People are degraded by depression, anxiety, stupidity, insanity, carelessness.
They shouldn't wither away simply because ''it's their body, it's their choice''. People are too stupid to care for themselves just as people are forced into situations which they don't wish to care for themselves or are mentally unable to, and that is why the law and rehabilitation clinics exist. Addictive and dangerous drugs should be forbidden, and the crimes for producing and distributing them for profit should be extremely severe, though people who do use them should be forcefully rehabilitated instead.
No, they shouldn't be legal. Legal means regulated, crop-dusted, taxed, sold, wrecked. Decriminalized, yes. Not illegal, can buy from your buddy down the street, and its grown by whoever is growing it. The government isn't twisting their arm to make it addictive or stuff it full of pesticides and hormones to make MORE and make more MONEY.
[QUOTE=deaded38;37657608]How the fuck does that make any sense?
If all drugs were legalized, there would be more deaths since you're making a [I]dangerous[/I] product more availiable. You can't say, "Oh, well people will just do drugs anyway whether they're legal or not!" since obviously not everyone knows how to aquire drugs. I don't know a drug dealer or how to make my own pot, therefore, even if I wanted to, I can't go get my high. See how that works?[/QUOTE]
But you're wrong. If you really wanted to get high, you can google it and get shitloads of results. You can buy it online, you can get seeds easily, it's everywhere.
Also, that's the exact same argument that people used to not abolish prohibition.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37696680]People are degraded by depression, anxiety, stupidity, insanity, carelessness.
They shouldn't wither away simply because ''it's their body, it's their choice''. People are too stupid to care for themselves just as people are forced into situations which they don't wish to care for themselves or are mentally unable to, and that is why the law and rehabilitation clinics exist. Addictive and dangerous drugs should be forbidden, and the crimes for producing and distributing them for profit should be extremely severe, though people who do use them should be forcefully rehabilitated instead.[/QUOTE]
Extreme punishment for a non violent crime, forced rehabilitation, having the government baby you for your entire life. Sounds like fun.
[QUOTE=TamTamJam;37696902]Extreme punishment for a non violent crime, forced rehabilitation, having the government baby you for your entire life. Sounds like fun.[/QUOTE]
'Extreme' punishment can be a very lengthy sentence and not a death or something of the like, drugs can turn normal people into dangerous and desperate criminals, and allowing shit like cocaine onto the market would only draw in more users who were too afraid to get into it before. When someone shoots away their life they effect more people than themselves, believe it or not.
Prohibiting dangerous substances from ending up in the hands of the public isn't government babying, and if it is, too fucking bad for the wanna-be yayo pushers.
Forcing the "it's my body!" argument around is rather stupid, since even if it is your body, you have a weight upon the people around you and you should be forced to mind that. Keeping people from willingly snorting or drinking or shooting their lives away (with an adverse effect upon all of those around them) because of impulse, addiction, among other things is a tad more important than your fucking "body rights" and "personal freedom".
[editline]17th September 2012[/editline]
Keep in mind I'm talking about actual dangerous substances, shit like Krokodil, Meth, Coke, alcohol, Tobacco with additives, synthetic stuff. Not (statistically for the most part), harmless stuff.
Excellent question, but given the current state of affairs when it comes to illegal drugs do you really believe that if all of them were legalized that things can't get any worse than they are now ? To me ( as a marijuana user only ) there are too many negatives. Negatives like, cartel expansion and control would now have a legal, corporate face , there would be more drug addicts ( meth, coke, heroin, ice, etc. ) than ever before , and any resources to help recovering addicts would be reduced to nothing. To me those are the few major negatives that would kill any positives. Now if we're just talking weed, I don't see a problem with legalization / taxation / personal cultivation. [QUOTE=toastman;36912851]Inb4 420 #YOLO Smoke w33d erry day. I am not only talking about marijuana.
Should drugs be legalized ? Do the positives outweigh the negatives? Should it be your own choice to decide what you put in your body ?
For me, drugs should be legalized.
[video=youtube;2OP8JFKMTcQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OP8JFKMTcQ[/video]
For me, they dont only have recreational value. I see potential in the use of psychedelics, marijuana and stimulants as medicine.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37697146]'Extreme' punishment can be a very lengthy sentence and not a death or something of the like,[/quote]
And you still think a 'very lengthy sentence' is required? People manufacture and sell illicit drugs [i]because[/i] they are illicit. There is a profit incentive. Imprisoning people who work in a business created by those who impose prohibition laws isn't moral.
[quote=U.S.S.R]allowing shit like cocaine onto the market would only draw in more users who were too afraid to get into it before.[/quote]
At first glance, that may seem like what would happen, however the reverse is observed. The argument that a decriminalised/legalised drug is going to have increased use is what nearly every john doe coming into this thread thinks, but it's not correct.
[quote=U.S.S.R]Prohibiting dangerous substances from ending up in the hands of the public isn't government babying, and if it is, too fucking bad for the wanna-be yayo pushers.[/quote]
My mistake, I assumed the government making uninformed blanket decisions could be described as 'babying'.
[quote=U.S.S.R]Forcing the "it's my body!" argument around is rather stupid, since even if it is your body, you have a weight upon the people around you and you should be forced to mind that.[/quote]
The government has no place in attempting to control someone's freedoms because something done in one's free time that is not physically harming or intently psychologically harming another. When family or friends get their feelings hurt by extension of someone's drug use, that's the family/friend's issue to deal with, NOT the governments.
[quote=U.S.S.R]Keeping people from willingly snorting or drinking or shooting their lives away (with an adverse effect upon all of those around them) because of impulse, addiction, among other things is a tad more important than your fucking "body rights" and "personal freedom".[/quote]
Restrictions on personal freedoms might be rational to a dictator if they actually worked, but they don't. Prohibition increases drug use.
[QUOTE=TamTamJam;37697370]And you still think a 'very lengthy sentence' is required? People manufacture and sell illicit drugs [i]because[/i] they are illicit. There is a profit incentive. Imprisoning people who work in a business created by those who impose prohibition laws isn't moral.
At first glance, that may seem like what would happen, however the reverse is observed. The argument that a decriminalised/legalised drug is going to have increased use is what nearly every john doe coming into this thread thinks, but it's not correct.
My mistake, I assumed the government making uninformed blanket decisions could be described as 'babying'.
The government has no place in attempting to control someone's freedoms because something done in one's free time that is not physically harming or intently psychologically harming another. When family or friends get their feelings hurt by extension of someone's drug use, that's the family/friend's issue to deal with, NOT the governments.
Restrictions on personal freedoms might be rational to a dictator if they actually worked, but they don't. Prohibition increases drug use.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying people should be allowed to use substances which rot their fucking limbs into oblivion because of personal freedoms? And that families should be financially, emotionally, and possibly physically subjected to devastation because someone decided to shoot up since it was cool - and that nothing should be done to stop that?
There is a big difference between keeping people from tearing themselves apart and violating their personal freedoms, even if it is done so involuntarily and forcefully.
Legalizing it would turn cartels into corporations, it would worsen tobacco companies looking to 'expand their horizons'.
Keeping a prohibition up is less expensive than putting shit like coke into the hands of millions of average Joe's who would be more concerned with the consequences of the law rather than the medical effects. If a prohibition makes cartels resist more, make the consequences heavier, fight fear with fear. I'll just leave this here, too.
[url]http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/crime.pdf[/url]
[editline]17th September 2012[/editline]
Self control and safety is more important than some person's right to escape from the drawbacks of reality for a little while.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37697460]So you're saying people should be allowed to use substances which rot their fucking limbs into oblivion because of personal freedoms?[/quote]
I assume you're referring to desomorphine, which has been popular in american media lately because of the rotting limbs associated with its users. Rotting flesh is a result of poor reduction and demethylation from codeine to desomorphine, giving the end product nasty impurities such as red phosphorus. Clandestine production like this is what causes rotting limbs at the injection site. You can't say a person addicted to opiates is going to be harmed more by a regulated, safe product free of impurities than he is by his home cooked reduced migraine pills.
[quote]And that families should be financially, emotionally, and possibly physically subjected to devastation because someone decided to shoot up since it was cool - and that nothing should be done to stop that?[/quote]
People are always going to shoot up. You can't stop it, prohibition doesn't stop it. The point is that there is LESS drug use, a MORE safe product and means of obtaining it, and you aren't putting innocent people in prison when a drug is regulated/decriminalised/legalised.
[quote]There is a big difference between keeping people from tearing themselves apart and violating their personal freedoms, even if it is done so involuntarily and forcefully.[/quote]
Forcing someone to do something involuntarily is not a violation of freedom? You really believe that?
[quote]Legalizing it would turn cartels into corporations, it would worsen tobacco companies looking to 'expand their horizons'.[/quote]
And you wouldn't agree that it's better if money goes to a corporation rather than an illegal cartel, who use violent tactics and an impure product as means to make money? Not to mention what happens to the money after it goes to the cartel (hint: nothing good).
[quote]Keeping a prohibition up is less expensive than putting shit like coke into the hands of millions of average Joe's who would be more concerned with the consequences of the law rather than the medical effects.[/quote]
I don't get what you're trying to say here. People who want to procure a legal drug aren't concerned with the law, and education of the pharmacology of a drug is independent of prohibition.
[quote]If a prohibition makes cartels resist more, make the consequences heavier, fight fear with fear.[/quote]
Prohibition makes cartels stronger. They make more money the harder a substance is to procure, also increasing how much adulterants are added to a substance to further increase sales and profit. When you make consequences heavier, you're not scaring the big man at the top of the cartel ladder who controls everything.
[quote]Self control and safety is more important than some person's right to escape from the drawbacks of reality for a little while.[/QUOTE]
This is your opinion.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37697460]So you're saying people should be allowed to use substances which rot their fucking limbs into oblivion because of personal freedoms? [/QUOTE]
Yes.
Self control is the responsibility of the individual, not the state.
[QUOTE=extatik;37697218]Excellent question, but given the current state of affairs when it comes to illegal drugs do you really believe that if all of them were legalized that things can't get any worse than they are now ? To me ( as a marijuana user only ) there are too many negatives. Negatives like, cartel expansion and control would now have a legal, corporate face , there would be more drug addicts ( meth, coke, heroin, ice, etc. ) than ever before , and any resources to help recovering addicts would be reduced to nothing. To me those are the few major negatives that would kill any positives. Now if we're just talking weed, I don't see a problem with legalization / taxation / personal cultivation.[/QUOTE]
Yeah lets just legalize the one you like because we can ignore the negatives on that one and pretend they don't exist. How the shit would cartel power grow with the legalization of drugs? Cartels are only involved because it's illegal, once it became legal pharmaceutical labs would easily be able to produce thousands times more of each substance for a fraction of the cost so even if cartels tried to continue competing they would be run out of the trade not to mention if a retailer bought cartel drugs surely he'd be held to the same standards supermarkets are, they can't just dump whatever powder on the market it'd have to be pure and sterile etc.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37697460]So you're saying people should be allowed to use substances which rot their fucking limbs into oblivion because of personal freedoms? And that families should be financially, emotionally, and possibly physically subjected to devastation because someone decided to shoot up since it was cool - and that nothing should be done to stop that?
There is a big difference between keeping people from tearing themselves apart and violating their personal freedoms, even if it is done so involuntarily and forcefully.
Legalizing it would turn cartels into corporations, it would worsen tobacco companies looking to 'expand their horizons'.
Keeping a prohibition up is less expensive than putting shit like coke into the hands of millions of average Joe's who would be more concerned with the consequences of the law rather than the medical effects. If a prohibition makes cartels resist more, make the consequences heavier, fight fear with fear. I'll just leave this here, too.
[URL]http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/crime.pdf[/URL]
[editline]17th September 2012[/editline]
Self control and safety is more important than some person's right to escape from the drawbacks of reality for a little while.[/QUOTE]
Wow you really have no clue do you. Nobody does drugs because they think it'll look cool. Family units do not matter we are all individuals blood relation should have no legal bearing. It's perfectly legal for me to take out thousands of loans and get my family evicted and desperate for money when I can't pay the loans back and it's fine for me to crash a motorbike with someone on the back and emotionally damage people with my death. Impure drugs can rot limbs and only when injected incorrectly which funnily enough is because drug awareness doesn't teach people how to safely administer injections which is the equivalent of sexual education only teaching abstinence to try and stop underage people having sex it's archaic and counterproductive.
[quote]If a prohibition makes cartels resist more, make the consequences heavier, fight fear with fear.[/quote]
Would be a complete waste of time as criminals do not consider the consequences of being caught too greatly as they would not commit the crime if they thought they would be caught. All you would do is condemn more people to being forced into crime for the rest of their working lives, how does someone with a heavy crime on their record ever get a legal job again?
[QUOTE=deaded38;37657608]How the fuck does that make any sense?
If all drugs were legalized, there would be more deaths since you're making a [I]dangerous[/I] product more availiable. You can't say, "Oh, well people will just do drugs anyway whether they're legal or not!" since obviously not everyone knows how to aquire drugs. I don't know a drug dealer or how to make my own pot, therefore, even if I wanted to, I can't go get my high. See how that works?[/QUOTE]
Yeah but look, anyone can sell anything in black market, even mislabel something toxic for something safe, and people will get hurt because of some asshole who wanted to make only a money in first place.
[QUOTE=Callius;37700942]Yeah lets just legalize the one you like because we can ignore the negatives on that one and pretend they don't exist. How the shit would cartel power grow with the legalization of drugs? Cartels are only involved because it's illegal, once it became legal pharmaceutical labs would easily be able to produce thousands times more of each substance for a fraction of the cost so even if cartels tried to continue competing they would be run out of the trade not to mention if a retailer bought cartel drugs surely he'd be held to the same standards supermarkets are, they can't just dump whatever powder on the market it'd have to be pure and sterile etc.
Wow you really have no clue do you. Nobody does drugs because they think it'll look cool. Family units do not matter we are all individuals blood relation should have no legal bearing. It's perfectly legal for me to take out thousands of loans and get my family evicted and desperate for money when I can't pay the loans back and it's fine for me to crash a motorbike with someone on the back and emotionally damage people with my death. Impure drugs can rot limbs and only when injected incorrectly which funnily enough is because drug awareness doesn't teach people how to safely administer injections which is the equivalent of sexual education only teaching abstinence to try and stop underage people having sex it's archaic and counterproductive.
Would be a complete waste of time as criminals do not consider the consequences of being caught too greatly as they would not commit the crime if they thought they would be caught. All you would do is condemn more people to being forced into crime for the rest of their working lives, how does someone with a heavy crime on their record ever get a legal job again?[/QUOTE]
Well said, Callius.
I was thinking about replying to some of the manure that has been dumped on the past page or so but I'm not sure I want to make the effort. It's like arguing with blind faith religious people - even if you make a point they refuse to acknowledge and continue spouting their diatribe. Seems to be one of those topics where one side is a "morality based argument" i.e. I THINK ITS BAD BECAUSE ITS BAD THEREFORE IT IS BAD (but I refuse to read about the topic or educate myself and I refuse to familiarise myself with opposing arguments) and the other is the only one with any sense or subjective rationality.
I may attempt to reply in depth later on when I've had a camomile tea or some shit.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37697460]So you're saying people should be allowed to use substances which rot their fucking limbs into oblivion because of personal freedoms? And that families should be financially, emotionally, and possibly physically subjected to devastation because someone decided to shoot up since it was cool - and that nothing should be done to stop that?[/QUOTE]
In a world where recreational drug use, production and sale are legal and properly regulated (without harming anyone's personal freedom by locking them out from these things), these are the reasons people would involuntarily use contaminated desomorphine:
- They are already somehow intoxicated and unable to realise what they're doing: An unfortunate accident, but one the user brought onto themself. Getting yourself so intoxicated you'd become a danger to yourself (and possibly others) is irresponsible drug use, and entirely the user's fault.
- They are not mentally capable (read: mentally insane/disabled) of realising what they're doing: Such people cannot take responsibility and would - when detected - already be in psychiatric care, preventing this from happening. There are other ways for these people to accidentally harm themselves already, drugs are just one.
- Similarly to above, they are not yet mentally developed so far: Drugs don't belong in children's hands.
In general, drugs shouldn't be legally handed out to people not capable of responsible drug use.
- They couldn't have known it's contaminated because it's from a black market dealer or a crooked (so far legally licensed) vendor. This is just as punishable as selling contaminated food as perfectly safe food. If you're selling something that has considerable health risks while making your customers believe those risks are substantially lower, you are a criminal. No one would argue against that.
And these are the reasons people *would* knowingly and voluntarily use contaminated desomorphine:
- They simply don't care. This wouldn't even be a good reason as there would hardly be any disadvantage to buying clean drugs. But who are we to decide what someone else does with their body? You do not have a right to your best friend not being a reckless drug user. If a user, say a parent, violates their responsibilities (not necessarily by harming themselves, but by, well, putting themselves in any situation where they can't assume responsibility and not doing anything about it), they will and should be taken away from them (in this case, child care).
- They are addicted and use whatever strong opiate they can get their hands on:
Such people need help, and treatment for addicts is already available (even anonymously and for free) in many countries (especially in Europe, where public healthcare is almost universally available and supported by the population). In those countries, it's shame/fear/refusal of help and/or unawareness and/or not realising they have a problem that keeps them away from using such opportunities.
For any democratic government to legalise drugs, the general public would have to accept (responsible) drug use as a personal choice that's to be respected, and respect addicts as normal people in need of medical help (instead of looking down on them like society at large does now). Therefore, addicts wouldn't feel the first point of this list. Considering all the expenses the drug war brings, legalising drugs and implementing big, very helpful information (about all sides of drugs), prevention (of irresponsible drug use) and treatment campaigns (which are freely available vs. the cost of buying drugs) would be much cheaper and better for the general public (including public health, as it would promote responsible drug use and treat irresponsible use and addiction far better than street dealing and legal punishment). This would also rule out the other points in my list, so there would be absolutely no good reason for an addict not to go into treatment. If they still don't, it's, again, really their own fault.
Furthermore, when buying drugs made in legal mass production by competitive manufacturers, prices for uncontaminated drugs would likely be quite low, so there wouldn't be much of a reason to buy contaminated products anyway.
Jesus, long reply.
Possibly. The issue is abuse. I certainly believe that an individual should have the choice to use drugs, hopefully in moderation. But even if they don't use it in moderation and make their life revolve around it, it should be their choice. HOWEVER, the line seems to grow thin between self destruction and destruction of others and others property as the individuals drug problem grows. I wonder how bad it would be. If we legalized say, marijuana, starting tomorrow. What would happen? How long would it take for people to be abusing it and bringing harm to others? Would productivity decrease? The thing is you can't really say. Alcohol has been around and legal for a long time now (besides during prohibition) and it's kinda on the fence with being o.k. and harmful to others. So many people die from drunk drivers and families are ruined with alcohol, but at the same time the majority are just fine with it and don't abuse it.
It's really a case of the few ruining it for the rest. Legalizing something like drugs so suddenly is a bad idea in my opinion, it should be some sort of slow, natural transition into it. That sort of seems like where the US is going with marijuana laws right now, but it's going back and forth.
Yeah, then I could buy acid
It'd be easier
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37697460]So you're saying people should be allowed to use substances which rot their fucking limbs into oblivion because of personal freedoms? And that families should be financially, emotionally, and possibly physically subjected to devastation because someone decided to shoot up since it was cool - and that nothing should be done to stop that?
There is a big difference between keeping people from tearing themselves apart and violating their personal freedoms, even if it is done so involuntarily and forcefully.
Legalizing it would turn cartels into corporations, it would worsen tobacco companies looking to 'expand their horizons'.
Keeping a prohibition up is less expensive than putting shit like coke into the hands of millions of average Joe's who would be more concerned with the consequences of the law rather than the medical effects. If a prohibition makes cartels resist more, make the consequences heavier, fight fear with fear. I'll just leave this here, too.
[url]http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/crime.pdf[/url]
[editline]17th September 2012[/editline]
Self control and safety is more important than some person's right to escape from the drawbacks of reality for a little while.[/QUOTE]
you know the stuff that rots the limbs only does that because they dont get all the impurites out when they make the diamorphine so they are also injecting ammonia etc and that problem would probably go away if drugs were legal
[editline]18th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=deaded38;37657608]How the fuck does that make any sense?
If all drugs were legalized, there would be more deaths since you're making a [I]dangerous[/I] product more availiable. You can't say, "Oh, well people will just do drugs anyway whether they're legal or not!" since obviously not everyone knows how to aquire drugs. I don't know a drug dealer or how to make my own pot, therefore, even if I wanted to, I can't go get my high. See how that works?[/QUOTE]
trust me if you wanted to you would get high, if you really wanted to you would just ask around and you would find someone.
Take it from someone involved in drug culture, he's right
As long as you're not some sketchy dude we just met, people probably would smoke with you
[QUOTE=Cruma;37673555]In my opinion, all drugs should be legal. People that smoke/inject/snort/eat x are going to do it regardless, so you might as well have a system in place to at least regulate it, rather than prohibit it and only create an underground crime market.
[editline]wat[/editline]
I don't know why someone would say "legalizing drugs wouldn't work..." and then use "because people abuse drugs" as an example. What is your point? People seem to think that once it's legal, everything would change. No, if you are someone that abuses a substance, you will abuse it regardless. People are already abusing drugs... And you also said "People abuse alcohol, because it's legal and they can." Is this implying that is alcohol was illegal they wouldn't abuse it? I don't really understand your point, it seems to be pretty asinine.[/QUOTE]
You don't get it, even though it's simple as fuck.
If you legalize drugs, you are making them AVAILABLE to EVERYONE. See, you can't just say, "OH BUT THEY WILL ABUSE DRUGS ANYWAY!" since it clearly doesn't work that way. Most people don't know how to acquire drugs. You guys are acting like drugs grow on trees in people's backyards. If you're determined to get drugs, you might be able to do it, but that does NOT mean you will be able to do it. For example, let's say I'm the typical dumbass teenager who wants to smoke pot to be cool like all the other dumbass teenagers. I can ask my friends if they know someone who can get me some weed, but that doesn't mean they know anyone who can get me some weed. I can go up to someone I know smokes weed, but I don't know them personally and ask for some, but that doesn't mean he'll tell me how to get some weed. And it's not like I can go to Wal-Mart and pick up a copy of "How to Make Pot for Dummies". Even with determination, you won't always be able to get your precious high. Also, alcohol is a different story. Massive amounts of people have been drinking alcohol for hundreds of years. It's MUCH more difficult to take away alcohol than it is other drugs.
Also, in response to the whole, "You can buy drugs on the internet", have you ever bought drugs from these sites? Whose to say the government doesn't monitor these sites? I'm sure it's possible. But I'd really like to know how many of these sites are actually "legit".
[QUOTE=deaded38;37714981]If you legalize drugs, you are making them AVAILABLE to EVERYONE.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't mean that everyone will start doing drugs. Just because something is available, it doesn't mean that people will instantly try it out. I sure wouldn't snort coke just because it was legal.
[QUOTE=deaded38;37714981]See, you can't just say, "OH BUT THEY WILL ABUSE DRUGS ANYWAY!" since it clearly doesn't work that way. Most people don't know how to acquire drugs.[/QUOTE]
You'd be surprised by how easy it actually is to acquire drugs. And it's funny that you'd use pot as an example, because pot is probably the easiest to get a hold of. You really just gotta ask around where you live, eventually you will find it if you're not acting like a moron about it.
See, the thing is that prohibition only causes problems. Why should the government be able to control what people do to their own minds? Shouldn't people themselves be able to decide what they do with their own bodies? Keeping drugs illegal just means that people that do use them will get much more unsafe products for much higher prices, and it will only benefit drug cartels and keep crime up as people that do drugs are arrested for it and thrown in jail.
[QUOTE=Jocken300;37715141]Doesn't mean that everyone will start doing drugs. Just because something is available, it doesn't mean that people will instantly try it out. I sure wouldn't snort coke just because it was legal.
You'd be surprised by how easy it actually is to acquire drugs. And it's funny that you'd use pot as an example, because pot is probably the easiest to get a hold of. You really just gotta ask around where you live, eventually you will find it if you're not acting like a moron about it.
See, the thing is that prohibition only causes problems. Why should the government be able to control what people do to their own minds? Shouldn't people themselves be able to decide what they do with their own bodies? Keeping drugs illegal just means that people that do use them will get much more unsafe products for much higher prices, and it will only benefit drug cartels and keep crime up as people that do drugs are arrested for it and thrown in jail.[/QUOTE]
Understandable. But a lot of people will start doing drugs just because they're legal. I also understand pot is the easiest drug to acquire, but that still doesn't mean everyone knows how to get some.
[QUOTE=deaded38;37714981]
Also, in response to the whole, "You can buy drugs on the internet", have you ever bought drugs from these sites? Whose to say the government doesn't monitor these sites? I'm sure it's possible. But I'd really like to know how many of these sites are actually "legit".[/QUOTE]
people buy drugs online like its amazon. getting a silk road account is easy as shit.
[editline]18th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=deaded38;37715772]but that still doesn't mean everyone knows how to get some.[/QUOTE]
except pretty much everyone knows where to get pot. you ask any high school or college student and the odds are they can at least point you out to someone who knows a dealer.
Yes.
Simple.
Yes.
Are we in the 60's? Why do people still call Marijuana "pot"? Reminds me of my grandparents.
[editline]18th September 2012[/editline]
And yes drugs are easy as shit to get, especially by mail. If you aren't a dumbass then you can easily find whatever drug you want (legal or not) and have it shipped to your mailbox. It's not complicated at all.
[QUOTE=deaded38;37714981]You don't get it, even though it's simple as fuck.
If you legalize drugs, you are making them AVAILABLE to EVERYONE. See, you can't just say, "OH BUT THEY WILL ABUSE DRUGS ANYWAY!" since it clearly doesn't work that way. Most people don't know how to acquire drugs. You guys are acting like drugs grow on trees in people's backyards. If you're determined to get drugs, you might be able to do it, but that does NOT mean you will be able to do it. For example, let's say I'm the typical dumbass teenager who wants to smoke pot to be cool like all the other dumbass teenagers. I can ask my friends if they know someone who can get me some weed, but that doesn't mean they know anyone who can get me some weed. I can go up to someone I know smokes weed, but I don't know them personally and ask for some, but that doesn't mean he'll tell me how to get some weed. And it's not like I can go to Wal-Mart and pick up a copy of "How to Make Pot for Dummies". Even with determination, you won't always be able to get your precious high. Also, alcohol is a different story. Massive amounts of people have been drinking alcohol for hundreds of years. It's MUCH more difficult to take away alcohol than it is other drugs.
Also, in response to the whole, "You can buy drugs on the internet", have you ever bought drugs from these sites? Whose to say the government doesn't monitor these sites? I'm sure it's possible. But I'd really like to know how many of these sites are actually "legit".[/QUOTE]
Dude it is literally the easiest thing to acquire marijuana. You could shout it on the street and someone will offer you some.
You've got a bad argument, that is being torn slowly away. How would somebody who smokes pot not know where to get pot? They weren't born with it.
[editline]18th September 2012[/editline]
I mean, if you're a teenager or even a young adult chances are you know at least one person who smokes it, so ask them.
just pot. its not a drug. the rest shouldn't be legal
In my opinion anyone should be allowed to do anything as long as it doesn't affect anyone else in any bad way.
Drugs like marijuana, LSD, shrooms and all of the less drugs, should be legalized with no bullshit strings attached.
Harder substances should require a licence, that you can acquire by taking frequent knowledge tests. And Every-time you purchase them you should be quized on them. And only limited amounts sold to the customer. Whenever you buy say, Cocaine, You would need to use your license, like you would a credit card or debt card. Thus restricting you to purchase them too frequently.
I mean it's not like you can't buy them illegally but that would take away from having shit that's cut with dangerous chemicals from flowing through the streets. People will be buying the correct things and the correct dosages.
[QUOTE=Kel|oggs;37721167]Drugs like marijuana, LSD, shrooms and all of the less drugs, should be legalized with no bullshit strings attached.
Harder substances should require a licence, that you can acquire by taking frequent knowledge tests. And Every-time you purchase them you should be quized on them. And only limited amounts sold to the customer. Whenever you buy say, Cocaine, You would need to use your license, like you would a credit card or debt card. Thus restricting you to purchase them too frequently.
I mean it's not like you can't buy them illegally but that would take away from having shit that's cut with dangerous chemicals from flowing through the streets. People will be buying the correct things and the correct dosages.[/QUOTE]
This is something I can totally get behind. It's regulated and much safer than keeping it illegal.
However, how can you claim that LSD is a lesser drug? I can agree with weed and shrooms, but isn't LSD one of the more dangerous ones?
[QUOTE=Jocken300;37721652]This is something I can totally get behind. It's regulated and much safer than keeping it illegal.
However, how can you claim that LSD is a lesser drug? I can agree with weed and shrooms, but isn't LSD one of the more dangerous ones?[/QUOTE]
This is debatable. But it rarely ever causes damage.
[editline]19th September 2012[/editline]
I definitely wouldn't call it dangerous.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.