come down to something like this, america should have a legalistic attitude. I say capitol punishment. it strikes fear into potential abusers and punishes the people who already are.

Why should cocaine, heroin, marijuana, crack, PCP, LSD, extacy, or any "illegal substance" in the United States be illegal? All this talk of smoking rights in the US, and UK, as gotten me thinking about the rights of the citizens in the US. And I've come to the conclusion that making all these substances illegal is just plain stupid.

The government has absolutely NO right to govern what we wish to do with our own bodies.

Opinions?

The weaker ones--marijuana, ecstasy--should definitely be legal. Certain psychedelic drugs (like LSD, which is not addictive) should also be legal, albeit subject to great regulation.

However, a line does have to be drawn somewhere. The last thing we need are crack addicts or worse roaming our streets.

Legalize everything.
Regulate it, tax it and it will be safer.
It will cause the release of countless numberso f people from prison who are only threre for drugs and no other crime. It will immediately make a vast number of convicted felons no longer felons.

It will free room and dollars in the prison system to house murderers and rapists for their full sentences.

It will end the money drain of the supposed War on Drugs where countless billions are spent on bullshit...like medaling in latin american countries.

And immediately bring in BILLIONS in tax dollars.

It will end the allure of the taboo "drugs".

However, a line does have to be drawn somewhere. The last thing we need are crack addicts or worse roaming our streets.

You havnt visited the inner city lately have you?

you and your founding fathers.

More like frowning fodder, if you ask me.