Would you legalise drugs?

[Greydawn]

And we're talking about something thats on the blackmarket. If people are thinking 21 and over people could only be allowed to buy it, we all know that the kiddies are still going to get their shit; and then still be prone to abuse.

Yea, kids could still get them if they were underage but I think it would be harder for them if the market was legalized and regulated. I dont know what it is like where you live but the entire time I was under 21 I could obtain any drug I wanted within 100 yards from my house at any time. Alcohol was always harder to get, with alcohol you had to drive few miles to get to a store that sold it and then there was the problem of finding someone that was willing to get it for you.

 

[Cyrus]

Qwedsa -

'your assumption is that their illegality is the primary reason most people who don't use drugs don't use them. this isnt true'

There are many reasons as to why people don't use drugs just as much as to why people do use them. The drugs being illegal just happens to be one of them, and is surely indeed a benefactor.

'even if use went up, while mistakes made on drugs may go up with it, at the same time deaths and overdoses would decrease because there would be labels on drugs sold (Warning: combining this with a MAOI may result in serotonin syndrome) and the purity and dose would be known and there would be no contaminents. also, deaths and injuries due to the illegal drug trade would simply dissapear. the net result would be a reduction in injuries and deaths. in terms of accidental injuries and deaths, legalization is the way to go'

Still, there'd be the idiots out there that wouldn't take to the labels andwarnings. Triple C DXM thingamajiggers (For lack of a better word than pills) have warning labels. Doesn't seem to sway them at all. How often do you think the common person on a drug binge will stop to read a label if his only focus is on getting fucked? Safety is probably the last thing on their mind.

'you're right. many of them might go out of business in a different way--they will simply be beat by companies. many might go to other illegal trades, but not all. the size of the illegal market is not determined by how many people want to sell in it. it's determined by demand'

I meant this as sarcasm. Just because drugs are legal doesn't mean that the black market is going to stop it's flow of psychoactives. I really doubt it'd ever go "out of business" like a regular company so to say.


Goat -

'Responsible people should be punished for the dumb? Then we should outlaw all scissors except the safety so fuckup don't run with them.'

One bad apple can spoil the bushel.

'So, lets not legalize anything because the underage situation will remain the same?
As it stands it's easier for a child to get drugs than it is to get booze anyways.'

Actually, a good reason for not legalizing would be that more and more people would use. More and more people would partake in irresponsible drug use. This is just safety for the general public.

People drink alchohol more openly because its more acceptable socially and is legal. My reasoning is that if drugs we're legal, people would see them as more safe than they really are. There is NO such thing as safe drug use, but there sure as hell is such a thing as safer drug use (That's why bluelights here )

If the majority of people were to think
Alchohol = Drug = Legal= Safe
Then what's preventing them from saying
Methamphetamine = Drug = Legal = Safe

We know it's not safe. We know that moderation is our saving grace when it comes down to this, but other people may not know this because they won't take the time to go and research what they're putting into themselves because they assume just because they are legal they are safe.

Redeemer -

'let me turn your question around and ask you this; since alcohol kills so many people shouldn't we criminalize this too as you seem convinced this is the most effective method for minimizing its harm?'

I actually wish alchohol had some type of criminalization. It actually happened, it was called prohibition. Not alot of people liked it. So the law was changed.

'I agree. But is "being bad" a sufficient criterion for criminalization?'

Only if enough people follow the view of this being bad, and it eventually becomes influential than yes it could quite possibly indeed become suitable for criminalization.

'How many people you know get drunk from moonshine and how many would prefer buying it in a store where they are certain of its contents and purity?'

You make a good point and I see how this could be applied to psychoactives, however too much of anything is bad. There's always the exceptions and situations you could ever think of when it comes to what could happen. Though alchohol is pure in our drinks it's still dangerous. If people were purchasing MDMA tablets I still doubt, even if they were pure, that they'd know how to protect themselves thoroughly enough. Just because it's pure doesn't mean its safe in a high dose.

I agree that regulation would do alot of good but it wouldn't help all too much. Marijuana could become legal and regulated through stores but theres nothing preventing you from growing it, then, you couldn't really tax it.

 

[redeemer]

There are many reasons as to why people don't use drugs just as much as to why people do use them. The drugs being illegal just happens to be one of them, and is surely indeed a benefactor.

There's no doubt that the criminalization of drugs prevent some people from trying them, just as there's no doubt that some people try drugs because they are illegal, no one has denied that.

You argued that drug use would sky rocket if drugs became legal thereby indicating that its legality is the major factor in limiting drug use, this has never been proven.

Still, there'd be the idiots out there that wouldn't take to the labels andwarnings. Triple C DXM thingamajiggers (For lack of a better word than pills) have warning labels. Doesn't seem to sway them at all. How often do you think the common person on a drug binge will stop to read a label if his only focus is on getting fucked? Safety is probably the last thing on their mind.

There are and there always will be idiots. Should cars be banned because there are idiots who ignore the speed limits and drive irresponsibly?

Afterall, being irresponsible with drug use only hurts one self while being irresponsible in a car hurts other people, should cars be banned?

Also, since you brought up DXM, if people could buy pure 100mg DXM pills in stores, who'd want to chug down a foul tasting syrup containing antihistamines?

Just because drugs are legal doesn't mean that the black market is going to stop it's flow of psychoactives. I really doubt it'd ever go "out of business" like a regular company so to say.

It is irrefutable that the number of illegal dealers would be greatly reduced if drugs became legal. No drug user would want to buy an unknown quanity of what he can only assume to be the drug he wishes to buy if he can get the exact quantity guaranteed to be his drug of choice in a legitimate store.

This is just safety for the general public.

Drug laws do not protect the general public from anyone but themselves. Actually, prohibiton further endangers the general public since drug addicts will seek drugs to feed their addiction regardless of the drug's price. This results in addicts mugging innocent people, breaking into homes and joining organized crime to support their habit.

People drink alchohol more openly because its more acceptable socially and is legal. My reasoning is that if drugs we're legal, people would see them as more safe than they really are. There is NO such thing as safe drug use, but there sure as hell is such a thing as safer drug use (That's why bluelights here )

If the majority of people were to think
Alchohol = Drug = Legal= Safe
Then what's preventing them from saying
Methamphetamine = Drug = Legal = Safe

We know it's not safe. We know that moderation is our saving grace when it comes down to this, but other people may not know this because they won't take the time to go and research what they're putting into themselves because they assume just because they are legal they are safe.

Most people view biking as safe, which it certainly isn't (in an absolute sense). Should we ban bicycles because some people assume that they are safe? Think about it; we would be preventing thousands of deaths from occuring every year!

Another problem with the current laws is that if any politician remotely suggests that we should teach children about responsible drug use, he gets a poor reputation for advocating drug use. This prevents the utmost valuable remedy for drug use, information, from reaching the kids which hurts them further.

I actually wish alchohol had some type of criminalization. It actually happened, it was called prohibition. Not alot of people liked it. So the law was changed.

Do you belive that alcohol should be as prohibited as drugs are now, or should it be favored somehow, if so, why?

As you state yourself alcohol prohibiton was an immense failure. It was not so much that the pople didn't like it, but more that the mafia became too strong, criminality rose significantly and the number of deaths remained more or less the same. The exact same scenario, albeit to a smaller extent, is taking place with drugs.

I agree. But is "being bad" a sufficient criterion for criminalization?

Only if enough people follow the view of this being bad, and it eventually becomes influential than yes it could quite possibly indeed become suitable for criminalization.

I was actually looking for your personal opinion on the subject, do you think it's morally right to ban a certain activity because the majority wants it to banned?

If the majority views bicycles as immoral, should they be banned?

You make a good point and I see how this could be applied to psychoactives, however too much of anything is bad. There's always the exceptions and situations you could ever think of when it comes to what could happen. Though alchohol is pure in our drinks it's still dangerous. If people were purchasing MDMA tablets I still doubt, even if they were pure, that they'd know how to protect themselves thoroughly enough. Just because it's pure doesn't mean its safe in a high dose.

No one has ever claimed that drug use would be safe if it became legal, we have argued that it would become safer.

When the US finally lifted alcohol prohibiton, they did it to make alcohol use safer, not completely safe.

I agree that regulation would do alot of good but it wouldn't help all too much. Marijuana could become legal and regulated through stores but theres nothing preventing you from growing it, then, you couldn't really tax it.

There's nothing preventing you from making your own beer in your basement, how many people you know do this?

The hardcore potheads would most likely grow their own plants, but the vast majority of people who'd want to use marijuana would buy it prerolled in a store, just like alcoholic beverages.

 

[Cyrus]

^^I agree with all of this, I just some how seeing the legalisation fucking alot of people over and just ending up illegal in the end.

"It appears that, contrary to common belief, consumption of alcohol declined during prohibition. It’s also clear that there were major changes in who drank, when they drank, where they drank, why they drank, and how much they drank when they consumed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_during_and_after_prohibition

I think it's bad simply because I believe it'd result in lots, and lots of harm. We won't necessarily know until it becomes legalised as to how the general public will react. We can always say so and so will happen, but then again we can also say so and so will also happen as well in contrast.

 

[qwedsa]

"It appears that, contrary to common belief, consumption of alcohol declined during prohibition. It’s also clear that there were major changes in who drank, when they drank, where they drank, why they drank, and how much they drank when they consumed."

maybe less users, but ppl started at younger ages. more addiction & health probs. sharp increase in crime & homicide. more used liquor as opposed to beer. irreversible corruption and organized crime base

there may have been a little less users total. so?

"I believe it'd result in lots, and lots of harm"

look at the war on drugs

 

[raybeez]

"It appears that, contrary to common belief, consumption of alcohol declined during prohibition. It’s also clear that there were major changes in who drank, when they drank, where they drank, why they drank, and how much they drank when they consumed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_during_and_after_prohibition

I'm highly skeptical this statement. How would alcohol consumption have been tracked when it was criminalised? Clearly not by alcohol sales at stores.

I also doubt that there were any institutions like NIH/NIDA to fund non-biased scientific/epidemiological studies to track consumption trends during those years.

Everyone should take note that this was quoted from the "alternative views" section following the main article regarding alcohol prohibition on wikipedia. You can read some interesting information here about the source where this was taken. from

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Legal issues are nothing compared to the potential strain it may put on a privatized health care system such as one here in the US. It is estimated that 63 percent of total health care services in the US are due to illness and injury that are preventable (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/en/, for those of you that need your silly little references) - tobacco accounting for the majority of that percentage. I couldn't imagine what would potentially happen if everything was legalized. Undoubtedly the costs would skyrocket and insurance premium increases would be passed on to us. It's bad enough that millions of people can't afford health insurance now. Potentially millions more would drop health care insurance due to the rise in cost and that would snowball into even more rate increases.

 

[qwedsa]

^your argument that legalization would increase health care costs presumes a few things...

1. you assume that drugs would do just as much damage in terms of health, addiction, and death, upon legalization

however, prohibition brings contaminents, unknown dose, stronger drugs so they are transported more efficiently in regards to sneaking things around, more injection because of the inflated drug prices, possibly more addiction because people are less likely to get treatment for fear of involving the authorities, homicide and violence due to the illegal market, theft due to inflated drug prices, and many more problems, all of which are quite costly

2. you assume that many more people would use drugs upon legalization. a necessary assumption for this assumption to work, is that a very large portion of non-drug users abstain from drugs because drugs are illegal

however, i really dont think that illegality is a primary concern of those choosing not to abuse drugs. it probably is for some, but some also may not try drugs upon legalization

when you look at decrim in other countries, there is an initial increase in use (the drug gets lots of attention during legalization) and then goes back down to previous levels

3. you assume that drugs would have hte same kinds of costs as tobacco and and alcohol do

however, most drugs are less toxic, less addictive, and all are less likely to induce violent or risky behavior, than alcohol

4. you ignore the principle of it. if illegalizing your favorite activity would save other people money, that doesnt mean you illegalize it

5. you lump all drugs together in the argument legalization of drugs would increase healthcare costs. this makes your argument clearly fragile when you consider the nontoxic, nonaddictive drugs (cannabis, traditional psychedelics)

 

[Cyrus]

"you assume that drugs would have hte same kinds of costs as tobacco and and alcohol do

however, most drugs are less toxic, less addictive, and all are less likely to induce violent or risky behavior, than alcohol"

Right, since we all know cocaine and methamphetamines aren't addicting.8)

 

[qwedsa]

"you assume that drugs would have hte same kinds of costs as tobacco and and alcohol do

however, most drugs are less toxic, less addictive, and all are less likely to induce violent or risky behavior, than alcohol"

Right, since we all know cocaine and methamphetamines aren't addicting.8)

i didnt say coke or meth is not addictive
i said that most recreational drugs are less addictive than alcohol

 

[Cyrus]

Coke and meth are recreational. They are very addictive, as is heroin and perhaps even most-to all psychoactives one way or another.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

5. you lump all drugs together in the argument legalization of drugs would increase healthcare costs. this makes your argument clearly fragile when you consider the nontoxic, nonaddictive drugs (cannabis, traditional psychedelics)

Cannabis and mushrooms/psychs nontoxic and nonaddictive? What are you nuts? The reason most psychs are considered such is because of their neurotoxicity. The "cutsieness" of these drugs do not make them less dangerous and certainly give you a false sense of security that you are doing drugs that aren't as harmful. In fact it's quite the opposite. It's comparative to ultra-light cigarettes. They are lighter (or have more holes at the tip), but inevitably your body makes you smoke more and inhale deeper to get the same affect as a stronger cigarette. I understand your point of view because you're probably an avid pot smoker. Listen, I love doing E and having it legal would be great at first glance, but the truth of having such things legalized cannot be ignored and simply legaizing them and thinking no major health care crisis would come about is near-sighted.

If there's anything fragile here, it's your understanding of the HMO financial structure here in the US.

2. you assume that many more people would use drugs upon legalization. a necessary assumption for this assumption to work, is that a very large portion of non-drug users abstain from drugs because drugs are illegal

You wouldn't think the borderline interested would try them now that they were very easily accessible? You wouldn't think out of those people, many of them would be hooked? And you wouldn't think since drugs would be legal that people wouldn't rationalize their addictions just because of their legality? I'm currently in school for my masters in health education and thinking masses of people would behave in that manner is not an assumption, it's a common behavior of an uneducated or uniformed public. We have cognitive dissonance now with just unhealthy eating habits. You don't think it would be 10 fold with legalized drugs, something which the general public has even less knowledge of than common nutrition?

Also, if drugs became legal, the government would stop running anti-drug commercials right? Would they run commercials encouraging drug use, even if it was presented in an educational manner? That certainly would have an impact on the additional number of people that would try them.

 

[billbong2]

Yes (really simple version) Why should people go in prison for putting what they want into their bodies? (i know it's much more complicated but at the end of the day going to prison or something, for harmless acts, or defying idiotic rules just seems absurd to me

 

[raybeez]

Cannabis and mushrooms/psychs nontoxic and nonaddictive? What are you nuts? The reason most psychs are considered such is because of their neurotoxicity.

Cannabis is neuroprotective, not neurotoxic. And although some psychedelic phenethylamine/amphetamines are neurotoxic, I have yet to read a single scientific paper published demonstrating neurotoxicity from tryptamines (LSD, DMT, 'psychedelic' mushrooms, etc).

A brief list of scientific papers showing cannabis (and derived cannabinoid compounds) as being neuroprotective can be found here, here, here, here, here, and here.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Only certain cannabinoids are neuroprotective. Smoking it as a whole is not. The NIH publication states that most of the non-psychoactive constituents of marijuana are the beneficial cannabinoids. So unless you're isolating these particular compounds in your basement (and if you were, you wouldn't be getting the the high from them, thus you wouldn't want to consume them in the first place) and consuming them in a bioavailable suspention, don't think you're actually doing a healthy thing.

 

[qwedsa]

Cannabis and mushrooms/psychs nontoxic and nonaddictive? What are you nuts? The reason most psychs are considered such is because of their neurotoxicity

actually we're pretty sure they aren't neurotoxic, or even toxic. and im not sure, but are you implying by that last sentence that the reason they produce visuals and cognitive oddities, are beacuse they are neurotoxic? because if so you really need to do some reading on the subject. your first innaccuracy, that htey are toxic, is a common error though

Cannabis is neuroprotective, not neurotoxic. And although some psychedelic phenethylamine/amphetamines are neurotoxic, I have yet to read a single scientific paper published demonstrating neurotoxicity from tryptamines (LSD, DMT, 'psychedelic' mushrooms, etc).

yeah, i did say "traditional psychedelics are nontoxic" which doesnt include the research chemicals or ecstasy

I understand your point of view because you're probably an avid pot smoker

i vaporize pot once every couple weeks for its enhancement to meditation and creativity

You wouldn't think the borderline interested would try them now that they were very easily accessible?

notice that i said: "however, i really dont think that illegality is a primary concern of those choosing not to abuse drugs. it probably is for some, but some also may not try drugs upon legalization" (italics added)

you're right, it's liekly that some may choose to try that otherwise wouldnt, upon legalization. this doesnt mean there's going to be a huge increase in use though. many people might not try it after legalization, that would otherwise, for various reasons (you shouldn't underestimate the fact that it's made into a forbidden fruit)

You wouldn't think out of those people, many of them would be hooked?

oh some probably would. however, a large majority (more than three quarters) of recreational drug users are casual users and are not addicted. and even for those who are addicted, they can usually function normally when the drug is legal. and for those that can't, it's their decision to do that to themselves, not yours

And you wouldn't think since drugs would be legal that people wouldn't rationalize their addictions just because of their legality?

if someone is addicted his mind is going to rationalize it no matter what. making it illegal isn't going to stop his addiction in any way whatsoever

I'm currently in school for my masters in health education and thinking masses of people would behave in that manner is not an assumption, it's a common behavior of an uneducated or uniformed public

which is why many people want a licensing system, where you need to take a class about a drug (explaining warning signs for addiction, how to reduce toxicity, etc). also upon legalization, a lot of harm can be reduced by simple regulations on hte drug industry. e.g., warning labels like "don't mix this with a MAOI or serotonin syndrome may result, possibly leading to death"

general public has even less knowledge of than common nutrition?

the general public hates illegal drugs. they have a huge stigma. your assumption seems to be that upon legalization, everyone's worries about addiction and toxicity will simply dissapear

Also, if drugs became legal, the government would stop running anti-drug commercials right? Would they run commercials encouraging drug use, even if it was presented in an educational manner? That certainly would have an impact on the additional number of people that would try them.

not sure what you're trying to say. of course they wouldn't encourage drug use. and i actually doubt they'd stop the anti drug media campaigns

---

and finally, even if your rebuttal of my points 2 and 5 are valid, which i dont think they are for the reasons in this post, you failed to rebuttal the rest of my points, which work fine on their own against your original argument

oh p.s....
so you don't embarress yourself again, please go to pubmed.com and search "cannabis neurotoxicity." you could also do some searches for LSD or another psychedelic and neurotoxicity

 

[qwedsa]

Only certain cannabinoids are neuroprotective. Smoking it as a whole is not. The NIH publication states that most of the non-psychoactive constituents of marijuana are the beneficial cannabinoids. So unless you're isolating these particular compounds in your basement (and if you were, you wouldn't be getting the the high from them, thus you wouldn't want to consume them in the first place) and consuming them in a bioavailable suspention, don't think you're actually doing a healthy thing.

well it appears you didn't actually read the studies he linked to. THC was one of the chemicals that reduced neurotoxicity!

 

[redeemer]

however, a large majority (more than three quarters) of recreational drug users are casual users and are not addicted. and even for those who are addicted, they can usually function normally when the drug is legal.

Would you happen to have a source for this? Sounds interesting....

 

[SpunkySkunk347]

Marijuana law idea for USA

Marijuana will be legal for small possesion and private use for persons over the age of 18. And people as young as 14 can use it with parental consent.

It can only be smoked in a home or designated areas.

It cannot be used within 20 feet of a person under the age of 18 unless the person has parental consent.

In order to grow, you must obtain a marijuana growing liscence and take a class. For a private, non-business use you can only grow 1-2 plants at a time.

In order to sell it, you must obtain a marijuana sales liscence and cannot sell any more than one ounce at a time.

A person who has taken marijuana cannot drive or operate heavy machinery within 24 hours of use.

In order to purchase marijuana, you must have a job and you can not be on wellfare.

A person cannot have more than 5 ounces at a time without a suitable reason (growing, selling.)

Violating the law while under the influence of marijuana will allow authorites to revoke your right to smoke marijuana for up to 10 months.

Being charged for a crime while under the influence of marijuana can double your jail sentence/fine.

You may not use/grow/sell marijuana on public property.

You may not use marijuana in buildings where multiple familys may be living. Ex: Apartment Buildings. it may be a disturbance to others. Unless you have the consent of all persons living within the building.

You cannot use marijuana in your home unless you own the home or get the consent of your landlord.


There

 

[qwedsa]

Would you happen to have a source for this? Sounds interesting....

source for my comment about over 75% of users not being addicted:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/basicfax.htm
section 2: How many people use drugs in the United States?

The Federal Government's Household Survey on Drug Abuse, conducted annually, is the most commonly cited set of statistics on the prevalence of drug use. According to the latest surveys, cited by the DEA themselves, there are about 12.7 million people who have used some illegal drug in the last month and perhaps 30 to 40 million who have used some illegal drug within the last year. Of the 12.7 million who used illegal drugs in the last month, about 10 million are presumed to be casual drug users, and about 2.7 million are addicts.

about my comment that drug users can function when the drug is legal:

same source as above, section 11: How does our policy compare with the policies of other countries? it compares heroin addicts in Liverpool, England (a city in England with a decriminalization approach) with addicts in New York, USA

i wasnt aware that cities in the UK could decrim. i thought hte UK was hard against drugs like US. this might have been written a long time ago

but it still makes sense. if you dont have to worry finding shady dealers and raising money for inflated drug prices all day, and there are no contaminents, etc etc, you will surely be abel to function, unless perhaps its a drug like meth and you are using it in a way that brings malnutrition, lack of sleep, psychosis, etc