• Should drugs be legalized ?
    655 replies, posted
A very interesting watch if you have 2 hours to spare. Also at some point in the debate, Julian Asssange calls Peter Hitchins a twat (something I'm sure we can all agree on), which is all the more reason to watch it. [video=youtube;gSrN2zIRwN8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSrN2zIRwN8[/video]
[QUOTE=TamTamJam;37074008]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. [/QUOTE] If this is true then why does nobody ever actually mention or show these supposed studies?
It would be wise to cease focusing on conclusions before establishing a basis. It is of course tempting to jump straight to the question and answer it, but this methodology is quite poor in establishing coherent conclusions due to the number of unsupported claims that form the foundation. If it isn't even established that it is morally right to initiate force against drug users, then how can any claim of degree or structure be made? For instance, any argument that tries to argue that something ought to be banned according to the degree of negative health risk presumes that it is legitimate to ban according to a health risk. For an argument like this to work, it must be proven that it is legitimate to initiate force in some circumstances, that it is legitimate to initiate force in this circumstance, and that there is a valid methodology to associate degree with legitimacy (this would not be needed for the all drugs ought to be illegal claim).
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;37074838]If this is true then why does nobody ever actually mention or show these supposed studies?[/QUOTE] A google search away: [url]http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/01/11/marijuana-not-bad-your-lungs[/url] [quote]A new study, published in this month's Journal of the American Medical Association, tested the lung function of over 5,000 young adults between 18 and 30. After 20 years of testing, researchers found some buzzworthy results: regular marijuana smokers (defined by up to a joint a day for seven years) had no discernable impairment in lung activity from non-smokers.[/quote] [quote]According to Dr. Donald P. Tashkin, a marijuana researcher at UCLA medical school, THC is known to have anti-inflammatory properties, which may prevent lung irritation from developing into the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that frequently devastates the lungs of tobacco smokers.[/quote] [url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/13/is-pot-good-for-lungs-new-marijuana-study-adds-to-health-effects-debate.html[/url] [quote]Otherwise healthy men who have smoked the equivalent of one joint daily for seven years have a lung capacity that is 1.6 percent higher than that of otherwise healthy non-marijuana-smoking men. Based on 20 years of research involving 5,115 adults, the study that yielded this stat—affiliated with the University of California, San Francisco, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and other agencies, and published in this month’s Journal of the American Medical Association—confirmed earlier studies linking cannabis and increased lung capacity. Sounds promising. “But the size of this increase is not very big, and it’s not necessarily a sign of actually improved lung health,” cautions University of Alabama School of Medicine Associate Professor Stefan Kertesz, the study’s lead author.[/quote] There's a many others to read if you want to use google yourself.
[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] Right a BBC study... and who funds BBC? People who don't want it legalized, somebody back me on this, I don't have any info on hand... mainly because I'm not British, but many American university and research studies prove otherwise. ahhh thanks tam, didn't see that post. Also you put a negative name on those who smoke cannabis, I don't call everyone who drinks alcohol an alcoholic. It's only a problem when it's a problem...
Exactly, if people use something without harming others then there should be no legal issue If people harm others under the influence of a substance it is the harm itself that they inflicted that is the problem and not the drug. It is their fault and if the drug changed their mind state or reduced their inhibitions maybe they should have thought about the possibility of that happening before taking it or tried it elsewhere beforehand to test their individual reaction to it.
The legalizing drugs argument is in an extremely difficult balance. On the one hand, legalizing drugs would stop all drug offences (because they wouldn't exist), therefore making life easier on Police Forces. It would also grind Drug Cartels and other gangs to a halt, stopping a main source of income on a dime like that. However, people go, for want of a better word, completely mental on drugs, and potentially, to get a next hit for your addiction, you could mug, rob or even murder someone for the money. Gangs probably have other sources of income too, and it wouldn't stop them, just slow them down. It just depends on what you view as the most serious side. It's a classic case of Liberty vs. Safety. For me? They're so equal I don't even have an opinion.
A good thing to consider when developing an opinion would be that many of the more serious harms from more serious and stigmatised drugs like heroin is actually caused or made worse by them being distributed in a black market and because drugs such as this tend often to be a "last ditch effort" for vulnerable people due to their stigmatisation we basically create and maintain a perfecr trap for them by not regulating the substances properly and making them taboo then writing the people off as "junkies" and giving them criminal records. Some people go mental while on drugs but the mentally stable tend not to. If drugs were regulated properly individually based on their properties people would be able to try them in a controlled safe environment (a community psychoactives test centre or something...) and test their reaction to them safely knowing what they are consuming is quality and uncontaminated. This should probably be adapted for the dangerous hard drugs that are legal currently too such as alcohol and tobacco. The whole reason addiction is even a problem is because of the black market with it's contamination, fun characters, and inflated prohibition pricing causing property theft for the next hit, etc. Check out alcohol prohibition in the 20's in the US for an example
[QUOTE=Bulletspong3;37094765]However, people go, for want of a better word, completely mental on drugs, and potentially, to get a next hit for your addiction, you could mug, rob or even murder someone for the money.[/QUOTE] This is so inexplicably unrealistic and wrong. [QUOTE=Bulletspong3;37094765]It just depends on what you view as the most serious side. It's a classic case of Liberty vs. Safety. For me? They're so equal I don't even have an opinion.[/QUOTE] "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." there's not any big safety negatives anyways so your point is moot
[url]http://neurobonkers.com/2012/08/06/the-largest-ever-study-in-to-drug-harms-places-alcohol-in-the-top-four/[/url] This came out today and is extremely relevant. Drug policy should be based on scientific evidence not scaremongering and political agendas. Who makes Drug policy? (hint it's not the scientists). The Governments of the world are funded by private companies, political backers and lobbyists. A Big pharma company has access to millions of dollars to influence policy if a certain dried herb that's easily grown at home may help a suffering cancer patient better than their expensive drug would. The multimillion dollar paper-from-trees industries has access to the people who matter to keep Cannabis hemp illegal because who would buy their trees if a more sustainable, eco-friendly and actually better paper-like product existed on the free market. Not to mention the oil companies scared of a bio fuel hurting their profits. or the Tobacco and alcohol industries worried about a competitor in the social drug market. Not to mention the drug enforcement agencies the world over who employ many many people who would no longer have funding should it be decriminalized/legalized. The war on drugs is much more than trying to stop people from hurting themselves/others, it's a whole socioecological issue populated by lies from the highest (lol) sources. On a personal level, I have taken many drugs recreationally (MDMA, Ketamine, Mephadrone, Magic mushrooms, 2CE off the top of my head) not to mention I am an extensive Cannabis user. The substance that has effected in a negative way was not any of these drugs that are supposedly so bad for you that they are illegal. It was alcohol, which really effects my depression. I am currently going in to my 2nd year of university in september, my second attempt at a degree after I was forced to quit after my illness got the better of me due to the student lifestyle and the alcohol consumption that goes with it. I am doing very well, and I would accredit that in part to my Cannabis use. If I am having a depressive episode or I am getting hysterical I smoke I joint, and I am ok again. If I cannot sleep because my crippling anxiety is forcing me to worry about every aspect of my day tomorrow I toke a doob and watch some cartoons and I can continue leading a normal life. If I go on a night out and have a few drinks with friends, I get in, I blitz a bowl, and no longer want to drag a razorblade across my arm like I did previously. (all symptoms were present previous to me trying Cannabis) This is a case study, but accompanied by the link at the top of this post, I believe this is a very strong support for the legalisation of Cannabis as a recreational drug, if not certain others as well.
Everyone would have the munchies and we would run out of food then it would be the end of the world :P.
When it comes to issues that determine if people who are caught with certain drugs should be thrown into rape rooms for ten years or more and be stamped with a criminal record that ruins any decent employment opportunity, I am not fucking tolerating any sort of opinion on the matter. This is not an issue you want to involve yourself if you aren't going to provide any real scientific, ethical, or logical proof. If you think it is acceptable to lock up millions of people a year for doing something that does not affect you, you better have one compelling argument.
I don't exactly have a problem with drugs for personal use if they're used responsibly. But legalizing any drug is just putting too much trust in people. Just take a look at alcohol. It's legal and people abuse it constantly. If the government were to say, "Hey, we're making marijuana legal now!" I can only imagine how many deaths there would be on the road. Legalizing any drug is just giving people more opportunities to fuck up other people's lives.
[QUOTE=deaded38;37170777]I don't exactly have a problem with drugs for personal use if they're used responsibly. But legalizing any drug is just putting too much trust in people. Just take a look at alcohol. It's legal and people abuse it constantly. If the government were to say, "Hey, we're making marijuana legal now!" I can only imagine how many deaths there would be on the road. Legalizing any drug is just giving people more opportunities to fuck up other people's lives.[/QUOTE] So we should make alcohol illegal and give oppurtunity for a new al capone?? yeah good thinking buddy!! Ever thought of how much money & police force will be saved when drugs are legalized?? Probably not! All those monies and coppers can be used to prevent drug abuse easily.
I'm not a big fan of blanket/extreme opinions, for or against. I support the decriminalization of drugs, because it's absolutely idiotic that people can be jailed for crimes that only harm themselves, but at the same time, i absolutely hate the dumb shit I read on these forums where some of you literally think that there are magical drugs that have no bad side effects and just make your life better in every way possible, make your farts smell like roses and cure cancer!! The reality is you really don't know shit about the substances, you just read opinions that support how you WANT it to be, and ignore anything remotely negative. I've spoken about this before. People are very quick to do the hip thing and bash the government over it's biased, often outright false anti-drug propaganda, but how fucking hypocritical are you being when you're preaching pro-drug propaganda that's just as full of bias, misinformation and outright falsities?
[QUOTE=deaded38;37170777]I don't exactly have a problem with drugs for personal use if they're used responsibly. But legalizing any drug is just putting too much trust in people. Just take a look at alcohol. It's legal and people abuse it constantly. If the government were to say, "Hey, we're making marijuana legal now!" I can only imagine how many deaths there would be on the road. Legalizing any drug is just giving people more opportunities to fuck up other people's lives.[/QUOTE] legalizing pot would save lives. you know what blood weed is? [editline]11th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37171627]I'm not a big fan of blanket/extreme opinions, for or against. I support the decriminalization of drugs, because it's absolutely idiotic that people can be jailed for crimes that only harm themselves, but at the same time, i absolutely hate the dumb shit I read on these forums where some of you literally think that there are magical drugs that have no bad side effects and just make your life better in every way possible, make your farts smell like roses and cure cancer!! The reality is you really don't know shit about the substances, you just read opinions that support how you WANT it to be, and ignore anything remotely negative. I've spoken about this before. People are very quick to do the hip thing and bash the government over it's biased, often outright false anti-drug propaganda, but how fucking hypocritical are you being when you're preaching pro-drug propaganda that's just as full of bias, misinformation and outright falsities?[/QUOTE] it's easy to find un biased info about drugs. if you do your research probably, you can do a lot of drugs in a safe and responsible way.
[QUOTE=/B/rother;37179704] it's easy to find un biased info about drugs. if you do your research probably, you can do a lot of drugs in a safe and responsible way.[/QUOTE] No it's not. When's the last time you collected your information from research journals instead of pro-drug use websites? Never I'm guessing. Anytime medical journals proving negative side effects from cannabis usage were posted in these forums they were immediately dismissed as "lel goverment anti drug propaganda bullshit" despite medical research journals being as unbiased as you can possibly get these days. Again, this is not reason for it to be illegal, it absolutely should be decriminalized, all I'm pointing out is the retarded double standards and complete ignorance. Anything that has profound physiological effects is likely to have side effects. We should be encouraging people to approach drug use in not only a more open minded way, but a more educated way - and that requires taking the good with the bad hand in hand. Not "lel <x> drug is miracle drug, it's natural it can't possibly be bad 4 u lel"
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37183378]Anytime medical journals proving negative side effects from cannabis usage were posted in these forums they were immediately dismissed as "lel goverment anti drug propaganda bullshit" despite medical research journals being as unbiased as you can possibly get these days.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but if you don't think there is an agenda to keeping certain drugs illegal you are very wrong
-Snip, got my threads mixed up-
[QUOTE=JethroTheCunt;37186630]I'm sorry but if you don't think there is an agenda to keeping certain drugs illegal you are very wrong[/QUOTE] Which ones in particular?
[QUOTE=/B/rother;37179704] it's easy to find un biased info about drugs. if you do your research probably, you can do a lot of drugs in a safe and responsible way.[/QUOTE] I would disagree. It's hard to get funding to do a proper scientific study of something illicit and if you do it'll be by someone with an agenda.
[QUOTE=JethroTheCunt;37186630]I'm sorry but if you don't think there is an agenda to keeping certain drugs illegal you are very wrong[/QUOTE] "I'm sorry but if you don't think the government planned 9/11 you are very wrong, you just are but I don't have any evidence" If there was a government funded agenda to make up findings about drugs, there would not be so many research journals that highlight the positive effects and uses of many of these illegal substances. But there are, because the government doesn't get to control research findings.
[QUOTE=JethroTheCunt;37114292][url]http://neurobonkers.com/2012/08/06/the-largest-ever-study-in-to-drug-harms-places-alcohol-in-the-top-four/[/url] This came out today and is extremely relevant. Drug policy should be based on scientific evidence not scaremongering and political agendas. Who makes Drug policy? (hint it's not the scientists). The Governments of the world are funded by private companies, political backers and lobbyists. A Big pharma company has access to millions of dollars to influence policy if a certain dried herb that's easily grown at home may help a suffering cancer patient better than their expensive drug would. The multimillion dollar paper-from-trees industries has access to the people who matter to keep Cannabis hemp illegal because who would buy their trees if a more sustainable, eco-friendly and actually better paper-like product existed on the free market. Not to mention the oil companies scared of a bio fuel hurting their profits. or the Tobacco and alcohol industries worried about a competitor in the social drug market. Not to mention the drug enforcement agencies the world over who employ many many people who would no longer have funding should it be decriminalized/legalized. The war on drugs is much more than trying to stop people from hurting themselves/others, it's a whole socioecological issue populated by lies from the highest (lol) sources. On a personal level, I have taken many drugs recreationally (MDMA, Ketamine, Mephadrone, Magic mushrooms, 2CE off the top of my head) not to mention I am an extensive Cannabis user. The substance that has effected in a negative way was not any of these drugs that are supposedly so bad for you that they are illegal. It was alcohol, which really effects my depression. I am currently going in to my 2nd year of university in september, my second attempt at a degree after I was forced to quit after my illness got the better of me due to the student lifestyle and the alcohol consumption that goes with it. I am doing very well, and I would accredit that in part to my Cannabis use. If I am having a depressive episode or I am getting hysterical I smoke I joint, and I am ok again. If I cannot sleep because my crippling anxiety is forcing me to worry about every aspect of my day tomorrow I toke a doob and watch some cartoons and I can continue leading a normal life. If I go on a night out and have a few drinks with friends, I get in, I blitz a bowl, and no longer want to drag a razorblade across my arm like I did previously. (all symptoms were present previous to me trying Cannabis) This is a case study, but accompanied by the link at the top of this post, I believe this is a very strong support for the legalisation of Cannabis as a recreational drug, if not certain others as well.[/QUOTE] agree on most of it, smoking weed for your problems isn't the way to go though dude. i've done the same but with benzos and i'm now in a far worse position but i accept weed isn't as damaging. [editline]12th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JethroTheCunt;37186630]I'm sorry but if you don't think there is an agenda to keeping certain drugs illegal you are very wrong[/QUOTE] the main agenda is money. drugs are worth pennies in reality. a £100 kilo of heroin from an afghan farmer is worth what, 20-50k in the uk? where does the money go? laundered into banks (cough HSBC), back to the government in some way. illegal drugs are the 4th - 7th (depending on source) biggest industry in the world. last thing the government wants is to lose their share in that?
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37183378]No it's not. When's the last time you collected your information from research journals instead of pro-drug use websites? Never I'm guessing. Anytime medical journals proving negative side effects from cannabis usage were posted in these forums they were immediately dismissed as "lel goverment anti drug propaganda bullshit" despite medical research journals being as unbiased as you can possibly get these days. Again, this is not reason for it to be illegal, it absolutely should be decriminalized, all I'm pointing out is the retarded double standards and complete ignorance. Anything that has profound physiological effects is likely to have side effects. We should be encouraging people to approach drug use in not only a more open minded way, but a more educated way - and that requires taking the good with the bad hand in hand. Not "lel <x> drug is miracle drug, it's natural it can't possibly be bad 4 u lel"[/QUOTE] pro drug use website often link to proper research journals
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;37195817]pro drug use website often link to proper research journals[/QUOTE] *pro drug use website often link to cherry picked research journals That is no different to government anti-drug websites You can't bang on about education of proper drug usage and then purposefully leave out information. It's every bit as bad as the misinformation presented on anti drug websites.
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;37193632]I would disagree. It's hard to get funding to do a proper scientific study of something illicit and if you do it'll be by someone with an agenda.[/QUOTE] I think someone posted Dr David Nutt's conversation with a BBC interviewer but the fact that drugs are made illegal before any real research is done makes it much harder to get anything done. Big pharmaceutical companies don't want to finance studies, not because of profits etc but because it looks bad to shareholders & the companies image if your annual review has money going the socially unaccepted drugs. To do any research a scientist would then have to finance it themselves, apply for licenses etc to handle said drugs then pass security checks and source the drug in a scientific manner (unless they're synthesizing it themselves which is also expensive) The other part of the problem is similar to what joe said, I wouldn't say the Banks deliberately allow such money in it's just they are amoral to where it's come from. Those who illegally traffic large amounts of drugs have no interest in legalising it as they have it fine as it is to them legalising it would completely put them out of a job as all their years of building contacts and methods of their trade are suddenly useless.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37196111]*pro drug use website often link to cherry picked research journals That is no different to government anti-drug websites You can't bang on about education of proper drug usage and then purposefully leave out information. It's every bit as bad as the misinformation presented on anti drug websites.[/QUOTE] As far fetched as this sounds, I don't think anyone should have anything to say about a drug, unless you've personally experienced the drug. Other than that, really anything you know about it are just things you've read/heard that doesn't make them fact to you, experiencing it makes it fact. Now I'm not saying I don't believe anything anyone tells me, just never 100 percent sure, because you can't be unless "you were there" I suppose is a good saying. So don't tell me all these studies are biased when I can do my own studies. Sure they won't be scientific, but if I don't notice any significant changes in my person after using a drug for many months, I can safely conclude that the drug I'm using is safe/ not safe. Now of course you never run head first and do something like that, you do research and find out just some well known and all agreed upon facts to go by while using the drug so you don't make any big mistakes. But yea, All I'm saying is really, you know nothing about the drug unless you experience it, or you talk to someone first hand who frequently/has frequently used it. (and isn't a complete idiot)
On the subject of Cannabis, recreational or otherwise: It seems to be the defining new states' rights issue, as evidenced by all this recent legislation where certain states are trying to take measures to legalize or decriminalize it. But I believe it's not that kind of issue at all, because there are still at least four people who are enrolled in a medical marijuana program on a Federal level. Let me re-iterate; There [I]is[/I] a [U][I]Federal[/I][/U] Medical Marijuana program, and it's referred to as the Compassionate Investigational New Drug program. And that in and of itself is what completely negates its status as Schedule I. Because if the Federal government operates a medical program based on it, even if it's to only 4 people, they clearly acknowledge that at least for those four people, there is a confirmed medicinal use for the substance. There were many more patients enrolled in the program in the past, but most of them have passed away, and the Federal Government provided them with medical marijuana until the day they died. And we citizens all know it has medicinal uses, but it doesn't matter what we know intellectually, what matters is what the Federal government admits to. And right now, we're living in a contradiction where there are four people taking part in a medical program where the government provides them with a substance that the very same government claims has no medicinal use whatsoever. It's ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Callius;37196199] I wouldn't say the Banks deliberately allow such money.[/QUOTE] i dunno man, you seen that recent hsbc case? you'd be blind not to think that goes on in every financial institution. [editline]12th August 2012[/editline] i've been saying it for years and it's finally starting to become public. expect many more soon!
Yes, since it wouldn't matter, as people get their drugs easily in an illegal way anyway. If you REALLY want to get rid of drugs, get rid of some of these bankers on Wall Street who launder the drug money.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.