• Should drugs be legalized ?
    655 replies, posted
[QUOTE=FalseLogic;38060055]Sounds good, but why limit it to "soft drugs"? How would you make that distinction anyway? We all know the government can't, considering all the safe drugs they have in schedule I.[/QUOTE] I don't think you would be asking such a question if you had ever witnessed firsthand the side-effects of hard drugs.
The most common issues with "hard" drugs is physical addiction. If you have the willpower to do a "harder" drug in moderation, the chances of any negative effects are unlikely. Not everyone has that willpower. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine#Medical_effects[/url] [quote=Wikipedia]Occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems.[/quote]
I support the legalization of drugs. The reason being is that there are already legal alternatives to many already, and those who wish to use them in disregard of health will just keep fighting to find the high from alternatives to illegal drugs. I mean, it's one way to stop drug deal related crimes. If it's not illegal, it's no longer worth nearly as much anymore (I would assume), and drug related crimes might just cut back quite a bit. That's just what I think other than the medical benefits, but honestly, I'm not all that sure what all harder drugs can give to the medical field, but research tends to be surprising. Correct me if I'm wrong on the crime bit.
[QUOTE=TehWhale;38135066]The most common issues with "hard" drugs is physical addiction. If you have the willpower to do a "harder" drug in moderation, the chances of any negative effects are unlikely. Not everyone has that willpower. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine#Medical_effects[/url][/QUOTE] I don't see how "willpower" will prevent the internalisation and/or down-regulation of neurotransmitter receptors from the use of opioids. I'm not saying that all opioids need to be banned but I don't like it when people don't understand that there's more to addiction than mental "weakness."
[QUOTE=ewitwins;38134957]I don't think you would be asking such a question if you had ever witnessed firsthand the side-effects of hard drugs.[/QUOTE] The point he was trying to make was that there are a lot of non-"hard" drugs of the psychedelic kind (DMT, Shrooms, LSD, etc.) in Schedule 1 in the USA. [editline]22nd October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Corey_Faure;38135099]I support the legalization of drugs. The reason being is that there are already legal alternatives to many already, and those who wish to use them in disregard of health will just keep fighting to find the high from alternatives to illegal drugs. I mean, it's one way to stop drug deal related crimes. If it's not illegal, it's no longer worth nearly as much anymore (I would assume), and drug related crimes might just cut back quite a bit. That's just what I think other than the medical benefits, but honestly, I'm not all that sure what all harder drugs can give to the medical field, but research tends to be surprising. Correct me if I'm wrong on the crime bit.[/QUOTE] You're right on the crime I think. Many of the dangers of all drugs even the harder ones are actually called by the black market and not the substance itself - they could be avoided and many people could be saved with regulation. A lot of the legal alternatives, Spice (synthetic THC smoking blend), for example are actually more dangerous than the drugs they are marketed to emulate. I'm not sure what you mean by harder drugs but heroin and other opiates (commonly used as painkillers), coca/cocaine (can help with altitude sickness and ADD/ADHD), and many others have medical applications. As for coca/cocaine, I mentioned on the previous page that concentrated powder cocaine wouldn't be as common a distribution method of coca if coca products were allowed like caffeine products are. Coca used to be consumed moderately in the form of teas and sweets like caffeine but when it was driven underground it became more profitable and easier to distribute the concentrated powder rather than the thousands of leaves used to produce it. Around the time coca prohibition began caffeine was also going to be banned as they are both very similar but caffeine was withdrawn when they realised how many products were dependent on it. When a safer more convenient form of a product is available like a tea or confectionery product (in the case of alcohol, beer vs spirits, etc.), use of concentrates of that product tend to dwindle - how many people use pure powdered caffeine or caffeine pills as a recreational drug and not as part of some goof?
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;38135820]I don't see how "willpower" will prevent the internalisation and/or down-regulation of neurotransmitter receptors from the use of opioids. I'm not saying that all opioids need to be banned but I don't like it when people don't understand that there's more to addiction than mental "weakness."[/QUOTE] Everyone reacts differently to addiction mentally, physically the symptoms are all around the same in every individual(Depending on the drug, ofc). When he(or I) says it requires a hefty mental willpower we're not saying you can bite the bullet of addiction, but that you can have the willpower & [I]knowledge[/I] to keep your use out of the possible withdrawal zone, which noone is excempt from.
[QUOTE=kaskade700;38136862]Everyone reacts differently to addiction mentally, physically the symptoms are all around the same in every individual(Depending on the drug, ofc). When he(or I) says it requires a hefty mental willpower we're not saying you can bite the bullet of addiction, but that you can have the willpower & [I]knowledge[/I] to keep your use out of the possible withdrawal zone, which noone is excempt from.[/QUOTE] As far as I know, the only way to avoid withdrawal symptoms is to up the dosage with many drugs that build tolerance and dependence. Willpower is necessary to overcome the withdrawal symptoms to wean yourself off an addiction but you don't become addicted in the first place because you're "weak" and I hope people will stop thinking that way.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;38134957]I don't think you would be asking such a question if you had ever witnessed firsthand the side-effects of hard drugs.[/QUOTE] So you're saying because he doesn't have a personal bias he can better speculate on the legalisation of drugs? You didn't even answer his question.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;38134957]I don't think you would be asking such a question if you had ever witnessed firsthand the side-effects of hard drugs.[/QUOTE] Awesome, just ignore my entire point by making a claim about me, instead of my point. By the way, I have witnessed the effects of what you call "hard drugs", and that is what makes me support the legalization of all drugs.
I don't think drugs should be legalized as i have seen there affects on family members and it isnt a good thing at all. The positives do not outweigh the negatives at all.
[QUOTE=WingedAssailant;38142852]I don't think drugs should be legalized as i have seen there affects on family members and it isnt a good thing at all. The positives do not outweigh the negatives at all.[/QUOTE] If the positives in your opinion do not outweigh the negatives then tell us why and what the positives and negatives are. Don't be a moron and come into a debate thread and just say what you think without showing any basis for your claims.
will power is not how you determine how you use hard drugs. The sturdiest mind can easily succumb to heroin. Playing it smart is how you don't get addicted, you have to imagine that you are at high risk of being addicted so you limit yourself and don't give in to the ideas that you could maybe manage doing something a little more than you do already because those little increases become huge after a long period of time.
drugs should not be legalized, as it ruins the american youth and america itself romney/ryan 2012 [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Gimmick" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
yeah hilarious "Mitt"
Marijuana should seriously be legalised like alcohol. Let me explain you. The first thing is marijuana is the best-seller of drug dealers, who may sell hard drugs too. When the dealer got too much money, he buy more drug to his supplier who may work with criminal organisations. The blackmarket of cannabis funds criminals, especially for weapons and cars. Do you remember the prohibition of alcohol? Al-Capone who was terrifying and killing the people in Chicago... At this time, alcohol was selled like cannabis, in the blackmarket. And those who drinked may have risk to get intoxicated by methanol because it was cheaper... I live in Belgium and I have to find a street dealer to buy some weed or hash. And the quality is not that good... Sometimes, I smoke some true shit who make me ill... But Holland closed their doors to drug tourists... So I don't have the choice to buy to street dealers. If cannabis is legalised, all the street dealers gonna stop selling marijuana because you can go to a pharmacy or a shop where you can buy some. And criminal organisations couldn't refund because they are not going to get more money, exept hard drug cash... Also, the quality is gonna be better and the price will be cheaper (actually, it's 10€ per gram to a street dealer here and in Holland it's around 5 to 13 € or more...). I don't understand politicians saying that's gonna be a public health issue... I'd rather smoke pot than drinking alcohol!
LoucousseBe, the alcohol lobbyists are scared that if cannabis and other drugs, hard and soft, are legalised people will stop consuming as many of their products (which are far more harmful) and that they will get less profit. Politicians tend to be easily influenced by lobbyists especially if the lobbyist makes a "contribution" to them.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;38154956]LoucousseBe, the alcohol lobbyists are scared that if cannabis and other drugs, hard and soft, are legalised people will stop consuming as many of their products (which are far more harmful) and that they will get less profit. Politicians tend to be easily influenced by lobbyists especially if the lobbyist makes a "contribution" to them.[/QUOTE] Of course, many companies are scared about cannabis, because we can do so much things! Those companies are: - Pharmaceuticals - Textile products - Wood/paper products - Construction - Energy (petrol, gas, ...) - Recreative drugs companies (Tobacco and alcohol) - Food companies - And more... For sure, those companies employs lobbyists because they are scared to lose profits if cannabis is legalised.
Yes, Pot can be used for more than just smoking. Its amazing how slow the politicians have made it for it to be legalized in order to do those things, but I guess it has something to do with this whole thing I learned about where a while back some paper companies didn't like how hemp could be used as a paper substitute or something.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38157542]Yes, Pot can be used for more than just smoking. Its amazing how slow the politicians have made it for it to be legalized in order to do those things, but I guess it has something to do with this whole thing I learned about where a while back some paper companies didn't like how hemp could be used as a paper substitute or something.[/QUOTE] Lets not forget the way congress works. They're not in it to help you they're in it for the money they get from their donors (most of the time). So that's who they please(the donors), especially [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison#Private_prisons_in_the_United_States"]Private prisons[/URL] who iirc can pick the inmates they want to have. So they pick the nonviolent drug offenders who were found with a little amount of pot on them but end up with a several month sentence, these people will give them the best profit return. The prisons get money from the government to house the inmates. Its also worth a note that they're in it for the money just as those who make the laws are.
The word "drugs" is so vague. The term could include heroin, cocaine, MDMA, etc. Do I think all drugs should be legalized? Absolutely not. I can understand the whole "the government shouldn't tell me what to put in my body" but the government as an institution has an obligation to protect its citizens from harm. Drugs like marijuana would certainly be benefitted from if state governments in the USA would tax it and regulate it much like they do tobacco. As a matter of fact, with the very liberal state of Massachusetts currently on the tipping point between legalisation of medical use in November, we might even see more states follow if it passes. I read a quote once that went something like, "When the first state makes it completely legal and the sky doesn't fall, the rest are going to go, 'What are we, idiots?'"
They would protect their citizens from harm by making all drugs legal though, its more harmful if the drugs are illegal because then they are not pure or regulated.
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;38176964]They would protect their citizens from harm by making all drugs legal though, its more harmful if the drugs are illegal because then they are not pure or regulated.[/QUOTE] Exactly, just because you don't ever want to try or take a certain drug, what gives you the right to decide for others just for the sake of their health. With all of them legalized especially the big ones everyone likes to cite like cocaine and heroin, the black market would perish as far as drugs are concerned, and if I need to explain why, then maybe you don't belong in this thread.
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;38176964]They would protect their citizens from harm by making all drugs legal though, its more harmful if the drugs are illegal because then they are not pure or regulated.[/QUOTE] Exactly. The most serious harms even of so-called hard drugs are primarily caused by the black market. Contamination, unknown strength hence unknown dosage, lack of availability of clean paraphenalia, inflated black market pricing often causing users who develop a habit and need help to begin using acquisitive crime to fund it, etc. I've mentioned this before but caffeine was nearly banned at the same time as coca/cocaine for similar prejudiced reasons that it created superhuman violent negroes. If caffeine had been banned it would have become mainly distributed as a concentrate too and would likely be similarly problematic to a cocaine addiction nowadays due to inflated prohibitive pricing making an addiction more difficult to finance and therefore maintain without withdrawal. Before coca was banned it was mainly distributed in a non-concentrated form which was not as habit forming however when it was driven underground it was easier to conceal a concentrated powder and far more profitable. Caffeine is a hard drug yet it doesn't seem to cause too many problems (apart from perhaps energy drink binging by moronic teenagers) despite being comparatively unregulated compared with other legal hard drug products such as alcohol. A 10 year old can buy a whole pack of Pro Plus caffeine pills (each one contains the same amount as a middle of the road coffee) and get hyper to fuck but they don't tend to because tea and coffee and more convenient, tasty, less suspicious, and much harder to overdose on by accident. [QUOTE=zach1193;38177503]Exactly, just because you don't ever want to try or take a certain drug, what gives you the right to decide for others just for the sake of their health. With all of them legalized especially the big ones everyone likes to cite like cocaine and heroin, the black market would perish as far as drugs are concerned, and if I need to explain why, then maybe you don't belong in this thread.[/QUOTE] Exactly. There appears to be marked prejudices in many of those in this thread (prejudice meaning a preconceived opinion not based in reason, logic, or experience) who defend the current state of affairs or call for tougher measures. I imagine it is partially developed and nurtured by the rhetoric used regarding this issue especially when it comes to policy making and moronic politicians who use it as a flag waving jack-off issue "HEY YOU, we're tough on drugs! DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"
link to screamer removed [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Gimmick" - Swebonny))[/highlight]
Also guys, I found in the pharmacy soon that you can buy ethylmorphine without prescription. Opiates are dangerous and very addictive... Why this drug is legalised (you can buy it in every pharmacy in Belgium), and not marijuana? I have heard people saying that we should ban alcohol too... It's a bad idea, because you'll find this alcohol in black market and it's gonna be selled by dealers in the streets or in clandestine bars... We should first decriminalise cannabis: it's not a crime to smoke pot, we aren't going to be a threat for the society. And we should help people who are addicted to hard drug instead of jailing them...
[QUOTE=faris;38032904]drugs are good stuff unless you get addicted and commit crimes to finance your addiction.[/QUOTE] Exactly.
[QUOTE=laurapausini;38180168]Stupid screamer shit][/QUOTE] Fuck you, buddy.
[QUOTE=LoucoussBe;38180579]Also guys, I found in the pharmacy soon that you can buy ethylmorphine without prescription. Opiates are dangerous and very addictive... Why this drug is legalised (you can buy it in every pharmacy in Belgium), and not marijuana? I have heard people saying that we should ban alcohol too... It's a bad idea, because you'll find this alcohol in black market and it's gonna be selled by dealers in the streets or in clandestine bars... We should first decriminalise cannabis: it's not a crime to smoke pot, we aren't going to be a threat for the society. And we should help people who are addicted to hard drug instead of jailing them...[/QUOTE] Not all opiates are "dangerous." Ethylmorphine is only slightly more potent than codeine. The only dangerous thing about drugs is making sure that you have what you think you have and the correct dosage (and by extension, administration). How much you're allowed to deviate from what's recommended and not face serious problems depends on the drug. It's also about cost vs benefit. In the case of a lot of opiates, effective pain relief outweighs the risk of dependence. Entertainment doesn't win out against the costs unless your drug is nicotine or ethanol (all politics, not science in those two examples).
Drugs could partly be legalized, as long they don't modify parts of their host that makes them behaviorally dangerous to the public. Not all drugs should be legalized. For example, Cannabis (which is marijuana) relaxes the muscle. It doesn't mean it re-strengthen the bones, it just puts it under relaxing pressure in a way that it doesn't change the host's behavior. However, bath salts should be illegal because it can cause violent behavior which leads to arrests and such. It also has many side effects. It's up to the authorities decision to do whatever they want.
That is not all that cannabis does, your view seems a little oversimplified. Does your proof that bath salts cause violence consist of tabloid scaremongering stories and comments made by non-scientifically qualified police officers like in the Miami cannibal thing? Pretty sure lots of people get violent on alcohol and caffeine and tobacco (and lack thereof) too. Doesn't mean they should be banned because that just makes them more dangerous by introducing contamination, unknown strength and dosage, inflated pricing, and distribution by unaccountable black marketeers who couldn't give a damn about their customer's health. Should testosterone be banned? Pretty sure that triggers a lot of violence too, lol. I can't help but notice a lot of violence gets blamed on drugs when actually the person taking them was more at fault for taking them in the wrong environment or when knowing that they had a repressed violent side. Surely if someone commits unsolicited violence against someone else, that should be the crime? Not the drug or the sandwich they chose to swallow beforehand. I know plenty of people who use mephedrone and other products marketed as bath salts without any issue. Bath salts are not even a single drug. The legitimacy of the authorities is way overrated and they generally seem to make decisions regarding drugs by just doing whatever makes them appear "tough on drugs" and gets them more votes from prejudiced old people who hate to see young people having fun in a way they weren't allowed to among others including those who religiously believe everything they see in newspaper sob stories and get into a moral panic when they hear anything about drugs being involved with any incident. Don't forget that banning drugs does not stop people using them - it has a forbidden fruit effect in addition to making the prohibited drugs far more dangerous than they would be if distributed in a regulated way. With them prohibited and made willingly more dangerous the people who end up using them, whether for casual recreation or to escape something terrible in their life, risk a fuckton more of horrible preventable side effects.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.