Should all drugs be 100% legal?

[Seyer]

I was simply pointing out that Portugals substance decriminilization is a step in the right direction.

 

[brokenstrings]

I was simply pointing out that Portugals substance decriminilization is a step in the right direction.

Do you agree with full bown legalization ?

 

[verso]

i definitely dont think heroin, meth, or crack should be legal.

I used to feel this way, but honestly, as I've grown older, I just don't understand it anymore. I look around, and I see crackheads still scoring crack and dope fiends still scoring dope. I'm seeing this, looking into my rear-view mirror, parked down some side street waiting for my guy to show up so that I can cop a few bags myself, and I just have to ask myself what's the point and why bother?

The beat goes on, man. Everything stays relatively the same, and law enforcement doesn't seem to make so much as even the slightest impact on the behavior of substance abusers. Hell, a friend of mine just got out of prison not long ago, maybe two weeks ago, and he's back to copping bags already. I don't want you to take this the wrong way as I'm not implying there's no hope for addicts, but what I am implying and now stating quite clearly is that law enforcement is not now and never will be the answer or the solution to "the drug problem."

If we're serious about "the drug problem," then we'll need to invest more in education, treatment, and an altogether different system, infrastructure and approach. So, at the end of the day, do I believe that one should be able to walk into a convenient store, pull a bag of crack off the shelf and buy it? I'm not sure, and I don't know, but I definitely do not think that the crackhead or the dope fiend should be taken away in handcuffs, arrested and incarcerated for merely possessing the substance. It doesn't make sense and it seems to have no real impact on their future behavior.

 

[Renz Envy]

Everything boils down to money in the end.

I don't think drugs should be legal, but at the same time I don't feel like a dealer deserves to spend half their life in prison for selling a substance.

Obviously there is a reason why the government is so strict about drug laws.

i definitely dont think heroin, meth, or crack should be legal.

The funny thing is that there was a point in time when all three of those drugs were legal. Yet, it was not until they began to get abused were they closed off.

 

[brokenstrings]

Obviously there is a reason why the government is so strict about drug laws.

Most drugs were outlawed because of racial reasons
E.g marijuana for being used by mexicans and black jazz musicians and cocaine being accused of causing rampant violence usually associated with african americans.
Opium was outlawed in san fran because it was used by chinese imigrants

 

[Renz Envy]

Most drugs were outlawed because of racial reasons
E.g marijuana for being used by mexicans and black jazz musicians and cocaine being accused of causing rampant violence usually associated with african americans.
Opium was outlawed in san fran because it was used by chinese imigrants

I highly doubt racism is the reason marijuana is outlawed in most 1st world nations.

In the 30s? Perhaps, but today, the world is both simpler and more complicated.

 

[brokenstrings]

I highly doubt racism is the reason marijuana is outlawed in most 1st world nations.

In the 30s? Perhaps, but today, the world is both simpler and more complicated.

America is the worlsdt biggest economy .
Canada tried to legalize weed and they sufered enormous pressure from the US against it.
Perhaps it´s no coincidence that no country has legalized weed fully( even the netherlands
have a stange policy regarding weed its no entirely legal)
But i know that in the US drug criminalization as attributed to racism

 

[Renz Envy]

Marijuana would be legal by now if it were cheap to legalize.

 

[brokenstrings]

Marijuana would be legal by now if it were cheap to legalize.

How so? It grows everywhere but the antartic circle
It has great yield , its a weed that grows easily
We could transform farmers from criminals to helpfull menbers of the community

 

[Seyer]

Y u no quote properly

 

[Renz Envy]

Because I would grow my own weed in my backyard and if the drug were completely legal it would be dirt cheap.

 

[delta_9]

Poll: Should all drugs be 100% legal?

 

[Seyer]

Thats for that link ^

Merged.

 

[Znegative]

Voted yes.

I'm not so brainwashed by my drug use that I believe it is a "good" thing, but I dont believe that there should be law instated that locks people up for putting chemicals into their own body's with their own consent. I believe there should be some regulation, like there is with alchohol and nicotine. I dont think we should just legalize drugs and then keep buying them from the cartels, Afghanistan and South East Asia.

 

[brokenstrings]

Because I would grow my own weed in my backyard and if the drug were completely legal it would be dirt cheap

There are countries in which growing weed is actually legal , such as holand for example , and everyone preferes to buy it in the cofeeshops
Since growing weed , especcially indoors is a big investement.

The funny thing is that there was a point in time when all three of those drugs were legal. Yet, it was not until they began to get abused were they closed off.

i think at the time people were extremly uniformed about the dangers of those drugs , now after prohibition things would be diferent.
Back then common medicine contained morphine , mothers used morphine tyo dose off their children , it was out of control.
I think we can makle it work now .
Its just drug prohibiton doesnt stop people from usign drugs, it just makes them use more dangerous versions of such drugs,
like krokodil , krokodil is drug wars´fault .
I think thats a powerfull argument in itself what krokodil did to russia.

 

[ebola?]

I can see a case for restriction of easily weaponizable compounds, like carfentanyl or 3-Quinuclidinyl_benzilate (aka BZ).

ebola

 

[jones-in_J]

I think of hypotheticals - for instance, what if tomorrow a new coca (or poppy, or synth, doesn't even really matter) product reached the market, and the product offered (devil's advocate here, remember ;P):
- 1,000X the high of the best currently available drug
- 1,000,000,000,000 the addictiveness of any available drug (ie, using it virtually guarantees you'll be an addict)
- 20T X the toxicity/lethality of any rec.chem that's currently available

i think it's out and called krokodil that shit's disguising. even more disturbing- when i first heard of such a cheap alternative to heroin that one could potentially make I was actually excited and looked into it despite hearing how dangerous it is... until I saw pictures of people missing limbs with rotting flesh, that made me wisen up

 

[6apbhmm]

No, no and no.

Although I expected this poll result.

Its a fuckin utopia, people would consume even bigger amounts of the hardest drugs than now, society = game over.

To explain more, people are DUMB in general and NOT responsible. Adding a huge warning on each bag like "COKE WILL KILL YOU" wouldnt help anything, just look at cigarettes. Those who already take drugs would continue and many others who are currently scared to take them would start.

The argument that people take drugs anyway is not an argument, not at all. Murders also still happen. Should we legalize murders then..?

If it was ME, I would also ban tobacco since thats a very hard drug. Not alcohol though, not truly hard drug imo.

 

[brokenstrings]

No, no and no.

Although I expected this poll result.

Its a fuckin utopia, people would consume even bigger amounts of the hardest drugs than now, society = game over.

To explain more, people are DUMB in general and NOT responsible. Adding a huge warning on each bag like "COKE WILL KILL YOU" wouldnt help anything, just look at cigarettes. Those who already take drugs would continue and many others who are currently scared to take them would start.

The argument that people take drugs anyway is not an argument, not at all. Murders also still happen. Should we legalize murders then..?

If it was ME, I would also ban tobacco since that's a very hard drug. Not alcohol though, not truly hard drug imo.

In the middle of alchool prohibition people were actually using more alchool than before .
Cigarretes are so widely abused because they are a very dangerous drug that has been accepted by society
despite its dangers , because tobbaco companies have done a good job of advertising and dismissing the dangers of tobbaco.
Look at holand pot use has gone down since the cofeeshops.
Going to prohibition again criminalization only brought more crime , more binge drinking , more alchool poisoning , it lead
to a flurry of unregulated alchool that contained contaminents like mercury, lead and other poisons.
just look at this quote

One of the effects of Prohibition was diseases. One of the goals of Prohibition was to cut down on deaths related to cirrhosis. Cirrhosis is a disease in the liver that is caused by excessive drinking. Women who consume more than four drinks a day were at even higher risk of contracting cirrhosis. However, alcohol use went up during Prohibition, and the goal was not achieved.

Other than this disease many people were disabled or killed due to wood alcohol. Before prohibition the government had standards for alcohol. But when alcohol became illegal these standards deteriorated. Before prohibition alcohol was made from vegetables, fruits, and grains. This tended to be safe. You could also make alcohol from wood products. This alcohol is not safe. But, nevertheless, wood alcohol tastes the same, smells the same, and is cheaper to make. During prohibition, over 10,000 people died from wood alcohol poisoning. More would have died except one other effect is that before you died you go permanently blind. The drill was that if your vision started blurring while you were drinking you stopped and then tried to regurgitate as much of the alcohol as you could.

Another disease related to Prohibition was Jake Fo

Sounds fun?
If people consume drugs why shouldnt the government participate in reducing the harm that comes from this
substances.
I mean regulated alchool can kill you in the lon run but fentanyl cuted heroin , krokodil , lead laced weed and grit weed
kill you after a few uses.
Comparing legzlizing drugs with murder is absurd , one should be able to consume any drug we wants if he doesnt harm anyone
by doing so, what anyone of us does to his body its his bussiness it shouldn be the gvts place to regultae it and i think
more harm comes to others by drugs in general if they are illegal more innocent lives are swifted by the increased crimes
, drug addicts are cast ways and are forced to resort to crime to get theri fix.
What Milton Friedman said one time made a lot of sense to me :
I dont rember the exact quote
" A person who willingly consumes a addictive narcotic is not innocent since they knew what they were getting into , a innocent bystander who is killed
by a dope sick drug addict is an unfortunate casualty , with the legalization of drugs we could prevent the latter".
Plus rehabilitation would be easier addicts are trapped in a vicious cycle of guilt and drug abuse , we could get in touch
with the addicts we have thrown to the annals of sicety and making them into productive menbers of society.
Of course the public outcry would be immense but the pros far outweigh the cons

 

[verso]

To explain more, people are DUMB in general and NOT responsible. Adding a huge warning on each bag like "COKE WILL KILL YOU" wouldnt help anything, just look at cigarettes. Those who already take drugs would continue and many others who are currently scared to take them would start.

The argument that people take drugs anyway is not an argument, not at all. Murders also still happen. Should we legalize murders then..?

If it was ME, I would also ban tobacco since thats a very hard drug. Not alcohol though, not truly hard drug imo.

You're not serious, are you? Here's an itemized summary of exactly why everything you've just said is illogical and ridiculous:

1. First, people are more responsible than you seem to give them credit for. We give people drivers licenses and trust them to drive around in two tons of steel going 40 - 65 mph within mere feet of one another, and though accidents do happen, the vast majority of people make it safely to work and safely home from work each and every day. Not everyone tries to eat a hamburger, put on makeup, smoke a cigarette and talk on their cell phones while driving around although some do...

2. Before we make a decision, we assess the risk. But who's to say that the riskier decision is always the dumber decision? A friend of mine dosed 25i for the first time on Friday, and he is what I would consider to be somewhat naive and very much new to the world of drugs. Nevertheless, he did some research, ordered the substance, and dosed it on Friday. Now, without my telling you his experience, tell me: did he make the wrong decision or the right decision? It was surely the riskier decision, as by dosing the 25i, he's altering his brain chemistry and the possibility exists not only for something to go wrong physiologically, but also for him to have a nightmarishly bad trip. It can happen, right? By not dosing the 25i, well, he's relatively "safe" in this regard, correct? But the possibility also exists for nothing to go wrong, for him to have an unbelievable, life-changing experience that will forever stay with him, bringing him closer in his relationships with friends and family, and so on. So then, is the more responsible decision the best decision, and is the riskier decision inherently the dumber one? What I'm trying to say is that the riskier decision is not always the dumber decision.

3. You say that "Those who already take drugs would continue and many others who are currently scared to take them would start." There's just no evidence to suggest that this is true, not even one iota or shred of evidence. I have many friends who are very simply not interested in using drugs, and should drugs one day become legal, I feel very confident that I'd never drop in on one such friend only to have him answer the door with a crack-pipe hanging out of his mouth; these friends don't do drugs and they're not interested in drugs, legal or not, and that's just what it is. Again, you don't seem to be giving people enough credit. We're not robots, and we're not programmed to believe that the legality of one thing or another inherently means that it's OK. Abortion is legal, and not everyone agrees that abortion is OK. It's legal to own a pistol, but not everyone owns a pistol or believes that it's OK to own one. The same is true for drugs...

4. "Should we legalize murders then...?" It's so ridiculous that I'm not sure it deserves a response, but I can probably point out the flaw in this argument and your reasoning all in just one sentence: No, we shouldn't "legalize murder" because when you murder someone, you are affecting that person's well-being and not merely your own, as when you take drugs. (Yep, one sentence...)

5. You'd ban tobacco but not alcohol because you consider tobacco to be a "very hard drug" but not alcohol? OK, now that's ridiculous enough not to deserve a response...

EDIT: And you'll have to forgive me as I'm not trying to pick on you and I believe that everyone in entitled to their own opinion. But sometimes I just cannot help myself, and I just felt very compelled to respond to your post...