NationStates Jolt Archive

Just throwing this out there, because I have a friend who thinks it should be. He's also leaning toward pro-ice legalisation.

Yes. Because criminalising it isn't working.

I seriously have no clue. I don't think that people should go to jail for just being addicts, but I don't think it should be mainstream available either, but then like should you even tell people what to do? I have no idea.

I think like people shouldn't be put in jail for it or something, but it shouldn't be legal and sold at the grocery store or something.

It should not be legal. However we need to look at how we treat the people that are arrested for it. I also wonder if legalizing marijuana would that have an effect on harder drug use.

Yes

No, because it really fucks people up. People who claim we won't have a problem if we legalise are being a bit ridiculous imo. We still have alcoholics about with alcohol easy to purchase, why not still have junkies around if heroin becomes legal?

I think selling it should be illegal, I think use should be decriminalized to a point where users can get rehabilitation rather than criminal penalities.

what ecosoc said.

at a minimum it needs to be de-criminalized for personal use. there is no sense sending users to prison.

it might be a good idea to heavily regulate and tax the sale of heroin and other opiates so that addicts can be treated on their own nickel. the wisdom of that would depend on how it is done.

I think selling it should be illegal, I think use should be decriminalized to a point where users can get rehabilitation rather than criminal penalities.

This sounds close to what I was thinking.

All drugs, including heroin, should be legal and readily available over the counter at the neighborhood Wal-Greens. Government does not have the moral right to dictate to me what I can or can not shoot, smoke, snort, or swallow. The war on drugs is about as effective as alcohol prohibition. Hunting down and locking up non-violent offenders is a waste of lives and resources. Plus, keeping drugs illegal provides a nice cash flow for those working the black market and seeking to finance other criminal enterprises. And when drugs are legal the prices will fall, giving users less incentive to rob and steal to finance their addictions.

No, because it really fucks people up. People who claim we won't have a problem if we legalise are being a bit ridiculous imo. We still have alcoholics about with alcohol easy to purchase, why not still have junkies around if heroin becomes legal?

Of course we will. Legalisation is not a panacea. But we can prevent deaths from overpure drugs, and drugs cut with poison, and people becoming virtual slaves to their dealers, and reduce the number of people in prison on drug charges who come out as hardened criminals.

There's no perfect solution to the drug problem, and there never will be. But if we stop sticking our heads in sand and pretending the problem will go away if we arrest enough people, we just might find a system we can live with.

Decriminalise small amounts. Let people buy it. Until they actually hurt someone then it is none of my business what they put in their body. The same goes for any narcotic. Hell, legalise it all. As long as no one is hurting any one, what the hell does it matter if someone wants to get high.

I just find it amusing that drugs which harm none but oneself are illegal, while guns which are inherently made to harm others are legal in most places.

Decriminalise small amounts. Let people buy it. Until they actually hurt someone then it is none of my business what they put in their body. The same goes for any narcotic. Hell, legalise it all. As long as no one is hurting any one, what the hell does it matter if someone wants to get high.

Including ice?

Legalize all drugs and sell them in drugstores as a prescription drug.
Make it so that Doctors can prescribe it in moderate quantityes on demand of the patient.
This way the government can use the tax revenue to cover detox costs, it can cut police spending and hits the drug mafia hard.
Also another benefit is that the "patients" get their drugs prepared not to be directly lethal.

All drugs, including heroin, should be legal and readily available over the counter at the neighborhood Wal-Greens.

Comedy gold that thought is.

All drugs, including heroin, should be legal and readily available over the counter at the neighborhood Wal-Greens. Government does not have the moral right to dictate to me what I can or can not shoot, smoke, snort, or swallow. The war on drugs is about as effective as alcohol prohibition. Hunting down and locking up non-violent offenders is a waste of lives and resources. Plus, keeping drugs illegal provides a nice cash flow for those working the black market and seeking to finance other criminal enterprises. And when drugs are legal the prices will fall, giving users less incentive to rob and steal to finance their addictions.

Wot you sed!

Legalize all drugs and sell them in drugstores as a prescription drug.

Including ice?

Seeing as the original prohibition against opiates was to prevent teh ebil Chinks from enslaving good pure white women, and almost every drug prohibition law since has been promulgated and enforced on racialists grounds, and seeing as how racialism is imoral, yes, I'm for doing away with immoral racialist laws.

It should all be legal. Whether someone wants to kill thmselves with a bullet or a chemical is not the government's business, and treating these people like criminals is a needless waste of resources and prison space (better used, in my opinion, for people who actually hurt other people).

It should all be legal. Whether someone wants to kill thmselves with a bullet or a chemical is not the government's business, and treating these people like criminals is a needless waste of resources and prison space (better used, in my opinion, for people who actually hurt other people).

I whole-heartedly disagree.

Our prison space should be used for the making of musicals.

I'm against legalizing heroin, or any other illegal substance for that matter.

I'm against legalizing heroin, or any other illegal substance for that matter.

So if they found out tomorrow that smoking dandelions made you go snooky loopy you'd be in favor of criminalizing it? Please.

When you talk about psychoactive drugs, you're basically talking about altering the content of your mind. You'd figure control over what goes on in your own fuckin head would be a pretty basic right.

Fascist.

It should all be legal. Whether someone wants to kill thmselves with a bullet or a chemical is not the government's business, and treating these people like criminals is a needless waste of resources and prison space (better used, in my opinion, for people who actually hurt other people).

Indeed. C chases the dragon and gets sent up river. H smokes some MJ and sent to jail. B smokes some crack and gets put in the clink. RW drinks scotch, and drowns an innocent in an auto accident, and goes free. Where's the rational there?

(And good to see ya'll again, just when people were wondering if you were real.... :))

So if they found out tomorrow that smoking dandelions made you go snooky loopy you'd be in favor of criminalizing it? Please.

When you talk about psychoactive drugs, you're basically talking about altering the content of your mind. You'd figure control over what goes on in your own fuckin head would be a pretty basic right.

Fascist.

This issue is a rather sensitive one for me, as a number of my relatives struggled with addictions to various substances. I highly doubt that legalizing these drugs will improve their lives. So, yes, I am against legalization, but mostly so that someday the people who prodece and distribute these poisons get the punishments that they deserve.

It never should have been made illegal in the first place, so yes, we should reverse that.

Now, I do think there is certainly an argument to be made for regulation. Like any recreational drug, it should be sold only to adults and the ingredients, effects, etc. should be clearly marked (ie. if it's been cut with something, that information should be readily available to the consumer).

And someone who harms or endangers others because of their drug use should be punished accordingly.

I'm against legalizing heroin, or any other illegal substance for that matter.

So you believe that repealing the prohibition on alcohol was wrong?

How about psychoactives like aspirin, caffeine and nicotine? Do you want to ban coffee and cigs as well?

It never should have been made illegal in the first place, so yes, we should reverse that.

Now, I do think there is certainly an argument to be made for regulation. Like any recreational drug, it should be sold only to adults and the ingredients, effects, etc. should be clearly marked (ie. if it's been cut with something, that information should be readily available to the consumer).

And someone who harms or endangers others because of their drug use should be punished accordingly.

Exactly so. We do the same for ethanol, nicotine, and caffeine.

This issue is a rather sensitive one for me, as a number of my relatives struggled with addictions to various substances. I highly doubt that legalizing these drugs will improve their lives. So, yes, I am against legalization, but mostly so that someday the people who prodece and distribute these poisons get the punishments that they deserve.

Got news for you: me too.

Treating these people like criminals doesn't solve their problems; it makes them worse. Pull a heroin addict off the street and toss him in a cell for a few months and see what happens (hint: some die). Drug addiction is a health issue, not a criminal issue.

Our prison space should be used for the making of musicals.
You, sir, are a depraved monster and fiend of the very worst sort. Even the lowest, most depraved individual (yes, even yourself) doesn't deserve to be trapped in the same building where a musical is taking place.

So you believe that repealing the prohibition on alcohol was wrong?

How about psychoactives like aspirin, caffeine and nicotine? Do you want to ban coffee and cigs as well?

Yes to a ban on nicotine and alcohol, no to things like aspirin and caffeine, as their potential side effects are not severe enough to merit a complete ban.

Heroin is massively addictive and dangerous; compared to basically all of the other drugs in existence, nothing achieves the same levels of psychological and physical addictiveness as heroin. Even methaphetamine is less dangerous than heroin in terms of its addictive potential.

Yes to a ban on nicotine and alcohol, no to things like aspirin and caffeine, as their potential side effects are not severe enough to merit a complete ban.

Why are you the one who gets to decide which effects are severe enough to prevent other people from taking them?

Got news for you: me too.

Treating these people like criminals doesn't solve their problems; it makes them worse. Pull a heroin addict off the street and toss him in a cell for a few months and see what happens (hint: some die). Drug addiction is a health issue, not a criminal issue.

I'd have to agree with you on that point; I feel that the justice system should focus its efforts on the people who actually produce and distribute these illegal substances. Spending so much time and money prosecuting and imprisoning mere users is a waste of resources; it'd be much more efficient to go to the source and destroy it.

Why are you the one who gets to decide which effects are severe enough to prevent other people from taking them?

Oh, it's just a judgement I've made using knowledge I've gained from research and personal observation, I'm willing to admit that. I'm well aware of the fact that I currently lack the legal authority to act on my beliefs, so at the moment it's just a statement of my personal opinion.

I'm curious though; why is it you support legalization of these substances?

Legal, regulated, taxed.

I say give power to chinese law ideals and have drug users taken into ap ublis square and shot in the back of the head

this has 2 perks

1] Drug users, Dealers and those who make the drugs, are no longer here
2] This forum can finally has less of a retard count, flooding the threads
with pro-drug propaganda

when those involved with drugs are gone, there will be less call for police to be in drug units, so there will be more law enforcers on the street to protect the public from other threats to human life:)

I think selling it should be illegal, I think use should be decriminalized to a point where users can get rehabilitation rather than criminal penalities.

Agreed.

Yes. Because criminalising it isn't working.

That's waaaaaaaay to easy to say. You don't even know it's not working, since it's not like we are really able to compare to an example of what happens when it's legalised.

Legal, regulated, taxed.

aye aye

I say give power to chinese law ideals and have drug users taken into ap ublis square and shot in the back of the head

this has 2 perks

1] Drug users, Dealers and those who make the drugs, are no longer here
2] This forum can finally has less of a retard count, flooding the threads
with pro-drug propaganda

when those involved with drugs are gone, there will be less call for police to be in drug units, so there will be more law enforcers on the street to protect the public from other threats to human life:)

Are you really that stupid? You still have to catch m...... them, otherwise who you goina shoot?

I'm curious though; why is it you support legalization of these substances?

I feel that the government overstepped its bounds when it made laws against such substances. It's not that I think people should be out doing lots of drugs. I think taking most drugs is pretty stupid and I think that overindulging in any of them is a big problem. But I also think that choice is up to the individual. There are plenty of actions that I think are stupid or dangerous that I still think should be legal, basically because I don't think it is the government's job to interfere with them.

I'm no fan of government intervention either, but I really don't want to live in a country where things like heroin are legal, so I'm willing to give the government the ability to regulate these substances.

However, they seem to be generally incompetent at times. The government does all kinds of ridiculous things, and it causes so much resentment and makes things more difficult for everyone. Still, I'm not willing to throw in the towel; change is needed, but not legalization.

I'm no fan of government intervention either, but I really don't want to live in a country where things like heroin are legal, so I'm willing to give the government the ability to regulate these substances.

LOL. "I"m no fan of government intervention, but I want the government to keep people from doing things I don't like."

Makes sense. Yup. *nodnod*

You are clearly in favor of government intervention in this case. That's what making something illegal is - intervention. It is legal by default, and the government comes along and makes it illegal.

LOL. "I"m no fan of government intervention, but I want the government to keep people from doing things I don't like."

Makes sense. Yup. *nodnod*

You are clearly in favor of government intervention in this case. That's what making something illegal is - intervention. It is legal by default, and the government comes along and makes it illegal.

Look, I'm already aware of everything you just said, so don't ever try to make me look like an idiot again. I just choose what I feel is the lesser of two evils.

Look, I'm already aware of everything you just said, so don't ever try to make me look like an idiot again. I just choose what I feel is the lesser of two evils.

I wasn't trying to make you look like an idiot. I just found your response amusing.

Tell me, why is controlling the lives of others the lesser of two evils? Why is you getting to not ever see a person drunk, for instance, a lesser evil than the freedom that person loses to give you that convenience?

If someone is not harming anyone but themselves with their use of a substance, why is it the "lesser of two evils" for you to use force to keep them from doing so?

First, I must say that I think, like presumably most here, that responsible adults should be allowed to make their own decisions.

Mostly, though, that only applies when the choices are more or less equal in their benefits and drawbacks. When the choices can be clearly divided into good and bad, then anyone, who picks the bad choice, is not by definition a responsible adult, no matter how old they are. Let's face it: sometimes people want things that are not good for them, and then they should be protected from themselves. They'll be thankful for it later.

I'm not sure how true this is for other drugs, but heroin was not banned by religious fundies who want to spoil everyone else's fun. It was banned because it is very bad for you. Banning stuff like that is just common sense.


I do agree that simply imprisoning addicts is not a reasonable way to deal with the problem. I wonder if forced rehabilitations would work better.

I wasn't trying to make you look like an idiot. I just found your response amusing.

Tell me, why is controlling the lives of others the lesser of two evils? Why is you getting to not ever see a person drunk, for instance, a lesser evil than the freedom that person loses to give you that convenience?

If someone is not harming anyone but themselves with their use of a substance, why is it the "lesser of two evils" for you to use force to keep them from doing so?

Well, preventing unnecessary deaths and injuries arising from substance abuse is a powerful incentive. The thing is, these people who use dangerous substances often have friends and family who will be deeply affected if something goes wrong and that person gets hurt. The assumption that drug use only affects the user is erroneous.

Besides, I've already stated in another post that punishing users is more or less pointless, and that it's better to deploy resources to remove producers and distributors of illegal substances.

I personally think it and all drugs should be legal.

Yes, it's addicting and ruining lives.

Isn't it doing that while being illegal as well?

Will making it legal get people thinking that it's safe?

I doubt it.

Nobody thinks that about alcohol or cigarettes unless they are mentally deficient.

Will people who want to do it, pretty much do it regardless of its legal status?

I think so.

I see great benefits to legalizing it.

It will dramatically reduce the income of gangs.

It will make use less of a stigma for people to admit their addiction and seek help and not have to worry about going to jail.

It will boost the economy (jobs, taxes) and possibly lower taxes at the same time with less money being needed for drug task forces and prisons.

...

Yes to a ban on nicotine

Whoa, what have you got against tomato, potato, eggplant (aubergine), and green pepper?

and alcohol

Yeah that'll work.

, no to things like aspirin and caffeine, as their potential side effects are not severe enough to merit a complete ban.

I find this part rather amusing. Caffeine is a stimulant, in widespread use, and contributes to heart disease. Heart disease is the number one cause of death in this country, but that's not severe enough?

No, you know what it is. I'll tell you. You said "nicotine," but what you really meant was cigarettes, and not because of health concerns but because you don't like the smell of smoke. But "nicotine" sounds almost like you knew what you were talking about, which is why you chose to say that.

Including ice?

If people want to indulge, let them. As long as no one is hurt. This is the problem with prohibition. People get hurt in the pursuit to acquire the drugs. Yes, it happens with legal narcotics, but we're better able to handle that than if it's illegal.

Legalise it, regulate it, tax it. Just get it out of the black market and the problems with prohibition will taper off. Problems will still exist, but reality is far from perfect.

Complete and unbias education about drugs would help in reducing problems too.

If people want to indulge, let them. As long as no one is hurt. This is the problem with prohibition. People get hurt in the pursuit to acquire the drugs. Yes, it happens with legal narcotics, but we're better able to handle that than if it's illegal.

Legalise it, regulate it, tax it. Just get it out of the black market and the problems with prohibition will taper off. Problems will still exist, but reality is far from perfect.

Complete and unbias education about drugs would help in reducing problems too.

meh
I still say shoot the druggies, and destroy all drugs

lets see the south american drug lords be so happy when carpet bombers fly over their plantations;)

Yeah that'll work.

Just because the last attempt failed doesn't mean that it's outside the realm of possibility.

I find this part rather amusing. Caffeine is a stimulant, in widespread use, and contributes to heart disease. Heart disease is the number one cause of death in this country, but that's not severe enough?

There's a ridiculous number of things that can contribute to heart disease, many of them are far more threatening than caffeine.

No, you know what it is. I'll tell you. You said "nicotine," but what you really meant was cigarettes, and not because of health concerns but because you don't like the smell of smoke. But "nicotine" sounds almost like you knew what you were talking about, which is why you chose to say that.

Nice assumption and attitude, there.

Well, preventing unnecessary deaths and injuries arising from substance abuse is a powerful incentive. The thing is, these people who use dangerous substances often have friends and family who will be deeply affected if something goes wrong and that person gets hurt. The assumption that drug use only affects the user is erroneous.

The same reasoning could be applied to any self-destructive behavior. How far are you willing to let the government go in making your life decisions for you?

Can they decide what you do and do not eat? After all, overeating can cause unnecessary death and injury and your loved ones can be deeply affected if something goes wrong and you get hurt.

Besides, I've already stated in another post that punishing users is more or less pointless, and that it's better to deploy resources to remove producers and distributors of illegal substances.

...which still pretty much punishes those who want to engage in a certain activity, since you're trying to make it hard for them to do it. It also puts them in more danger. If the people providing the substance can only be criminals, those who choose to use it have to be exposed to that criminal culture.

There's a ridiculous number of things that can contribute to heart disease, many of them are far more threatening than caffeine.

But why should they be allowed? If we're going to get into the business of saving people from themselves, why stop at the levels you've proposed?

...which still pretty much punishes those who want to engage in a certain activity, since you're trying to make it hard for them to do it. It also puts them in more danger. If the people providing the substance can only be criminals, those who choose to use it have to be exposed to that criminal culture.

Hopefully, people will realize that using these substances simply isn't worth the trouble, and they'll find something better to do with their time. Unfortunately, some people will still succumb to temptation, but you can't save everyone. That shouldn't, however, stop us from trying.

But why should they be allowed? If we're going to get into the business of saving people from themselves, why stop at the levels you've proposed?

Obviously, it would be pointless to legislate everything that could be harmful, since virtually everything carries some degree of risk. Therefore, we have to determine an acceptable level of risk, by making an extensive cost/benefit analysis. By fully exploring the various health, social, and economic effects, we can determine what substances should and should not remain legal, at least in theory. Obviously there are practical issues, but these can be ironed out.

I know you're going to disagree with that, but the fact is that, in a large, complex society, there need to be at least a few limits in place in order to keep things running smoothly. It would be nice if people were free to do whatever they please, but it is simply infeasible.

How far are you willing to let the government go in making your life decisions for you?

A little more than you, apparently. I don't mind, really; as long as the laws are uniformly enforced, and aren't inherently unjust or obviously oppressive, I can accept it. After all, any orderly society needs a few rules in order to exist.

Since I have a distinct feeling that this is going to head towards "slippery slope" territory, I just want to say that it is up to us to prevent the government from going overboard. Perpetual vigilance is the key here.

Sadly, it seems that you and I will never agree on just how much power the government should have. Oh well.

meh
I still say shoot the druggies, and destroy all drugs

lets see the south american drug lords be so happy when carpet bombers fly over their plantations;)

PLEASE DIE

Edit: I not been around that long on the boards, but you always seem to troll, stop being an arsehole please

No good could come out of legalizing heroin in any way... all that would do is make it more easily available for junkies, the people pushing for things like this are the same as teenage kids who think it would be "cool" to legalize marijuana. I can see why you might not want to throw people in jail for being caught doing it but legalizing would not be a good idea. Ever.

I'm not quite sure I understand how legalizing, heavilly regulating and heavilly taxing a drug is all of a sudden going to stop criminals from producing it the same as they do now, and simply selling it for cheaper. What I see happening here is more corners cut in criminal production of these drugs to produce them at lower cost, therefore making them more dangerous. I also cannot picture a junkie, after a quick price comparison, chosing the 'safer' but more expensive drug.

And just where are these safer, government regulated drugs going to come from? Are resources and manpower going to go to waste with tax dollars to fund this within North America? Will it be privately owned and turned into a moral corporate nightmare like tabacco companies? Or~ will they be produced out of the country, for cheaper by the same criminal organizations making them now?

PLEASE DIE

Edit: I not been around that long on the boards, but you always seem to troll, stop being an arsehole please

Don't worry too much about him; he just wants attention. Don't get yourself banned over him. :)

They won't ban me, i am to pretty!

meh
I still say shoot the druggies, and destroy all drugs

lets see the south american drug lords be so happy when carpet bombers fly over their plantations;)

You fail.

The drug lords cannot thrive in conditions where the government controls the supply and people can make transactions in an open and legal environment. Drug lords thrive in the black market. That's how they make their living. Their earnings would be significantly less if drugs were legalised.

I take when you say "destroy all drugs", you include legal narcotics and pharmaceuticals in that. After all, tobacco, caffeine and alcohol are all drugs yet they are perfectly legal.

A lot of poeple here are in favor of the legalize & rehab approach.

It may sound cold, but I don't know why we should legalize certain substances - like heroin or meth - that have extremely high addiction potentials and then take those who use the substances into rehab. People who make good choices are financing those who chose not to. Alcohol and nicotine also are very addictive, but their use is so widespread simple prohibition can't work. States like Montana are seeing fast drops in crystal meth use through agressive policing. Junkies there have pulled guns on police trying to defend their labs and habits. There's an article on the subject in the latest Economist.

On the other hand, certain illegal drugs like ecstacy, LSD, or steroids are much less harmful to a person and there is a much more legitimate argument for their legalization.

There are several components of this issue - I will begin by addressing heroin specifically before running into recreational drug use as a whole.

Heroin was developed due to the illegality of opium - it is simply a concentrated opiate to facilitate smuggling. The very existence of heroin is a direct result of drug prohibition. The dangers of heroin come from its highly concentrated form, and high variability of purity, thus increasing the likelihood of accidental overdoses. Without the prohibition on other opiates, heroin use would be negligible.

The 'war on drugs' is absurdly expensive, and not just ineffective, but counterproductive. Prices of recreational drugs have been consistently falling while availability is increasing in most areas (interesting factoid; there are more open air drug markets in DC than legitimate pharmacies) - were prohibition reducing drug use and availability the price would be rising. Consumption is up and prices are down, that is very clear indication that prohibition does not work.

Law enforcement resources are squandered on enforcement of prohibition, resulting in less resources available for tackling other crimes (those who do actually have a victim). Prison populations are exploding, costing a small fortune, and removing a significant portion of the labor force who permanently harmed economically due to their imprisonment. The 'harm' from drugs comes primarily from the legal implications, not as much from the biological effects.

Crime is fueled by the illegality - much like alcohol prohibition created a massive problem with organized crime, drug prohibition fuels international drug syndicates. A majority of murders in Baltimore are drug related - not because of use of drugs, but because of gang violence being the only means of enforcing contracts and are available means of gaining retail venues.

Over a trillion dollars have been spent on the 'war on drugs'; that is a lot of money that would have been better spent elsewhere.

Those who staunchly defend the criminalization of some recreational drugs are hypocrites if they do not likewise criminalize tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, or (not being able to resist) high fructose corn syrup. Each of which have negative health effects and can be highly addictive.

Since people currently have easy access to drugs, use is fairly widespread, but quality is questionable, and medical help is not often received due to concerns over illegality, what we have is a situation far more dangerous than were prohibition ended.

If people could gather in modern day opium dens to get good quality drugs at reasonable prices, we could be reasonably assured that many of the harmful effects could be mitigated with high quality products, supervision of users, and medical care available in case of bad reactions. Taking just a tiny fraction of money spent on enforcement and spend it on treatment instead would cause a massive improvement in society.

Police are supposed to be for 'protecting and serving' the public - why then do people see a cop as someone to avoid rather than seek out when they need help?

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it doesn't work for drugs.

Legalise it, but make overdosing mandatory.

Hopefully, people will realize that using these substances simply isn't worth the trouble, and they'll find something better to do with their time. Unfortunately, some people will still succumb to temptation, but you can't save everyone. That shouldn't, however, stop us from trying.

Why should we try and control people through force instead of by convincing people that the substances simply aren't worth the trouble? Why do it through a loss of liberty if you're so sure that rational people will agree with you?

Meanwhile, what exactly do you have against me having a glass of wine with dinner?

Obviously, it would be pointless to legislate everything that could be harmful, since virtually everything carries some degree of risk. Therefore, we have to determine an acceptable level of risk, by making an extensive cost/benefit analysis. By fully exploring the various health, social, and economic effects, we can determine what substances should and should not remain legal, at least in theory. Obviously there are practical issues, but these can be ironed out.

But it isn't just about the substance. It's about how the substance is used. If you're really looking to protect people from themselves, you're going to need to get much more invasive.

And if you aren't willing to go that far, I see no reason to pick and choose.

I know you're going to disagree with that, but the fact is that, in a large, complex society, there need to be at least a few limits in place in order to keep things running smoothly. It would be nice if people were free to do whatever they please, but it is simply infeasible.

Indeed. This is why we have laws about what one person can do to another. We have laws that keep one person from harming another.

We don't need nanny-state limits, however. The government is not your parent.

Sadly, it seems that you and I will never agree on just how much power the government should have. Oh well.

Probably not.

There are several components of this issue - I will begin by addressing heroin specifically before running into recreational drug use as a whole.

Heroin was developed due to the illegality of opium - it is simply a concentrated opiate to facilitate smuggling. The very existence of heroin is a direct result of drug prohibition. The dangers of heroin come from its highly concentrated form, and high variability of purity, thus increasing the likelihood of accidental overdoses. Without the prohibition on other opiates, heroin use would be negligible.

The 'war on drugs' is absurdly expensive, and not just ineffective, but counterproductive. Prices of recreational drugs have been consistently falling while availability is increasing in most areas (interesting factoid; there are more open air drug markets in DC than legitimate pharmacies) - were prohibition reducing drug use and availability the price would be rising. Consumption is up and prices are down, that is very clear indication that prohibition does not work.

Law enforcement resources are squandered on enforcement of prohibition, resulting in less resources available for tackling other crimes (those who do actually have a victim). Prison populations are exploding, costing a small fortune, and removing a significant portion of the labor force who permanently harmed economically due to their imprisonment. The 'harm' from drugs comes primarily from the legal implications, not as much from the biological effects.

Crime is fueled by the illegality - much like alcohol prohibition created a massive problem with organized crime, drug prohibition fuels international drug syndicates. A majority of murders in Baltimore are drug related - not because of use of drugs, but because of gang violence being the only means of enforcing contracts and are available means of gaining retail venues.

Over a trillion dollars have been spent on the 'war on drugs'; that is a lot of money that would have been better spent elsewhere.

Those who staunchly defend the criminalization of some recreational drugs are hypocrites if they do not likewise criminalize tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, or (not being able to resist) high fructose corn syrup. Each of which have negative health effects and can be highly addictive.

Since people currently have easy access to drugs, use is fairly widespread, but quality is questionable, and medical help is not often received due to concerns over illegality, what we have is a situation far more dangerous than were prohibition ended.

If people could gather in modern day opium dens to get good quality drugs at reasonable prices, we could be reasonably assured that many of the harmful effects could be mitigated with high quality products, supervision of users, and medical care available in case of bad reactions. Taking just a tiny fraction of money spent on enforcement and spend it on treatment instead would cause a massive improvement in society.

Police are supposed to be for 'protecting and serving' the public - why then do people see a cop as someone to avoid rather than seek out when they need help?

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it doesn't work for drugs.


well said

*high fives*

I say give power to chinese law ideals and have drug users taken into ap ublis square and shot in the back of the head

this has 2 perks

1] Drug users, Dealers and those who make the drugs, are no longer here
2] This forum can finally has less of a retard count, flooding the threads
with pro-drug propaganda

when those involved with drugs are gone, there will be less call for police to be in drug units, so there will be more law enforcers on the street to protect the public from other threats to human life:)
Ever had a beer in your life? A cup of coffee? Taken some aspirin? Had a smoke? Congrats, you're a drug user and just advocated allowing yourself to be shot in the back of the head.

Heroin was developed due to the illegality of opium - it is simply a concentrated opiate to facilitate smuggling. The very existence of heroin is a direct result of drug prohibition. The dangers of heroin come from its highly concentrated form, and high variability of purity, thus increasing the likelihood of accidental overdoses. Without the prohibition on other opiates, heroin use would be negligible.


You're saying that the chemists who invented heroin did so because they thought it'd be easier to smuggle? Was Bayer in cahoots with the drug trade? :p It's actually kinda funny (to me, at least) that heroin was developed as a non-addictive morphine substitute, when it is in fact equally addictive, if not more addictive.

Anyway, heroin would still be the drug of choice for recreational use, even if all opiate drugs were legalized. I don't use heroin, so I don't care too much whether it's legalized or not, but it certainly would be nice if we could get opiate painkillers without all the red tape, and without all the liver-damaging filler.

Yes. To legalize heroine will allow several things...

First of all, it generates revenue, both from the previously untaxable income of those who sell and/or produce heroine and a sin tax upon the sale of heroine. Both can be used to fund awareness programs and enforce rather strict regulations on protecting minors and the like from it. The first regulation would be a requirement for the buyers to be registered by the government and for all of these registered buyers to have gone through a quick course explaining all the dangers that heroine puts a user in.

It will cut down on crime. When something is legalized, you remove illegal from the price equation, which lowers the price and allows people to afford it on a normal, i.e. non-criminal, income, even for the poorer addicts.

I would post some more, but I think this is enough, and I have food to eat. :)

No!

No!

Why not?

I say yes for two reasons. Both are from my observation rather than any medical study, but bear with me.

1. If it were legal, then you could regulate shooting galleries the way you regulate bars. This would mean the addicts would have somewhere to go other than the local park where my kids play. While I understand some people may wish to uphold the status quo where we punish those who wish to experience altered perspectives, practical reasons (like keeping used needles away from my kids) suggest that the current system needs to be changed.

2. Damn, but you can have sex forever when you're high on smack....

I don´t think it should be legalized. It´s a highly destructive drug and it´s one of the most addictive too.

I say yes for two reasons. Both are from my observation rather than any medical study, but bear with me.

1. If it were legal, then you could regulate shooting galleries the way you regulate bars. This would mean the addicts would have somewhere to go other than the local park where my kids play. While I understand some people may wish to uphold the status quo where we punish those who wish to experience altered perspectives, practical reasons (like keeping used needles away from my kids) suggest that the current system needs to be changed.

But would that mesh well with our current bans on smoking anywhere in public or private? ;) Also, the whole 'herd them into a big room' strategy probably wouldn't be too tempting to most people, even if it might make sense for the homeless.

2. Damn, but you can have sex forever when you're high on smack....

You could, but why? :p

Why not?

In Norway we have safe-rooms where drugaddicts can do their thing. We're losing fewer of the addicts, so I would say it's good rather than bad. But don't tell me people can function as heroin addicts. I don't believe you, and I've seen a couple.

In Norway we have safe-rooms where drugaddicts can do their thing. We're losing fewer of the addicts, so I would say it's good rather than bad. But don't tell me people can function as heroin addicts. I don't believe you, and I've seen a couple.

Obese people can't exactly function either. There are no laws forcing them to be healthy. Why should it be different for being unhealthy by shooting heroin?

In Norway we have safe-rooms where drugaddicts can do their thing. We're losing fewer of the addicts, so I would say it's good rather than bad. But don't tell me people can function as heroin addicts. I don't believe you, and I've seen a couple.

That all depends on what you consider an addict.

Obese people can't exactly function either. There are no laws forcing them to be healthy. Why should it be different for being unhealthy by shooting heroin?

Did you just compare obesity with heroin use? Sure, fat people can't run fast, and they're more susceptible to various diseases, but damn. Well, there are the half-ton guys that can't move without the assistance of a crane, but those are rare.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread.

Obese people can't exactly function either. There are no laws forcing them to be healthy. Why should it be different for being unhealthy by shooting heroin?

For real? Obese is a medical concept, and there aren't that many truly obese (medically, bmi-wise) people on this planet as you might think. Secondly, truly obese people are not gonna rob me and worse because I have what they need for their next fix. Thirdly, have you seen heroin addicts? They are not happy, even when they're full of the crap. I've only known one, but the last thing he told me was that it ws not for anyone with a soul. I don't know how to finish this, sorry

Obese people can't exactly function either.

They can't?

This was the result of some scientists in the UK, who studied the drugs and rated them based on their danger...

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42718000/gif/_42718419_drugs_graph2_416.gif

Note that alcohol is considered the 5th worst for you. The worst - by a fairly large margin - is heroin.

This was the result of some scientists in the UK, who studied the drugs and rated them based on their danger...


I wouldn't be too quick to point to that research. "Mean harm rating" as estimated by "experts" is a bit vauge and probably doesn't mean a whole lot. Qualitative research can be really terrible if not conducted just right, and drugs are of course a personal issue for many.

You're saying that the chemists who invented heroin did so because they thought it'd be easier to smuggle? Was Bayer in cahoots with the drug trade? :p It's actually kinda funny (to me, at least) that heroin was developed as a non-addictive morphine substitute, when it is in fact equally addictive, if not more addictive.

Anyway, heroin would still be the drug of choice for recreational use, even if all opiate drugs were legalized. I don't use heroin, so I don't care too much whether it's legalized or not, but it certainly would be nice if we could get opiate painkillers without all the red tape, and without all the liver-damaging filler.

I seem to be having a problem with specificity today - I meant it was developed in terms of the black market for it was grown in place of the black market of morphine. Since morphine is not legally obtainable, the illegal market developed heroin (development is not the same as invention) as a more cost effective (for prime smuggling space) alternative to morphine due to its higher potency. Thus the black market in opiates switched to heroin, simply as a mater of profitability. Similarly, heroin is transitioning from white powdered heroin to what is called 'black tar' heroin, which apparently cheaper to make (though I might be mistaken about that - as hard as it is to imagine, my knowledge gets a little shaky that far up the supply chain). It is all about profitability.

The steam engine was invented around 300BC, but I would still point to the development of it being in the mid 19th century.

China white being a similar creation - probably the most 'bang for the buck' drug in terms of returns on investment, and one of the examples where the drug markets produced something the pharmaceutical companies never thought of.

As far as heroin being still the drug of choice, I dispute that. It is effectively just a high dose of morphine, so simply due to questions of dosage it would be easer to gage if just using higher doses of morphine. Additionally, some people do not want to go for a heroin high, but would rather the more mellow opium high. Not every drug user is just out for the most potent crap to shove in their veins - I would say most are just looking to have a little fun.

Personally, I would never inject or smoke heroin but probably go for opium wine (mix laudanum with a sweet spiced wine) or maybe fentanyl lollipops (yup, lollies - though the 'legitimate' ones are a little too strong for me, so am a little hesitant to go for them, but not comfortable with the quality control for the illicit ones. see, right there, classic example where legality would help).

This was the result of some scientists in the UK, who studied the drugs and rated them based on their danger...
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42718000/gif/_42718419_drugs_graph2_416.gif

Note that alcohol is considered the 5th worst for you. The worst - by a fairly large margin - is heroin.
Was there an article to go with that graph? I want to prove a point to someone I know IRL :P

On topic, I agree with the legalise/regulate/tax crowd. The current system isn't working very well at all, it's time to try a different approach.

Was there an article to go with that graph? I want to prove a point to someone I know IRL :P

On topic, I agree with the legalise/regulate/tax crowd. The current system isn't working very well at all, it's time to try a different approach.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6474053.stm#drugs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6474053.stm#drugs
Thank you :)

As far as heroin being still the drug of choice, I dispute that. It is effectively just a high dose of morphine, so simply due to questions of dosage it would be easer to gage if just using higher doses of morphine. Additionally, some people do not want to go for a heroin high, but would rather the more mellow opium high. Not every drug user is just out for the most potent crap to shove in their veins - I would say most are just looking to have a little fun.


Heroin hits the brain a bit harder and a bit quicker than morphine, but it's true that the difference is slight beyond that - the major differences aren't between heroin and morphine though, but between heroin/morphine and the lesser opiates, which aren't as potent, but which are *everywhere*. :p

As to wanting the most potent drug, that's the mindset most drug users are probably in, I would think, but I'm not basing that on anything but conversations I've overheard.

No way, no how!

Heroin hits the brain a bit harder and a bit quicker than morphine, but it's true that the difference is slight beyond that - the major differences aren't between heroin and morphine though, but between heroin/morphine and the lesser opiates, which aren't as potent, but which are *everywhere*. :p

As to wanting the most potent drug, that's the mindset most drug users are probably in, I would think, but I'm not basing that on anything but conversations I've overheard.
It does hit a little faster/harder, but not drastically so - those who want the hard core hit smoke it (quickest and hardest way there is). If they are not smoking it, they are not totally hard core about it.

There is an element to hard core drug use which pushes for the extremes, but they are a small subset of drug users. It comes as a total shock to most people, but the vast majority of recreational drug users are 'normal' people and not hard core addicts.

If you are not exposed to that side of them, you would never believe it when I pointed out to you all the people I know who use drugs recreationally. I'm not just talking about people who smoke a little pot now and then (hopefully you are aware of just how pervasive that is - the number one cash crop in the US, and still huge quantities imported); I'm talking about cocaine, meth, mescaline, percocet, aderall, and of course ecstasy (especially the half viagra half MDMA pills) but that has fallen off in the last few years (not as popular by the time you hit 30. edit: thats when you start to go just for the viagra). I'm only aware of 2 people I know having done heroin, and they've gotten away from using it because of the crash, though will occasionally use small amounts with vallium.

Bored college students or welfare kids (stereotypes develop for a reason) are more the type to just go for the hardest fastest rush, probably because they are desperately looking for an escape from their life or just pushing for the wildest ride. Most users want to supplement their good time at a party or just to make the day more pleasant.

Pot is just an alternative to alcohol for just relaxing after a hard day at work, meth helps the overworked keep going despite sleep deprivation, opiates ease exhaustion and soreness (stressed out and tense, pop a pill, makes you feel much better, or at least not care which relaxes you and you feel better), mescaline for better sex (when crazy orgies are no longer enough on their own), or any number of other reasons. I would say most drugs are no more 'abused' than alcohol. Are there alcoholics? Sure, but for everyone destroying their life with alcohol, there are a thousand who enjoy it just fine.

Of course, I am only discussing this from a purely theoretical standpoint; I would certainly never use 'illegal substances', because that would be illegal. Nope, no drug use here... move along... move along.

If people want to indulge, let them. As long as no one is hurt.

Again; including ice?

This was the result of some scientists in the UK, who studied the drugs and rated them based on their danger...

Yeah, amphetamine isn't ranked very high because it doesn't harm you, just everybody else.

It never should have been made illegal in the first place, so yes, we should reverse that.

Now, I do think there is certainly an argument to be made for regulation. Like any recreational drug, it should be sold only to adults and the ingredients, effects, etc. should be clearly marked (ie. if it's been cut with something, that information should be readily available to the consumer).

And someone who harms or endangers others because of their drug use should be punished accordingly.

makes sense. if you harm someone while under the influence of alcohol, prescription drug abuse, or narcotics, you should face penalties for your actions and for your negligence in creating the situation by consuming such substances. if you don't harm someone else or present an immediate threat to another person, you ought to be free to do as you wish.

I don't know how I'd get in trouble. I don't care for alcohol, needles freak me out, I get nosebleeds too easily for snorting, most popular "huffing" substances give me a migraine-level headache long before I could get high, and since tobacco makes me ill second-hand, there's no way I'm gonna try weed first-hand. maybe the ol' "oregano" brownies could work, but I like holding down a job. dang, how am I gonna rebel? *points to link in sig*

g'night all.