Would you legalise drugs?

[redeemer]

You think legalizing meth will make that go away?

No. Has prohibiton made it go away?

Listening to you, I can't understand how humans have survived previous to the Drug War war being created about 100 yeas ago. Through history, drug laws have been the results of either religion or racism. There is no sound evidence that prohibiton works for reducing harm. The prohibition of condoms (which was/is also practically a ban on sex) is a good example. Most modern countries today have adopted what one could call harm reduction laws, which constitute spreading information and offering condoms, birth control pills and such, rather than stigmatizing the issue in an attempt to make it go away.

Overall, the harm done by drugs would be minimized if drugs became legal.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

No. Has prohibiton made it go away?

No. Prohibition just makes it harder to people to do such.

Listening to you, I can't understand how humans have survived previous to the Drug War war being created about 100 yeas ago.

If you've taken sociology, you would realize that society, at least here in the US has changed dramatically. Our social framework and behavior in 2006 isn't anything like it was in 1906.

There is no sound evidence that prohibiton works for reducing harm.

There is absolutely no evidence that legalizing a dangerous, addictive substance will reduce harm. In fact, look at nicotine. It's legal and look how it controls a person's life. Do some searching and look at the info. It's quite disturbing how much of our health care system is overwhelmed by nicotine-related diseases. I speak for many people when I say that I do not want money coming out of my health care pocket to pay for someone who abuses a substance and has to take up valuable health care resources for the remaining portion of their lives. As a society we must error on the side of caution. I prefer taking the risks and difficulties in obtaining drugs to the disaster it would be to legalize street drugs.

 

[Flowingbeyond]

no.

 

[L2R]

The main reason all drugs should be legal is for simple personal liberty. If we dont own our own bodies, what do we own?

I think this is an important point.

If people want to darwin themselves, then let them. Without responsibility for our own lives, we barely live at all.

 

[Eyeronie]

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

This is false. Usage does not equal damage. Drugs can be used safely and in fact are used safely most of the time. So, a 20% increase in usage does not necessarily equal a 20% increase in OD's, health costs, etc. Prohibition doesn't stop the hard core users, it mostly prevents law abiding people that wouldn't have had a problem with drugs in the first place from trying them. The prohibition of alcohol reduced overall usage, but people with drinking problems could still get their fix almost anywhere in the United States. So, even if the overall rate of drinking went down by 30%, the damage from alcohol does not go down 30%, since the problem drinkers who develop health problems are still feeding their habit.

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.

The point isn't that having directions and dosage information will stop ANYONE from abusing the drug, the point is that it provides those who would listen with that information, thereby limiting harm to them. Having legal heroin wouldn't stop people from abusing it, but it would ensure that almost anyone doing heroin in the states would know exactly what dosage they're taking. Can you see how that's a preferable situation to having the same people buying god knows what off the street?

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.

That is not why any of these drugs are illegal, look into the history of how each of our favorite chemicals got scheduled. LSD and Cannabis were made illegal because people couldn't handle them?!? Btw, did you notice that you just said the *majority* of people can't handle drugs? The majority of people don't even want to do coke or meth, much less be unable to handle access to them.

It's because of the fact that most people DON'T have problems with drugs that the government has been able to so effectively demonize each one of them!

In the 20's it was the "working class" and immigrants w/ their alcohol
Then the Mexicans and their marijuana
Then blacks and their heroin (and later crack)
Hippys and their acid, etc

These drugs are always banned in an atmosphere of classism, racism, and fear mongering. Everyone knows *I* could handle access to drugs, but those rednecks, those minorities, those hippies....

These drugs were banned to gain political brownie points from a scared and ignorant middle america, not because people ever demonstrated they couldn'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?

This is a perfect example as to why prohibition is wrong!

First off, she has the meth anyway even though we spent billions trying to stop her, so legalization would save that money right off the bat. Second, she wouldn't have been running in the first place if it were legal. Thirdly she would be taking a pure product, limiting the health consequences of her usage. Finally, it would have been cheaper, so at least she wouldn't be bankrupting the family with her habit. Instead of poverty, all they'd have to deal with is the habit itself.

Under our current system, this women, this addict, will be arrested, sent to prison and exposed to that environment, will lose her family, have a prison record and possibly lose her career. The family will have been bankrupted by the habit to begin with, and then, when she finally does something stupid and gets busted, the family is completely destroyed - even though this woman might be able to get over her addiction in time.

Far better solution, instead of trying to limit her access to the drug to begin with, is to offer her and any other people that develop substance abuse problems with the resources and support they need to get over it. Then maybe, just maybe, you can save that family and the addict!

Any why are you so concerned about the costs of health care while you completely ignore the astronomical costs of the drug war? If we can afford to send the military to Afghanistan and Columbia to eradicate drug crops, we can afford to put public rehab and detox clinics in Baltimore and San Francisco.

Drugs are a health menace but you fight that by fighting the addiction itself not by attempting to stop any of the substances from getting into our nation - it's totally counter productive.

 

[qwedsa]

There is absolutely no evidence that legalizing a dangerous, addictive substance will reduce harm

you could look at alcohol prohibition
you could look at the positive impact of harm reduction policies
you could look at homicide and violence and theft which wouldnt exist after prohibition
you could look at how the black market handles drugs
you could also look at this study i posted in this thread earlier (ive talked about all of htis earlier)...

The Canadian Medical Association Journal published research on the impact of a police crackdown on a public illicit drug market in the Downtown Eastside (DTES) section of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The researchers found that:
"Our results probably explain reports of increased injection drug use, drug-related crime and other public-order concerns in neighbourhoods where activities related to illicit drug use and the sex trade emerged or intensified in the wake of the crackdown. Such displacement has profound public-health implications if it "normalizes" injection drug use among previously unexposed at-risk youth. Furthermore, since difficulty in obtaining syringes has been shown to be a significant factor in promoting syringe sharing among IDUs in Vancouver, displacement away from sources of sterile syringes may increase the rates of bloodborne diseases. Escalated police presence may also explain the observed reduction in willingness to use a safer injection facility.33 It is unlikely that the lack of benefit of the crackdown was due to insufficient police resources. Larger crackdowns in the United States, which often involved helicopters to supplement foot and car patrols, have not had measurable benefits and have instead been associated with substantial health and social harms."
Source: Wood, Evan, Patricia M. Spittal, Will Small, Thomas Kerr, Kathy Li, Robert S. Hogg, Mark W. Tyndall, Julio S.G. Montaner, Martin T. Schechter, "Displacement of Canada's Largest Public Illicit Drug Market In Response To A Police Crackdown," Canadian Medical Association Journal, May 11, 2004: 170(10), pp. 1554-1555

 

[qwedsa]

So, even if the overall rate of drinking went down by 30%, the damage from alcohol does not go down 30%, since the problem drinkers who develop health problems are still feeding their habit.

add to this the fact that once illegal, it's harder to get medical help, including if you're pregnant, you might get your drugs(or alcohol) cut with other things, etc etc. you simply cannot ignore the fact that black market control of drugs is terrible for this country

 

[Cyrus]

The government isn't necessarily that much help either ^^

Either way it's just a fantasy. I highly doubt drugs will ever be completely legalised.

Ever.

And besides, look at the "Drugs in the media" forum. In all seriousness

"Women allows child to use meth"
"Teen dies from consuming 13 ecstasy pills"

Stupid people do stupid things and that ruins it for the rest of us.

 

[redeemer]

"Women allows child to use meth"
"Teen dies from consuming 13 ecstasy pills"

Stupid people do stupid things and that ruins it for the rest of us.

So the fact that someone can abuse a substance speaks for its prohibiton?

How can you use the arguement "stupid people will abuse it so it should be illegal" when you don't apply this logic to anything else?

There is absolutely no evidence that legalizing a dangerous, addictive substance will reduce harm. In fact, look at nicotine. It's legal and look how it controls a person's life. Do some searching and look at the info. It's quite disturbing how much of our health care system is overwhelmed by nicotine-related diseases. I speak for many people when I say that I do not want money coming out of my health care pocket to pay for someone who abuses a substance and has to take up valuable health care resources for the remaining portion of their lives. As a society we must error on the side of caution. I prefer taking the risks and difficulties in obtaining drugs to the disaster it would be to legalize street drugs.

So you support the criminalization of cigarettes and alcohol? Unhealthy food must be included of couse, it only adds to the bill when obese patients need treatment, right?

The problem with this argument is that you can apply it to anything potentially harmful. Where do you draw the line?

 

[Cyrus]

I'm not applaying this logic to anywhere else because anywhere else isn't substances where the logic is being applied

I was also saying that, in the mother allows child to use meth case, would you want this? all the time? bunch of tweaker kids running rampant?

This is also what danny was saying about the girl on tweak running from the police. it's the reason she was runnin gisn't because she had meth in the car, but more or less because she was twacked.

 

[turnandburn]

Seriously, face it, drugs are *not* good for your mind, especially harder drugs. Even if you were taking a pure sample of meth, mdma, coke, whatever, you can't tell me that using everyday for years is beneficial to your overall health. I have people in my extended family that smoked weed everyday for years and years, just weed (!!!), and they are totally faded at 45 years old. You can't tell me doing meth, even "pure" meth, isn't going to have consequences down the road, and I think this is where the increased health costs come in. Someone is going to have to take care of your ass once your old and your brain is fried, and living in some long term care facility (if your lucky) with cardiac problems and a tweaked out mind. And those kind of facilities, even with minimal care, are extrememly expensive.

 

[Black Octagon]

I support the full legalisation of all drugs.

Unfortunately, I am also quite sure that the day when Western societies are ready for such a move is still long off.

 

[redeemer]

I'm not applaying this logic to anywhere else because anywhere else isn't substances where the logic is being applied

So you don't base your decisions on logic, fair enough. But I don't see why your seemingly irrational beliefs should have any effect on our laws.

I was also saying that, in the mother allows child to use meth case, would you want this? all the time? bunch of tweaker kids running rampant?

No, and legalization won't suddenly give mothers an urge to feed their kids with methamphetamine, if that's your argument.

Seriously, face it, drugs are *not* good for your mind, especially harder drugs.

We know drugs can be harmful to one's health.

Even if you were taking a pure sample of meth, mdma, coke, whatever, you can't tell me that using everyday for years is beneficial to your overall health. I have people in my extended family that smoked weed everyday for years and years, just weed (!!!), and they are totally faded at 45 years old. You can't tell me doing meth, even "pure" meth, isn't going to have consequences down the road, and I think this is where the increased health costs come in. Someone is going to have to take care of your ass once your old and your brain is fried, and living in some long term care facility (if your lucky) with cardiac problems and a tweaked out mind. And those kind of facilities, even with minimal care, are extrememly expensive.

Should we also ban junk food because obesity causes a ton of medical problems?

 

[turnandburn]

We know drugs can be harmful to one's health.

You admit this but still want it legalized?

You can't logically compare junk food to drug use. I can eat junk food everyday, in moderation, and exercise and keep my weight under control. (Obviously, though, the majority of people in this country can't do that though, since we have an obesity epidemic going on. )

But me eating junk food isn't destroying my brain, either. Even with moderate drug use, it's still affecting your brain. This country is already full of fucking idiots. Now you want to legalize drugs! Wtf.

Whatever though. This is a site for people who do drugs. Surprise, surprise everyone on here thinks they should be legalized... 8)

 

[Able Danger]

You admit this but still want it legalized?

You can't logically compare junk food to drug use. I can eat junk food everyday, in moderation, and exercise and keep my weight under control. (Obviously, though, the majority of people in this country can't do that though, since we have an obesity epidemic going on. )

But me eating junk food isn't destroying my brain, either. Even with moderate drug use, it's still affecting your brain. This country is already full of fucking idiots. Now you want to legalize drugs! Wtf.

Whatever though. This is a site for people who do drugs. Surprise, surprise everyone on here thinks they should be legalized... 8)

You dont own my body, or what I put into it. You moral busybodies are the biggest criminals; locking somebody up for doing drugs is a much bigger crime than doing drugs.

--- Libertarians stand opposed to power in lauding the natural right of all human beings to choose the course of their own lives, and to accept that fundamental, unquestionable responsibility for the consequences of their choices and actions. Any attempt to impose conformity on human beings through political means is an attempt to destroy what it is that makes them essentially and gloriously human. ---

--- Roy A. Childs

--- Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. ---

--- C.S. Lewis

 

[qwedsa]

You can't logically compare junk food to drug use. I can eat junk food everyday, in moderation, and exercise and keep my weight under control. (Obviously, though, the majority of people in this country can't do that though, since we have an obesity epidemic going on. )

But me eating junk food isn't destroying my brain, either. Even with moderate drug use, it's still affecting your brain. This country is already full of fucking idiots. Now you want to legalize drugs! Wtf.

first of all, harm to the brain isnt grounds for legalization, unless you want one of the most neurotoxic substances ilelgalized (alcohol) and weve sene what happened with Prohibition

second your argument argues against itself; many drugs are not neurotoxic (eg the traditional psychedelics (lsd/mushies/mescal), opiates, cannabis (not permanently), and others)

would you want this? all the time? bunch of tweaker kids running rampant?

...lol...

And those kind of facilities, even with minimal care, are extrememly expensive

nowhere near the expense that the state pays to keep drugs illegal. economically, legalization makes no sense

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

We are as glorious of humans no more than we are gloriously irresponsible as humans. Unfortunately each of us do not live alone on our own island. Legalizing every street drug will cause society, as a whole, more trouble than it's worth - not in our current state of American culture. I may not own your body but I'm sure as hell paying for it when you irresponsibly OD and clog up the ER for people who really need the health care. You don't think such incidences will skyrocket once John Q. Public can easily get a hold of some LSD at the local corner store and decides to go for a road trip?

So you support the criminalization of cigarettes and alcohol? Unhealthy food must be included of couse, it only adds to the bill when obese patients need treatment, right?

I told you already the importance of alcohol to the medical field so you cannot criminalize it. Cigarettes on the other hand I wouldn't mind them going away, or in the very least, when I'm out in public, I have the right to breath air free of some other shitball's second hand smoke. We all have our unhealthy habits to deal with and breathing products of combustion involuntarily doesn't help the matter.

nowhere near the expense that the state pays to keep drugs illegal. economically, legalization makes no sense

That comes out of a fixed taxation rate that is proportionate to your income. Health care costs come directly from an individuals budget and costs money regardless of what you make.

 

[Able Danger]

We are as glorious of humans no more than we are gloriously irresponsible as humans. Unfortunately each of us do not live alone on our own island. Legalizing every street drug will cause society, as a whole, more trouble than it's worth - not in our current state of American culture.

The "society" myth, and the greater good, have been a fallacy used to oppress people forever. Example:

The individualist view of "society" has been summed up in the phrase: "Society" is everyone but yourself. Put thus bluntly, this analysis can be used to consider those cases where "society" is treated, not only as a superhero with superrights, but as a supervillain on whose shoulders massive blame is placed. Consider the typical view that not the individual criminal, but "society," is responsible for his crime. Take, for example, the case where Smith robs or murders Jones. The "old-fashioned" view is that Smith is responsible for his act. The modern liberal counters that "society" is responsible. This sounds both sophisticated and humanitarian, until we apply the individualist perspective. Then we see that what liberals are really saying is that everyone but Smith, including of course the victim Jones, is responsible for the crime. Put this baldly, almost everyone would recognize the absurdity of this position. But conjuring up the fictive entity "society" obfuscates this process. As the sociologist Arnold W. Green puts it: "It would follow, then, that if society is responsible for crime, and criminals are not responsible for crime, only those members of society who do not commit crime can be held responsible for crime. Nonsense this obvious can be circumvented only by conjuring up society as devil, as evil being apart from people and what they do.

Society is a collective concept and nothing else; it is a convenience for designating a number of people. So, too, is family or crowd or gang, or any other name we give to an agglomeration of persons. Society . . . is not an extra "person"; if the census totals a hundred million, that's all there are, not one more, for there cannot be any accretion to Society except by procreation. The concept of Society as a metaphysical person falls flat when we observe that Society disappears when the component parts disperse; as in the case of a "ghost town" or of a civilization we learn about by the artifacts they left behind. When the individuals disappear so does the whole. The whole has no separate existence. Using the collective noun with a singular verb leads us into a trap of the imagination; we are prone to personalize the collectivity and to think of it as having a body and a psyche of its own.

 

[Cyrus]

Redeemer, you seem to be ignoring that the "logic" is only applied to the subject at hand.

"Oh so we should ban x because it's unsafe?" Everything is unsafe. Should we ban life? Should we ban keyboards because the useage of one can get you carpal tunnel, the arguement is childish. With what turnandburn said, how can you logically compare bike riding, snack foods, and driving a car with substances that mess with your central nervous system?

A better situational question would be if you had someone that became addicted to various substances through legalisation (saying it some how happened) and they died because he consumed too much drugs assuming they were safe as they are legal, but not before suffering greatly after spending so much money trying to get his fix for whatever the term may be, and pretty much just putting himself through misery because of what the government has allowed. What can you say then?

That his dumbass should've became educated? Well it probably wouldn't have happened anyways. People on this board have come here for their own safety, thats great, harm reduction. Bluelight is serving a great deal of information to those wanting to help themselves.

Other people just want to get fucked and would more or less not care if they were safe about it.

I will still say that drugs should be left illegal. Drop this "war on drugs" and see where it goes. Everyone blames our government for everything, this is fine as well. The amount of people they protect is greater than the amount of people they harm with this "war".

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

There comes a point where your right to put anything into your body conflicts with my right not to be affected by it. Humans (Americans in particular) have already been shown to take a great thing and fuck it up. The majority of people on this board are here because they "enjoy" drugs and uses them as responsibly as one can use a dangerous drug. We're an overmedicated society as it is with prescriptions, much less with the addition of highly addictive substances. You don't think people will start showing up high to work, family gatherings, inopportune public places, etc...? The only thing more difficult in repealing the drugs laws is making new guidelines for when they are legal.

You can't have a narrow individualist view when 200 million of us live in close proximity. You need some way to prevent chaos when it comes to controlling substances that will affect my personal saftey if someone uses them wrong. Humans are too prone to chemical addiction and is the reason why strong street drugs that have no medical benefit (in the eyes of the public) will continue to be illegal regardless of the individual rights argument.