• Should drugs be legalized ?
    655 replies, posted
[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] ethylmorphine is weak thats why
Im all for legalizing EVERYTHING. Yea, EVERYTHING. First of all, why arrest someone, subsequently scarring their life and records for something they wanted to do? In a lot of cases the excuses for these arrests are to help the users... But how will a criminal record help? At least lower it to a large fine for harder drugs (opiates, some stimulants) I can sort of understand with intent to supply, as you INTEND to sell these harmful substances to people wanting them... But then, those people want them, so why not let them? You could easily impose drunk-driving like laws on any other drug, so don't try and say that any high person is gonna take to the road and crash into someone or cause an accident. And then we have the fact that taxation and regulation will make these MUCH harder to be bought by U18s. Take alcohol for example. I could give a 15 y/o a guys number and that guy wouldn't give a damn how old the kid is, he just wants the money for this weed he is about to sell him. These would be completely eliminated if legalized (mostly) Do you get alcohol dealers? Nah, its a ton easier for teens to buy drugs now than it is alcohol, and alcohol is legal. Another point, kind of reiterated from up top but - If someone wants to use these substances recreationally, why not let them? Just because you would not is on no grounds an excuse for disagreeing with legalization. Last point for now.. Contamination. Im sure that if these things were prepared in a sterile environment, and properly with no cutters there would be a lot less freak accidents. Ill post more things later and/or add to this, buts that is the basis of my argument, and probably the basic thing that anyone argues for this subject.
Indeed, My_Ass_Is_Grass, contamination is mainly caused by the main distributor being an unregulated black market and this also means that strength is often unknown therefore overdoses often happen by accident in addition to the complications caused by whatever adulterant has been mixed in. A lot of the harms of so-called hard drugs are actually harms of the market and would not happen if the product was clean and regulated. Coca, for example (taken from previous page); [quote=JustExtreme]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 (and allegedly drove negroes crazy) but caffeine was withdrawn when they realised how many products were dependent on it (chocolate, coffee, tea, etc.). 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]
I'd say yes and no. Yes because it should be up to the people whether they want to consume something that could be harmful to them. But on the other hand, some drugs might cause the person to become aggresive and might be harmful not only to that one person but also the surrounding people. Another problem are the kids who might not really realize what's the risk of using drugs and harm themselves unintentionally. So I'd say legalize drugs but for adults only, and only the drugs which won't make the person hurt other people.
So educate people on how to use them properly so they can determine their personal reaction to substances. There is no way to force people to use them how they are told but it would be a damn sight better than what they are told currently with all the fearmongering. As far as I know there is no drug that universally without fail makes people hurt each other because different people react to things differently. At the moment kids are told a bunch of shit in school about drugs which make them less likely to listen to advice about them from those in authority and more likely to just try things without looking into them at all because of assuming it is all propaganda. A lot of kids probably get harmed already as a result of drug education being so stupid that it drives them away from seeking logical and reason-based information about them. To add to that, the only ID a dealer wants is a £20 note and many don't exactly have ethics policies or accountability and pad their product out with contaminants and mislead regarding strength (meaning user doesn't know how much to take maybe overdosing), artificially inflate prices (leading to acquisitive crime to fund addiciton) etc. for the sake of profit. If drugs were available from a safe regulated environment, those problems would be minimalised because while corporations and businesses are also in it for the profit normally, they don't like bad PR and can be held accountable for their actions as well as be regulated. If someone becomes aggressive or causes harm while on drugs, the harm they cause is the problem and is what they should get in trouble for - not the drug - because plenty of other people likely use the same substance without the same issue. There are violent drunks but they tend to be arrested for the harm they cause and not for being drunk. If you knowingly consume a substance that you know makes you violent (or that you haven't tried before so don't know your reaction), you should be held entirely accountable for your actions. Trying things in small quantities like people do with alcohol and other hard and soft drugs is a good idea before deciding to use them in a social situation where you will be in the company of others especially if you don't know them.
honestly your still gonna have dumbass college kids who will go to excess to fry the hell out of their brains, they get drunk beyond reason every weekend already, add plentiful legalised drugs into the mix, theyre gonna be dropping worse than they are now. that aside, legalised, you would suddenly see a surge in gdp in the appalachan region, and the extra income from taxing would probably pay off the budget deficit of the U.S. in several years, but the problem with this is, the black market would become more compeditive, and black market prices would always be cheaper than regular prices. i think its time to change and re-evaluate the legislation that has been in place since the days of prohibition, but i cant come up with any solution where people don't die more than they do now, and i dont think anybody else has either
It's very likely less people would die/get hurt from "hard drug" use if they were available in pure uncontaminated form with known strength hence correct dosage. Clean paraphenalia would have to be made more openly available too. A lot of accidents that happen at the moment are directly related to the black market and illegality for example - overdoses often occur because the user gets a different strength product/different level of dilution to last time so ends up taking too much or getting affected by the contaminant. Another thing that happens is buying one thing but it turning out to be another which makes dosage difficult and potentially fatal too i.e. methoxetamine being sold as ketamine There is no way to force people to use things the right way but the way it is at the moment it is potentially far more harmful than it needs to be due to black market effects. At least legalising would make the product better quality and you would get what you actually wanted with guidelines on ways to use it safely that you would follow if you were smart. It would also help to remove a lot of the stigma that often prevents drug users with problematic use from seeking help.
I would like to hear peoples opinions on the knew laws allowing recreational use of marijuana in Washington and Colorado.
Seeing as this is a debate thread, what are the specifics of those new laws and what do you think of them yourself?
well for one, theres the whole state vs federal thing, which will probably go to court in early december/late january, because its still illegal on the federal level to have [B]any[/B] pot, so the act of buying the pot and paying the taxes to the state is illegal on the federal level, so... if the FBI wanted to, they could take down every pot-dispensery that pops up because of this, also it is illegal to grow it still... so theres that issue as well, but of corse with the way the federal goverment is lately, they'll probably ignore this like they did the medicinal bills that have passed across the country. this is almost like gay-marrage, where even though its legal on a state level, still illegal on the federal level, and the feds arent going to change anytime soon
The federal government hasn't completely ignored medicinal cannabis. There have been numerous raids on dispensaries, increasing the price of medicine for patients. I'm sure it will be the same or even worse for recreational legislation, unless the federal government finally decides to reschedule cannabis to something more reasonable or to make it unscheduled like alcohol.
[QUOTE=Sableye;38384569]well for one, theres the whole state vs federal thing, which will probably go to court in early december/late january, because its still illegal on the federal level to have [B]any[/B] pot, so the act of buying the pot and paying the taxes to the state is illegal on the federal level, so... if the FBI wanted to, they could take down every pot-dispensery that pops up because of this, also it is illegal to grow it still... [/QUOTE] As a conservative I support having it decided on the state level. That way the decision is more localized. [editline]10th November 2012[/editline] To clarify; A majority is less powerful in this situation as since the majority of the people in the specific state is what counts, not the majority of the country, the people who would want to legalize pot wouldn't have to deal with the people who don't and vice versa. So I guess what we'd be seeing is states like Colorado and some others legalizing pot and some not, and if pot really matters that much to you you can just move to a state that allows it, and if a lack of pot really matters that much to you you can move to a state that disallows it. Whereas if this were a federal decision, it would be all or nothing; Either the entire country will legalize pot or it won't, and ultimately this just leads to more people being pissed off.
No, no they shouldn't. In my opinion people get "fucked up" enough already. People really don't [B]NEED[/B] drugs to "have a good time" so to speak.
Don't you realise that people use all the "illegal" drugs extensively already and that the main dangers stem from the illegality itself and the black market created by it?
[QUOTE=nehkz;38400063]No, no they shouldn't. In my opinion people get "fucked up" enough already. People really don't [B]NEED[/B] drugs to "have a good time" so to speak.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JustExtreme;38400493]Don't you realise that people use all the "illegal" drugs extensively already and that the main dangers stem from the illegality itself and the black market created by it?[/QUOTE] This whole thread is basically this back and forth. [QUOTE=BFG9000;38397749]As a conservative I support having it decided on the state level. That way the decision is more localized. [editline]10th November 2012[/editline] To clarify; A majority is less powerful in this situation as since the majority of the people in the specific state is what counts, not the majority of the country, the people who would want to legalize pot wouldn't have to deal with the people who don't and vice versa. So I guess what we'd be seeing is states like Colorado and some others legalizing pot and some not, and if pot really matters that much to you you can just move to a state that allows it, and if a lack of pot really matters that much to you you can move to a state that disallows it. Whereas if this were a federal decision, it would be all or nothing; Either the entire country will legalize pot or it won't, and ultimately this just leads to more people being pissed off.[/QUOTE] The point that many are trying to make is that there is no real reason to not legalize it, whether you agree with using it or not. Keeping it illegal makes it a black market, and wastes taxpayer money to keep people in jail for victimless crimes.
Indeed, I'm not sure why I keep coming back to be honest because people come in and post a kneejerk response to the title question without looking what has been said previously in the thread or elsewhere with an unwillingness to make an effort to construct an argument which is what a "Mass Debate" thread should entail.
I think it' would a bad Idea to legalize drugs in the U.S
Learn to read and construct a real coherent argument, fool!
Guys; sorry to break it to you but... look at all the posters who come in and say that drugs kill people. You claim their point is moot and point to things such as contamination and black markets. However, this shows me that even IF everything you say is true and we can trust that people will responsibly make and take drugs should they be legalized, the fact of the matter is that drugs have just too bad of a reputation. Do you know WHY all these people are coming in and saying things like "drugs kill people" and stuff like that? It's because they HAVE in the past. Even if this idea of a decriminalized drug market were viable we still stand by history because the fact is that in the current status quo, drugs do do harm and have been the cause of violence all over. You can't just state a few opinions, no matter how informed they might be, and expect people to believe that legalizing them would make everything better. I still personally think it won't. Maybe somethings, but not everything. Lighten up a little.
I never claimed everyone would use them responsibly if they were legal but it would be much safer for people to even misuse them than it is now if they were regulated and the black market effects I've mentioned were eliminated. Lots of the deaths attributed to drugs are actually caused by the black market side effects and not the substance itself which would be far safer if it were distributed in a safer environment and regulated. Just because something has a bad reputation does not justify keeping it artificially more dangerous than it needs to be leading to the injury and death of millions in exchange for the continued popularity of an illogical taboo. I don't expect people to just agree with me because of how taboo and media-cunted this topic is but I at least expect them to present a coherent argument. The majority of people who say no, unlike you who seem to have a lot of sense, seem to have not looked into the issue and are just prejudiced and basing their opinions on sob stories from tabloid newspapers.
"People have died in the past" is never a good reason to ban anything, because if it were, the automotive industry would be illegal.
Exactly, and horse riding, skydiving, extreme sports, etc. The automotive industry has regulation as opposed to blanket ban and so do many of those things I mentioned above. It is accepted that people will want to do those things so they are regulated to make them as safe as possible and to make the industries that serve them accountable.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;38413691]Exactly, and horse riding, skydiving, extreme sports, etc.[/QUOTE] People have died [I]working[/I]. This isn't just limited to recreation. Life is dangerous. Death is assured. Electricity has killed plenty of people, and it's still an absolutely crucial part of our lives.
Yeah indeed, life is full of risks. It makes sense to me that they should be minimised but it seems unrealistic to just expect them to disappear as a result of prohibiting them without a perfect police state to choke all supply lines and stop all disallowed activity.
YOU GUYS ARE MISSING THE POINT. The point is that people just aren't ready to accept it based on its bad reputation. Since drugs have negatively affected many people in many ways, people won't support it.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38413809]YOU GUYS ARE MISSING THE POINT. The point is that people just aren't ready to accept it based on its bad reputation. Since drugs have negatively affected many people in many ways, people won't support it.[/QUOTE] I disagree. I think the only people who think this way are the people who grew up sheltered enough that they identify themselves as conservative and make moral judgement on the actions of others. Most people aren't like this, a lot of people actually have thoughts. The only time in my life I ever thought drugs were bad was when I was a little kid and I didn't know anything about it, so that means the problem is education, and education isn't so much of a problem anymore since people have so much access to information now.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38413809]YOU GUYS ARE MISSING THE POINT. The point is that people just aren't ready to accept it based on its bad reputation. Since drugs have negatively affected many people in many ways, people won't support it.[/QUOTE] and thats why people need to be more educated about the whole issue
Yeah exactly Stormcharger, too many people read some sob stories or scare stories and then feel qualified to express what they think is an educated opinion with no credible source and no logical or scientific basis.
Exactly, at my university almost every single person is for the legalization of drugs in some way or another as everyone who has looked into the issue has realized outright banning it has not worked at all and has caused more harm.
[QUOTE=J Paul;38413900]I disagree. I think the only people who think this way are the people who grew up sheltered enough that they identify themselves as conservative and make moral judgement on the actions of others. Most people aren't like this, a lot of people actually have thoughts. The only time in my life I ever thought drugs were bad was when I was a little kid and I didn't know anything about it, so that means the problem is education, and education isn't so much of a problem anymore since people have so much access to information now.[/QUOTE] Indeed J Paul, access to information is far more widespread nowadays and hopefully this will have an effect on the backwards education that's been getting pedalled for the past few decades on this subject and many more. Of course, with further access to information also comes further access to disinformation including scare stories and sob stories as well from purely "moral"-argument based organisations which is unfortunate. The actual harms, their cause (mostly illegality related), and disinformation and education are what should be addressed. Prohibition helps neither of them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.