[PWill]

As long as you are not hurting people, or taking their stuff, do whatever you want.

Legalize 'em all, but as with alcohol, don't let people that use heroin/LSD/cocaine drive.

Driving under the influence of marijuana is fine; in fact a BBC study shows that people drive ever more cautiously when high on weed.

[GooFy]

Originally Posted by ButteBlues Even if legalized, that same demographic will be abusing them. It's slapping a tiny Band-Aid on the problem and making some tax revenue is all; it doesn't actually deal with the issue at hand, and that is drug addiction.

but jailing and dishing out heavy fines have not worked it is better to address the social injustice of the drug problem ,get it of the streets ,control the purity and cut down on the deaths by overdose,cut down drug related home intrusions ,
and i think you will find that you can then start to plan a strategy to control the addiction and the addicts.

that initial little bandaide could be all that is needed to stem the flow,look at outher countries that have legalised the use of drugs through the legalization or providing cheep drugs (hard) in shooting galleries .
it has been a succesfull operation.

what we are doing now is not working open the mind and try a new solution

[brizzlepop]

"Grass" - History of Marijuana Documentary VideoSift

[klickyjoe]

Who gets beneficed by making drugs illegal?

Not the 'costumers' because they have to pay high prices and risk their personal safety in dangerous places.

[LordFu]

U.S. drug laws are unconstitutional. Get rid of them, I say.

[Jentsu]

Originally Posted by Wybiral Alcohol is no less addictive then say, marijuana

Weed is not addictive at all. Anyone who says it is is lying either to scare you away from it or as an excuse to people who don't understand to keep using it.

Originally Posted by Wybiral But soft drugs like marijuana are gateway drugs??? Sure... If you have to buy them from someone who might offer you harder drugs.

That's not it, either. The vast majority of people who use weed never even try other drugs. The times when they do, it isn't because the weed led them to it, it's because they would've done it anyways, and the weed was the easiest to get their hands on.

Originally Posted by Wybiral At least the milder drugs should be legal... Marijuana users should not be wasting our prison and jail space, and enforcement should not be wasting our law officials time.

Truth.

Originally Posted by ButteBlues Against it for the addiction, which has done far more damage to many I hold dear than alcohol or tobacco. For it, because the tax revenue alone would be astronomical.

Pah. Seriously, the addiction level can be slowed a lot by making the stuff legal and regulated.

Originally Posted by ButteBlues I think legalizing it would make those same stupid people - meaning those who got addicted - even more likely to get addicted and shoot themselves in the proverbial foot, yes. While, morally, I disagree with recreational use of such substances - I'm fine with medical usage - I think that some people do use them responsibly.

Seriously, if they were legal, then I'm sure more government agencies would put forth knowledge of ways to get around the addiction, and drug companies would be all over developing ways to stop it, because then they'd double the profits by not only selling the drug, but a way to stop it.

Seriously, you can block the chemicals produced by the body as a reaction to heroin, which causes addiction and withdrawals, with Robitussin. I'm not lying, either. I know it from both the chemistry and from personal experiences.

Originally Posted by robert98374 I am for it, More for marijuana more than anything else because of the reason that it was made illegal in the first place. i saw many ads from those days where it was demoted as being a violent drug. As a person that used to smoke marijuana on a daily basis it did not even remotely make me violent, it did quite the opposite.

If only Bush were a stoner. Maybe then we wouldn't have had this war.

"Let's go make war with... uhh... What was I saying? Whatever."

Originally Posted by Wybiral But they are probably going to do it either way. Why not make it safer for them? They go to the store to buy some marijuana, and they DON'T deal with illegal drug dealers... They DON'T risk it being mixed with other substances to boost profits. And they DON'T have to negotiate with dealers who are likely to be pushing harder substances (which may encourage them to try).

The things dealers will push more than anything are the addictive shit, often cut with other things that are very bad for you.

However, if you're just dealing with weed sellers, you're probably not seeing harder stuff pushed at you, because hey, weed.

Originally Posted by raffytaffy However narcotics and downers and uppers..including alcohol and tobacco should be prohibited.

Why?

Originally Posted by Wybiral What about caffeine? Sleeping pills? Cough syrup? Ephedrine?

I'm all for all of these.

Seriously, the biggest push against ephedrine and pseudoephedrine is the fact that they are used to make meth.

Guess what? Methamphetamine is legal when sold by prescription. It's called Desoxyn, and it's a treatment for ADHD when methylphenidate doesn't work. The difference? It isn't criminals making it, and houses don't get blown up when someone doesn't watch the pressure or lights a match or something. Also, it's properly dosed, isn't cut, and is available with all the contraindications it should have.

Originally Posted by GooFy addiction,it is a disease

Disagree. It is a habit formed due to chemicals released by the body to counteract what's going wrong. For example, heroin numbs pain. Pain is something your body needs. Your body freaks out and sends out chemicals all throughout your body to turn those receptors back on. This is what causes the itch. If you have enough of this running through you, and then the heroin intake stops, you're left in a LOT of pain. This can actually be very easily treated, if you start treating it early on, and never build up a high tolerance. The problem is that heroin users shoot up too often, and have to shoot up more, and so they have to not only balance out the chemicals already there, but also overcome their normal threshold. This, of course, causes more counter-chemicals to go through again, making it a compound effect. The best way to avoid addiction is to let it ease off completely, and use something else to deal with the symptoms of those chemicals. The active ingredient in Robitussin is dextromethorphan (DXM) (and often other things; be very careful about using things that contain active ingredients other than DXM in doses above the recommended), which is an NMDA receptor antagonist. This can actually block those signals that the chemicals your body made to counteract heroin sends.

The problem? It won't work with large opiate tolerance, and DXM itself can become addictive if used in high amounts frequently. So, the number one way to avoid addiction? Don't do any drug too often! If you ever find yourself really, really wanting a drug, stop, evaluate what's going on, and don't reach for it. Your problems will only compound from there into full-blown addiction.

Originally Posted by raffytaffy Well it would sure make it a lot easier for ageing male adults to receive HRT or TRT ( hormone replacement therapy ) ( testosterone replacement therapy) . This is just one reason of many. As to marijuana, thats a psychedelic. i did not mention psychedelics did i? ( look over post ) i said narcotics, downers and uppers. I have nothing against psychedelics.

Marijuana is technically a mild hallucinogen, but not actually on a psychedelic level of any real measure.

Also, hallucinogens, be they psychedelics, dissociatives, or deliriants, are generally the safest drugs around, and those are the ones I am most for out of all of them. Very few of them lead to addiction, and most have LD50 levels so high that overdoses are quite difficult. One of the biggest problem children for it is the misconception that MDMA, or Ecstasy, is a pure psychedelic and not also a stimulant, and also the fact that street ecstasy is notoriously impure. The second part would be fixed with its legalization. The other major parts of it (more commonly dehydration than actual overdose) can be curbed by regulating doses and giving contraindications for its use with things that would further the dehydration.

Originally Posted by ButteBlues Even if legalized, that same demographic will be abusing them. It's slapping a tiny Band-Aid on the problem and making some tax revenue is all; it doesn't actually deal with the issue at hand, and that is drug addiction.

Again, addiction is almost a non-issue for about half of the most notorious drugs. Weed, psilocybin mushrooms, LSD25, ecstasy? They just aren't addictive. Weed doesn't make you violent. I've never seen anyone on weed who would even attempt to be violent. Alcohol is another story. Acid doesn't really get stuck in your spinal cord, either. It generally metabolizes in a few days' time, and is mostly out of your system. (The hardest part is extras stored in fat, which is how it shows up in urine for drug tests. Enough exercise could bring this out and cause some minor effects, but for the most part, flashbacks are simply the memories of it, and not strong "I'm back in Nam!" hallucinations.)

The vast majority of things you are told about drugs are wrong, and they know it. The only reason they tell you that is so that they can keep you down and have the "war on drugs" be their moral support for a war on our civil liberties, and a distraction from the wars overseas. (Have you ever noticed how the "war on drugs" always seems to flare up the most when there's a real war fought elsewhere that might not be so popular?)

Originally Posted by Wybiral Marijuana is a hard drug to classify in my opinion (my professional drug use opinion, lol, jk). It has downer and psychedelic effects. But it's also a pain reliever (which may put it in a narcotic class). My point really is that drugs are chemicals... And I don't feel that any chemical should be illegal should one CHOOSE to use it. Rat poison will kill you... But it's legal. So is it a matter of addiction? Cigarettes are probably the most addictive chemical I've encountered (I'm still trying to quit)... I've been able to smoke pot on occasions without having a craving for it. Same with N2O, LSD, and psilocybin (those are psychedelics though, so I guess I see your point). I've had access to just about every drug I can think of, yet I abuse alcohol and tobacco more then anything... Why? Because they are flat out more addictive. And based on my research, they are WAY worse for your health then a toke on the ganja every now and then Anyone who listens to Bob Marley knows this...

Actually, meth, heroin and cocaine (and their derivatives) are far more addictive, if used irresponsibly for a longer starting period. Nicotine, I got hooked on fairly quickly, and had to drop it equally as fast. Every single taste of alcohol makes me want more. They start far more quickly, but they are so ridiculously much more easily dropped than the "hard stuff."

Originally Posted by PWill Driving under the influence of marijuana is fine; in fact a BBC study shows that people drive ever more cautiously when high on weed.

False.

That is because they don't want to be caught with it.

If it's legal, it should be banned, because their biggest reason for paranoia will be lifted.

If you want drugs that are safe to drive on, think meth. I was so ridiculously more attentive at driving. I noticed things in the road and surrounds I'd never noticed before, and still got where i needed to be quite safely.

[hessiess]

if drugs wore legel then there would be aloght more yung people with drug adictions, theres quite alot of under age drinkers and smokers.

[robert98374]

Originally Posted by Jentsu If only Bush were a stoner. Maybe then we wouldn't have had this war. "Let's go make war with... uhh... What was I saying? Whatever."

You dont mind if i use that in my sig do ya?

[Jentsu]

Originally Posted by hessiess if drugs wore legel then there would be aloght more yung people with drug adictions, theres quite alot of under age drinkers and smokers.

This is the common right wing anti-drug argument. (It's also something similar to how they would spell it, too, but I'll not go there.)

However, I doubt that this would be the case. First off, you do have underage drinkers and smokers. However, especially in the case of drinkers, they usually aren't addicted. Why? Because of one really simple reason: They can't get their hands on enough money to support long-term use of it. Guess what happens when they stop using it all of a sudden? Yeah. If it's something like heroin, they're probably not going to keep it up by doing enough to get addicted, or they'll suffer the consequences.

But what about other drugs, like weed, LSD, or shrooms? Pretty simple here, folks: they'll have the time of their lives, and there's no risk of addiction, so it doesn't matter. In the case of LSD, it has rapid tolerance factors, even though it lacks addictive qualities, meaning that if kids try to mess with it too much and too often, they'll find it won't work, and will get expensive, and will generally discontinue use for a while. Weed flat out isn't addictive, and will probably be the cheapest one around for heavy use. If they wanna have fun with that, let them have a blast. We'll punish them when they get caught just like we'd punish kids who smoke or drink underage, but nothing extra special about it.

Originally Posted by robert98374 You dont mind if i use that in my sig do ya?

Go right ahead.

[robert98374]

Thanks,
I think that PWill had a very good idea,
"As long as you are not hurting people, or taking their stuff, do whatever you want." Now if they did hurt someone or stealing someones stuff then they would be charged just like a person that was drunk.

[Fizzlewhisker]

Drug laws are unconstitutional and need to be squashed! Free the weed, my brothers.

[robert98374]

Originally Posted by Fizzlewhisker Drug laws are unconstitutional and need to be squashed! Free the weed, my brothers.

HEAR HEAR!

[Extreme Coder]

Originally Posted by ButteBlues Even if legalized, that same demographic will be abusing them. It's slapping a tiny Band-Aid on the problem and making some tax revenue is all; it doesn't actually deal with the issue at hand, and that is drug addiction.

Well, apparently the efforts so far to stop it has done nothing, and the money could be better spent elsewhere. So they might as well give up, or think of a different strategy...


Extreme Coder

[GooFy]

Disagree. It is a habit formed due to chemicals released by the body to counteract what's going wrong.

Jentsu..

alcahollism is officially recognized as a disease,along with outher form of addiction,it is as i stated a disease.
and it needs to be treated as such.

[Jentsu]

Originally Posted by GooFy Jentsu.. alcahollism is officially recognized as a disease,along with outher form of addiction,it is as i stated a disease. and it needs to be treated as such.

Calling alcoholism a disease is pathetic in my opinion. However, it doesn't change the fact that heroin addiction, as well as several other kinds, are indeed what I described.

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by GooFy Jentsu.. alcahollism is officially recognized as a disease,along with outher form of addiction,it is as i stated a disease. and it needs to be treated as such.

Homosexuality was officially recognized as a disease until the late '70s. Addiction is hardly disease- there is no bacteria, no virus, no immune system malfunction.
Also, Jentsu, get on AIM.

[Wybiral]

Originally Posted by Jentsu Calling alcoholism a disease is pathetic in my opinion. However, it doesn't change the fact that heroin addiction, as well as several other kinds, are indeed what I described.

This reminds me of a Mitch Hedberg joke:

"Alcoholism is a disease, but it's the only one you can get yelled at for having. 'Damn it, Otto, you're an alcoholic.' 'Damn it, Otto, you have lupus.' One of those two doesn't sound right."

[AdamG]

As in many (most?) debates of this sort, I find that the question posed - in this case, "Should recreational drugs be legalized?" - is orders of magnitude too non-specific. Should they be legalized? Well, it depends. What is your goal? Is your goal to make sure everyone has tried pot at least once in their lives? Then yes, legalize them. But what does the society want? Who gets to choose what we as a society want?

Society is moving forward so quickly now it's difficult to know what it is we really want. I would settle for "dramatic increases in the quality of life of all people." How do recreational drugs factor in? Well, once we reach a sufficiently high quality of life, there isn't a problem with it. You work your 20-hour-a-week job for three days a week, make enough to live comfortably, and spend the rest of the week high, sober or however else you want. Basically: if your quality of life supports it, go for it.

Unfortunately, this lifestyle can only currently be supported for a small fraction of our society. While there are certainly trust fund kids whose quality of life is sufficiently high to make that scenario possible, for the vast majority of society - and of drug users - this isn't the case. The simple fact of the matter is that other than as a means of heightening an already high quality of life, recreational drugs don't have a productive role in society. An addict is still an addict whether they are buying off the street or from a clinic.

I will admit I would have held a different position some time ago (say, maybe a year). I used to be staunchly on the pro-legalization side. Then, as now, I had never had an illegal recreational drug (I did, for the first and last time, taste alcohol during this time), but I've always been liberal (and still am). Nevertheless, now I just don't understand why we would want recreational drugs to be legal. What does anyone gain from it? Increasing the minimum wage, universal healthcare, public education - these are productive. They make for a more humane, compassionate society with a higher standard quality of life. What does legalization of drugs gain us?

There is always the fallback card: personal freedoms. There will always be people who say that the Government has no "right" to regulate what is done on private property. I'm not going to appeal to weak slippery-slope arguments here; I will simply say that Yes, it absolutely does. By sheer virtue of being male and having registered to vote when you were 18 - or at least registering with the Selective Service, which is required by law - then you already gave the Government the power to order you to drop whatever you were doing instantly and to call you out to Military service at any time. Is that "Freedom?"

A few months ago we had some people over at our house, including a couple of WWII vets. They talked about how they had had jobs, lives, and dreams, when they received a letter from the Draft board. They spoke with pride and patriotism as they described packing their bags and leaving the next day, for tours that lasted years. My emotional response was horror. Was that freedom? They were asked to fight and die for a freedom - the opportunity to use free will - but couldn't use that freedom to deny the request?

I realized at that time that a Government does not exist to uphold the rights of individuals; societies do not exist for the good of it's members. Like all dynamic entities, governments and societies exist for the sole purpose of their own survival. Adult men do not have the freedom to not be drafted for personal reasons because it is not in the Government's interest to let them do so. Citizens do not have the right to elect a non-US born candidate to president because it was not in Society's interest to allow that. And no, you do not have a 'right' to toke on weekends, because it doesn't help anyone if you do that.

The basic end of this is that there is not an inherent good in legalizing substances. There is not inherent right to have them legal either. The society should simply regulate them in a way optimal for itself. The way I see it, the society already has. Drugs are accessible, but not pervasive; they are available for experimentation but relatively difficult for a destructive habit. And, of course, less destructive drugs, or more enabling ones (eg, caffeine) are legal. If the destructive/enabling dichotomy is about equal, then the legality comes from preexisting social mores, for example alcohol and marijuana, both of which can inspire some creativity but also have negative effects (stoned/drunkenness).

The exception to this self-optimized society is tobacco, which remains popular only because of its profitability. Tobacco should be banned outright.

[JoshJ]

Bullshit. You're basically saying "the government is authoritarian so we should embrace that" rather than trying to fix it.

People should be able to use recreational drugs for their own enjoyment, in much the same way they can watch a movie or drink a beer for their own enjoyment.
It doesn't help "society" if you drink a beer, unless you want to talk about the money funneled from you to Wal-Mart, from them to Budweiser, from them to their marketing companies, etc; and any currently-illegal drug would have the same positive benefit on society's economy as a whole.

[markthecarp]

Originally Posted by Fizzlewhisker Drug laws are unconstitutional and need to be squashed! Free the weed, my brothers.

I do not agree that "Drug laws are unconstitutional..." Too general to agree or disagree.

I do think the US wastes huge amounts of money on fighting marijauna. In all terms; courts, the prison and parole/probation systems.

Joe Califano doesn't agree...

NPR : The Politics of Past Drug Use

free the weed eh, nice sentiment