Should all drugs be 100% legal?

[Oxycondone]

I don't like that particular chart, though I like the concept behind it.
In this case, however, it looks as though heroin were far, far more horrible than solvents, which I don't believe.
If people were using solvents everywhere, the harm to their bodies/brains and to society would be immeasurable. If they were doing heroin everywhere, things would probably just get a little more relaxed.
I don't believe that doing pure heroin (assuming quality is controlled) harms people's bodies in a significant way, unlike solvents.
Could be that I just don't know, but I have seen a study of the brains of dead, long-term heroin addicts. There was nothing at all in their brains that indicated that they had been addicted.
I am also not sure about steroids - extremely frequent roid rage could push the freeways in LA over the edge, for example.
But basically, if cannabis and psychedelics (and other things like GHB, ketamine, and Khat) were legal, I would have no problem with it.
I would want some controlling body to set and enforce rules if addictive stimulants/depressants were legal, in order to control the quality and to help people who take things too far. But I do support the legalization of all drugs, provided that there is careful oversight.

I agree with you on the solvents. I don't know why they are so low on the physical harm scale.

With Heroin or most opiates for that matter, the short term side effects are minimal if used safely and with pure substance but long term it actually has some insidious side effects. Immunosupressive properties and endocrine problems are the main culprits. Not to mention changes in the CNS.

But specifically relating to this chart, it includes social statistics, such as a heroin junkie stealing to get his fix and being shot, therefore upping the Heroin physical harm level.

 

[slimvictor]

^ Interesting.
Therefore, if drugs were legalized, and junkies didn't need to steal to get their fixes, things might look very different.

 

[-Kitten]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg/250px-Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg.png[/IMG]

No.

I would base it on this too.

 

[34-dihydroxyphen]

^I'm willing to venture the bold guess that health problems associated with shitty IV technique are also included (i.e. poor technique in general such as improper sterilization, lack of clean needles, etc etc....).

But yes, as hard as it is to say with drugs such as meth and crack, they should all be legal. Meth and crack are the hardest to justify, because they are just so harmful, but the harms would be reduced if they were legal. No more roaming methlabs would be pretty nice. Then I don't have to worry about my tweaker neighbors lighting a cigarette while they left the highly volatile solvent out.

 

[The Network]

I had the balls to vote no, because there are many extremely dangerous drugs, and stupid little kids would be dying left and right if we legalized EVERY drug. I say legalize recreational drugs like E, acid, bud, mescaline, psilocin, psilocybin, etc. But the hard drugs like heroin, meth, etc should stay illegal or at least severely restricted, like you need a special license or some crap idk.

 

[psood0nym]

I'd base what is regulated and sold and what isn't based on graphs like this:

Like others who have chimed in, I've never understood this chart entirely either. I suppose the physical harm scale is based on emergency room visitations or calls or something, because there's no way LSD is more physically harmful than a triple monoamine releasing hyperthermogenic like MDMA. It must just be people calling in who are freaking out thinking their going to die that accounts for LSD's placement. Otherwise, it's really only driving deaths/injuries or cases of injury during LSD induced psychosis that are going to cause physical damage. I have no idea why it's where it is on the dependency scale, though. Perhaps more people who try LSD continue to use it than MDMA, and that's taken as a metric of "dependency"? Clearly some of the criteria they're using is problematic if solvents are placed where they are, too. They can't be using statistical methods to try to standardize the usage of different drugs against each other by frequency of use, relative dosage level, etc. Imagine if people huffed gasoline until they were high as much as they drink alcohol until they get drunk...

I agree with those stating drugs like heroin and meth would need to be regulated very closely, with some kind of way to track level of use (government depots located many miles apart that keep temporary records using photo IDs for instance). It'd be best if drugs were legal, but also if access to them was limited to deter addiction level purchases by new users. If you forced heroin users to use below X doses per month, for example, over the long term it would be enough to ruin the large majority of the black market that would continue in order to feed the further demands of addicts. Rural and suburban heroin black markets, for example, would be very difficult to maintain if heroin was available legally but was strictly regulated. Long term, their would be fewer and fewer first time users starting with the black market and making the social connections that allow it to survive and continue to feed high level abuse. These first timers would, for most practical purposes, only have the legal regulated system, which would ideally only allow them a certain amount each month, so they'd never become true addicts. They could get their non-using friends to buy extra for them of course, but the heroin supply of those friends would also be limited, so it would be difficult to make a decent profit as a non-user supplying to addicts within a legal dose-limiting system. Over many years, the number addicted to truly destructive drugs would reduce dramatically, while wider access to softer drugs like psychedelics might improve the general well-being of the adult population as evidenced by the dramatic results of the John Hopkins psilocybin studies.

 

[paranoid android]

Ive seen people get bad on opiates but Ive known plenty of others that had no problem with occasional use and the same goes for cocaine and methamphetamine and every other major drug of abuse. So it all comes down to the person so yeah i think it should be legal. This is not even mentioning that i consider it a violation of my freedom for anyone to regulate what i can and cannot put into my body. Besides nobody regulates how many big mac's a 300lbs slob can eat and that's alot more unhealthy for you then most drugs id bet lol

 

[Oxycondone]

Like others who have chimed in, I've never understood this chart entirely either. I suppose the physical harm scale is based on emergency room visitations or calls or something, because there's no way LSD is more physically harmful than a triple monoamine releasing hyperthermogenic like MDMA. It must just be people calling in who are freaking out thinking their going to die that accounts for LSD's placement. Otherwise, it's really only driving deaths/injuries or cases of injury during LSD induced psychosis that are going to cause physical damage. I have no idea why it's where it is on the dependency scale, though. Perhaps more people who try LSD continue to use it than MDMA, and that's taken as a metric of "dependency"? Clearly some of the criteria they're using is problematic if solvents are placed where they are, too. They can't be using statistical methods to try to standardize the usage of different drugs against each other by frequency of use, relative dosage level, etc. Imagine if people huffed gasoline until they were high as much as they drink alcohol until they get drunk....

I don't know if you where just quoting for emphasis but if not re-read my last post, the answer to your question is in there.

Dependence can be physical or psychological, many people think physical dependence is "more severe", "real addiction" or something similar, which I think stems from the wrongful idea many have that all physical injuries are more detrimental than mental problems, but people who are heavily psychologically addicted to a substance will tell you that the mental pull to a drug can be just as bad if not worse that enduring a few days to a week of sickness. There are people who are psychologically addicted to everything from Cannabis to Heroin. That is where the dependence factor comes from.

 

[RavinRaphael]

short answer..yes.

 

[CrookieMonster]

yes besides when it comes to age.. i don't think 7 year old kids need to be shooting dope behind their elementary school dumpster.

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

I don't like that particular chart, though I like the concept behind it.

I heard someone say once that was based off a poll of random doctors or something. What they thought was the harmfulness of various drugs in their opinion. I don't know if that's true, but it would explain some stuff about it. Too lazy to look it up myself...

 

[TheLostBoys]

Ive seen people get bad on opiates but Ive known plenty of others that had no problem with occasional use and the same goes for cocaine and methamphetamine and every other major drug of abuse. So it all comes down to the person so yeah i think it should be legal. This is not even mentioning that i consider it a violation of my freedom for anyone to regulate what i can and cannot put into my body. Besides nobody regulates how many big mac's a 300lbs slob can eat and that's alot more unhealthy for you then most drugs id bet lol

Its because the CIA isnt shipping in the cows to be slaughtered for that 300lb guy to eat some burgers. They are shipping in billions of dollars in drugs & for everyone to be happy, it they have to be illegal, "they have their cake & they are eating it too" those bastards.

 

[SangerRainsford]

..the cia? unsure i'm getting what you meant there

 

[Fyasko.]

i think the best thing for society is to put it in the hands on registered psychiatrists.
the government should decide which drugs can actually help people (MDMA - PTSD for instance) and give the psych's the power to prescribe the drug(s) as they feel needed.

 

[34-dihydroxyphen]

..the cia? unsure i'm getting what you meant there

Well, they used to be heavily invested in the cocaine business, but they have definitely taken advantage of the poppy growing that goes on in Afghanistan. A couple years ago somebody important leaked that information, but we are so used to this shit that the mainstream media didn't even bother picking it up.

And good for them. They have much more important things to talk about. Like how much they love/hate Obama and missing white girls and whatnot. All of the real things happening in the world aren't important, right?

 

[SangerRainsford]

o i'm plenty familiar with their (known)activities from nicaragua to afghanistan, just unsure what he's trying to imply (a generic "they've had involvement in the drug trade" wouldn't really illuminate his reply)

 

[40713]

i dont think it would be a good thing for the society to legalize everything today so anyone can get anything. im sure use of heroin,e,amphetamines,coke etc. would skyrocket from day1, lots of new users and ruined lives. i think what is needed first is alot of education, like a mix of advanced chemistry/biology in school, maybe itd be so much requiring year(s) more of education making it impossible..i dont know. with enough knowledge im sure users could make up theire own mind in a better way and most would prolly stay away from these drugs in the first place by themselves if they knew enough about it.
i think maybe cannabis,khat, mushrooms, lsd and such could be legalized today without much trouble with just some basic education. the others are deceptive and much more dangerous drugs im sure lots of ppl would get into a bad habit with without knowing enough about the bad sides..
so No to full legalization today, dont think it would be good for the society,even though it would make my own life alot easier & safer..too many weak and stupid ppl out there MAYBE it could work today if with heavy and strict regulations along with lots of information, I would not want to be the one to risc the public health on such a stunt though..

 

[shishigami]

Legalize everything, make it illegal to knowingly sell an unpure product (unless advertised as 50% MDMA by weight) or cut with something dangerous.

 

[Cambo]

I'd say yes, but as restricted as alcohol.
Every bottle of beer, wine, vodka etc has an alcohol percentage, so how could cannabis not have THC %, Cocaine with a percentage, Ecstasy, Heroin (which I would like to be really restricted for purchase) not all have percentages too, with maybe a restriction on purity (with safe, inactive adulterants).

 

[SangerRainsford]

use safe, inactive ingredients as a mechanism for selling, say, fentanyl. forcing strength-restrictions on a dopehead is the same as forcing an alcoholic to drink beers - they'll just consume more, so wtf is the point, really?
/EDIT: i'd only activate 'watering-down' ideas for fentanyl/etc due to the fact they're physically dangerous when pure. spilling strong dope on your hand isn't going to do the same as spilling fent/lsd/etc)