Drug Legalization

[Alive-And-Dreaming]

I was just wondering what everyone here's stances on Drug Legalization/Decriminalization? I know it's a touchy subject and all, but in most cases it leads to great discussion. I am for the legalization of all drugs, even though only use natural psychoactives like marijuana cannibinol and psychobelyn fungi. I believe the legalization of all drugs will benefit society in many ways.

Firstly, there are millions of drug users in this country, from occasional marijuana users to hardcore cokeheads. they pay top dollar in order to obtain highs, and if the drugs they are addicted to became legal, It would greatly improve our economy. If the gov't taxes these drugs like they tax cigarettes, cigars and coffee, the economic boost would be legendary. It would pull us out of this war-brought economic slump and help with the housing problems.

Secondly, I think legalizing all drugs will make our streets a safer place to live. Currently, street gangs such as the Crips, Bloods and V13 are in a violent war over who gets the drugs and who gets to sell them. People get killed for wearing the wrong colors as a result of this. If drugs were legalized, this violent enterprise would be reduced to nothing. Think about it. If A crackhead could legally go into a store and buy a vial of rocks, why would he go to someone standing on a street-corner and buy the same thing for more money, especially when there the threat of violence.

Thirdly,the criminalization of drugs is unrighteous in the firstplace. As a libertarian, I believe it is a persons own choice what they put in their body. Two very dangerous drugs, caffeine and tobacco, are already legal, and an overdose in both results in an unavoidable death, whereas a heroin overdose is 9/10 survivable with hospitable treatment. Millions of people drink themselves to death each year

What are your responses.

[Ravenblade]

I think any and all of this stuff should be legalised as long as no one else is hurt for their addictions.

With that said, I would NOT be happy with paying for life saving medical surgery on some junkie on the NHS - so it works both ways. Does that mean I would let junkies die? Yes. Hey, its their bodies and their choice. The British tax payer shouldn't have to pay for their treatment.

You're right about the gangs though - it would be safer if it was legalised and controlled by the state.

[Amray]

Well if they can control it then fine, if not then it would not be any different as it is from now. Actually t'would even worse.

They should legalize Marijuana for medical reasons but that is it. I myself detest drugs if they are used in a stupid manner. Drug takers are pathetic. I hope their magic mushrooms jump up their bottoms and eat them alive from inside out.

[Lola Granola]

Some of the most interesting AND intelligent people I've met partake in drug activities (wisely of course). Marijuana should be legalized, that's my opinion... but I'm biased because I live in Seattle and it is everywhere anyway.

[Alive-And-Dreaming]

Some of the most interesting AND intelligent people I've met partake in drug activities (wisely of course). Marijuana should be legalized, that's my opinion... but I'm biased because I live in Seattle and it is everywhere anyway.

Haha, really? Seattle doesn't exactly strike me as 4/20 friendly.

[Ollie]

Haha, really? Seattle doesn't exactly strike me as 4/20 friendly.

Seattle is a city known for it's progressive politics. It's also just a few hours south of Vancouver, BC, which I've heard has got some pretty good stuff. Pot smokers aren't extremely rare hereabouts.

I've also heard that Washington in general is pretty lenient on marijuana users, so long as they aren't driving (because WA really isn't lenient on DUIs).

[Ollie]

"Drug legalization" is too general a statement. All drugs ever invented? CHRIST no. But I am for the legalization of certain (VERY few) drugs simply because of control and tax purposes.

[Lola Granola]

You're kidding... but, really.

[shadow slayer x]

I really don't care whether the world wants to legalize certain drugs...children already grow up around it...and guns are perfectly legal...with permit/license although alot people don't care about that.

*Ahem* Anyways, I think it would be interesting...
I also find it interesting on how alot of your topics and posts are "drug" related. Interesting...

[Alive-And-Dreaming]

I really don't care whether the world wants to legalize certain drugs...children already grow up around it...and guns are perfectly legal...with permit/license although alot people don't care about that.

*Ahem* Anyways, I think it would be interesting...
I also find it interesting on how alot of your topics and posts are "drug" related. Interesting...

If by alot you mean 2.

Also, I would like to give some background on what kind of person I am before the arguement degrades into: Oh yeah, well your a stupid pothead.

I am 16, taking all X or AP classes and have A's in everything except for Pre-Calc. I have a steady job, and, contrary to the normal stereotype of a pothead, I don't sit around talking about "The Corporations" with dreadlocks and a Phish shirt all day. I'm a pretty normal, functioning member of society. I am also a daily user of marijuana. Some comments like "If you want to destroy your life, whatever" I find offensive because it groups all users into one category and is an uneducated statement. If you want an example of a successful pothead, I say look no further than the great mind Carl Sagan.

[Lola Granola]

Looking at his signature... and I think its pretty obvious o_O

[Amray]

So many, many people manage to get their hands on drugs nowadays anyway. So the outcome would probably be no different from the present day...exept maybe a number of individuals would not be in prison for it.

[Kojack]

I wouldn't be opposed to the government legalizing minor drugs like marijuana if they regulated and profited from it. In Canada we have the LCBO and The Beer Store, which are the storefronts of the government regulating the alcohol industry. They make huge profits from it.

But unless the government profits from the drug market, I think it should be illegal. It's taking money away from the country, and so I think it's best to suppress it as much as possible.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

I think any drug that can be taken for recreational purposes should be legalized and taxed as per normal. What business does the government have with what people do to themselves?

[Sanosuke23]

Legalize everything everywhere completely? No. A lot of drugs were created to be taken in low doses and prescribed by a doctor, and should be used responsibly.

However, I love how they have people claiming cigarettes caused the need for their extremities amputated or killed their parents/baby/etc. and they're perfectly legal, while marijuana posession can net you some serious jailtime and the worst I've ever seen was respiratory problems after years of heavy use.

Double standards, eh?

[Capernicus]

It is my position (and I seen to be the only one thusfar) that legalization of drugs is a bad idea. MP2K so far has made the best argument in my opinion, though the thread starter (n00b?) obviously did give this a lot of thought, so props to him.

I think that people as a whole and in large groups are simply retarded, and have no business making their own decision on the matter. Case in point, the abhorrent caffeine addiction in this country, which is socially acceptable and by no means should be in my opinion. Even the army finds it prudent to curb caffeine addictions in boot camp. That should really tell you something. If you get a headache by noon if you have no yet had coffee, that is an addiction and you need to be slapped upside the head.

I feel if the sale of drugs was legalized, instead of these drug users being in jail they would be in hospitals and draining valuable medical resources away from people there for much less...frivolous reasons. True, they are a drain on taxpayer dollars even now, but at least they are not in a situation where they are delaying the medical treatment of seriously ill and wounded individuals. Yes, I am aware that because of their illegality a lot of violence surrounds the market, and so are still making use of medical resources that way. However, no gunshot or stab wound goes uninvestigated and so provides incentive for such victims to stay away from hospitals.

Though, the idea to regulate and tax the narcotics industry is a good idea. This would be the second best reason proposed. Though, perhaps I'm old fashioned in that I believe that if a government is making large amounts of money from the degradation of its citizens it's probably corrupt.

I'd also like to point out something not mentioned anywhere here. I don't know what country you live in, but I think that America has a duty to itself and the rest of the globe (since it is very influential internationally) to maintain the integrity of its population. Aren't we trying to remain competitive in the global market? How can we do that if the workforce is high half of the time? This is something we really need to think about.

As an aspiring teacher, I'm very concerned about the next generation of Americans. I'll be damned if I have to one day grit my teeth and endure the marketing of highly addictive substances in my classroom. I won't stand for it.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

It is my position (and I seen to be the only one thusfar) that legalization of drugs is a bad idea. MP2K so far has made the best argument in my opinion, though the thread starter (n00b?) obviously did give this a lot of thought, so props to him.

I think that people as a whole and in large groups are simply retarded, and have no business making their own decision on the matter. Case in point, the abhorrent caffeine addiction in this country, which is socially acceptable and by no means should be in my opinion. Even the army finds it prudent to curb caffeine addictions in boot camp. That should really tell you something. If you get a headache by noon if you have no yet had coffee, that is an addiction and you need to be slapped upside the head.

Government, by definition, is a large group. I don't think that the Government should be allowed to decide what is best for the individual.

Also, on a personal note I think it's weird that I, as a heavy caffeine user don't get side effects. I feel really out of sorts without (although I think that may just be the lack of sugar, since the sugar helps lots), but I don't get a head ache, and I don't get a crash after my energy drinks.

I feel if the sale of drugs was legalized, instead of these drug users being in jail they would be in hospitals and draining valuable medical resources away from people there for much less...frivolous reasons. True, they are a drain on taxpayer dollars even now, but at least they are not in a situation where they are delaying the medical treatment of seriously ill and wounded individuals. Yes, I am aware that because of their illegality a lot of violence surrounds the market, and so are still making use of medical resources that way. However, no gunshot or stab wound goes uninvestigated and so provides incentive for such victims to stay away from hospitals.

Most drug users aren't junkies, and the ones that are are usually the ones driven into poverty by the drug economy. You could turn all of the now unused prisons into 12 step programs/halfway houses if you wanted, it would still cost less to house them.

Also, I doubt many people would stay away from the hospital due to gunshot or stab wound, unless it was just a knick. Underworld docs are mostly a myth, and most people don't know of them personally anyway.

Though, the idea to regulate and tax the narcotics industry is a good idea. This would be the second best reason proposed. Though, perhaps I'm old fashioned in that I believe that if a government is making large amounts of money from the degradation of its citizens it's probably corrupt.

They tax lots of things people conceder "bad". Porn, Sex toys, Contraceptives, Videogames, Naughty Music, Harry Potter, etcetera. It's more on what you define as bad then anything. That said, as long as the money goes back to the people, it isn't corruption. It's a stupid tax, like the lottery.

I'd also like to point out something not mentioned anywhere here. I don't know what country you live in, but I think that America has a duty to itself and the rest of the globe (since it is very influential internationally) to maintain the integrity of its population. Aren't we trying to remain competitive in the global market? How can we do that if the workforce is high half of the time? This is something we really need to think about.

I don't think anyone has said the businesses shouldn't test people anymore if they want. But if you're in a stupid job, and you smoke pot on the weekend, why should it be anyone's business but your own. If you have the time and the money, you should be able to crawl into your cave and shoot smack until the real world goes away. Retreating into your own private reality is the American Dream. Look at Vegas.

As an aspiring teacher, I'm very concerned about the next generation of Americans. I'll be damned if I have to one day grit my teeth and endure the marketing of highly addictive substances in my classroom. I won't stand for it.

I doubt your textbooks will be sponsored by Ampeta-Cola, at any rate. I'd still have it 18 plus, and you'd have to get spieled at by a pharmacist every time you wanted anything.

[Capernicus]

Somehow I knew it would be you who chose to reply.

In answer a question, I think that honestly cigarettes should be made illegal, though because of the celebratory connotations of wine and cigars, I think that outlawing them would be going too far. And, seeing as tequila and such things are economic alternatives to such things, I don't object to their legality. I know that my views are not very consistent, but such is the complexity of my thoughts I suppose.

Most drug users aren't junkies, and the ones that are are usually the ones driven into poverty by the drug economy. You could turn all of the now unused prisons into 12 step programs/halfway houses if you wanted, it would still cost less to house them.

I think you are perhaps being pretty stereotypical. Not every drug user is broke. I think that a sizable representation of them are middle or upper class teens who are, to put it simply, bored. Drugs are fun. Which then, yes, does contradict my theory that they partake of them enough to be hospitalized, but I still think that I made a valid point.

Replacing prisons with 12 step programs would be a good initiative, but good alternative would also be to simply implement effective rehabilitation programs into prisons. And yes I know that I have no idea how that would work, I'm sure it is very complex, but I'm equally sure that someone can come up with a solution rather than trying to fix the monetary issues by making drugs legal.

Also, I doubt many people would stay away from the hospital due to gunshot or stab wound, unless it was just a knick. Underworld docs are mostly a myth, and most people don't know of them personally anyway.

As far as gunshot and stab victims avoiding hospitals, I think that, again, a sizable representation do not seek treatment if the injury isn't pressing and will attempt to take care of it themselves.

They tax lots of things people conceder "bad". Porn, Sex toys, Contraceptives, Videogames, Naughty Music, Harry Potter, etcetera. It's more on what you define as bad then anything. That said, as long as the money goes back to the people, it isn't corruption. It's a stupid tax, like the lottery.

I don't believe I ever said the word "bad" in my post to describe drugs. And no, I'm not for banning any of those things.

I doubt your textbooks will be sponsored by Ampeta-Cola, at any rate. I'd still have it 18 plus, and you'd have to get spieled at by a pharmacist every time you wanted anything.

This is silly. But of course, I do assume that age limits would be set if drugs were indeed made legal.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

I think you are perhaps being pretty stereotypical. Not every drug user is broke. I think that a sizable representation of them are middle or upper class teens who are, to put it simply, bored. Drugs are fun. Which then, yes, does contradict my theory that they partake of them enough to be hospitalized, but I still think that I made a valid point.

Junkie implies the kind of person giving out special massages at bus stops. Most people who have money are not junkies, although they may be addicts.

Replacing prisons with 12 step programs would be a good initiative, but good alternative would also be to simply implement effective rehabilitation programs into prisons. And yes I know that I have no idea how that would work, I'm sure it is very complex, but I'm equally sure that someone can come up with a solution rather than trying to fix the monetary issues by making drugs legal.

The only difference is that I am defining drug addiction as a problem, and you are defining drug addiction as a crime and a problem. There isn't any program more effective then a 12 Step program and it's already heavily implemented in prisons, but it's only effective when people WANT to quit. People caught on possession charges usually haven't reached that point, especially if it's for something relatively benign like Marijuana. It just reinforces the "Us vs. Them" mentality that is the very root of The Drug War. All you do is make the user into a victim in his own mind.

As far as gunshot and stab victims avoiding hospitals, I think that, again, a sizable representation do not seek treatment if the injury isn't pressing and will attempt to take care of it themselves.

I really don't know why you think that people with serious, possibly life threatening, injuries fix 'um at home. I'd like to think I would hear a lot more stories about people dying of infections from untreated puncture wounds if that were the case, since that is all it would lead to. Besides, I doubt police officers would be able to get Search Warrants to check every gun shot victims house for drugs on the off chance it was drug related. If the shooters were able to get away undetected, and the shooties claimed they were robbed or something, that would be case closed, baring special circumstances.

I don't believe I ever said the word "bad" in my post to describe drugs. And no, I'm not for banning any of those things.

"Degradation" implies bad. The point was, you considering drugs to be bad isn't much different from other people considering other things bad. Some people conceder gay culture to denigrate humanity too. It's all subjective, no? I just don't think we should regulate what an individual does to them self based on what a majority feels they should do themselves.

This is silly. But of course, I do assume that age limits would be set if drugs were indeed made legal.

Well, you did specifically mention "the marketing of highly addictive substances in [your] classroom."

Tobacco smoking and marijuana smoking are equally damaging to your lungs. However, the thing with marijuana is that it's done on occasion; you'll almost never find someone smoking 20 joints a day (I'm not sure who COULD do something like that, assuming they worked full-time. I know it's very possible to be high and still function fairly normally, but it definitely changes your behavior; plus, I'm not sure how many places would want their workers to be stoned and handling machinery/food/customer service/etc.). Smoking 2-20 cigarettes in a day is still common, however, so ultimately the damage caused by tobacco to the body is usually considerably greater than by marijuana.

The More You Know.™

They really aren't. Although there are high amounts of a few breathing disorders among long time users, Marijuana isn't carcinogenic. Lung cancer is by far the nastiest effect of cigarettes.

The gateway drug theory isn't flawed. Just because a few kids never stem out from smoking pot, doesn't mean that majority do. I have friends who smoked pot in 9th grade, and now they're hard core meth addicts. FOR EXAMPLE. My sister.

Whatever drug is your first, depending on if you enjoy the effects, it will lead you to try other drugs, with harsher effects, with longer highs. If you are an addictive person, the chance of you being unable to live without a cigarette, or a joint are higher than say, someone who isn't very addictive, who doesn't drink caffiene or eat stimulints.

I don't question the correlation of Former Marijuana use among Hard Drug Addicts, but the question is whether or not there is causation. Plenty of people stop at marijuana. Were the exceptions people who had the addict gene and are naturally predisposed to seeking greater highs, or did Marijuana change them somehow to crave stronger drugs?

[Ollie]

Marijuana is not a gateway drug.

They really aren't. Although there are high amounts of a few breathing disorders among long time users, Marijuana isn't carcinogenic. Lung cancer is by far the nastiest effect of cigarettes.

Results from a quick Google search:

"Marijuana and tobacco associated with same respiratory symptoms"
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/18838.php
"Lungs don't discriminate: both marijuana and tobacco smoke damage lungs."
http://www.mediacampaign.org/newsroo..._and_kids.html
Summary: Yes, it's less harmful than tobacco to most users, but only because most marijuana smokers smoke a lot less frequently than most tobacco smokers
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#tobacco
"Marijuana abuse also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens9,11. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke12." (though considering the source it may be taken with a grain of salt, especially since some information in the above link contradicts it)
http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

I'm sure there's a lot more available, but I already knew this so I have no desire to study it further.

Beside, you can increase your risk of getting cancer just by eating burned food (like the charred residue on burger patties). It's the burned and blackened effect of it that's the worst.

[Sanosuke23]

@Cap: But then would you agree with the (re)criminalization of cigarettes, alcohol, caffiene, etc.? Prohibition was deemed unconstitutional, so what's the difference with, say, marijuana? I think it would most likely be marketed to the 18+ crowd much like cigarettes, or maybe the 21+ crowd because of its effect on reaction time and the like.

Personally I say criminalize everything or nothing(regulation would be the course of action in this case). Either way, at least it's consistent.

[Chocobo]

I think drugs should be legalized, because if you want to screw over your life and blow your money on pointless crap, go for it!

However, you do have to think of innocent people on the road. If you're drugged your judgement is destroyed greatly.

[Lola Granola]

To be frank and to the point I'm going to focus on marijuana.

As I've said before I've met and know pot smokers who are quite intelligent, responsible adults, and who know how to take care of themselves. Already I see stereotypes in this thread about pot smokers. I think people tend to associate them with teens, young adults, or individuals with unattractive backgrounds. The reality is that some users are mature, full grown adults, with stable lifestyles who have made more difficult decisions in their lives than choosing to partake in a recreational activity equivalent to that of consuming alcohol.

Another problem is what can be "addicting" to people. Drugs, marijuana, anything can affect individuals in different ways. Though marijuana can be as addictive as cigarettes, supposedly smoking marijuana is safer for your health than tobacco. Actually from the things I've read tobacco is more addictive than marijuana, please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't find caffeine to be addictive at all. Someone really needs to work on their will power if they can't break a caffeine addiction in my opinion... to even call it an addiction sounds funny to me.

I don't fully understand the hospital argument.

I don't know if I'm mistaken but I think for the case of marijuana, legalization is a global push. Not to mention some occupations do require drug testing.

[Ollie]

Another problem is what can be "addicting" to people. Drugs, marijuana, anything can affect individuals in different ways. Though marijuana can be as addictive as cigarettes, supposedly smoking marijuana is safer for your health than tobacco. Actually from the things I've read tobacco is more addictive than marijuana, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Tobacco smoking and marijuana smoking are equally damaging to your lungs. However, the thing with marijuana is that it's done on occasion; you'll almost never find someone smoking 20 joints a day (i'm not sure who COULD do something like that, assuming they worked full-time. I know it's very possible to be high and still function fairly normally, but it definitely changes your behavior; plus, I'm not sure how many places would want their workers to be stoned and handling machinery/food/customer service/etc.). Smoking 2-20 cigarettes in a day is still common, however, so ultimately the damage caused by tobacco to the body is usually considerably greater than by marijuana.

The More You Know.™

[Lola Granola]

Thank you for that clarification. I know enough to have an opinion, but haven't researched the topic extensively.