Would you legalise drugs?

[qwedsa]

^if you look at my post you'll notice i was talking specifically about MDMA, not drugs in general

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Yes, antioxidants will help reduce MDMA neurotoxicity from the mechanism perspective of oxidative stress. It will do little, if anything, for serotonin syndrome - which has been on the rise for the past 40 years.

 

[qwedsa]

^certain antioxidants completely eliminate it (ALA), in rats at least

serotonin syndrome? why would i be worried about that when i take 1-2 pills and don't mix drugs?

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

about your studies, are they using rat neurons?
bilz0r had a metastudy that concluded that while there is evidence for neurotoxicity in rats, there is none for neurotoxicity in the rhesus monkey or in humans

certain antioxidants completely eliminate it (ALA), in rats at least

How do you ignore rats in one study, and then use them as a positive reference in another?

 

[Able Danger]

The main reason all drugs should be legal is for simple personal liberty. If we dont own our own bodies, what do we own? Also, making drugs illegal is what has made the trade violent. Everything on the black market is enforced by violence; when you make something illegal, you put the supply into the hands of shady people. Look at prohibition, it basically made the mafia. It caused way more violence than would have happened had alcohol been legal.

 

[qwedsa]

How do you ignore rats in one study, and then use them as a positive reference in another?

because in the cannabis studies, we know that cannabis is probably neurotoxic to rat neurons but not rhesus monkey or human neurons, so if the study you were referring to was using rats, it had no bearing on the conversation (that was my point)

in terms of the ecstasy studies, ive never read anything along the lines of a major difference between the rat neurons and the human neurons and ecstasy

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Both THC and MDMA involve mediation by neuronal D1 (dopamine) receptors in rats. How can you assume that, in humans, there exists the ability to differentiate how each drug reacts to the same receptor? And even if inconclusive studies were to point in either direction, how can we base the widespread legalization of drugs on such a shaky hypothesis?

 

[Eyeronie]

^^^^^^
We're not pushing for legalization because we think drugs are harmless, we're pushing for legalization because trying to ban these popular substances is completely counter productive for the greater good and because prohibition is an affront on our basic human right to do with our minds and bodies what we please.

Alcohol has been proven to be toxic, do you support the ban of alcohol and tobacco as well?

Really what is your ideal drug policy - a complete ban on any substance with recreational qualities? Do you think that the increase in price and the drop in availability are really worth all the money, violence, corruption, injustice, and inhumanity of the drug war?

Because you know, higher prices and lower availability are the only things drug war supporters can point to as successes.

The drug war is obviously a complete failure and treating addicts of all people like criminals is shameful. Legalization, harm reduction, and a far greater availability of rehab and other services for addicts could be the cornerstones of a new policy aimed at helping drug addicts grow through their problems instead of making their already difficult lives a million times worse by incriminating them. Thus we push them to buy drugs off the street that come from international and local cartels which make BILLIONS (which could stay in our country - taxed even!), spreading violence and corruption in their wake.

That is what we have now. Time for a change maybe?

 

[pIeCE]

Decriminalization of all drugs is the solution. I dont want control in the hands of the mafia but then again, even more so, I dont think big business/corporations are the answer either.

Legalization will result in quality control but by the time the corporations form a monopoly on production and sales, the only assurance they will give on quality will bee LOWER quality.

But yes, a change would bee positive, the time is ripe for change.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

^^^^^^
We're not pushing for legalization because we think drugs are harmless, we're pushing for legalization because trying to ban these popular substances is completely counter productive for the greater good and because prohibition is an affront on our basic human right to do with our minds and bodies what we please.

Alcohol has been proven to be toxic, do you support the ban of alcohol and tobacco as well?

I'm merely wondering why qwedsa is taking what info he finds beneficial to his debate and ignoring equally valid information.

That said, we have to realize each side is using either the deontological or the utilitarian method of arguing for or against drug policies. Who has the rights? Who deserves protection? The vast majority of the voting public is conservative so there's no getting around that anytime soon. Firstly alcohol, like I said before, is not an effective comparison. The medical industry benefits too much from it and therefore the pro's outweight the con's. Secondly, tobacco you won't see banned until the lobbyist machinery of politics and economy behind the industry is phased out. You are already seeing the tip of that iceberg with the progressive banning of smoking in public places in big cities such as here in Chicago.

Illegal drugs are that way because they have little, if any, medical benefit. The government could care less about your rights. Very few people realize that America is not much less puritanical than it was in the late 1600's. It's very hard to change a system like we have here because our nation lies behind a guise of freedom and liberty when actually that's not truly the case. People like George Bush and Dick Cheney are bred, raised, and molded to enter the system, keep it running, and the public is lured into a false sense of security thinking people like these are actually benefitting society. Until that can be changed, the mental canvass of out society will remain stagnant and drug laws won't even be looked at with any scrutiny.

 

[Eyeronie]

That said, we have to realize each side is using either the deontological or the utilitarian method of arguing for or against drug policies.

To be clear, I was coming at it from both angles. It's not merely our rights as a human beings that are at stake, prohibition is a practical disaster as well. A law is only good as your ability to enforce it.

The medical industry benefits too much from it and therefore the pro's outweight the con's.

For some reason I doubt it's the medical industry that's really fighting to keep alcohol the sole source of legal intoxication. Opiates, amphetamines, cannabis, etc all have medical uses and don't get that status.

We can't limit our ideas to what's possible right now in the American political situation, because as you said the American political situation sucks.

There is progress to be made here in the states, even if it's one drug or one state at a time. Relaxing laws at the local and county levels can have a big effect on how things are enforced. You could vote libertarian, support the CATO institute, NORML - there's a lot of people out there that want to change our drug policies for a wide variety of reasons.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Opiates, amphetamines, cannabis, etc all have medical uses and don't get that status

Yes, in their controlled, refined forms. This thread isn't about legalizing "opiates, amphetamines, and cannabis". It about legalizing "heroine, MDMA, and marijuana". For instance, the few cannabinoids in use today for treatment of chemo side affects do not get you high. The two most popular reasons these are in use are regaining hunger and reducing nausea. This is much different than making the entire cannabis plant legal.

As for enforcing the law, I'll be the first to admit that the war on drugs is useless and that money could go towards getting health care to our elderly or educating our poor. An unfortunate characteristic of democracy and utility is that until the majority of us think that way, it will never be that way.

 

[qwedsa]

Both THC and MDMA involve mediation by neuronal D1 (dopamine) receptors in rats. How can you assume that, in humans, there exists the ability to differentiate how each drug reacts to the same receptor? And even if inconclusive studies were to point in either direction, how can we base the widespread legalization of drugs on such a shaky hypothesis?

1. i was referring to a poster who said that while sex can be done safely, many people use drugs unsafely. my point was that drugs can be used safely (pointing to study that neurotoxicty can be reduced or eliminated) and sex can be done unsafely

2. even if drugs could not be used safely, i would still want legalization. this is because A. people have a right to hurt themselves and B. prohibition greatly increases the harm associated w/ drug use

 

[Cyrus]

The reduction of neurotoxicity has attributes absolutely nothing to whether or not the substance at hand is safe, or if it can be used safely.

You probably want legalisation because it'd be easier for you to get your drugs. I could of course be wrong as it'd be a harsh thing to say, but it's probably holds some truth. I mean think about it, greatly reduce it the harm associated with it?? The fact that drugs are available 24/7, to anyone, at any place and setting, in any quanity; makes it so much safer, right?

 

[Voodoochild870]

I would make the penalties a lot less strict. Possession of marijuana for example, would result in a fine. Also, I would make designated places where smoking weed would be tolerated.
Possession of harder drugs like heroin, coke, meth, etc. would result in a larger fine, and perhaps some community service These are all just my ideas though, I know it'd never happen in the U.S., but I can dream can't I?

Think about it, what would happen if everything was legalized? Shit, planet earth would crumble. I mean sure, it would be sweet to walk into a 7-11 and buy crack or maybe some Mescaline HCL , but everyone would take the laws for granted and probably be irresponsible with their use. I would bet money that car accidents would increase.

Actually, this is all mind boggling when you think of it. There'd really be no more need for dealers, so you know crime rates would be down a fucking lot, but how many more overdoses would occur? I'd guess a hell of a lot more since if everything was legalized it'd more likely be as pure as pure can get. But then again, legalizing drugs wouldn't make matters any better for those in poverty that abuse drugs. They'd still have commit crimes for the money, but now they have the convenience of buying it legitimately from a corner store.

Then of course the War on Drugs would be over, and politicians and police officers would be shooting speedballs with street junkies. I know I for one would probably switch addictions every month. Go from Xanax to smack and then amphetamines for a change, and then back to GHB or something. Maybe throw in a month long MDMA binge. That would be most excellent.

 

[Able Danger]

in ny state, where i live... getting caught with pot is only a fine, and a violation. unless its like so many ounces.

 

[telgard]

i like humans idea. the first idea posted, its a goodun. i think that if bud got legalized but had an age limit, which it would, it would be easily accessible like alchohol is to minors so theres really no point in that

 

[qwedsa]

^for many kids pot is easier to get than alcohol. this is because you need a friend 21+ to get alcohol but many dealers are teens and people who supply these teen dealers dont "lose their license" for selling to minors like a liquor store would

 

[qwedsa]

You probably want legalisation because it'd be easier for you to get your drugs. I could of course be wrong as it'd be a harsh thing to say, but it's probably holds some truth. I mean think about it, greatly reduce it the harm associated with it?? The fact that drugs are available 24/7, to anyone, at any place and setting, in any quanity; makes it so much safer, right?

you can't see the obvious reductions of harm that occur once drugs are supplied and used above ground?

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

there are many other factors. prohibition is a complete disaster in terms of health, stopping use, and preventing addiction. heres a similar post. you should read the thread and reply to why i think harm would be reduced, rather than just assume i am merely arguing for legalization to get drugs easier (which would be nice)

all medical costs would decrease, even if there were many more users

this is because under prohibition you have these things which put strain on the medical system:

contaminated drugs (contributes to both disease and overdose)
unknown dose (overdose)
more injection and higher concentrated drugs (disease (like AIDS) and overdose)
lack of labels (e.g. "Don't mix this drug with other strong CNS depressants")
homicide and violence (drug market)
property crime (not a medical cost, but still a big cost, as much as half of all theft in some major cities)
use starts at lower age (also seen with alcy in alcohol prohibition) (this might lead to more medical problems with drugs, such as addiction)

there are many more costs, some of them gigantic, but i just kept it to the medical costs

things that could increase medical costs after prohibition might be treatment (people wouldnt fear involving the authorities to get treatment for addiction) and pregnancy (prohibition discourages pregnant women from seeking prenatal care, treatment, and can lead to unnecessary abortions)

after prohibition, the health costs of doing drugs would be much smaller for just about any drug. stimulants will still be toxic/neurotoxic, but most other recreational drugs are not as hard on the body as people like to think

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

you can't see the obvious reductions of harm that occur once drugs are supplied and used above ground?

More drug supplies = more usage = more people getting harmed = our health care cost go up

You can't assume that just because it's in the open, everyone will be established with the proper dosage recommendations. It's quite the opposite. Look at ephedrine. That was out in the open and people ignored the correct dosage or safe usage and incidences of people dropping dead because they used it improperly went up. Now add the addictiveness of amphetamines, coke, and opiates. It will get safer? People can't handle a good thing and ruin it for the rest of us. The drugs we're talking about are illegal because the majority of the population can't handle them.

Take a look at an episode of cops. You have a meth'd out single mother leading the cops on a 3 state car chase at 11am. You think legalizing meth will make that go away?