[QUOTE=Keyblockor;36983754]I would only allow the legalization of soft drugs as they have been proven to be less addictive. But rather when you go towards the more addictive and damaging substances of drugs I believe that they should be restricted as people who will use them will most likely end up being addicted which will suffer a noticeable strain on their life such as monetary funds, social relationships and crime.
The drugs themselves are intolerable, not the people who are using it as they should be helped in a rehabiliation clinic as it has been shown that the more addictive and provocative drugs have been known to be overall detrimental.
It is not rather what they do to themselves, I could care less, but when you choose a substance that has the ability to take over your life and make you into an addict who will resort to crime to get their fix then you become a detriment to society and need to be helped, by prohibiting the sale of hard drugs but opening the soft drug market we will hopefully veer them into substances that will do less harm to them and the society they live in.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this completely. Believe it or not drugs do cause some harm to society. Here's a chart of soft and hard drugs - soft being the yellow, medium orange, and hard red. So if anything we should make a few of the soft drugs legal.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg[/img]
The thing is a lot of the harm they cause to society is because of them being unregulated, contaminated, and of unknown strength, etc. - results of an unregulated black market
That chart doesn't seem to account for that. It just accounts for the current state of affairs without taking into account what physical harm is caused by use of the drug itself and what can be traced to contamination and black market side effects.
I don't doubt that they would still be abused and cause some harm to society to a degree even when legalised but I think it would be far less once people were able to get uncontaminated product of known strength from trusted dispensaries instead of the black market "street corner 'pharmacist'".
For sure there should be different levels of regulation and every substance should be treated individually and the true levels of harm minus the black market would need to be re-ascertained on a regular basis.
I think that removing the societal taboo and stigma of hard drugs and enabling them to be distributed in a discretionary manner at a reasonable price with help and advice available at the dispensing location (how to use safely and avoid addiction [many use heroin and cocaine occasionally without becoming addicted], how to maintain and recover from addiction, etc.) would reduce harms overall in the long run and stop the prejudice and moralising against users with and without a habit.
I find it pretty shocking how unregulated the hard drug alcohol is despite it being "legal" and yet still on a comparable level of harm to society and the individual to heroin and crack which are illegal. Both of those would fall below alcohol if they were available in a similar form. I guess "it's just a drink" caught on "it's cool to drink your drug".
I really hope one day we learn to respect that people should be able to make their own choices without stigmatising them and writing them off as "druggies" and "junkies". We are all part of human society and we should help each other out when we can without giving authoritarian orders and imposing arbitrary measures.
[QUOTE=zacht_180;37022917]I agree with this completely. Believe it or not drugs do cause some harm to society. Here's a chart of soft and hard drugs - soft being the yellow, medium orange, and hard red. So if anything we should make a few of the soft drugs legal.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg[/img][/QUOTE]
That one is old, this one is more up-to-date :
[IMG]http://cognitivelibertyuk.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/drug-harm-chart-1.jpg[/IMG]
That one still only accounts for their harms whilst illegal/legal as they currently are and does not appear to take into account contamination and other effects of pushing something into sole distribution through an unregulated black market. What it shows it the harms of the drugs combined with the harms of where people get them and it does not seperate the two. It is not possible to tell from this what harms are actually caused by the substance itself and what is caused by black market contamination, uncertainty, and lack of availability of clear instructions and clean paraphenalia.
As I've said before, I think all drugs need to be regulated in ways tailored to their individual properties. Hard drugs should not be banned because banned means brushing them under the carpet and making them only available from a black market where many of the harms assossiated with them stem from in the first place. They should perhaps be regulated more stringently (including alcohol, also a hard drug!) than soft drugs and supplied in a more controlled manner.
We may not agree with people that take 'hard drugs' but as a society that doesn't mean we should keep them as unsafe as they are when we could easily reduce harms by a large margin through careful regulation and elimination of the black market. Lots of people who end up as heroin addicts or problem users do so because of the stigma surrounding the drug - they see it as a last ditch or final effort when actually if it were available in a known strength without contamination in a controlled environment for a non-inflated price with sterile equipment, dosage information, and qualified personnel to provide advice if required it would be relatively safe to use. Even if one became addicted, it wouldn't be that much of a problem if dosages could be maintained for a reasonable price - there are many people involved with the medical industry that use heroin and other opiates recreationally without issue because they have a clean supply, know how much to use as well as how often to use it to avoid complication and discomfort. An addiction is not as terrible a thing as the buzzword it has become so long as it can be managed - lots of people have a managed addiction to opiates for post-operation pain. An addiction to nicotine and tobacco could be considered as self-managed by many people although that stuff is hardcore compared to heroin.
Heh, what you're saying is pretty interesting actually. Can you link me to an article or something explaining the safety of clean heroin or opioids? Maybe even other hard drugs too. I mean it's common sense that almost all producers and even dealers put extra shit in their products. I'm just curious, thanks.
Here's one off the top of my head from the UK govt:
[URL]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/31809.htm[/URL]
[quote]152. Professor Nutt told us that, if managed properly, heroin use need not prevent an individual from having a relatively normal life:"Clean heroin clearly if used appropriately is safe...we have seen patients who have been using heroin for 20 or 30 years on a three to four times a day basis just to keep their dependence at bay. Some of these are very successful individuals. As long as you do not get the secondary complications of heroin like hepatitis or AIDS, then heroin is quite safe provided you do not overdose on it. You do get dependent on it, so it does affect the mind and there is no doubt that these people are heavily dependent but they are not physically harmed".[152][/quote]
[quote]153. It is this dependence, frustrated by the illegality—and therefore inaccessibility—of the substance, which causes users to engage in a cycle of high risk and damaging behaviour in order to obtain the heroin on which they depend. The main harm to health associated with use of illegal heroin are overdose and risks associated with unsanitary using techniques, particularly injecting. These are both risks which can be managed. The reason people die of heroin overdose is largely because of the body's loss of tolerance. A user builds up tolerance to heroin very quickly, and correspondingly increases the dose needed to achieve a "high". If for some reason—entering into custody, abstinence treatment, or being unable to find a "fix" for some time—the individual does not have heroin for a short while, their tolerance is completely lost. If they then gain access to heroin and take the dose they were on before losing tolerance, they overdose. If an addict is to live safely, understanding and managing the correct dose of the drug is of utmost importance. Risky using techniques are usually sharing needles and using dirty equipment. This spreads blood borne viruses such as AIDS, Hepatitis B and C.[/quote]
Just a couple of choice excerpts, theres a lot more on that page - pretty interesting
I'll try hunt down some more for you
[QUOTE=zacht_180;37022917]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg[/img][/QUOTE]
this chart is useless and not even remotely accurate
Yes they should, It's my body let me do what I damn want to it.
If you own nothing else in this life, you own your body.
Psychedelics and Weed, yes. I don't really know about anything else.
[QUOTE=PuppetSeagull;37040694]Psychedelics and Weed, yes. I don't really know about anything else.[/QUOTE]
why not?
Probably doesn't realise that most of the dangers of other substances, even the more stigmatised ones, come from the black market
Whether you agree with people taking heroin or not, the compassionate position would be to eliminate the main very avoidable dangers (contamination of product and paraphenalia and overdose due to lack of strength information) by distributing it properly instead of pretending that a prohibition makes the world safer and stops people from taking it at all
It depends on the effects of the drug. If it causes you to be unstable, you can cause harm to others.
You can fuck yourself up as much as you want, but when your freedom harms others, thats usually where the line is trying to be drawn.
Different people get affected differently by different substances so it is hard to gauge universally what makes people "unstable".
Exactly, when you harm others that is what you should get in trouble for - not the drug you chose to take at the time.
I don't think some of the harsher drugs should be made legal. [B]However,[/B] I think that there is no point in weed being illegal. Hell, right now we waste so much money trying to get it off the streets, when it's no worse than alcohol (if not better for you).
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HD4lsdXKFo&feature=relmfu[/media]
This is basically what I thought of one day, but I later found a video that explained it better/improved my idea.
OP is bad at asking questions. Most drugs are already indeed legal.
[editline]3rd August 2012[/editline]
Especially when you consider the amount of drugs that people haven't yet discovered or simply disregarded when making laws. There are also many used in medicine today. Exampler: scopolamine is used to treat motion sickness, dextro/levo-amphetamines (speed) are used to reduce the effects of ADD/ADHD.
[QUOTE=KD007;37065030]OP is bad at asking questions. Most drugs are already indeed legal.
[editline]3rd August 2012[/editline]
Especially when you consider the amount of drugs that people haven't yet discovered or simply disregarded when making laws. There are also many used in medicine today. Exampler: scopolamine is used to treat motion sickness, dextro/levo-amphetamines (speed) are used to reduce the effects of ADD/ADHD.[/QUOTE]
Yes there are alot of legal alternatives. How ever, the most save ones, are a) illegal without an prescription or b) illegal to poses.
For example 25x-NBOME is a good substitute for LSD. However, this substance creates more vasocinstriction and has a risk of overdosing, which LSD has not (LSD has alot less vasoconstriction)
[QUOTE=toastman;37065422]Yes there are alot of legal alternatives. How ever, the most save ones, are a) illegal without an prescription or b) illegal to poses.
For example 25x-NBOME is a good substitute for LSD. However, this substance creates more vasocinstriction and has a risk of overdosing, which LSD has not (LSD has alot less vasoconstriction)[/QUOTE]
Yeah but you missed what I said about amphetamines. The stuff that is sometimes found in your Ecstasy (apart from the obvious MDMA part of it) is legally used to aid people with concentration issues.
[editline]3rd August 2012[/editline]
Yes, it is less potent, however. Still doesn't fuck you up as nice as Ebombs with sass or 4flor or even good ol meth in them.
[QUOTE=BurningPlayd0h;36991612]Can you choose to go to rehab instead of prison? Most of the time no. And those people put in prison have their lives irreparably damaged over something that should be a civil liberty.
If you think Cannabis causes lung cancer or is physically addictive you are horribly mistaken. How many times has someone murdered, beaten, or raped someone while under influence of Cannabis? How about alcohol?[/QUOTE]
They can choose to go to rehab whenever they want, reason they usually end up in prison instead is because they don't take that option.
And actually [i]you[/i] are horribly mistaken, it has been proven to be several times more carcinogenic than cigarettes.
And the problem with using alcohol as your point of reference here is that it is legal, so consequently you have considerably more instances of people murdering, raping, beating, and crashing, while on alcohol than on anything else.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;37066901]They can choose to go to rehab whenever they want, reason they usually end up in prison instead is because they don't take that option.
And actually [I]you[/I] are horribly mistaken, it has been proven to be several times more carcinogenic than cigarettes.
And the problem with using alcohol as your point of reference here is that it is legal, so consequently you have considerably more instances of people murdering, raping, beating, and crashing, while on alcohol than on anything else.[/QUOTE]
It was "proven" a long time ago when the stigma for weed was that it's evil, now that we have actual tests being done, a cannabis smoker actually has better lung function than those who don't smoke. But don't you see how you've just mindlessly believed what you've been told, you could say the same for me except that I smoke the drug all the time, nearly everyday... I can breath just as fine as how I did before I started smoking. Don't go babbling nonsense about something you don't know about, just butt out and leave it to those who know what they're talking about.
Also as far as availability, again, you have no idea what you're talking about... it's so easy to obtain almost any drug you want if you know where to look.
for a lot of kids it's easier to go buy illegal drugs rather than legal ones.
good job, prohibition.
[QUOTE=zach1193;37067176]It was "proven" a long time ago when the stigma for weed was that it's evil, now that we have actual tests being done, a cannabis smoker actually has better lung function than those who don't smoke. But don't you see how you've just mindlessly believed what you've been told, you could say the same for me except that I smoke the drug all the time, nearly everyday... I can breath just as fine as how I did before I started smoking. Don't go babbling nonsense about something you don't know about, just butt out and leave it to those who know what they're talking about.
Also as far as availability, again, you have no idea what you're talking about... it's so easy to obtain almost any drug you want if you know where to look.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=zach1193;37067176]Don't go babbling nonsense about something you don't know about, just butt out and leave it to those who know what they're talking about.[/QUOTE]
It has been proven, several times in fact. Most recently was a BBC study just a few months ago. Not that any of you potheads are willing to admit it yet.
If drugs where legalised and sold the same way that tobacco products and alcahol are at the moment then there wouldn't be as much danger as there is from buying them from a dealer, there will be a guarantee of the quality. his would make drugs safer, also if you where taught about the actual effects of drugs in school. In the end I think its your body, no one elses you can treat it how you like
Exactly, absolalone. If you harm someone else while under the influence it's the harm to the other person you should get in trouble for, not the drug.
If drugs were legalized they should be moderated like alcohol, you don't go to school drunk or drink under aged legally.
They should.
[QUOTE=_RJ_;37069575]If drugs were legalized they should be moderated like alcohol, you don't go to school drunk or drink under aged legally.[/QUOTE]
There really isn't much stopping kids from doing any drug at any age.
Indeed, lots of people are under the illusion that making laws against something stops it from occurring. Age limit on who to sell to and circulation of detailed scientifically proven safe usage and dosage instructions seems like a good idea.
As I've detailed previously, pushing any drug into the black market, even the much stigmatised heroin, makes it far more dangerous than it is when distributed in a controlled and regulated way free of contamination, dirty paraphernalia, and the worst kind of dealers. When I say this I say it with compassion - we may not agree with the choice some members of our communities make when they decide to inject "hard" drugs but the least we could do would be to make the obtaining of the substances and usage thereof as safe as possible so they are no longer seen as a last resort and the individuals who use can obtain advice without being victimised by prejudice and written off like a totalled car.
Not agreeing with something doesn't give anyone the right to impose their preferences or prejudices upon others.
The initiation of force is immoral.
Laws against drug use require the initiation of force.
Laws against drug use are immoral.
The initiation of force is immoral.
Laws against voluntary transactions require the initiation of force.
Laws against voluntary transactions are immoral.
Really it can be summed up to
The initiation of force is immoral.
Laws that require the initiation of force are immoral.
If any expansion of further justification is needed, please ask.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36913062]Decriminalise possessing it, but keep the sale of it illegal, I don't like the idea of companies being able to exploit highly addictive substances.[/QUOTE]
Would have a preference for black market gangs to "exploit" as opposed to businesses? Also, can provide a firm basis to back your claim as I am having a hard time understanding the justification for initiating force against those who wish to take part in voluntary transactions.
[editline]3rd August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jojje;36913175]could solve that by only the government being able to legally sell it in dispensaries. saves having to go through some random tom dick and harry for your stuff, seeing as they could cut it with lord knows what[/QUOTE]
Could you go into the reasoning as to why government would be an appropriate solution, and also address the potential issues?
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;37066901]And the problem with using alcohol as your point of reference here is that it is legal, so consequently you have considerably more instances of people murdering, raping, beating, and crashing, while on alcohol than on anything else.[/QUOTE]
The point is that the number of people that do something violent per x amount of people intoxicated is high. You think it is for cannabis? Alcohol is a sedative hypnotic, it depresses areas of your brain, lowering your inhibitions, making normally rational people do stupid things. This isn't true for cannabis, in fact I could argue that cannabis raises your inhibitions; purposely committing an act of violence against something would be much harder under the influence of cannabis than being completely sober.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;37067799]It has been proven, several times in fact. Most recently was a BBC study just a few months ago. Not that any of you potheads are willing to admit it yet.[/QUOTE]
Although it's obvious you're not actually trying to have a legitimate argument here, for every study that says a cigarette worth of cannabis is worse than cigarette worth of tobacco, there's ten more that say it's not harmful to lungs at all. You're cherry picking what supposed studies you 'cite'. Not that you've actually provided a source for any of what you're saying.
[editline]3rd August 2012[/editline]
This thread is a debate on whether ALL drugs should be legalised, not only cannabis. The fact that you're getting all worked up just over weed clearly shows that you have some sort of irrational problem with it or people who use it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.