[QUOTE=RobbL;36932581]The problem with the legality of drugs is where do you drawn the line between drugs and toxic substances? Toxic substances are perfectly legal, including poisons like cyanide (as long as you don't possess large amounts of it)
[editline]25th July 2012[/editline]
Imo drug laws should be like laws on poisons. Spiking or 'poisoning' people with them, selling them without being licensed to, and possessing large amounts should all be illegal, but people can buy and take any drugs they like and not be punished for it[/QUOTE]
Drugs aren't the same as poisons, not all drugs are toxic. Drawing arbitrary lines between 'what's toxic' and 'what's not toxic' isn't right because that line is different for everybody.
[QUOTE=sonerin;36931878]A man on drugs can easily go on a killing spree, commit other abnormal acts, et cetera.
No.[/QUOTE]
What makes people believe that drugs do this to people? I can't imagine a single recreational drug that induces thoughts of murder in someone.
[QUOTE=TamTamJam;36933062]Drugs aren't the same as poisons, not all drugs are toxic. Drawing arbitrary lines between 'what's toxic' and 'what's not toxic' isn't right because that line is different for everybody.[/QUOTE]
Some drugs are what you'd call toxic. How'd you really decide whether it's a drug or a toxic substance?
The point is toxic substances are legal while being controlled by certain regulations, and it should be the same with drugs
[QUOTE=RobbL;36933487]Some drugs are what you'd call toxic. How'd you really decide whether it's a drug or a toxic substance?
The point is toxic substances are legal while being controlled by certain regulations, and it should be the same with drugs[/QUOTE]
A substance can be both a drug and a poison; the definition for a drug is, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body, alters normal bodily function. A poison something that damages or kills an organism when absorbed into the body, so the definitions are similar in the fact that they're both absorbed into the body, but not all drugs damage or kill the body.
As to your point about drug/poison regulations, I agree that not everyone should be able to sell any drug, but having large amounts doesn't seem like a problem to me, can you explain why you think this should be illegal?
Drugs laws are mostly less about protecting about people from observable physical harm and more based on stopping them from being "immoral" or "bad". in other words doing something frowned upon by authority often for shallow prejudiced reasoning and "logic".
A lot of it is all about dictating what is right and what is wrong to those you have authority over using arbitrary measures to divide them and turn them against one another so they still have a need for centralised power or the puppeteer.
The laws are mostly not based in science and first came about as a result of prejudice. Before drugs were "controlled"/"prohibited" there was not much of a "drug problem" and the few people who did develop problems and addiction got help from their doctor and were able to maintain their habit with a reasonably priced and good quality supply. Now they get sent to private prisons and "treatment courses" which are often completely impractical and just involve repeating groundless propaganda at them often from a religious/moral standpoint for big government grants.
I'd allege that the "drug problem" was initially created back in the day as a cash cow to justify inflated government spending in the area of "rehabilitation" and "drug law enforcement" - an invisible enemy that was manipulated from being a fringe issue that was taken care of by medical personnel into a very real threat by those behind the scenes. Drugs like crystal meth and crack would likely have never come into existence or at least widespread use if the safer alternatives were not blanket banned in a "moral" fight against "evil". I also think that Chomsky is very correct in saying that the War on Drugs is a war on the "dangerous classes" a.k.a. poor people and minorities.
Today it is disgusting to look at the results of this misguided pseudo-scientific policy and many have lost their lives to this misguided "war" on "drugs".
[QUOTE=TamTamJam;36933648]As to your point about drug/poison regulations, I agree that not everyone should be able to sell any drug, but having large amounts doesn't seem like a problem to me, can you explain why you think this should be illegal?[/QUOTE]
I mean in an amount that suggests you have it for reasons other than personal use or you haven't bought it legally. Like blocks of cocaine stacked up in your room basically.
I believe that they should all be legalized, but it shouldn't be all at once. For instance, decriminalize marijuana federally, look at the effects, then legalize it if it worked. Same with any other drugs. I don't think anything would happen, but it's a better idea to be cautious.
Yeah it would definitely be sensible to do it step by step as you suggest
Just found an interesting blog post by David Nutt (guy who was sacked from UK government drugs advisory council for stating truthfully that ecstasy was comparable in terms of real potential harm to horseriding), here is an excerpt about mephedrone (one of the chemicals now referred to as bath salts) as well as a bit about cannabis legalisation appearing to reduce fatal car accidents:
[quote=Prof. David Nutt]An increase in the availability of some drugs may actually lead to a reduction in the use of other more harmful drugs, so reducing net harms to society. We saw a noteworthy example of this in the past few years with the advent of the stimulant mephedrone. As this became popular, cocaine users seem to have switched to mephedrone and cocaine deaths fell by almost a quarter. Mephedrone gives a strong high and has potential to harm and kill, but seems much less likely to kill than cocaine. By switching, cocaine users reduced their risk of dying. It appears that the mephedrone phase caused the first significant impact on the steady rise of cocaine deaths we had seen in 20 years. It seems to have been a major – if unplanned and temporary – public health success. Relatively fewer young people progress to problematic drug use in the Netherlands than in most comparable Western countries. There is evidence that the legalization of medical cannabis in some states of the USA has been associated with a considerable reduction in fatal road traffic accidents, comparable with the benefits of laws requiring seatbelts. This, the authors of the study show, is mostly due to the large drop in the number of fatal crashes involving alcohol as people appear to substitute cannabis for drinking.[/quote]
Source: [URL]http://profdavidnutt.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/hypothesising-an-alternative-applying-the-scientific-process-to-drug-policy/[/URL]
They should teach sheeple what drugs are. Tell them about how food is drugs and how it affects your mind.
Watch what you eat.
There is an awesome book about that called 'Your Brain On Food' I think by Gary Weng. It explains how lots of different foods affect the mind and body in profound ways, I highly recommend it and I believe it is fairly cheap on Kindle/epub.
Here's the deal, completely legalize every drug, ever
invest in treatment instead of incarceration
America is really stupid because their idea of rehab is going to prison, where you can still get quality crack from the guards, genius idea and there's absolutely no pressure from the prison corporation's lobbyists
Well don't criminal gangs and stuff rise from illegalising drugs? Like what happened when there was an alcohol prohibition?
Yep, the black market was gifted to the gangs and mobs as a sure fire reliable source of income.
There is so much benefit. When I tried shrooms at a concert the other day (which ended up lasting up until the next morning), my mental capacity was actually enhanced! When I got home I learned how to make circuits with redstone in minecraft and even invented some cool contraptions with it, something that was normally way over my head sober! Marijuana has so many benefits, aside from the short term benefits of stress relief, the list literally goes on: [url]http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/inhalation/6-things-you-might-not-know-about-marijuana/[/url]
[url]http://www.cannabisdoctorsnetwork.com/medical-marijuana-uses.php[/url]
And it has been found to help with diabeetus.
The only reason drugs aren't legal is because most first-world governments see it as a threat. In the US during the 60's people were experimenting heavily with lsd, weed, and other psychedelics. They were questioning their authority and the government saw it as a threat to the current system of power as revolution was emanate. Alcohol and Tobacco are legal ONLY because they are so economically beneficial and because they dumb down the senses, rather than opening your mind. People seldom question their governmental system when drunk, they hardly think at all. That's my theory anyway.
yes, people will be easy to control by those who don't do drugs
Yeah I agree, I think it involves a lot of different factors but one of them is definitely fear of the pawns questioning authority and the centralisation of power.
I think with alcohol it much depends on the variety you are consuming and how much of it you are consuming. Ale for example can be enjoyed without drinking truckloads of it and can make for a very relaxing experience especially with friends.
Tobacco was originally used for recreation however a new strain/variety was formulated when a new cash crop was needed to replace cotton, as shown in the excerpt below from [URL="http://www.buildfreedom.com/content/books/aint_nobodys/105.html"]Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do by Peter McWilliams (highly recommended book!)[/URL]
[QUOTE]The idea behind laws against consensual activities is that if some people are in a bad relationship with something, then that thing should be banned. The problem is, that solution doesn't solve anything: the problem doesn't lie with the thing itself, but with some people's relationship to it.
Yes, there are some things with which it is easier to be in a bad relationship than others. Cigarettes practically beg for a bad relationship. But then, they were designed that way. For the several centuries prior to the Civil War, tobacco's use was primarily recreational: people would inhale it, choke, get dizzy, fall on the floor, roll around—typical Saturday night recreation. For the most part, people used tobacco (a botanical relative of deadly nightshade, by the way) once or twice a week and that was it.
After the Civil War, the South needed a cash crop less labor intensive than cotton. A special strain of tobacco was developed that allowed people to inhale deeply without coughing. This let people smoke almost continuously, if they liked. It also resulted in almost immediate addiction.[/QUOTE]
That's a cool and useful quote.
Indeed, I've shared it a few times on here on different threads with positive responses. Very good book too.
Most potheads think pot is a miracle drug that literally has no concequences from using it. With their logic, "FUCK YEAH LETS MAKE POT LEGAL CAUSE IM A BADASS THAT DOESNT AFRAID OF ANYTHING". As for all drugs, no, they shouldn't be legalized for regular people to use. I can see it in medical cases, but definitely not just so people can get their next high. I suppose people who want drugs legalized also don't want the police to intervene in suicide scenarios. After all, it's their body and they can do what they want with it!
Have you met "most potheads"? It's generalisations like that that create stereotyping detrimental to open discussion of this topic and this applies whichever side you're on.
Do you want alcohol banned too? It is a "next high" too and falls near heroin and cocaine on a scale of harms.
[QUOTE=deaded38;36948462]Most potheads think pot is a miracle drug that literally has no concequences from using it. With their logic, "FUCK YEAH LETS MAKE POT LEGAL CAUSE IM A BADASS THAT DOESNT AFRAID OF ANYTHING". As for all drugs, no, they shouldn't be legalized for regular people to use. I can see it in medical cases, but definitely not just so people can get their next high. I suppose people who want drugs legalized also don't want the police to intervene in suicide scenarios. After all, it's their body and they can do what they want with it![/QUOTE]
But there aren't any consequences to it.
And how can you even compare this to suicide situations?
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;36948905]Have you met "most potheads"? It's generalisations like that that create stereotyping detrimental to open discussion of this topic and this applies whichever side you're on.
Do you want alcohol banned too? It is a "next high" too and falls near heroin and cocaine on a scale of harms.[/QUOTE]
There wouldn't be [I]general[/I]izations if they weren't [I]generally[/I] true. No, I wouldn't want alcohol banned. It's not as adictive as almost every drug. It can be; I'm not denying that. And how is alcohol even near as harmful as those? In major usage maybe, but generally I wouldn't think so.
[editline]27th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36950034]But there aren't any consequences to it.
And how can you even compare this to suicide situations?[/QUOTE]
Typical pothead response. Yes, there are concequences to smoking pot. Some people are actually affected by it, believe it or not. The majority? Nah. But I'd wager there's a pretty decent minority that is mentally affected by pot.
[QUOTE=DrBreen;36941995]Here's the deal, completely legalize every drug, ever
invest in treatment instead of incarceration
America is really stupid because their idea of rehab is going to prison, where you can still get quality crack from the guards, genius idea and there's absolutely no pressure from the prison corporation's lobbyists[/QUOTE]
If you don't know what you're talking about then don't post, there's plenty of rehab places that you can go to in the States.
[editline]27th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36950034]But there aren't any consequences to it.
And how can you even compare this to suicide situations?[/QUOTE]
You mean aside from the actions you take while intoxicated, addiction, or lung cancer that is.
[QUOTE=deaded38;36956773]There wouldn't be [I]general[/I]izations if they weren't [I]generally[/I] true. No, I wouldn't want alcohol banned. It's not as adictive as almost every drug. It can be; I'm not denying that. And how is alcohol even near as harmful as those? In major usage maybe, but generally I wouldn't think so.[/QUOTE]
Yes there would, generalisations and stereotypes become common when they prevail enough so if they are shouted loud enough and accepted by the uninformed. There most definitely can be generalizations if they aren't true - sure they have some element of truth in them normally i.e. "blacks steal" probably derived from some occasions where people of that race did. It's possible to sit around and smoke weed all day and be a lethargic motherfucker or it could go the other way - creative and mindful but you could do that with alcohol too. There are abusers of every substance and activity.
There were some detailed meta-analysis's done, some by Professor David Nutt and a bunch of other people with relevant expertise. The aim was to analyse the level of harm to both society and the individual for different drugs. Alcohol came up near heroin and cocaine for both criteria and that's with it legal and those prohibited. If you want an example of how much more dangerous something can become just from being subject to prohibition and the unregulated black market look at 1920's America. If heroin and cocaine were legalised regulated it is likely they would fall far below alcohol in that chart. Alcohol could however be a lot better regulated than it is - ingredients aren't even required to be listed on it in many countries. It is a hard fucking drug but I don't even think alcohol should be banned - doesn't work.
Educate people how to use it responsibly and let them make their own choice is my position. The only way prohibition of anything can be enforced effectively is through absolute authoritarianism which is mostly without sound reason and only based on "I have power therefore I can tell you what to do" or "I have moral authority because I do/God told me".
Well, I would say only legalize the drugs that have proven to be rather safe in their use and after-effects [Weed, Salvia, etc.], but then you have the problem of the more expensive and dangerous drugs still illegal and many criminal organizations [Cartels, gangs, etc.] still making butt-loads of money from it.
Best thing to do would probably legalize everything though. and maybe put a higher tax on the drugs that do have a high chance of killing or leaving really bad after-effects.
Yeah taxing them according to their measured harms to the individual and society post legalisation could work. That way any bad things that happen would be paid for with funds from the trade itself rather than elsewhere and this could be reviewed every year or so with rates being adjusted accordingly.
I find it interesting how the states that have medical marijuana in the US have had a marked decline in fatal traffic accidents. I wonder if this has to do with people switching from alcohol to weed...
The whole topic of drugs and "consensual crimes" has really taken me on a journey of questioning the very way things work or could work as a whole in this world as well as what my views actually are. I've read a lot of shit from a libertarian perspective from Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do by Peter McWilliams, and You Will Die: The Burden of Taboos on Modern Society by Robert McArther to anarchist literature like No Gods, No Masters, and An Anarchist FAQ. It really is fascinating that this topic can lead you to question so much about the world around us and the very legitimacy of authority itself.
For the record, I only take drugs when I have a trusted source like a friend who I know and trust for reasons other than obtaining drugs from them. Haven't had any weed in a fair few months (maybe even a year, no hookup), and the last thing I took was probably kratom. I really enjoy weed though, the strain I've had the most of tends to stimulate my creativity and lengthen my attention span as well as making it easier for me to communicate amongst friends in a relaxed way normally difficult for me.
"Know your Body. Know your Mind. Know your Substance. Know your Source." - Erowid motto
[QUOTE=BadderSanta;36959459]Well, I would say only legalize the drugs that have proven to be rather safe in their use and after-effects [Weed, Salvia, etc.], but then you have the problem of the more expensive and dangerous drugs still illegal and many criminal organizations [Cartels, gangs, etc.] still making butt-loads of money from it.
Best thing to do would probably legalize everything though. and maybe put a higher tax on the drugs that do have a high chance of killing or leaving really bad after-effects.[/QUOTE]
Tax them at a rate which recovers the medical burden on society
It would be interesting to see what the medical burden on society would actually be without contamination, unknown source, dealing with potentially dangerous people, and inflated pricing leading to criminal behaviour like theft to fund habits.
Many risky behaviours even skydiving and horseriding and other active things compared to taking drugs provide a comparable level of medical risk. I don't think it is the job of the state to label either of these activities as "morally wrong", it should be left up to those involved.
State socialised medical care should cover you whatever happens, not just if you're a "good boy" according to "the list".
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;36959688]It would be interesting to see what the medical burden on society would actually be without contamination, unknown source, dealing with potentially dangerous people, and inflated pricing leading to criminal behaviour like theft to fund habits.
Many risky behaviours even skydiving and horseriding and other active things compared to taking drugs provide a comparable level of medical risk. I don't think it is the job of the state to label either of these activities as "morally wrong", it should be left up to those involved.
State socialised medical care should cover you whatever happens, not just if you're a "good boy" according to "the list".[/QUOTE]
In Australia it does, but only alcohol and tobacco are taxed in a way which recovers the costs, and then it taxed at a rate much higher than that (which I don't think is right)
Yeah here in the UK they try to use increased taxation as a way of discouraging consumption of alcohol, they don't bother actually calculating how much they need to cover medical costs and other ills of society that stem from it. It would make far more sense if things were only taxed to the level that they actually affect society rather than just attempting to use them as a way to impose moral judgement. People who have alcohol problems don't tend to care about the price anyway especially if they're alcoholics and need it to feel "normal" and lots of them get in debt regardless. The other problem with this method is it penalises poor people like a veiled form of classism.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.