• Welcome Guest

    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
    Fun 💃 Threads Overdosed? Click
    D R U G   C U L T U R E

Which drugs would you legalize?

Which drugs would you legalize?

  • Marijuana/Hashish

    Votes: 540 56.1%

  • Cocaine/Crack Cocaine

    Votes: 110 11.4%

  • Heroin

    Votes: 146 15.2%

  • Opium

    Votes: 201 20.9%

  • MDMA(Ecstasy)

    Votes: 366 38.0%

  • Gamma Hydroxy Butyrate(GHB)

    Votes: 118 12.3%

  • Ketamine

    Votes: 206 21.4%

  • Dimethyltryptamine(DMT)

    Votes: 243 25.2%

  • Psilocybin Mushrooms

    Votes: 371 38.5%

  • LSD

    Votes: 374 38.8%

  • Mescaline

    Votes: 277 28.8%

  • Phencyclidine(PCP)

    Votes: 88 9.1%

  • 2C-x Family

    Votes: 213 22.1%

  • 4-AcO Family

    Votes: 152 15.8%

  • 4-HO Family

    Votes: 151 15.7%

  • DOx Family

    Votes: 138 14.3%

  • I would legalize all drugs

    Votes: 449 46.6%
  • Total voters
    963
Huaca said:
No black market for drugs will practically eliminate drug related crime and organized crime.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And the funny thing is, the pharmaceutical drugs are some of the major substances sold on the black market..often sold by patients on government-aid programs that get the shit for free and make a living selling it.

Anyone who is against legalization of drugs either have some money-related agenda (ie dealers, drug companies, etc) or they're completely oblivious. The trade off with legalization is possibly more addicts and definitely less crime.
 
In an ideal world id legalize them all! People should have the right to consume any substance they want. However, seeing as most of the population dont seem to want to take responsibility for their own actions its probably best the way it is.

When people start dieing from all the legal heroin and coke who are they going to blame? themselves for overdoing it and being greedy? or the world leaders for making it legal.
 
ganja and psychs.if we legalised heroin,meth that would be a terrible mistake.20% of aincent chinese were opium addicted when it was legal there.imagine everyone tweakin and noddin n cracked out all over.thats bad
 
Id make cannabis, tobacco, psilocybin mushrooms legal and make alcahol illegal. My reasoing is that all natural occuring products should be legal and all synthetic/semisynthetic drugs should be illegal or tightly controlled.

Otherwise id just make everything legal.
 
I'd legalise every drug. As the owner of my body, I have the natural right to consume whatever substance I wish - even if it is harmful!
 
The reason why some drugs should have a special legal status is that they may cause addiction, in effect forcing the user to consume them against their will. Thus, the sale of addictive substances may be seen as a violation of the user's rights by the dealer.

But even so, the user would be a victim, not a criminal, and many forbidden drugs today have low risks of addiction so they shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
 
RigaCrypto said:
The reason why some drugs should have a special legal status is that they may cause addiction, in effect forcing the user to consume them against their will. Thus, the sale of addictive substances may be seen as a violation of the user's rights by the dealer.

But even so, the user would be a victim, not a criminal, and many forbidden drugs today have low risks of addiction so they shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
Click to expand...

Good point. However, I still think the user should have the right to choose what they consume. Addiction happens with continued use - the user isn't addicted to begin with, so there's no coercion involved in the initial sale of the drug. The user may be uninformed about the risks of the drug, and I guess that's where education comes in. Still, I think the choice should ultimately be theirs.
 
Well by this line of reasoning, the very fact that a drug is addictive means that the user does NOT have the choice whether to consume it or not.

Also, the effects of some drugs, including some of the most addictive ones, are impossible to imagine for someone who has not taken them, so it's impossible to make an informed choice.
 
I'd legalize everything with the exceptions of bioterrorist weapons and things (hella potent fent-analogues come to mind). The government has no right to tell me what I can and cannot put into my body.
 
RigaCrypto said:
Well by this line of reasoning, the very fact that a drug is addictive means that the user does NOT have the choice whether to consume it or not.

Also, the effects of some drugs, including some of the most addictive ones, are impossible to imagine for someone who has not taken them, so it's impossible to make an informed choice.
Click to expand...

Almost everything has the potential to become addictive... drugs (including alcohol and cigarettes), junk food, sex, video games, etc.

Where should the line be drawn?
 
I am probably echoing what has been stated by many others. Drugs shouldn't be legalized/illegalized based on harm. All drugs have the ability to cause harm. In a free society, individuals should have the right to decide what they use and don't use- I see this as a fundamental human right. Moreover, and most importantly, the war against drugs has caused much more harm to individuals worldwide than the drugs themselves. I have said this before, and I will say this again, the ultimate form of harm reduction would be to end the World War on Drugs. This is fundamentally a war against individual human beings. In terms of addiction, if you subscribe to the belief that addiction is a disease and that a percentage of users will naturally become addicted to drugs, then subjecting addicts to criminal punishment is tantamount to subjecting a minority group to repression and persecution and doing it in a manner that state sanctioned and socially acceptable. This is just as bad as throwing people in jail for race, religion, or sexual preference would be. The perpetrators of this war are guilty of Crimes Against Humanity.

I am a US citizen, and as such, I can also say that drug prohibition is a violation of founding spirit and principles of this country. A philosophy that values self reliance, limited government, and the rights of man. As such, architects of the drug prohibition in the USA are traitors. Yes, the United States might have played a leading role in perpetrating and perpetuating the War on Drugs:o and this is why it has an even greater responsibility of being the first country to take a leading role in ending the War on Drugs. I think this would do more, than anything, to repair our image world wide. Too bad I don't see this happening anytime soon or even not so soon.:!
 
legalize everything

black markets only lead to criminals and government profiteering. Nicotine is highly addictive, some say even harder to kick than heroin. So why is nicotine legal? It all boils down to special interests
 
jspun said:
I am probably echoing what has been stated by many others. Drugs shouldn't be legalized/illegalized based on harm. All drugs have the ability to cause harm. In a free society, individuals should have the right to decide what they use and don't use- I see this as a fundamental human right. Moreover, and most importantly, the war against drugs has caused much more harm to individuals worldwide than the drugs themselves. I have said this before, and I will say this again, the ultimate form of harm reduction would be to end the World War on Drugs. This is fundamentally a war against individual human beings. In terms of addiction, if you subscribe to the belief that addiction is a disease and that a percentage of users will naturally become addicted to drugs, then subjecting addicts to criminal punishment is tantamount to subjecting a minority group to repression and persecution and doing it in a manner that state sanctioned and socially acceptable. This is just as bad as throwing people in jail for race, religion, or sexual preference would be. The perpetrators of this war are guilty of Crimes Against Humanity.

I am a US citizen, and as such, I can also say that drug prohibition is a violation of founding spirit and principles of this country. A philosophy that values self reliance, limited government, and the rights of man. As such, architects of the drug prohibition in the USA are traitors. Yes, the United States might have played a leading role in perpetrating and perpetuating the War on Drugs:o and this is why it has an even greater responsibility of being the first country to take a leading role in ending the War on Drugs. I think this would do more, than anything, to repair our image world wide. Too bad I don't see this happening anytime soon or even not so soon.:!
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Sweet P said:
Almost everything has the potential to become addictive... drugs (including alcohol and cigarettes), junk food, sex, video games, etc.

Where should the line be drawn?
Click to expand...

The word 'addiction' is unclearly defined and overused. People say they're addicted to chocolate too.

The way I see it, the line should be drawn at drugs that cause a pleasure higher than that attainable in normal life, or a correspondingly severe withdrawal syndrome. These are the ones that may motivate people to seek them compulsively, to the extent of abandoning their lives.

Weaker drugs could be assimilated to other pleasurable activities in life. Sex, for normal people, has in-built self-limiting mechanisms.

And there are many things in life (such as gambling, etc.) that may activate the psychological vicious circle that leads to psychological dependence, but they are not as strongly enforced as, say, a heroin addiction.
 
legalize vs decriminalize

I would decriminalize all drugs to start. I think they should be legal. The problem is, that most (stupid) people think of the wild west when they hear legalize and imagine no laws or regulations. There are benefits of legalization with regulation. Alcohol and tobacco are legal, but they are also regulated (age limit, taxed...). At least taxing drugs according to their inherent danger will raise money for honest education (not propoganda) and harm reduction. Setting prices/taxes according to the drugs danger will help diminish the black market's power and influence. Setting the price (not too high or low) would help keep there from being an explosion in people trying these drugs for the first time.

And, if someone can't afford their drugs, isn't it better to do what other countries (outside the US) have tried and give them to junkies...they're going to have to do something to get the $$ because they are going to use. People in power need to stop their failed war on drugs and look at harm reduction, legalization and decriminalization.:|
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top