Would you legalise drugs?

[turnandburn]

One could imagine that after you've tried waking up with ass pain in some strangers bed following one of your drug cocktail binges, you'd perhaps reconsider if you really want to keep doing this.

Well, given that I'm engaged and living with my man, and wouldn't be doing it without him, I doubt that scenario would happen...

 

[Eyeronie]

Having enjoyed drugs already puts you in a position of strong bias.

Why is that again? Are you accusing the people you're debating of simply trying to get cheaper drugs, or are you saying that getting high somehow skews your view of.....getting high? Either way I don't follow.

If anything having exposure to these substances would familiarize and humanize the whole activity, and build empathy towards other people that are attracted to the same thing (addicts).

How can you try many of these drugs without thinking, "Wait, why is this illegal again?"

On the contrary it's those who have little experience and are therefor more susceptible to the bullshit that have a biased view of what drug use is all about. As if those who have no experience with drugs have a better perspective from their bubbles on the "raw behavioral patterns". Reminds me of my parents. God knows what those people believe about drugs.

I was the same way. Every drug i've tried has shattered my preconceptions about it. The only possible explanation for banning drugs like LSD and psylocibin is ignorance, which goes hand in hand with bias.

Not everybody behaves the way you wish them to. Separate yourself from the system for a moment, pretend you never did drugs in the first place, and look at the raw behavioral patterns. Put yourself in another's shoes for once and walk a mile. It will make you a more rounded person to understand the world beyond "me, myself, and I". If people on this earth can go to great lengths to choose pulling an animal from a buring building rather than a fellow human being, then there must be some of us that understand how to protect one another. There's approximately 6.5 billion other people that share this planet.

Both sides of this debate believe their solution would lead to the greater good - so is the preaching really necessary?

 

[Able Danger]

Then how come you can't understand that we in the US would have a much bigger health crisis if drugs became easily obtained? We can't keep our fat asses out of McDonalds and our hearts from clogging up. How are we supposed to tackle the issue of an increase in drug-related accidents? Chalk it up to human rights as much as you want but sooner of later, somebody is going to have to clean up the mess and front the bill. You can't just float words like "freedom", "free will", and "human rights" without taking into consideration the consequences.

What the fuck do YOU care what I do to my body. It is my health.

 

[kittyinthedark]

Then how come you can't understand that we in the US would have a much bigger health crisis if drugs became easily obtained? We can't keep our fat asses out of McDonalds and our hearts from clogging up. How are we supposed to tackle the issue of an increase in drug-related accidents? Chalk it up to human rights as much as you want but sooner of later, somebody is going to have to clean up the mess and front the bill. You can't just float words like "freedom", "free will", and "human rights" without taking into consideration the consequences.

By your logic, unhealthy food should be illegal, and the fact that alcohol is legal is an abomination. Along with motorized vehicles, base jumping, fireworks, and swimming pools. And I'd still like to see any reasonable logic that suggests drug-related accidents would increase. I'm sure numbers from during and pre- and post-Prohibition have been quoted in this thread already. You should read them.

The Constitution is clear - the government is here to protect our freedoms, not be a babysitter and tell us that we can't do things that might hurt us. You also seem to be suggesting that it is okay for the government to tell us what we are and are not allowed to do even when there are no consequences on others.

Where do you suggest drawing the line? Because right now, your case is COMPLETELY untenable.

 

[ebola?]

>>Then how come you can't understand that we in the US would have a much bigger health crisis if drugs became easily obtained?>>

Look what happened when I did your thought experiment:

>>>>Separate yourself from the system for a moment, pretend you never did drugs in the first place, and look at the raw behavioral patterns.>>

I probably wouldn't try them if they were legalized. >>

>>We can't keep our fat asses out of McDonalds and our hearts from clogging up.>>

None of the social stigma surrounding drug use surrounds overeating or fast food. The analogy is not apt.

>>You can't just float words like "freedom", "free will", and "human rights" without taking into consideration the consequences.>>

I did. I just disagree about what the net consequences would be. It's an empirical question for which neither of us has a definite answer (nor could we). I think no more can be said.

ebola

 

[Cyrus]

By your logic, unhealthy food should be illegal, and the fact that alcohol is legal is an abomination. Along with motorized vehicles, base jumping, fireworks, and swimming pools. And I'd still like to see any reasonable logic that suggests drug-related accidents would increase. I'm sure numbers from during and pre- and post-Prohibition have been quoted in this thread already. You should read them.

The Constitution is clear - the government is here to protect our freedoms, not be a babysitter and tell us that we can't do things that might hurt us. You also seem to be suggesting that it is okay for the government to tell us what we are and are not allowed to do even when there are no consequences on others.

Where do you suggest drawing the line? Because right now, your case is COMPLETELY untenable.

Kitty-
You can't compare these two things, drugs and food? drugs and sex? drugs and swimming? dugs and fireworks? You can't compare them logically, so it's not really helpful to your case saying "So XX should be outlawed" or "XX should be illegal also" etc.

Everyonie-
But yes, I believe that there is a strong bias. Ask anyone that uses drugs if drugs should be legalised. Chances are, they'll say yes. Ask anyone that doesn't and the chances are they'll say no. It's not that he's occusing anybody of anything, except that they may be a bit biased.

Some people do use drugs without thinking why it's illegal.
And also, I believe the reason LSD has been illegalised is because it hasn't no acceptable physiological use in medicine, and mainly due to lack of research. Also because of the way it makes people behave, which could lead to dangerous and troubling situations if someone isn't in the right mind.


I personally do drugs and though i'd want them to have less of a penalty. Like posession charges.

Ebola is right, in the end its more or less a big wish.

 

[ebola?]

>>I believe the reason LSD has been illegalised is because it hasn't no acceptable physiological use in medicine>>

Actually, many psychological researchers thought it showed a good bit of promise as a theraputic tool.

LSD was scheduled because of the hysteria surrounding the countercultural movement of the sixties.

>>Ebola is right, in the end its more or less a big wish.>>

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but what did I say that suggests this?

ebola

 

[redeemer]

Ask anyone that uses drugs if drugs should be legalised. Chances are, they'll say yes. Ask anyone that doesn't and the chances are they'll say no.

Many drug users, such as yourself, believe drugs should remain illegal. Hardly anyone I've approached had really thought about it and had a negative attitude towards it at first because of propaganda in the media, lies/myths floating around and generally because the issue has been stigmatized by the government.

 

[Cyrus]

Actually, many psychological researchers thought it showed a good bit of promise as a theraputic tool.

Right, that's why I said physiological and not psychological. Not enough research has been done to really conclude anything.

redeemer-
From what i've seen, many have said yes, whilst a few have said no. Going off a thread in a forum isn't exactly that credible, so yes there may be others out there that share the same general view as I or DjDanny. But seriously, next time your out maybe sharing a J with some people, get their opinions of it.

 

[Eyeronie]

Kitty-
You can't compare these two things, drugs and food? drugs and sex? drugs and swimming? dugs and fireworks? You can't compare them logically, so it's not really helpful to your case saying "So XX should be outlawed" or "XX should be illegal also" etc.

I truly believe that having a one night stand (with protection) or using fireworks is statistically more of a risk than smoking a joint (or occasionally doing coke for that matter). The similar risks justify the comparison. Sex laws are still on the books in many places, this isn't as crazy as it sounds. The consequences of irresponsible sex in our country are massive. If rights are just "words" and it's solely the greater good we're concerned about, why stop with drugs? It's not as commonsense as you make it sound. It's not nitpicking, we're looking for logical coherency.

It's all about where you draw the line and i'm having a hard time finding out where exactly the prohibitionists want to draw it and why.

And also, I believe the reason LSD has been illegalised is because it hasn't no acceptable physiological use in medicine, and mainly due to lack of research. Also because of the way it makes people behave, which could lead to dangerous and troubling situations if someone isn't in the right mind.

You're right it might even have medicinal uses but that's beside the point. Does something have to be completely safe or practically useful to the state or the medical community to be legal? Do you realize how extreme that kind of thinking is? It's hardly safe, but compared to other high risk legal activities the damage easily available LSD would do to America is nil.

Please tell me what's wrong with the following paragraph and why this same criticism wouldn't apply to the drug war.

AIDS hit the gay community hard. They chose that path but you know it's not just them, the health costs and the lowered productivity effect us all. We know we can't stop gay men from having sex, but maybe if we banned it and enforced it as best we can we could lower the overall amount of gay sex that occurs in America and thus help stem the AIDS crisis and related costs. It also sends the clear message to our children that gay sex is not safe, which it isn't statistically. The gays might cry that we're trampling on their rights, but priority goes to other people's right to not be effected by the actions of gay men. No man is an island. Nowhere in the constitution does it give men the right to have sex with other men, and in fact this practice was already made illegal in many places during the 19th century. Since gay sex isn't necessary for reproduction, and has little practical value other than the gratification of gay men, I feel it should be banned in the name of the public health.

 

[kittyinthedark]

Kitty-
You can't compare these two things, drugs and food? drugs and sex? drugs and swimming? dugs and fireworks? You can't compare them logically, so it's not really helpful to your case saying "So XX should be outlawed" or "XX should be illegal also" etc.

You may not be able to compare the items/practices logically, but you sure as shit can compare the logic behind making them legal or illegal. You are refusing to address that fact, and until you do so, I will assume it is because you know your stance is indefensible.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

The Constitution is clear - the government is here to protect our freedoms, not be a babysitter and tell us that we can't do things that might hurt us. You also seem to be suggesting that it is okay for the government to tell us what we are and are not allowed to do even when there are no consequences on others.

Where do you suggest drawing the line? Because right now, your case is COMPLETELY untenable.

Then who's here to protect my freedom? Why should I carry the ignorant and irresponsible on my back? My tax and health care dollars go to help out the misfortunate, not for some candy kid to pop 11 Nikes and a 12 Xanadrine. If someone here can work out a policy to offest that cost, I would have no problem with it. I work way too hard for the money I make. Everyone says health care wouldn't be affected but doesn't anyone realize that is the reason why they're illegal in the first place? The truth of the matter is that American society has come to depend on the government to babysit and make laws for the stupid among us. It should never have come to such a point but until we can reverse that characteristic of our society, releasing drugs into the public will not be a good thing.

What the fuck do YOU care what I do to my body. It is my health.

You can do whatever you want with your body as long as it doesn't come out of my paycheck.

I probably wouldn't try them if they were legalized.

So I guess you speak for the rest of the entire population of curious individuals on this planet? You're using your own preference and appying it to society. It's not an "apt" analogy either.

I would be all in favor of legalization just as anyone else here would, however it's my turn for my rights. You can do all the drugs you want, but if it shouldn't affect MY right to keep the money I earn for MYSELF and pay only for the health care costs I utilize. Maybe people who use drugs should be required to purchase additional insurance. And if you take it upon yourself to do drugs without it, you're on your own. But that will never happen.

You may not be able to compare the items/practices logically, but you sure as shit can compare the logic behind making them legal or illegal. You are refusing to address that fact, and until you do so, I will assume it is because you know your stance is indefensible.

Outlaw food? I never compared the two. I just made the analogy that if we can't deal with the simple things yet, how are we supposed to handle a health crisis caused by a huge influx of hard drugs? Your not looking at each situation independently. And swimming pools? Base jumping? You're telling me those activities contribute to the overall rise in health care?

 

[kittyinthedark]

^Again, you have not supported your claim that healthcare costs would rise if drugs became legal. In fact, everything I have ever read suggests there would be a decrease in costs. Revenues from taxes on recreational drugs would fund a rehab program thereby decreasing general healthcare costs, functional addicts would have a cheap and steady supply thereby allowing them to function normally and productively in the economy (work a regular job, have money to spend on other goods that they previously spent on drugs, etc.) generating more tax dollars, and REAL drug education programs would be commonplace, drastically *reducing* the number of instances of misuse or accidental overdose/mishaps which would concurrently be reduced by complete regulation of substance production -> no adulterants + standardized doses = fewer health risks. Not to mention that poor drug addicts make up a large portion of those who add dramatically to healthcare costs because they use emergency room services for general medical care. Giving them free rehab (as explained above) would take a decent chunk of that drain on healthcare services. Add to that the fact that drug use would no longer be a deterrent for hiring, and you now have even more drug users on regular employer run health insurance programs, FURTHER lessening the cost to the general public.

 

[qwedsa]

I'm done debating on health care costs going down as a result of introducing more addictive chemicals into our daily consumer behaviors. It's absurd. You really need to separate yourself from your personal passion for drug use and legalization and assess reality (or American society in particular) from a third person perspective. Having enjoyed drugs already puts you in a position of strong bias. Not everybody behaves the way you wish them to. Separate yourself from the system for a moment, pretend you never did drugs in the first place, and look at the raw behavioral patterns. Put yourself in another's shoes for once and walk a mile. It will make you a more rounded person to understand the world beyond "me, myself, and I". If people on this earth can go to great lengths to choose pulling an animal from a buring building rather than a fellow human being, then there must be some of us that understand how to protect one another. There's approximately 6.5 billion other people that share this planet.

wow. someone lost

 

[ebola?]

>>Then who's here to protect my freedom? Why should I carry the ignorant and irresponsible on my back? >>

Because carrying the ignorant is cheaper than trying to control what they do.

ebola

 

[kittyinthedark]

wow. someone lost

Who lost? Replace "drugs" with "fast food," "alcohol," or any other vice and you'll see that that argument is completely futile.

And just another point - we would not be "introducing more addictive chemicals into our daily consumer behaviors," we would be removing the black market and criminal element surrounding recreational drugs, many of which, i might add, are not addictive. There is absolutely no evidence that supports the notion that drug use would go up if it were legalized. Look to any country that has legalized.

 

[ebola?]

I'm gonna play devils advocate and say that we don't have contemporary data on countries that have legalized (in a thorough-going way) more addictive substances, like cocaine, amphetamines, heroin, etc.

ebola

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

wow. someone lost

Who says anyone lost? Who says anyone won? This isn't 2nd grade kickball. I'm glad you posted that because it just shows your arrogant and immature view of the situation. I'm not here to win or lose. I'm hear to point out the most likely consequence of legalizing all drugs at once. I've worked in the health care field since I was 18 and have an understanding of public health behavior and I disagree that the majority of people are going to use drugs in the proper manner. What's gonna stop people from overdosing?

Again, you have not supported your claim that healthcare costs would rise if drugs became legal.

Nobody here has supported the costs effectiveness of legalizing drugs (and not referenced from a pro-drug web page) other than referencing alcohol, which is a whole different monster. You can't just cleanly shift expenses around between pre and post legalization of drugs thinking everything neatly takes care of itself. You're telling me that the well known long term side effects of illegal drugs will not put a strain on the health care system once masses of drugs users reach the point where they will be unable to produce income that covers their medical expense? Especially as they become elderly? If you truly have the answer, then why don't you become active in politics or finance?

Because carrying the ignorant is cheaper than trying to control what they do

Good luck convincing 51% of the American workforce of that notion. I have a right NOT to be held responsible for someone's actions.

 

[Mehm]

What's gonna stop people from overdosing?

operant conditioning and social learning

overdoses aren't preatty

 

[redeemer]

What's gonna stop people from overdosing?

Themselves, presumably. Most people don't wish to die, hence they check the dosage of the drug they are taking.

What's stopping people from overdosing today? Prohibiton only makes it harder to prevent overdoses.