"Make drugs legally available", says Ex-Minister Bob Ainsworth
225 replies, posted
[QUOTE=bigdan;26799496]Its worth a shot though, [b]the whole situation of drugs being illegal could not be worse[/b], its not like legalizing it will make it any worse, people would most probably even get a more understanding of the drug before they even purchase it off a doctor or attempt to because most addicts go in thinking they are fine because they don't know what the drug can do to them.[/QUOTE]
Hmm good point
It's still a little risky to grant everyone access to harder drugs..
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;26815329]Hmm good point
It's still a little risky to grant everyone access to harder drugs..[/QUOTE]
Do you people not fucking getting it? It's been done, and it's worked. WHY DON'T YOU GET THIS? IT'S PROVEN. IT'S PART OF REALITY. WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE GET THIS!?
[editline]19th December 2010[/editline]
how about this, I'll stop explaining my argument and the fact that reality has already dicated legalizing all drugs as a viable method to lower drug use, and you guys explain why the fuck you're right rather than just assuming you're right.
[editline]19th December 2010[/editline]
Because seriously, not one of oyu has an argument as to WHY you're right, you just say you are. I can tell you why I think I am, and that's because we can look at a series of precedents and make a decision based on that. Your arguments are all emotional reactions to this problem, and that's just not fucking good enough. Look at reality and you can see I'm right. Portugual did it. Prohibition has failed in the past, and the modern war on drugs is so bad you can't even imagine how worthless it is. How does this fact not matter to you people who are so happy to ignore and continue with your bullshit?
[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;26735151]Look at Portugal, it's done lots of good there.
[url]http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Portugal, a country of 11 million people, hardly compares to the United States, a country that's got nearly [b]300 million more[/b] people. But hear me out on this (below).
[QUOTE=MovingSalad;26735087]LSD has been known to be therapeutic (Although opposite effects have also been experienced)[/QUOTE]
It's also been known to cause people to throw themselves out of windows and off buildings to their deaths.
[url]http://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/bed-news/Teenager-on-LSD-thought-he.284605.jp[/url]
[url]http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080404_1_A12_spanc61140[/url]
[url]http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=11517466[/url]
Pretty serious opposite effect.
For some drugs I can understand the legalization argument. Marijuana, Oxycontin, inhalants, steroids, etc. We don't need to be as concerned with how addictive they are nearly as much as how dangerous they are. There's no justifiable reason for legalizing all of them, however, including PCP, meth, heroin, LSD, ecstasy . . . because of the fact that all are both very addictive and, moreover, very dangerous. All drugs have their own unique effects (everything from hallucinations to massive increases in physical strength to feelings of numbness and happiness), it's just that, for some, the effects warrant more cause for concern than others.
The tactics that are being employed to prohibit some of these drugs need to be changed, as well, though. It's not enough to arrest as many of the dealers, the consumers, and shut down as many of the cartels that are smuggling the drugs into the country as is humanly possible. You have to get them to work for you. Offer them incentives. Convince them that it will be better for them to join your side than to work inside the black market. Carrot-and-Stick methodology is effective, and has been proven so numerous times in history. Legalization of some drugs (like marijuana) will destroy a lot of the activity that's fueling these illegal activities, of course, however. But you must choose wisely which ones to legalize. I, for one, wouldn't want a bunch of people running around loaded with PCP (which, again, causes hallucinations, increases in physical strength, and violent delusions; [url]http://www.justice.gov/dea/concern/pcp.html[/url])
For the drugs you do legalize, the wisest course of action is to tax them like anything else. There's an enormous amount of revenue the government could generate through this action. Marijuana alone would generate something like $10.5 BILLION annually.
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/07/commentary/wastler/wastler/[/url]
That's a lot of money, for the federal government and state governments of the United States.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;26816007]Portugal, a country of 11 million people, hardly compares to the United States, a country that's got nearly [b]300 million more[/b] people. But hear me out on this (below).
It's also been known to cause people to throw themselves out of windows and off buildings to their deaths.
[url]http://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/bed-news/Teenager-on-LSD-thought-he.284605.jp[/url]
[url]http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080404_1_A12_spanc61140[/url]
[url]http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=11517466[/url]
Pretty serious opposite effect.
For some drugs I can understand the legalization argument. Marijuana, Oxycontin, inhalants, steroids, etc. We don't need to be as concerned with how addictive they are nearly as much as how dangerous they are. There's no justifiable reason for legalizing all of them, however, including PCP, meth, heroin, LSD, ecstasy . . . because of the fact that all are both very addictive and, moreover, very dangerous. All drugs have their own unique effects (everything from hallucinations to massive increases in physical strength to feelings of numbness and happiness), it's just that, for some, the effects warrant more cause for concern than others.
The tactics that are being employed to prohibit some of these drugs need to be changed, as well, though. It's not enough to arrest as many of the dealers, the consumers, and shut down as many of the cartels that are smuggling the drugs into the country as is humanly possible. You have to get them to work for you. Offer them incentives. Convince them that it will be better for them to join your side than to work inside the black market. Carrot-and-Stick methodology is effective, and has been proven so numerous times in history. Legalization of some drugs (like marijuana) will destroy a lot of the activity that's fueling these illegal activities, of course, however.
For the drugs you do legalize, the wisest course of action is to tax them like anything else. There's an enormous amount of revenue the government could generate through this action. Marijuana alone would generate something like $10.5 BILLION annually.
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/07/commentary/wastler/wastler/[/url]
That's a lot of money, for the federal government and state governments of the United States.[/QUOTE]
Yes, portugual has a lot less people. I still bet that legalization of all drugs works better than not.
LSD, Ecstasy and PCP are not the least bit physically addictive, and besides the self harm inflicted in various few and far between cases of PCP use, not physically damaging. "Ecstasy" =/= MDMA, and MDMA itself in its pure form is almost entirely undemanding to the body outside of cases of extreme abuse.
LSD does have that reputation, but you're an idiot like all the other posters here to believe that the minority cases dictate the majority. I've done LSD more times than I can count, I've never thrown myself off a building. Hell, the fucking fact that that is your argument alone means that argument is worthless, it's been debunked more times than you can imagine. It's worthless.
Heroin is not a dangerous drug itself, the lifestyle that comes along with heroin addiction is a dangerous one however, and has claimed more lives than the drug itself. The drug itself is not a toxin to your body at all, and it's only as addictive as alcohol(Yes, alcohol is addictive, and alcohol withdrawal can kill). Meth is the only drug you're even mildly right on, and even then, better legalized than not.
Yes, tax the shit out of drugs, that's what we all want in the legalization movement, we all seriously do want that. And there needs to be an end to all scare tactics, and simple, somber facts need to be presented to people, like you. You need to learn that the number of horror stories(Holy fuck, I'm debunking horror stories for the fucking 12th time in this fucking thread, you fuckers need to read) is VASTLY outweighed by the amount of normal, uneventful, un-damaging events.
[editline]19th December 2010[/editline]
I mean, you're whole fucking post is a scare tactic post towards how bad certain drugs are, but that's formed entirely out of ignorance. Dear fucking god, the hypocrisy.
[editline]19th December 2010[/editline]
Unless you can prove for sure that the drug(LSD in this case) is what's causing people to kill themselves(You can't, it's been proven it's specific people that can't/shouldn't take the drug already, too bad for your argument) then your arguments empty as fuck.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;26813526]It's a more significant amount of people because it's illegal... It WOULD, and WILL go down if it's legalized, there's so many precedents for that...
And depends what drugs we're talking about, and more importantly, the people we're talking about, some people are simply not meant to do drugs, for whatever reasons, whether they be latent genetic conditions, or simply no willpower, there is a reason they should be legal, and that's to keep you safe from them and help people who do do them. Imagining that we're safer with them illegal and criminal cartels making billions of dollars selling them to you is ridiculous, at least the government would sell them, regulate them, and make it require something more than just money to get it.
Legalize, and that problem goes away.
[editline]19th December 2010[/editline]
And I've talked with many police officers, and a good deal of them say they just wish the shit was legal so they didn't have to deal with a lot of the crap that comes with it. Making it illegal may give some of them jobs, but none of it's worth it.[/QUOTE]
But, legalisation and government regulation of "hard" drugs won't stop people who are "genetically unsuitable" from getting them. You already know that I disagree that drugs only work badly with a minority who are for other reasons unsuited, but for argument's sake we'll go with what you've said. In regards to those "genetically unsuitable", assuming you can get some sort of pass/fail scientific backing for that, they who strongly desire drugs, e.g. through an already present addiction, would go to illegal methods to get them. For those with simply no willpower... you can't really discriminate on those grounds, even if you'd like to.
But I'm not arguing against or for the legalisation of drugs; merely making one point.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26816587]But, legalisation and government regulation of "hard" drugs won't stop people who are "genetically unsuitable" from getting them. You already know that I disagree that drugs only work badly with a minority who are for other reasons unsuited, but for argument's sake we'll go with what you've said. In regards to those "genetically unsuitable", assuming you can get some sort of pass/fail scientific backing for that, they who strongly desire drugs, e.g. through an already present addiction, would go to illegal methods to get them. For those with simply no willpower... you can't really discriminate on those grounds, even if you'd like to.
But I'm not arguing against or for the legalisation of drugs; merely making one point.[/QUOTE]
How do they not? I didn't know you didn't have to do anything at all to get a prescription. You're thinking that it's sold, but not regulated. Drugs HAVE to be regulated if they're going to be sold, part of that regulation is finding out if you can take them or not.
And yes, there will always be a way for people to find shit illegally if they want it badly enough, I didn't know that was a reason to say "oh, lets keep it in the terrible shape it's now." Again, this is a case of people just thinking you can legislate solely based on a minority of cases.
[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;26734865]All drugs should be legal and regulated, making them illegal only creates bigger problems than it solves. Portugal recently de-criminalized use of all drugs and that turned out to be a great success. By legalizing and regulating we also kill organized criminal gangs by ruining their number 1 income.[/QUOTE]
This, definitely this. The government has no right to tell you how to treat your own body. They're not your mum.
[QUOTE=NickFury666;26816843]This, definitely this. The government has no right to tell you how to treat your own body. They're not your mum.[/QUOTE]
I love this argument, but you're arguing with conservatives on this issue, do you think they care?
[editline]19th December 2010[/editline]
Oh, yeah, LunchboxofDoom, i'm funny huh? Must be because you think my arguments full of holes. Well, here's one in yours, yes, portugual only has 11 million people, and their system is built for that, however, the system in place currently is the most useless, rights violating hunk of shit the conservatives ever dreamed up. It has done NOTHING to stop drug use. it has done NOTHING to keep people safe. It has ruined millions of lives by forcing retarded penalties on people who are not really criminals at all, there's NO reason to defend the current system. Maybe legalization WOULD have downsides, but god damn, it's going to be better than this "War on Drugs" bullshit.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;26816130]Yes, portugual has a lot less people. I still bet that legalization of all drugs works better than not.[/quote]
That's hardly discrediting my point. It's not at all reasonable to compare a country of 11 million people's drug policies to a country of 311 million people's drug policies. Nor is it to run off bets and assumptions.
[quote=HumanAbyss]LSD, Ecstasy and PCP are not the least bit physically addictive,[/quote]
I never said they were. Addiction stems from the brain, anyway. It's actually both a mental and physical thing. Read up on the chemistry behind it sometime. I suggest you start with tobacco.
[quote=HumanAbyss]and besides the self harm inflicted in various few and far between cases of PCP use, not physically damaging.[/quote]
Was that even a sentence?
[quote=HumanAbyss]"Ecstasy" =/= MDMA,[/quote]
What? Ecstasy [i]is[/i] MDMA. Methylenedioxymethamphetamine...
[url]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYD/is_11_38/ai_102839980[/url]
[quote=HumanAbyss]and MDMA itself in its pure form is almost entirely undemanding to the body outside of cases of extreme abuse.[/quote]
Pure ecstasy is incredibly toxic. Merck, the German pharmaceutical company that developed it in 1912, even noted this in their case studies that were carried out by Dr. Otto Wolfes and Dr. Walter Beckh.
[url]http://www.erowid.org/references/refs_view.php?A=ShowDoc1&ID=6707[/url]
[quote=HumanAbyss]LSD does have that reputation,[/quote]
And rightfully so. I wouldn't consider jumping out of a window or off a building with the delusion that I could fly normal let alone safe and harmless, would you?
[quote=HumanAbyss]but you're an idiot like all the other posters here to believe that the minority cases dictate the majority.[/quote]
I'm not arguing on this topic on the grounds of a minority nor a majority of cases. This is how it is: LSD causes you to hallucinate. It causes you to delude yourself. In the case of Steven Taylor, it caused him to jump off the top floor of a car park. What, exactly, is
[quote=HumanAbyss]I've done LSD more times than I can count,[/quote]
Sure, son. Sure.
[quote=HumanAbyss]I've never thrown myself off a building.[/quote]
Just like you've never done LSD. But as far as accidental suicide and whatnot goes, I gathered you hadn't thrown yourself off a building yet. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't be talking to you right now.
[quote=HumanAbyss]Hell, the fucking fact that that is your argument alone means that argument is worthless, it's been debunked more times than you can imagine. It's worthless.[/quote]
Again, was that even a sentence? Let alone an argument? Hardly. You keep saying that "This has been debunked" and "That has been debunked". Over and over. Yet you do nothing to substantiate your claims. THAT is what makes an argument worthless: all talk and no substance.
[quote=HumanAbyss]Heroin is not a dangerous drug itself,[/quote]
Actually, that's not true. Heroin decreases kidney function and actually accumulates a poison in the system from the dilation process' cutting agent chemical (assuming one has been used; which, more often than not, a cutting agent is used in heroin; see JJ Casey's and Erwin Prebel's research paper on it; "Taking Care of Business - The Heroin User's Life on the Street", International Journal of the Addictions).
[quote=HumanAbyss]the lifestyle that comes along with heroin addiction is a dangerous one however, and has claimed more lives than the drug itself.[/quote]
But the lifestyle comes with the drug. You yourself admitted to this. Eliminate the drug, you eliminate the lifestyle. It's really very simple. And we'd be all the better for it given the rates of HIV and hepatitis that stem from the needle injection process.
[quote=HumanAbyss]The drug itself is not a toxin to your body at all,[/quote]
Evidently it is, since it's been proven that it decreases the function of the kidneys. And inevitably builds up poisonous toxins in the body.
[url]http://dx.doi.org/10.1517%2F14740338.4.1.19[/url]
[quote=HumanAbyss]and it's only as addictive as alcohol(Yes, alcohol is addictive, and alcohol withdrawal can kill).[/quote]
Actually, it's as addictive as morphine. In fact, it was marketed in the late 1800s/early 1900s as a direct substitute for morphine by the company Bayer. And it was banned because of the addictive qualities, not to mention the large number of deaths that resulted from it across most of Europe and eventually in the United States.
[url]http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/preprohibition.htm[/url]
[quote=HumanAbyss]Meth is the only drug you're even mildly right on, and even then, better legalized than not.[/quote]
You have this really bad habit of not backing up whatever assertions you make. And have you seen the effects of meth on a person before?
[media]http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/files/images/meth%20addict4.jpg[/media]
Pray tell, why is something that can easily cause anorexia, hyperthermia, diaphoresis, insomnia, arrhythmia, tumors, convulsions, heart attacks, strokes, and/or death with even mild recreational usage better off legal again?
[url]http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/meth.asp[/url]
[quote=HumanAbyss]And there needs to be an end to all scare tactics, and simple, somber facts need to be presented to people, like you.[/quote]
It's funny because I'm the one between the two of us that's been this whole time providing the medical research, case studies, and personal accounts to confirm what he's saying. And indeed to point out where you have been wrong (many, many times, bro).
[quote=HumanAbyss]You need to learn that the number of horror stories(Holy fuck, I'm debunking horror stories for the fucking 12th time in this fucking thread, you fuckers need to read) is VASTLY outweighed by the amount of normal, uneventful, un-damaging events.[/quote]
This is hardly about horror stories or any of that nonsense. It's really easy to show what the effects of these drugs are, why they are dangerous, and how they affect societies in general using chemistry, scientific case studies, and statistics that anybody can access whenever they want to. Let alone how we should be deciding which ones we should be legalizing and which ones we shouldn't be.
[quote=HumanAbyss]I mean, you're whole fucking post is a scare tactic post towards how bad certain drugs are, but that's formed entirely out of ignorance.[/quote]
How is pointing out the effects of certain drugs on the body and mind then providing real life examples that demonstrate the effects a scare tactic exactly? Informative? Sure. But a scare tactic? Not in the least. What's funny is that I'm pointing this out to a guy who claims to have used LSD, acts like an expert on drugs (yet oddly enough knows next to nothing about a good number of them), and has a habit of making lots of claims but not supporting any of them with actual supporting evidence.
[quote=HumanAbyss]Dear fucking god, the hypocrisy.[/quote]
If it's ignorance, as you just claimed, then it's not a case of hypocrisy... pick one or the other.
[quote=HumanAbyss]Unless you can prove for sure that the drug(LSD in this case) is what's causing people to kill themselves(You can't, it's been proven it's specific people that can't/shouldn't take the drug already, too bad for your argument) then your arguments empty as fuck.[/QUOTE]
That's another thing that makes me lol at you: the seemingly endless spam of "Your argument is empty" and "You have no argument". But I'm not here to make insults. I provided proof in my links that LSD was responsible for each case of the above three listed. Evidently, you've ignored them. So I have a proposal: show proof for your claim that "it's been proven that specific people that can't/shouldn't take the drug", and I'll go away. If you don't... well I don't care if you don't. But it certainly doesn't reflect too well on you, old sport.
[editline]20th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;26816907]Oh, yeah, LunchboxofDoom, i'm funny huh?[/quote]
You're quite funny. I'm starting to think the only drug you've taken is Ritalin...
[quote=HumanAbyss]Must be because you think my arguments full of holes.[/quote]
Not so much holes as it is just factually incorrect, evidenced by your statements in particular on the specific drugs in question.
[quote=HumanAbyss]Well, here's one in yours, yes, portugual only has 11 million people, and their system is built for that, however, the system in place currently is the most useless, rights violating hunk of shit the conservatives ever dreamed up. It has done NOTHING to stop drug use. it has done NOTHING to keep people safe. It has ruined millions of lives by forcing retarded penalties on people who are not really criminals at all, there's NO reason to defend the current system. Maybe legalization WOULD have downsides, but god damn, it's going to be better than this "War on Drugs" bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Rights-violating? Dreamed up by Conservatives? Maybe I was wrong about you. You sound like a hippie now. Anyway, I can agree on some drugs, like marijuana, inhalants, steroids, Oxycontin, etc. (the ones I listed off earlier), but when it comes to serious stuff like meth, cocaine, LSD, ecstasy, heroin, PCP... it doesn't make sense, given their effects, to make them openly available to 311 million people. It would work if we were a smaller country, but we're not. And that's that. Like I also said, the tactics that are being employed to prohibit some of these drugs need to be changed as well, And then there's the issue of tax revenues which could be generated from legalizing certain drugs. It's ultimately a question of which drugs should be legalized and why (given ample justification and consideration into their effects on people and moreover the country as a whole).
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;26817062]That's hardly discrediting my point. It's not at all reasonable to compare a country of 11 million people's drug policies to a country of 311 million people's drug policies. Nor is it to run off bets and assumptions.
[b]Ok, so the current system in place of prohibition is working then better than this could possibly?[/b]
I never said they were. Addiction stems from the brain, anyway. It's actually both a mental and physical thing. Read up on the chemistry behind it sometime. I suggest you start with tobacco.
[b]Oh man, you sure showed me, I sure as hell had no idea what the difference was[/sarcasm[/b]
Was that even a sentence?
What? Ecstasy [i]is[/i] MDMA. Methylenedioxymethamphetamine...
[url]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYD/is_11_38/ai_102839980[/url]
[b]Street ecstasy and pure MDMA are different things.[/b]
Pure ecstasy is incredibly toxic. Merck, the German pharmaceutical company that developed it in 1912, even noted this in their case studies that were carried out by Dr. Otto Wolfes and Dr. Walter Beckh.
[url]http://www.erowid.org/references/refs_view.php?A=ShowDoc1&ID=6707[/url]
[b]I concede this[/b]
And rightfully so. I wouldn't consider jumping out of a window or off a building with the delusion that I could fly normal let alone safe and harmless, would you?
[b]Uhm, okay, let me explain this again, the majority of people who take it, [i]Don't jump off buildings[/i], so why is it solely the drugs fault and not that persons fault? Okay, an idiot died, and I have to suffer my rights being violated thusly?[/b]
I'm not arguing on this topic on the grounds of a minority nor a majority of cases. This is how it is: LSD causes you to hallucinate. It causes you to delude yourself. In the case of Steven Taylor, it caused him to jump off the top floor of a car park. What, exactly, is
[b]Yes it sure does, make you hallucinate, and yes it sure does change your perception of reality, however, it doesn't tell you to jump off a building. There's something us drug users(The ones I know anyways) like to call "Trip etiquette", it involves being prepared, being knowledgable, and being with someone to keep you safe, sorry that idiots don't follow that, but I shouldn't suffer because of idiots.[/b]
Sure, son. Sure.
[b]And you accuse me of having an attitude. I'm an ex heroin addict myself. I've been through that life, and I made it through. I still think it should be legal, I've done all sorts of drugs, and I'm still here due to simply not being an idiot in their use, like so many people I know do as well.[/b]
Just like you've never done LSD. But as far as accidental suicide and whatnot goes, I gathered you hadn't thrown yourself off a building yet. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't be talking to you right now.
[b]I'll ignore your attitude here again[/b]
Again, was that even a sentence? Let alone an argument? Hardly. You keep saying that "This has been debunked" and "That has been debunked". Over and over. Yet you do nothing to substantiate your claims. THAT is what makes an argument worthless: all talk and no substance.
[b]How hard is this to get? You're talking as if a horror story is the reality of things, is the common, is how it works, and is good enough for legislation, it isn't. That's how it's debunked. [/b]
Actually, that's not true. Heroin decreases kidney function and actually accumulates a poison in the system from the dilation process' cutting agent chemical (assuming one has been used; which, more often than not, a cutting agent is used in heroin; see JJ Casey's and Erwin Prebel's research paper on it; "Taking Care of Business - The Heroin User's Life on the Street", International Journal of the Addictions).
[b]Conceded, but there's the issue of it being with the cutting agent, not heroin[/b]
But the lifestyle comes with the drug. You yourself admitted to this. Eliminate the drug, you eliminate the lifestyle. It's really very simple. And we'd be all the better for it given the rates of HIV and hepatitis that stem from the needle injection process.
[b]Guess what would happen if heroin was legalized and clinics were created for the safe usage? Diseases from such things would go down dramatically, and addictions rates would go down, etc. Oh, and pray tell, how do you plan to eliminate the drug? Has this not been attempted for 40 fucking years? With no success at all?[/b]
Evidently it is, since it's been proven that it decreases the function of the kidneys. And inevitably builds up poisonous toxins in the body.
[url]http://dx.doi.org/10.1517%2F14740338.4.1.19[/url]
Actually, it's as addictive as morphine. In fact, it was marketed in the late 1800s/early 1900s as a direct substitute for morphine by the company Bayer. And it was banned because of the addictive qualities, not to mention the large number of deaths that resulted from it across most of Europe and eventually in the United States.
[url]http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/preprohibition.htm[/url]
You have this really bad habit of not backing up whatever assertions you make. And have you seen the effects of meth on a person before?
[media]http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/files/images/meth%20addict4.jpg[/media]
Pray tell, why is something that can easily cause anorexia, hyperthermia, diaphoresis, insomnia, arrhythmia, tumors, convulsions, heart attacks, strokes, and/or death with even mild recreational usage better off legal again?
[url]http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/meth.asp[/url]
[b]Meth point conceded, but it should still be legal. how does it being illegal STOP people from making it, selling it, or using it? It doesn't. At least with it legal, there's some cut down on this bullshit.
It's funny because I'm the one between the two of us that's been this whole time providing the medical research, case studies, and personal accounts to confirm what he's saying. And indeed to point out where you have been wrong (many, many times, bro).
This is hardly about horror stories or any of that nonsense. It's really easy to show what the effects of these drugs are, why they are dangerous, and how they affect societies in general using chemistry, scientific case studies, and statistics that anybody can access whenever they want to. Let alone how we should be deciding which ones we should be legalizing and which ones we shouldn't be.
How is pointing out the effects of certain drugs on the body and mind then providing real life examples that demonstrate the effects a scare tactic exactly? Informative? Sure. But a scare tactic? Not in the least. What's funny is that I'm pointing this out to a guy who claims to have used LSD, acts like an expert on drugs (yet oddly enough knows next to nothing about a good number of them), and has a habit of making lots of claims but not supporting any of them with actual supporting evidence.
If it's ignorance, as you just claimed, then it's not a case of hypocrisy... pick one or the other.
That's another thing that makes me lol at you: the seemingly endless spam of "Your argument is empty" and "You have no argument". But I'm not here to make insults. I provided proof in my links that LSD was responsible for each case of the above three listed. Evidently, you've ignored them. So I have a proposal: show proof for your claim that "it's been proven that specific people that can't/shouldn't take the drug", and I'll go away. If you don't... well I don't care if you don't. But it certainly doesn't reflect too well on you, old sport.[/QUOTE]
[editline]19th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;26817062]
Not so much holes as it is just factually incorrect, evidenced by your statements in particular on the specific drugs in question.
Rights-violating? Dreamed up by Conservatives? Maybe I was wrong about you. You sound like a hippie now. Anyway, I can agree on some drugs, like marijuana, inhalants, steroids, Oxycontin, etc. (the ones I listed off earlier), but when it comes to serious stuff like meth, cocaine, LSD, ecstasy, heroin, PCP... it doesn't make sense, given their effects, to make them openly available to 311 million people. It would work if we were a smaller country, but we're not. And that's that. Like I also said, the tactics that are being employed to prohibit some of these drugs need to be changed as well, And then there's the issue of tax revenues which could be generated from legalizing certain drugs. It's ultimately a question of which drugs should be legalized and why (given ample justification and consideration into their effects on people and moreover the country as a whole).[/QUOTE]
Oxycontin withdrawl is the worst form of drug withdrawl i've ever heard of. It can, and will kill most people to my knowledge. That's already legal, and it's prescribable.
You seem to think I'm saying make all drugs over the counter, easy to get. I'm not. And I never have. I dare you to find where I say that. All drugs should be strictly regulated and people should have to be screened in order to get a hold of them.
[editline]19th December 2010[/editline]
Oh and how isn't it a rights violation that I can't control what goes in and out of my body? That the government does? I'm so far from being a hippie it's not even funny.
Eh I stopped reading the wall of text after I came the first six statements that were totally wrong. I don't mind well thought out arguments, but reply to a point, not each sentence.
[quote=HumanAbyss]Ok, so the current system in place of prohibition is working then better than this could possibly?[/quote]
No. Which is why I said that we do need to figure out which drugs we should legalize and we need to change our tactics for cracking down on the cartels and dealers and consumers as well. And we also need to start taxing what drugs we do legalize to bring in a steady flow of revenue to both the federal government and state governments.
[quote=WHAT I POSTED AN HOUR AGO]For some drugs I can understand the legalization argument. Marijuana, Oxycontin, inhalants, steroids, etc. We don't need to be as concerned with how addictive they are nearly as much as how dangerous they are. There's no justifiable reason for legalizing all of them, however, including PCP, meth, heroin, LSD, ecstasy . . . because of the fact that all are both very addictive and, moreover, very dangerous. All drugs have their own unique effects (everything from hallucinations to massive increases in physical strength to feelings of numbness and happiness), it's just that, for some, the effects warrant more cause for concern than others.
The tactics that are being employed to prohibit some of these drugs need to be changed, as well, though. It's not enough to arrest as many of the dealers, the consumers, and shut down as many of the cartels that are smuggling the drugs into the country as is humanly possible. You have to get them to work for you. Offer them incentives. Convince them that it will be better for them to join your side than to work inside the black market. Carrot-and-Stick methodology is effective, and has been proven so numerous times in history. Legalization of some drugs (like marijuana) will destroy a lot of the activity that's fueling these illegal activities, of course, however. But you must choose wisely which ones to legalize. I, for one, wouldn't want a bunch of people running around loaded with PCP (which, again, causes hallucinations, increases in physical strength, and violent delusions; [url]http://www.justice.gov/dea/concern/pcp.html[/url])
For the drugs you do legalize, the wisest course of action is to tax them like anything else. There's an enormous amount of revenue the government could generate through this action. Marijuana alone would generate something like $10.5 BILLION annually.
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/07/comm...stler/wastler/[/url]
That's a lot of money, for the federal government and state governments of the United States.[/quote]
Did you miss that part from earlier?
[quote=HumanAbyss]Oh man, you sure showed me, I sure as hell had no idea what the difference was[/sarcasm[/quote]
Evidently you didn't. Otherwise you wouldn't have said:
[i]LSD, Ecstasy and PCP are not the least bit physically addictive,[/i]
[quote=HumanAbyss]Street ecstasy and pure MDMA are different things.[/quote]
Quit saying there is a difference. There isn't. They are chemically the same. Ecstasy = Methylenedioxymethamphetamine
[url]http://redirectingat.com/?id=629X1198&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffindarticles.com%2Fp%2Farticles%2Fmi_m0CYD%2Fis_11_38%2Fai_102839980&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facepunch.com%2Fthreads%2F1038595-quot-Make-drugs-legally-available-quot-says-Ex-Minister-Bob-Ainsworth%2Fpage5[/url]
[quote=HumanAbyss]Uhm, okay, let me explain this again, the majority of people who take it, Don't jump off buildings,[/quote]
But still a good lot do. So what's the point of making it available to even more people than it already is by legalizing it? How is that going to do anything to lower the rate of people jumping off buildings and out windows thinking they can fly and shit? Do you not see the problem here?
[quote=HumanAbyss]so why is it solely the drugs fault and not that persons fault?[/quote]
Because the drug is what caused the person to delude themselves into thinking they could fly, genius... what part of delusions being an effect of the drug wasn't made clear to you?
[quote=HumanAbyss]Okay, an idiot died, and I have to suffer my rights being violated thusly?[/quote]
Because we should tailor our entire country's drug policies to the desires of one person- or at least a minority-- in the case of LSD. If you have a problem with it, either move/take a vacation to a country where it is legal (have fun in Portugal) or just don't do it and live with it like the majority of us do.
[quote=HumanAbyss]Yes it sure does, make you hallucinate, and yes it sure does change your perception of reality, however, it doesn't tell you to jump off a building.[/quote]
Nobody ever said that it was telling you directly to jump off a building. Again, that stems from the hallucinations and delusions. But what do these stem from again? That's right: the drug. Do you understand now? I hope so...
[quote=HumanAbyss]There's something us drug users(The ones I know anyways) like to call "Trip etiquette", it involves being prepared, being knowledgable, and being with someone to keep you safe, sorry that idiots don't follow that, but I shouldn't suffer because of idiots.[/quote]
Oh the pain. The suffering of not being able to use drugs. Like I said, if you have a problem with it, either move/take a vacation to a country where it is legal (like Portugal) or just don't do it and live with it like the majority of us do. The reason why the majority of us don't do it is because it's stupid. Why risk something like this happening? Moreover, why should the rest of society have to worry about the risks? Not just with LSD, but this applies to PCP, ecstasy/MDMA, cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. So what's the point of making all these substances available to even more people by legalizing it than there already are? How is that going to do anything to lower the rate of people jumping off buildings and out windows thinking they can fly and shit? What is going on in your mind that makes you think this is sensible? Marijuana doesn't make you do this kind of stuff. Oxycontin doesn't either. Again, it's a case of which drugs have less negative effects than others- to the people who use them and to those who are around the people using them.
[quote=HumanAbyss]And you accuse me of having an attitude.[/quote]
'Cause you do. I think it's really funny, though, if it makes you feel any better.
[quote=HumanAbyss]I'm an ex heroin addict myself.[/quote]
Oh so not only did you take LSD, but you were also a heroin junkie? Does anybody else find this story a little hard to believe on Facepunch?
[quote=HumanAbyss]I've been through that life, and I made it through. I still think it should be legal, I've done all sorts of drugs, and I'm still here due to simply not being an idiot in their use, like so many people I know do as well.[/quote]
Whatever you say, brah.
[quote=HumanAbyss]I'll ignore your attitude here again[/quote]
Good for you.
[quote=HumanAbyss]How hard is this to get? You're talking as if a horror story is the reality of things, is the common, is how it works, and is good enough for legislation, it isn't. That's how it's debunked.[/quote]
What in the name of Christ are you talking about? That's not debunking anything. In fact, presenting a story of the dangers of drugs (in my particular case, LSD) is only helping [i]my[/i] argument by providing a demonstration of the serious negative effects that come with it- therein lending credence as to why it should not be legalized.
[quote=HumanAbyss]Conceded, but there's the issue of it being with the cutting agent, not heroin[/quote]
But if a cutting agent is used in most batches of heroin produced and sold to consumers by dealers and cartels, why should a distinction be made? It doesn't change the fact that there's still a problem to be had.
[quote=HumanAbyss]Guess what would happen if heroin was legalized and clinics were created for the safe usage? Diseases from such things would go down dramatically, and addictions rates would go down, etc.[/quote]
Again, this worked in Portugal. A tiny country compared to the United States. Even if you inflated their drug policy to fit our own specific needs, that offers no guarantees that it would function as intended here- let alone function at all. In that case, it proves to be a waste of money, time, and resources. Moreover, it's just an unnecessary risk as far as the rest of society is concerned. It's not any different with PCP or LSD or cocaine.
[quote=HumanAbyss]Oh, and pray tell, how do you plan to eliminate the drug? Has this not been attempted for 40 fucking years? With no success at all?[/quote]
As I said: Carrot-and-Stick methodology. This is something the United States hasn't tried yet, but other nations (like Germany, Czechoslovakia, Italy, and Switzerland, among others) has tried before against the black market. And it's proven itself to be very successful, not to mention relatively inexpensive and quite timely. Work for us and for our goal, be rewarded and in the process you help us to curtail the criminals out there. Work against us, expect punishment. Really the current system wouldn't have to be altered by much; it would just have to accommodate a rewarding system.
[url]http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/oreuoecwp/2002-01.htm[/url]
[quote=HumanAbyss]Oxycontin withdrawl is the worst form of drug withdrawl i've ever heard of. It can, and will kill most people to my knowledge. That's already legal, and it's prescribable.[/quote]
If you overdose on it you'll die. But the prescribed dosage of 15mg or even 120mg won't hurt you. It's twice as effective at numbing pain than morphine, much less addictive, and has a lot less of the side effects morphine carries. Withdrawal symptoms are only extreme if you take it regularly for several months and then abruptly stop using it.
[url]http://www.pharma.com/PI/Prescription/Oxycontin.pdf[/url]
[quote=HumanAbyss]You seem to think I'm saying make all drugs over the counter, easy to get. I'm not. And I never have. I dare you to find where I say that. All drugs should be strictly regulated and people should have to be screened in order to get a hold of them.[/quote]
No. I'm simply pointing out that if you're going to have all these regulations and strict screening processes in place you may just as well be a little more selective in what drugs you legalize instead of being frivolous towards the more dangerous ones out there. And that, as far as the ones that aren't legalized are concerned, we need a change in DEA policy as to how we approach curtailing the black market for them.
[quote=HumanAbyss]Oh and how isn't it a rights violation that I can't control what goes in and out of my body? That the government does? I'm so far from being a hippie it's not even funny.[/quote]
There's nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that states that you can consume whatever you want whenever you want. In fact, if the government wanted to right now, they could reinstate prohibition on alcohol. Will they? No. It's just an example. But the point stands. The government is there to protect its citizens and to keep things in society running smoothly and orderly. Drugs certainly factor into that job description as much as marriage or any other rights-related issue. They pertain to both the safety to citizens and to how our national infrastructure functions.
[QUOTE=MovingSalad;26735087]I'd like to see [b]DMT[/b] with less restrictions.
[editline]16th December 2010[/editline]
No. Psilocybin is proven to cure cluster/migraine headaches. But it is illegal to extract from mushrooms containing it.
LSD has been known to be therapeutic (Although opposite effects have also been experienced)[/QUOTE]
I agree, I would want to see DMT as well. Here in Sweden it's somehow classified as one of the worst drugs (legally). Which makes no sense, at least not to me. The only thing that stops me from at least trying it once is the law.
Also, before quoting me and flaming/arguing with me what DMT is, or somehow say that it's very bad. Please read up about it first. It's the drug that our brain produces when we are dreaming, it apparently exists everywhere. Even in grass, you just need to extract it. And it apparently has no side affects, as you normally have it in your head. It just makes you dream, and the stronger dose you take, the "more" will you dream and therefor probably don't remember it.
[QUOTE=IAmAnooB;26818157]Also, before quoting me and flaming/arguing with me what DMT is, or somehow say that it's very bad. Please read up about it first. It's the drug that our brain produces when we are dreaming, it apparently exists everywhere. Even in grass, you just need to extract it. And it apparently has no side affects, as you normally have it in your head. It just makes you dream, and the stronger dose you take, the "more" will you dream and therefor probably don't remember it.[/QUOTE]
The whole dreaming thing isn't known for sure at all. Some people think that, but don't have anything to back it up just yet. It is found in a ton of plants and plant obviously don't dream, so it may be easy to say that its purpose may not be related to dreaming. I haven't found anything concrete that backs it up besides speculation, so I'm just being more skeptical.
Also, just a minor correction, just because you have something in your head does not mean there is no potential for abuse. THC just happens to fit into a receptor in a brain that is normally there. It isn't changing the way the brain works, it is simply exploiting it. Same goes for most any drug. My point is that it's not really a good argument to say that's safe because your brain already uses similar of the same compounds because you'd need to lump in drugs that really aren't safe at all into that.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;26816007]Portugal, a country of 11 million people, hardly compares to the United States, a country that's got nearly [B]300 million more[/B] people. But hear me out on this (below).
It's also been known to cause people to throw themselves out of windows and off buildings to their deaths.
[URL]http://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/bed-news/Teenager-on-LSD-thought-he.284605.jp[/URL]
[URL]http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080404_1_A12_spanc61140[/URL]
[URL]http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=11517466[/URL]
Pretty serious opposite effect.
For some drugs I can understand the legalization argument. Marijuana, Oxycontin, inhalants, steroids, etc. We don't need to be as concerned with how addictive they are nearly as much as how dangerous they are. There's no justifiable reason for legalizing all of them, however, including PCP, meth, heroin, [B]LSD[/B], ecstasy . . . because of the fact that all are both very addictive and, moreover, very dangerous.[/QUOTE]
What?? LSD is one of the least addictive and least physically dangerous drug, you can't even get mentally addicted to it like you can with weed. As a tryptamine, LSD has no addictive nor dangerous properties whatsoever, and it doesn't increase release of neurotransmitters like dopamine either, meaning it's not mentally addictive as you don't "feel good" when doing it, unlike on cannabis or even World of Warcraft. And far from everyone throw themselves out of windows while on LSD, you still have a sense of what's dangerous and not when doing it. In fact, you're far more likely to do some stupid shit and get killed while on a drug like alcohol rather than LSD, and the only way you're going to jump out a window on LSD is if you either take a mega-dose and suddenly get some super-bad trip (very unlikely, and you'll probably have [B]a lot[/B] of trouble actually getting to the window), or if you have predisposition for a mental disorder like schizophrenia that triggers when you do LSD.
No one has ever died directly from LSD itself, the LD-50 (dose where 50% of subjects die) is suspected to be at around 12,000 µg, a 100 times larger dose than normal. Such a dose can cost thousands of dollars, so there's no chance you'll be overdosing accidentally.
I also want to point out that the first article is the only legit news article, on the second one they "think he might have been under the influence of a hallucinogenic drug, possibly LSD. ". In other words they have no idea or proof for it at all, they're just guessing. The third one is more like a blog post than a news article, however it has more credibility than the second one.
And I really don't see how having more people would somehow change the effects of a decriminalization of all drugs. It would most probably yield the same results, just on a larger scale.
[editline]20th December 2010[/editline]
Oh and I have a lot of experience from using tryptamines, including LSD, and I have never jumped out a window, nor have I ever felt addicted to it, so I have both personal experience and science to back me up on this. I suggest you research more about LSD, LunchboxOfDoom, before you say stupid shit like that.
Edit: Ouendanation, could you please explain why you disagree with me instead of just disagreeing?
Mental addictiveness is the dumbest kind of argument to make, especially considering how you can apply it to absolutely any kind of habit you're against. You say its addictive, rational people say it isn't and tell you why, you say it may not be physically addicting but it is mentally addictive as if you're still right. Throw the whole concept away that metal addictiveness can be used in an argument.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;26817923]There's nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that states that you can consume whatever you want whenever you want. In fact, if the government wanted to right now, they could reinstate prohibition on alcohol. Will they? No. It's just an example. But the point stands. The government is there to protect its citizens and to keep things in society running smoothly and orderly. Drugs certainly factor into that job description as much as marriage or any other rights-related issue. They pertain to both the safety to citizens and to how our national infrastructure functions.[/QUOTE]
The first drug in the US to be banned was opium and that didn't happen until the late 1800's. It wouldn't make any sense for those documents to have anything about consumption because it was not an issue back then and most of contents of those documents dealt primarily with the struggles they had with England.
Also, screw the government.
[editline]20th December 2010[/editline]
I took oxycodone after surgery. Was amazing.
Haha [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd5_nTwLVEg[/media]
Old fucks vote, we got shit to do.
The decision always comes down to kneejerking of those who know nothing about the topic in question.
As long as its not in the eyes of the public or in a public area and done in your own privacy then I'm fine with it.
[QUOTE=Vasili;26860630]As long as its not in the eyes of the public or in a public area and done in your own privacy then I'm fine with it.[/QUOTE]
Unless of course it's a festival. Everyone's high.
[QUOTE=Vasili;26860630]As long as its not in the eyes of the public or in a public area and done in your own privacy then I'm fine with it.[/QUOTE]
never come to vancouver then...
Or never go to a 420 celebration here either.
Yes because someone with my opinion is going to go to a cannabis celebration event.
[QUOTE=Vasili;26860896]Yes because someone with my opinion is going to go to a cannabis celebration event.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20090420/bc_600_weed_420_090420.jpg[/img]
20,000 people are pretty fucking hard to avoid.
With a country of mine having around 70 million, I think it is.
Like I said, don't go to vancouver.
Don't go to the Vatican city. Why are you saying something that's completely irrelevant? Don't go to a city that has cannabis smokers?
[QUOTE=Vasili;26861363]Don't go to the Vatican city. Why are you saying something that's completely irrelevant? Don't go to a city that has cannabis smokers?[/QUOTE]
Ok, let me make this clear because you're not getting it...
I smoke pot on the street in front of cops, and the worst thing that happens is they tell me "Go somewhere we can't see you". That's it. No one here cares, and you can smoke pot open and freely within the city itself.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;26861558]
I smoke pot on the street in front of cops, and the worst thing that happens is they tell me "Go somewhere we can't see you". That's it. No one here cares, and you can smoke pot open and freely within the city itself.[/QUOTE]
That's [i]fascinating[/i], really.
My point was, if you're going to be pissy about it, don't come to cities like this. I can appreciate you don't want to see it, but chances are, you're going to, and getting offended by it is fucking stupid.
Why are you full of assumption? why do you think I am going to get offended by it? I guess in this thread its worth merit to mention that I actually smoked cannabis a lot and I still hang out with a lot of drug users, also did a lot of hard drugs and even sniffed glue at one point. What I mean by 'public' (which I should have been more clear about) was public buildings, areas of all people can go to without having people drunk, high, tripping and making a public disturbance with themselves. Sure, you can smoke some Mary Jane on the pavement if you want, don't really give a fuck because the chances are you'll just giggle yourself to a McDonalds and help the economy out.
[QUOTE=Vasili;26862169]Why are you full of assumption? why do you think I am going to get offended by it? I guess in this thread its worth merit to mention that I actually smoked cannabis a lot and I still hang out with a lot of drug users, also did a lot of hard drugs and even sniffed glue at one point. What I mean by 'public' (which I should have been more clear about) was public buildings, areas of all people can go to without having people drunk, high, tripping and making a public disturbance with themselves. Sure, you can smoke some Mary Jane on the pavement if you want, don't really give a fuck because the chances are you'll just giggle yourself to a McDonalds and help the economy out.[/QUOTE]
Sorry then, that wasn't apparent at all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.