Legalise everything? Opinions.

I found this excerpt from an article.
Interesting topic, how realistic though?
http://www.drugsense.org/dsw/2002/ds02.n242.html#art24
In my personal opinion this is such a vague and distance idea/implementation that I cannot really begin to argue either side. Debate on this subject matter could perhaps continue for decades.
Anyone have an opinion?

Well, they can raid as many clubs and parties as they like, intercept as many shipments of drugs as they like..but the fact of the matter is, the war on drugs is a lost cause no matter wot they do.
Perhaps if the stuff was legalised we'd be better educated on the dangers and harmful effects of them like we are on alcohol and tobacco, not only that we'd no wot we were buying ie wots actually in it.
Besides i think alot of drugs may become less popular to try because they're legal and theres no stigma attached like the illicit ones..think about it how many high school kids try cannibis in somewhere like amsterdam where the stuff is legal, in comparison to the uk where the stuff isnt??

Although I drop eccies on a steady basis, I have to say that I'm not really supportive of those who propose across the slate decriminalisation of drugs.
sydkiwi suggests that if illegal narcotics were legalised, we'd have more information on their harmful effects like we currently have with alcohol and tobacco. Chemicals like MDMA are really dangerous especially when chronically overused. Now with all the information and education we have with tobacco and alcohol, people still smoke a pack a day and go on benders every weekend. If ecstasy was legalised, I fear you would have people left right and centre rotting their brains from the inside out over-using and abusing the drug.
It's a similar story with heroin. Just because it's legal and you're well educated as to it's effects doesn't make it any less addictive. Sure you'd probably have a lower ratio of overdoses as purity becomes standardised, but you'd end up with a lot of people heavily addicted and dependent on it to operate in their daily lives.
I do not the contest the assertion that drug related crime would be wiped out in an instant, but a legalised drug supply won't make it any easier to find a vein that hasn't collapsed after developing a strong addiction, nor will it make you any less reliant on taking ever more frequent hits just to maintain normality.
We cannot not benefit from the legalisation of such narcotics, because we cannot possibly trust ourselves to safely use in moderation such powerfully addictive and dangerous drugs. I do not disclude the possibility of individuals safely controlling their level of use, but at a general societal level I believe you would end up with widespread chronic abuse of these drugs.
Alcohol kills brain cells, and smoking gives you cancer, but heroin and coke are far more addictive, and it takes fairly sustained and heavy exposoure to tobacco smoke to develop tobacco related ilnesses. I believe it to be misguided to compare the effects of legalisation of narcotics with those of tobacco and alcohol. The effects of Alcohol cannot possibly compare to the kind of high MDMA gives you. But I'm willing to bet that when both are abused, MDMA will rot your brain faster. So we find the compulsion to use MDMA is higher, and yet so is the damage it causes. Similarly, coke and heroin are highly addictive, and if you regularly inject for a long and sustained period, I guarantee problems are going to crop up long before the 10, 15 or 20 years it takes a smoker to develop lung cancer or emphysema.
There's probably some pretty strong arguments for legalising pot, and I think some credit has to be given to them. As for across the board decriminalisation? No thanks, a society full of brain rotted junkies is something I think we can do without.
[ 16 March 2002: Message edited by: 2kool4skool ]

Another radical proposal from an opposite perspective is to legalize everything - but regulate distribution. In many ways it's a big brother approach, and would not guarantee abuse prevention with every user, but it could be seen to possibly have some positive impact.
Around 10 years ago, scheduling for drugs such as codeine means that today customers must sign for prescriptions. This undoubtedly helped reduce abuse. You try and get lots of codeine by visiting several doctors in one week and you’ll get caught, appraised and possibly committed if that’s not favorable.
One idea is supplying “all” drugs to the public through this system and let social welfare monitor the numbers, but I wouldn’t think this concept would be well supported, nor do much for the illicit trade dying off. Others have suggested legalizing and keeping tabs as they do now, thereby limiting what an individual can obtain.
Somewhere in the middle between what we have now –unethical standards, unsafe, inconsistent manufacture and supply - and something of the above models will one day probably apply. Not for all drugs however. Some will be regarded as too toxic. And MDMA will be one of those. That’s not to say there won’t be a replacement that is on the list. Undoubtedly they have been or will be found.
The big holdup has to do with the fact that pharmaceutical companies would never release improvement drugs, as Shulgin states it “to take one above the norm”, without society displaying an acceptance to the idea. Viagra it has been said is the first recognized drug prescribed solely for pleasure, and may be the turning point in the attitude of the general public.
But would any of it really work anyway? Accountability is surly the product of future world security. Would many people want their “use/abuse” records to be available to employees, family and others? The underground, whichever color you see it as, will always flourish, just to defeat such forced social compliance.

I favour controlled legalisation.
x of drug A allowed per month.
y of drug B allowed per month.
z of drug C allowed per month.
Everyone would be able to legally try drug A, B or C if they wanted to, but never in large amounts.

^^^^ but the problem with everyone legally being allowed to try is: there are people who would have adverse reactions to a minute quantity of a certain drug whereas the same amount in a 'normal' person, would not cause any immediate danger..
The best way to deal with that (as I can see) is actually test people before they take any certain drug to see if they could have a bad reaction to the amount they are taking. Then again, that would take too much time and cost for the government to really implement this.

This was kind of where I was heading with this RFD (request for discussion) thread:
RFD: Alcohol abuse encouraged by society?
It's obvious in society that alcohol and other legal 'vices' such as gambling are frequently abused to the detriment of people's finances, health, and family lives -- why would this be any different if illegal drugs were legalised?
BigTrancer

As long as humans are unable to control their desires to the extent where they stop harming themselves, then regardless of the legal status of currently illegal or legal drugs, people will still die from drug abuse...
As long as people still drink themselves into oblivion, alcohol will cause harm, and as long as people still take mdma on a weekly basis, mdma will cause harm...
Ultimately it doesn't matter whether all drugs are legalised IMHO, because until people's attitudes change, and humans lose some of their vices, the drugs are still going to cause harm.
I do however think that all drugs should be considered equal, and perhaps legalisation of all drugs (or making legal recreational drugs illegal) will help people to understand that alcohol, nicotine, and all the other legal drugs which people abuse on a regular basis, can be just as harmful as illegal drugs... (or gambling, or any other addictive form of abuse)
Ultimately I think people should be able to make their own informed decisions and we all should make sure that the decision they make is the least damaging to themselves and everyone else.

Here is an interesting statistical report. I would like to know how these statistics relate to the impact on society. Especially if all drugs were legally controlled.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm

wazza,
True. But do we currently test to see if we are allowed to eat/drink/smoke nowadays? Not as far as I know.
Perhaps the user should sign an agreement (use at your own risk, I ackowledge the risks, I am aware that it is my resposibility to check if I am allergic to product X, etc..) and be handed out information pamphlets at the pharmacy.

I think this discussion also begs the question: "How do you make sure that one person's use does not adversely impact upon another person?"... We're obviously all quite familiar with alcohol and it's effects on the human body. We also know that it's not safe to carry out certain tasks while under the influence of certain doses of alcohol, such as driving at over 0.05% blood alcohol content. Society has embraced alcohol to the point where it's acceptable to use the drug at some times of the day (ie. not while at work for some people etc.) or at certain dose levels and frequencies.
But, how do you test someone randomly pulled over in a car to see if they're tripping and driving? Any number of scenarios could be dreamed up. What about a doctor who has been on call for 80 hours, and is speeding their face off to stay awake because their hospital cannot afford more staff? What about a road construction worker driving a front end loader who has just smoked opium at lunchtime and can't concentrate? What about someone who takes a legal amount of legal drugs on the weekend, safely away from work but ends up becoming sleep deprived as a result and therefore dangerous at work on Monday?
Perhaps it is in human nature to fuck up, and therefore it is less risk to allow people to legally fuck up with chemicals that have a higher margin of safety. With an alcohol overdose at least most people will pull through with a minor amount of discomfort and having learnt their lesson. The same cannot be said for many illicit drugs.
Addiction is another word that has come up. Another word I'd like to mention is compulsion. Some substances are addictive, meaning that a person can become dependent upon the substance, and suffer withdrawal symptoms in its absence. Some substances are compulsive, meaning that the desire to repeat the experience is strong. Some substances can bring about both of these effects, and in my opinion these are the substances that are most likely to result in people making mistakes.
BigTrancer

I like the approach described in Bk's - funk addiction (nice track)....
"As long as there are people there will be addiction to drugs, women, liquor, food, work, sports, even to arts, creeds and religions?. moderation or call it pacing is the answer and he who knows how to pace himself can win any race. Addictions cannot be outlawed and laws that cannot be enforced make a mockery of justice. Prohibition only raised the price of liquor to the joy of the bootlegger. The outlawing of gambling fills the pockets of the illegal bookmaker. The outlawing of dope selling enriches the dope pushers and forces the addict into crimes, but dope pushing and the crimes that go with it can be almost completely eliminated with one drastic step. The health education and welfare department could buy and package the most popular dopes and sell then without profit to drugstores to be retailed for 25 cents with a label clearly indicating what the dope will do to the purchaser, when insanity will start, and which dosage will be fatal, this 25 cent package with its explanatory label will first put dope pushers out of business overnight, second promptly reduce crime, third eliminate psychiatric double talk, and fourth, discuss and scare potential dope takers, by making dope available for 25 cents one can separate the addict from the pusher, and at the same time separate weaklings from men with self control."
Someone had a signature that went something like...
"A great law protects the individual from the government.
A good law protects the individual from others.
A poor law protects the individual from themselves"
Legalise it all.But BAN RELIGION - that's the real cancer of society.
It comes down to: if I want to do it, why the fuck should you stop me?
[ 18 March 2002: Message edited by: chupa chopped ]

Humans need to be protected from themselves. Think of the consequences of legalising every drug and making it extremely cheap. Would you work, or would you get off your face every day? Do you know a shitload of people who would? How would people cope who are violent alcoholics coming down off a 3-day meth binge? Who is going to work and use drugs "responsibily" in a society where drugs practically "rain" down?
A point of alcohol - a friend of mine got back from europe recently and we were discussing how in europe alcohol is sold in 1 litre bottles, yet here in 750mLs. One reason i thought up (which is the scariest) is that 750mLs is about the amount a normal sized male (who tend to drink spirits more often than females) can drink and pass out and vomit, but not have drunk enough to get severe alcohol poisioning. Perhaps a way of dosing to ensure maximmum fucked-upness without overdose?
I love drugs, and i think they can do great things for people, but not nearly enough people are responsible in their use now when to the average person they may be a bit difficult to get, imagine what could happen if it was cheap, readily available and publically sanctioned... i really wouldn't want to live here. Drugs being illegal may mean end users get busted unfairly, but i think having some degree of illegality is best for society.

Firstly, most addicts never have any real problems scoring. Yeah, they have some problems, but at the end of the day, they'll score something. If people didnt have to steal to finance their habits, could safely sit at home and get stoned instead of some sewer, don't you think there'd be less people who'd fall into the spiral of depression and self loathing that can cause addictions?
But, my views are: Chemicals such as Amphetamine and MDMA and refined plants like Heroin and Cocaine should be illegal. I think, if you can grow it, you can take. Make it illegal to sell, and to do it in public, but if you can grow pot/shrooms/salvia etc. then you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want with it. Banning something (like shrooms) that's part of the natural fauna of this nation is fucking crazy.
Also, I heard the other day there is a way to get high off wattle, apparently quite halucinogenic... Don't know how tho Anyone wanna try out some different methods and get back to me

I need more time to think about this topic and give a nice full well structured answer, but in short...
try to imagine what would happen if LSD became legal and easy to obtain...(think of the psychological side of LSD when you answer this question...)
not a pretty picture is it?
back with more later...
Andromeda

This is something that I just thought of...
I was just thinking how DXM-based cough syrup manufacturers started adding extra agents into so people couldn't stomach swallow large amounts of it.
Perhaps something (being just a touch simplistic here )could sold with an acid trip, mdxx, etc... to prevent a person from taking it too much.

I had a really good starting sentence, but I forgot it now so...I'll start with this bit...

try to imagine what would happen if LSD became legal and easy to obtain...(think of the psychological side of LSD when you answer this question...)
Andromeda-If LSD(and other triptamines) were distributed by the goverment you could minimise the psychological trauma that some people go through. Imagine this situation...
Some guy wants to try acid, he has shcizophrenia(sp?) but he dosn't know it yet. He buy a tab off some dealer in the street. Takes acid. Fucks out, and spends the rest of his life hevily medicated. -Not good for anyone(except maybe the dealer)-
NOw, How about this chap(in a nicer world) walks down to his local goverment pharmicist, takes a stndardised goverment psycological evaluation and is told that he really shouldn't be messing with LSD.
It's wierd, everyone knows someone who knows someone who has never been the same after a trip, people think making acid legal will create a whole nation of people like that. If anything it will reduce it drastically. Psycological evaluation, counsuling, group therapy...all goverment sponsored. The goverment will be making tons of the drugs anyway.
It seems so obviously logical to legalise drugs to me that I find it hard to believe anyone could actually support prohabition. I mean there was more alchoholism(per capita) during prohabition in the states than in any other time(including now) in the history of the US.
Anfa-What about alchohol? That's man made.
Fuck, I wish I was more articulate about this...
[ 19 March 2002: Message edited by: cancle ]

Click to expand...

Just read these...
The Economist-Stumbling in the dark
.The Spectator