Would you legalise drugs?

[human]

If this is directed towards me, I never said they should be illegal because they aren't safe. I do not see the need to legalize them into an open market because of the health issues.

Nah, it wasn't directed at you. Was directed at Cyrus.

Before I mentioned the feasibility of a (personal) licensure system but that would cost too much and produce too little regulation.

Any reasoning behind that or are you just throwing out what you believe?

Maybe you only get a certain amount of pills or grams of coke per month. It may sound silly to some people, but the fact is that if everybody were to have free reign on unlimitless amounts of hard drugs, what stops us from quickly dissolving into a nation of dumb-shits with useless brains?

The idea of a limit doesn't sound silly to me at all (and was in fact advocated by me in this thread). What does sound silly is your recurring assumption that illegality is the primary reason that most people abstain from drug use.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Any reasoning behind that or are you just throwing out what you believe?

Certification to do drugs isn't practical and people will circumvent this easily. We can freely consume any other substance so what is going to motivate people to put extra effort into obtaining documents to do drugs? It will just end up like alcohol. People with documentation will just pass the drugs on to other people, especially if certification is costly - and in the hands of the government, you can bet it will be. This cost will just be another motivation to bypass the certification. Look at driver's licenses, look at car insurance. People do not keep up on these necessities. What makes you think drug certification will be any different?

And if (a BIG IF) licensure was established AND the vast majority of people obeyed it, how do you go about enforcing it? Random ID checks at clubs and raves? There's alot of expense in your proposal that will ultimately make drugs just as expensive as they are on the street if not more.

What does sound silly is your recurring assumption that illegality is the primary reason that most people abstain from drug use.

Did I ever say it was the "primary" reason? Didn't somebody say that drugs have been labeled with a stigma in the eyes of the general public because of how the government has portrayed them in the past? Doesn't the average person equate illegality with some type of immorality? (if it's illegal it must be bad) Assuming that large amounts of people will not try them now that they can be done without fear of the law is silly. And talk about silliness. "Certify for a specific drug"? Yeah, I can see this going down at the club:

person 1: "Hey, I got some new Green Dolphins in. Everyone says they're really euphoric, wanna few rolls?!?"
person 2: "I'd love to, but I'm only certified for coke."

That's about as silly as they come.

 

[Disco Stu]

If I wanted to maintain an orderly society, absolutely not. Unfortunately, not everyone is as responsible when it comes to chemicals as many Bluelighters are, and the power these chemicals can have in dictating one's motivations and aspirations when abused are unquestionable. How would the trains run on time if everyone was smoking tweak and running around paranoid all day? 8)

I mean, cigarettes are supposedly nearly as addictive, but nicotine addiction doesn't cause one to become delusional or lose sight of one's goals. Because of this, drugs like tobacco pose little threat to "the fabric of society" and the maintainance of productivity and order.

Then again, I'm a huge advocate for personal choice and responsibility. I just feel too many people make the wrong choices and are irresponsible when it comes to many things. There's no reason why that wouldn't apply to drugs if they were legalized. You think obesity is bad, imagine if every vice was legal and pushed onto people...8(

 

[Eyeronie]

How would the trains run on time if everyone was smoking tweak and running around paranoid all day?

Why do you think that would happen? Such a thing hasn't happened in any country in the history of the world. As if there's tons of people out there that are like, "Man, I wish I could smoke tweak all day, but since it's illegal, I guess i'll stay sober." How many people do you really think even WANT to do tweak at day? And remember, we have meth anyway. All the money and violence and incarcerations and all you can claim is to have reduced the availability of meth (which is now coast to coast, covering rural areas almost as well as cities).

You're painting this apocolyptic picture of what would happen if meth was available to adults, and forgetting that it's already available to most of the drug using public to begin with and to many teenagers. Why are the good and sober people of today suddenly going to become tweakers once you can buy it at the store instead of from that guy you met drinking the other night who says to call anytime? Some might be held back, but so many that legalization would stop the trains from running? I can't see it. People tweaking at work would get fired just like they do now. High responsibility positions would require drug testing. Legalizating drugs does not equal chaos, anymore than legalizing beer does. Is there a problem with train drivers going to work drunk now?

I mean, cigarettes are supposedly nearly as addictive, but nicotine addiction doesn't cause one to become delusional or lose sight of one's goals. Because of this, drugs like tobacco pose little threat to "the fabric of society" and the maintainance of productivity and order.

You convienently left alcohol out of this thought, as is usual for the prohibitionists in this thread.

Then again, I'm a huge advocate for personal choice and responsibility.

This doesn't mean much if you're not willing to trust others with that responsibility.

You think obesity is bad, imagine if every vice was legal and pushed onto people...

Almost all plans for legalization mandate that psychoactive drugs would not be advertised. These chemicals would never be pushed on the public the way unhealthy foods have been in our culture. Far more people are going to fall into the trap of inactivity and eating too much each day than are going to fly off into meth addiction.

You guys think you're a lot smarter and more responsible compared to your fellow man than you really are, and you're justifying the arrest of others who take part in the same activity you do. You put money into the industry that spreads these "destructive" drugs into our society and then preach that you can't condone such activity. You vote to bring drugs into America every time you get high, and then complain about your insurance payments going up and the GDP being effected if we allowed others to do this legally.

I guess the collateral damage and humiliation of the drug war doesn't mean much to you when you're getting the best of both worlds.

 

[SexWivMusic]

No i wouldnt legalise drugs. Especially the schedual 1 drugs, there in that catagory 4 a specific reason. If they wernt i believe the world would be far worse than wat it is now.

 

[Symmetrical Daze]

^such a poor arguement. schedule 1 is where marijuana is, which does has medical uses, the psychedelics which can change a persons life for the better and be used to make psychotherapy work better, and ecstasy and its use in treating PTSD.

The government doesn't always know best, open your mind and close your ignorance.

I would legalize the psychedelics and pot for clinical use... where they can only be used in a controlled environment unless you apply for a permit and get accepted to use at home, which would be mostly based on a test of knowledge. I would change heroin to schedule II to help the very sick and dying.

Legalizing opiates and other addicting substances like cocaine and meth would mess this country up very badly IMO. Kids would obtain drugs easy (just like most can with alcohol). Pro-legalizers argue that it would keep drugs away from kids by keeping them off the street. But there are a lot of bad people out there who would buy drugs legally and sell them back to kids.

Someone who wouldn't do anything illegal has a rough day at work, and decides to do some legal heroin. He will most likely get addicted and, if drugs are very cheap, its very likely people will overdose much more. He may lose sight of his life goals; heroin will mean more to him than any person or hobby.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

No i wouldnt legalise drugs. Especially the schedual 1 drugs, there in that catagory 4 a specific reason. If they wernt i believe the world would be far worse than wat it is now.

Your name is 'SexWivMusic', you advocate the use of herb and tell us that you get stoned/high, you are a hardcore bible thumper who believes the earth is 6000 years old and now you want to continue with the ban of schedule 1 substances which house cannabis?

You don't ever make any consistent sense, my friend.

 

[*~Giggles~*]

Weed would be legal and people could grow it at home.

 

[Eyeronie]

Someone who wouldn't do anything illegal has a rough day at work, and decides to do some legal heroin. He will most likely get addicted and, if drugs are very cheap, its very likely people will overdose much more. He may lose sight of his life goals; heroin will mean more to him than any person or hobby.

If opiates were legal and cheap in pill form, most wouldn't pick up a needle, especially if they were just trying to relax after work. Why do you say they will most likely get addicted? Many times in this thread it's been pointed out that addiction rates for these substances, including opiates, is usually under 15%. Even amoungst those who do become dependent and addicted, many are able to shake it themselves.

There are those few for whom the drug takes over and who then require rehab and whatnot to break free of the addiction, but please keep in perspective that Bob would have come home and get high after work every day for weeks before that happened. That's weeks of indulgent highs, constipation, cloudy thinking, skyrocketing tolerance, difficulty performing sexually. There's massive warning signs on the side of the road to opiate addiction, if you're smart enough to avoid it don't think your fellow man is too stupid to see them. For many of the hardcore addicts they know what they're doing, they just don't give a fuck, they're self destructive, and drugs are just the scenic route out. These people need our help, they're going to get their drugs under prohibition anyway, and they don't need to be persecuted and forced to buy their relief in the ghetto. These people are not held back by the fact that it's illegal. Anyone who cares that much about the law probably isn't hardcore meth or heroin addict meterial anyway.

When few of us, the drug crowd, would opt for that lifestyle what on Earth makes you think so many others will especially if rehab is available in every major city? Everybody's watched too much cops!

Please keep in mind that by supporting prohibition of the hard drugs you are condeming today's addicts, our inner cities, multiple latin american and asian countries, and the millions of people over the years who's freedom, children, and lives are taken away by the drug war. Those most at risk for addiction and temptation to dive into the black market (in other words, the poor) will be permanently held down by this drug war while middle class, educated drug users like many of those posting in this thread get away with the same activity.

It's just as the rich drank during prohibition while the working man was expected to abstain, cause you know, they just can't handle themselves. You're killing the very people you think this drug war is helping.

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

i would love to kill human if it where legal...8(

stupid people and bigot exist because we breed them !!

you cant force someone to be intelligent,
you cant force someone to love (themself),
you can only let them grow

fascism doesnt work

Liberty means responsibility

...

for those against legalisation...
would you prefer 1 man in jail
or 10 man treated as human being in a hospital ???

 

[Symmetrical Daze]

If opiates were legal and cheap in pill form, most wouldn't pick up a needle, especially if they were just trying to relax after work. Why do you say they will most likely get addicted? Many times in this thread it's been pointed out that addiction rates for these substances, including opiates, is usually under 15%. Even amoungst those who do become dependent and addicted, many are able to shake it themselves.

There is a rush associated with using a needle that no other method can compare to. I say most likely because think of the inhibitions people have towards getting addiction today. There is the problem of breaking the law and the money associated with it. Getting thrown in jail and going broke is enough to scare most people away. But legalize them, and people are going to be much less afraid to get addicted. Most won't start out saying "I'm going to do this the rest of my life", but throw in that heavenly warm rush, and most people will eventually want to live like that, especially if they use to cope with stress (which I assume is why most smoke, because it relieves stress).

I personally would not be able to shake it were strong opiates legal. I would battle against it for a while but I know with my heart, sadly that it wouldn't work. Something would happen, I'd go down to the local opium den and would never want to leave.

I was not smart enough to avoid addiction. One dose can create a weak spot for wanting to use again. Then that spot develops into a strong mental craving, and finally, mix in physical craving. I overcame my addiction but if those things were legal and cheap I would not have been able to. It simply destroys willpower in that area.

On this note, I think legalizing these drugs would also be bad for addicts. So many would relapse.

And for the addicts whos lives would greatly benefit from a legalization, just think is it worth transforming so many others inevitably into addicts? Yes they will do it themselves but so many will be doing so just because its legal and cheap. There is methadone for these people today.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

for those against legalisation...
would you prefer 1 man in jail
or 10 man treated as human being in a hospital ???

I do not think drug addicts are criminals, but I do think that if you have a problem with it, there should be measures in place that makes it (at least somewhat) difficult in obtaining such substances. Not just for saving some expense to the public, but for that person's well-being as well. And just to go back to my previous fiscal agrument, it can potentially cost hundreds of thousands more to treat 10 humans in a hospital than 1 person in jail, especially if it is chronic. Although I would prefer the hospital route as long as it didn't come from a deeper reach into my pocket.

 

[Eyeronie]

I personally would not be able to shake it were strong opiates legal. I would battle against it for a while but I know with my heart, sadly that it wouldn't work. Something would happen, I'd go down to the local opium den and would never want to leave.

I was not smart enough to avoid addiction. One dose can create a weak spot for wanting to use again. Then that spot develops into a strong mental craving, and finally, mix in physical craving. I overcame my addiction but if those things were legal and cheap I would not have been able to. It simply destroys willpower in that area.

This is a really good and honest post, and I see where you're coming from. Having never used IV heroin, I can't attest to the pull, but many others have described it like you have. I have a feeling opiates would present the biggest problem of all if drugs were legalized. This definately isn't anything we could do overnight.

If that's the rationale for prohibition (addictiveness destroying willpower), as you said cannabis and the psychedelics could easily be legalized. Even the club drugs (MDMA, ketamine, GHB) lack the addictive pull of opiates.

As of now we ban everything, without actually monitoring the usage patterns and doing a cost benefit analysis of banning each drug. If we brought this above ground we could at least get accurate data on how many people are using, what they're using, and how many are becoming addicted. We could also provide better support for those who do and save quite a bit of money.

Either way in this debate people are literally going to die because of the decisions we make. If we could only accurately measure the damage both methods cause....

 

[TheDuckIsBack]

I can easily say that the top of my list would be to move MDMA back into Schedule III were it belongs. The wonders it can do for couples therapy aside, it can flat-out cure Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which can be so disabiling that it ruins the entire rest of the victim's life. The fact that a treatment exists but is illegal is criminal.

 

[Disco Stu]

This doesn't mean much if you're not willing to trust others with that responsibility.

I said I advocate, meaning speak in favor of, personal responsibility. That doesn't necessarily mean I believe it is prevalent in our society today. On the contrary. many people take little responsibility in the effects their actions have on themselves and others. Just look at drunk drivers and crimes associated with alcohol. Look at the obesity epidemic as another example. Having highly addictive, powerful drugs such as meth available to the public at large with no deterrents whatsoever would probably be devastating to an orderly society in general. Remember: this is my view if I wanted to maintain the most order in a society. I'm playing devil's advocate, basically. I'm still unsure of my actual opinion of drug legalization. Like nearly every other issue, there's no definitive black or white answer to it; the truth lies somewhere in the muddled gray for me.

 

[human]

Certification to do drugs isn't practical and people will circumvent this easily.

What about it isn't practical? And of course people will circumvent this. People drive and hunt and shit without licenses, but that doesn't stop the government from issuing the licenses. People easily circumvent the law now. What's your point?

We can freely consume any other substance so what is going to motivate people to put extra effort into obtaining documents to do drugs?

Beacuse consuming other substances isn't nearly as entertaining as doing drugs. :D As far as motivation goes, I'll quote myself

The goal is to make it so that no users want to remain unlicensed. Users can have an accurate dose, 100% purity, reasonable prices, and good times with like minded friends free from the law. Oppositely, users can have illicit market quality, unknown purity, inflated prices, and posession charges. Of course, a significant portion (most hopefully a significant minority) would choose to remain unlicensed, but this is no different from the current situation.

Swerp.

It will just end up like alcohol. People with documentation will just pass the drugs on to other people, especially if certification is costly - and in the hands of the government, you can bet it will be. This cost will just be another motivation to bypass the certification. Look at driver's licenses, look at car insurance. People do not keep up on these necessities. What makes you think drug certification will be any different?

Well, would you rather have unknowledgeable sellers passing cut/dangerously potent/bunk drugs to unknowledgeable users, or knowledgeable sellers passing pure drugs at known doses to unknowledgeable users? Which one do you think is safer? If someone was giving out a drug that they fucking took a class about, odds are basic precautions are going to come up in conversation. This is much better than "yeah man lemme know how you like it." or some other worthless parting words. Whoever is buying the drugs is doing so just as illegally as before. Additionally, supply for licensed users is restricted, so I doubt they'd be all that willing to sell the personal supply that they're allowed. Could you tell me what you see as a significant incentive for licensees to sell to non-users? It's not like someone could go get a license and then take a few friends on a binge with them.
Oh, and last time it was relevant to me, unlicensed or uninsured drivers were approximately 15% of the driving population (each category, not combined, but of course overlap is likely). 15% really isn't that bad. Additionally, there's typically more incentive to drive w/o a license or insurance, because in some cases shit happens but people still need to drive (work, emergency, whatever). People don't need to do drugs. It's a luxury. I wouldn't call cars an absolute necessity, but they're very much less of a luxury than driving.

And if (a BIG IF) licensure was established AND the vast majority of people obeyed it, how do you go about enforcing it? Random ID checks at clubs and raves? There's alot of expense in your proposal that will ultimately make drugs just as expensive as they are on the street if not more.

Uhh? If you go to purchase drugs, your ID will be scanned and the type and quantity of what you bought would be recorded. If police caught you doing drugs, they'd ask to see your license. Pretty much just like any other license...it'd also be state issued identification, I suppose. And even if drugs are just as expensive as they are in the War on Drugs, it still has the wonderful advantages of purity at a measured dose and legality.

Did I ever say it was the "primary" reason? Didn't somebody say that drugs have been labeled with a stigma in the eyes of the general public because of how the government has portrayed them in the past? Doesn't the average person equate illegality with some type of immorality? (if it's illegal it must be bad) Assuming that large amounts of people will not try them now that they can be done without fear of the law is silly. And talk about silliness. "Certify for a specific drug"? Yeah, I can see this going down at the club:

person 1: "Hey, I got some new Green Dolphins in. Everyone says they're really euphoric, wanna few rolls?!?"
person 2: "I'd love to, but I'm only certified for coke."

That's about as silly as they come.

Well, you're basically saying that if drugs were completely legal, it would push people over the edge. The only part we disagree on is how many people it'll be. I don't have any evidence for this except my own experience, but I've never really met anybody whose reasons for doing drugs were balanced in such a way that if illegality were no longer an issue, they'd jump right in. You really think that's a significant enough number to cause any more problems than we already have? It seems to me that people have many reasons for using, and the illegality is close to an afterthought, like "oh, and it's illegal." It's usually just other responsibilities that they have that prevent them from partaking.

The government's portrayal of drugs tries to make people afraid/disgusted/against all drug use. But at heart, almost everyone looks down upon losing control. Addicts would be looked at like alcoholics: sad, like they need help, etc. etc. And this is fine: it doesn't encourage any drug use, and actively discourages the formation of addiction. Social pressure can influence people greatly.

As far as the amorality goes...people may certainly equate laws on some actions with the morality thereof, but I don't think people really believe all laws are based on morals. To continue with the analogy, most people wouldn't consider driving without a license to be amoral. Unethical, yes, but not amoral. When you talk about morality of drug use, anyone who had any opinion on the subject that was subsequently changed with the change of the law didn't weigh heavily enough on the morality of the issue when deciding whether to use or abstain for morality to even make a difference in the first place.
Oh, and I've never said that there wouldn't be an increase in drug use with complete legalization. I just don't think it would be a sustained increase. Novelty is fickle.

And uh, if you were in a club and had a cocaine license, and someone offered to sell you rolls, it's not like you can't buy them. Person #2 doesn't have to say "nope don't have the license". It's just black market, you don't have a license for it, so you'd be punished accordingly. What's so confusing about drug-specific licensing procedures?

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

What about it isn't practical? And of course people will circumvent this. People drive and hunt and shit without licenses, but that doesn't stop the government from issuing the licenses. People easily circumvent the law now. What's your point?

Why would you want to waste resources creating another flawed program just so people can consume dangerous substances? Don't we have enough already? Where are the public benefits?

Beacuse consuming other substances isn't nearly as entertaining as doing drugs.

That's up to the individual to decide. How do you know the majority of people feel this way? Surely there are people that enjoy alcohol over heroin.

The government's portrayal of drugs tries to make people afraid/disgusted/against all drug use. But at heart, almost everyone looks down upon losing control. Addicts would be looked at like alcoholics: sad, like they need help, etc. etc. And this is fine: it doesn't encourage any drug use, and actively discourages the formation of addiction. Social pressure can influence people greatly.

This is exactly why the collective consciousness of the general public of a nation must be effectively changed before you release drugs into the open market. Certification is merely paper and doesn't guarantee behavioral discipline. If all drugs were to be suddenly legal, cheap, and readily available tomorrow morning, we would have a big shitstorm here in the US.

What's so confusing about drug-specific licensing procedures?

It's not so much the confusion, other than the police will now have another reason to harass someone based on whether or not they appear to be on drugs. People complain about police harassing them now, I can imagine what it will be like when everyone is on drugs on the weekends. And do you think the police want to add on the additional work it will be to enforce such? Here's another factor that will raise the costs of a drugs license. Then add on all the administrative work behind such a licensure program. I think it will still be cheaper to get drugs on the black market.

 

[qwedsa]

Certification to do drugs isn't practical and people will circumvent this easily.

the point is this:
in order to circumvent, yes its easy, you merely need a friend with a license (for say stimulants, and hte guys want to do stims)

well, this is how it will be most often circumvented... two or more people know eachother and use drugs purchased with the same license. chances are, they either talk about drugs iwth eachother, or use them together (more likely). so this means that most people using drugs will either A. have drug safety knowledge themselves or B. be using with someone who has that vital knowledge

so its not a waste of resources, especially if the license isnt a hassle to obtain, which means there wont be much reason to circumvent it in the first place

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

so
after 12 page of this "war" (argumentation)
what are the common ground we have built....

was that thread useful for anyone (on both side)
are we actualy getting somewhere (else than im right your wrong)

could we create a new way to deal with this
like divide this in 2 team (2 thread) (legal vs illegal)
then build the 3 major point of each ideology (poll...)
and then in another new thread after "x" time
try to find a common goal between those?
like creating a bluelight democracy on the issue
(or something)

like for me on the legal "team" im thinking : constitutional right
as for the illegal "team" i suppose : protecting society
(so individual vs society)
and both side could say $$$ ($vs$)

so i am not shure
can we not turn this in a "holy wars"
cause, we dont know the futur, so...?

but this drug war shure aint working

 

[SmC]

Ninja, i like your train of thought, i lost all interest in this thread after about page 5 because it was going nowhere, just came back to it now to see if anything has changed, and nothing has except the names of the posters.