Legalization of Drugs

[liquifiedrainbows]

What do you think? Should all drugs be legalized? Should only certain ones? Or should none at all?

[eriador]

marajuana.

it will free up law enforcement to fight real crimes, make it safer.

it's too late for me to be more lucid.

[AnthonyByakko]

The arguments for it are as numerous as they are varied.

But for right now, the American government's incompetence at enforcing its rights-infringing laws is keeping us relatively safe.

[jotabe]

I think that either all of them should be banned (alcohol and tobacco included), or all of them should be legal.

I just don't see why tobacco and alcohol are considered separately. Well, i see why they are. It just looks terribly hipocritical. And twisted. And evil.

[AnthonyByakko]

Considering that, as a non-toxic substance, marijuana has never killed anyone in human history, yet alcohol kills thousands of people a year through alcohol poisoning and long-term health problems, and tobacco kills even more.

[anonshadow]

I think that either all of them should be banned (alcohol and tobacco included), or all of them should be legal.

Why do you think that?? Some drugs are clearly more harmful than others. Why would our decision on whether to legalize marijuana hinge on whether we wanted to legalize cocaine as well?

--

Beyond that:

What about prescription drugs? Cocaine, heroin, etc. are not the only kinds of drugs that drug users use. Some take different kinds of prescription drugs that they do not medically need, like ritalin. If drugs like cocaine were legalized, what should be done about prescription drug abuses?

[anonshadow]

I want to make a quick point about marijuana--

While it is not chemically addictive, and while it is not life-threatening when used on its own, it still has very real and permanent effects on your body if you used it long enough. I often hear people going on about how marijuana has no real lasting effects, and that isn't true. It can, for example, wreak havoc on your memory and you don't always recover from the damage it does. Ever.

[jotabe]

I don't see the question as "what to do with this or this other drug".
I see it "what to do with substances that alter the way mind works", that is, psychoactive drugs.

Ones might have a bigger or a lesser effect on the mind, but that also depends on every person. But all of them represent a danger, because they enable people to behave in a manner they wouldn't otherwise. And that circumstance is potentially very dangerous for the people around.
That's why a single legislation should rule them all, including alcohol and tobacco.

As for prescription medicines, i don't know how it is over there, but if a pharmaceutist gives away medicines without the proper prescription, he is in for big trouble, because it's a criminal offence. Medicines are toxic substances, that under certain circumstances (illness) and in certain amounts, can be therapeutical. But they are still poisons. Poisons cannot be freely distributed, the same way weapons can't be either.
So, what to do about them? If the drug user stole the prescription drug, well, he stole a toxic substance, and i don't know what kind of offence is over there. If the pharmaceutist gave it to him without prescription, then the pharmaceutist is to blame, and to be punished.

[anonshadow]

But it really is all a matter of degree. Plenty of laws are made based on matter of degree; for example, it is legal for a parent to chastise a child, but it is not legal for the parent to smack the kid around. It is legal to have an abortion because you decide you are not ready to be a mother, but it is not legal to have an abortion when you are eight months into the pregnancy because you decide you are not ready to be a mother. It is legal for someone over the age of consent in a certain area to kiss someone who is under it, but it is not legal for them to have sex.

I think that the issue of degree is incredibly important. Everything has to be looked at through that lense. Two hours of homework a night, for example, is fine. Ten is not. And that is just a matter of degree, and it isn't so so much different than the difference between marijuana and cocaine.

It isn't just about the effect these drugs have on a person's mind; I think that the addictive qualities of each also need to be taken into account. Something that is chemically addictive is, in my eyes, far more dangerous than something that is not.

And, if you're talking about outlawing drugs because they affect the mind and make people do things they wouldn't otherwise, are you including psychiatric medication (which certainly does that) in that mix?

Edit: In regards to your last two paragraphs, my point was that if you legalize all other drugs and make them available to the general population, what rationale would you use (general you) to bar the general population from having access without a doctor's permission to what are prescription drugs now?

[jotabe]

Yes, some, maybe many or most, subjects are a matter of degree. There is a need to distinguish a range of greys. But in other matters, the difference is just too big, to stablish degree. The difference between having your mental consciousness/abilities hindered or not is too big. And because effects on different people are different, and you don't know if one certain drug will affect you too much until you take it, and then it's too late.

Chemically addictiviness is just as important as psychological dependance. And all drugs have the latter, even from the first dose (alcohol and tobacco included).

Medicines, as i said, cannot be outlawed. Medicines are toxic substances (psychotropics are just one kind of toxics), so, to have a good effect, they have to be prescribed by an specialist. That's what would always make them legal, under those circumstances.

I see your point now. In such situation, you wouldn't be able to keep people from buying any medicine. Of course, sensible people would only buy medicines when the doctor says. Unsensible people would use them just as they use any drug.

Edit: Ten hours of homework have killed noone

[anonshadow]

Ten hours of homework a night certainly raises stress levels and can be a huge factor in suicide. Countries that put a lot of pressure on kids to do well in school and assign them a s***** of homework also have higher suicide rates among youth.

Chemical addictiveness is as important as psychological dependence--but not everyone who uses drugs experiences psychological dependence, either. I know plenty of smokers who are neither chemically nor psychologically addictive, and go through maybe two packs of cigarettes a year. I know plenty of people who drink alcohol who are not alcoholics. I know people who use marijuana without being psychologically dependent on it, and I know people who will occasionally use speed who are not dependent on it, either.

When you come right down to it, people can become psychologically addictive on pretty much anything. Drugs are not unique in that regard. Plenty of people in the United States are psychologically dependent on huge amounts of food, hence the obesity rate.

The issue that makes drugs unique is that psychological addiction is exacerbated by chemical addiction, so it is doubly hard to stop using.

As far as sensible people using medication only when a doctor tells them to--that's entirely true, but there isn't such a big difference between cocaine and, say, ritalin. Which is why people with AD/HD have been known to self-medicate with cocaine.

[neo-dragon]

I think that either all of them should be banned (alcohol and tobacco included), or all of them should be legal.

I just don't see why tobacco and alcohol are considered separately. Well, i see why they are. It just looks terribly hipocritical. And twisted. And evil.

Because alcohol is legal, crack cocaine should be too? I don't think so. I do think that cigarettes should be illegal though. I think that smoking is just about the most idiotic thing that people are allowed to do (more or less) freely. I mean, smokers are destroying their own bodies from the inside out. Why the hell do you do something that you know is ruining your health in a number of ways, and shortening your life?

[Hegemon]

If it were up to me i would make smoking illegal as well, but i would have no problem legalizing more serious/detrimental drugs...

Why would I make smoking illegal? Because I don't want to breath the s*** in. At least when someone snorts coke I don't have to inhale the stuff.

[Jayelle]

This is more of a general thought then anything an arguement, but...

Since driving under the influence of drugs is bad, it seems troublesome to me that while you can measure alcohol with a breathlizer (sp??), you can't do that with something like that with other depressants or hallusinagenics. Blood tests aren't exactly roadside ready.
Making those things legal seems like it would add to more trouble on our roads.

[Hegemon]

Actually, road issues are the primary problem I would have with them. I think that we would need to develop some sort of test and have strict punishments for people who drive while high.

[liquifiedrainbows]

Actually, road issues are the primary problem I would have with them. I think that we would need to develop some sort of test and have strict punishments for people who drive while high.

I think this would be a much more effective way to make sure people are safe. Legalize all drugs and crack down on the punishments for using them in public and driving under the influence.

[anonshadow]

Using them in public??

[Hegemon]

Of course not in public... I cannot think of anything more offensive than a person snorting a line of coke off of a bald midget's head.. Can you?

[anonshadow]

Of course not, but realistically, you can't always tell if someone's high, and traces of the drug show up in their system for a decent chunk of time after they cease to be... high.

(You're insane. A bald midget's head?)

[AnthonyByakko]

I want to make a quick point about marijuana--

While it is not chemically addictive, and while it is not life-threatening when used on its own, it still has very real and permanent effects on your body if you used it long enough. I often hear people going on about how marijuana has no real lasting effects, and that isn't true. It can, for example, wreak havoc on your memory and you don't always recover from the damage it does. Ever.

Proof please. Search all you want, you won't find a single objective study to back up your substantial claim.

Some of the founding "assumptions" about marijuana are based off dated, obsolete tests in the '80s that never showed any cell death, but were construed to portray negative side effects. And since study of its effects is now hard to do what with the federal government's lockdown, we can't know for sure. For all we know, the anectodal evidence available to support your claims are from tainted crops (probably from field-spraying done at the behest of the U.S. government; congratulations America, you poison your own citizens), or doses purposefully tainted (with the likes of PCP, embalming fluid) to make them more potent. Trust me, you don't wanna go down this path with me.

[VelvetElvis]

I want to make a quick point about marijuana--

While it is not chemically addictive, and while it is not life-threatening when used on its own, it still has very real and permanent effects on your body if you used it long enough. I often hear people going on about how marijuana has no real lasting effects, and that isn't true. It can, for example, wreak havoc on your memory and you don't always recover from the damage it does. Ever.

Proof please. Search all you want, you won't find a single objective study to back up your substantial claim.

Some of the founding "assumptions" about marijuana are based off dated, obsolete tests in the '80s that never showed any cell death, but were construed to portray negative side effects. And since study of its effects is now hard to do what with the federal government's lockdown, we can't know for sure. For all we know, the anectodal evidence available to support your claims are from tainted crops (probably from field-spraying done at the behest of the U.S. government; congratulations America, you poison your own citizens), or doses purposefully tainted (with the likes of PCP, embalming fluid) to make them more potent. Trust me, you don't wanna go down this path with me.

Are you trying to be abrasive and unpleasant in general? Try being nicer and maybe someone will take you seriously.

There have been studies done, RECENT studies, that again show correlation between marijuana and memory loss. Smoking pot is also just as bad for you as smoking tobacco.

Also, stop bashing America.

[AnthonyByakko]

Are you trying to be abrasive and unpleasant in general? Try being nicer and maybe someone will take you seriously.

There have been studies done, RECENT studies, that again show correlation between marijuana and memory loss. Smoking pot is also just as bad for you as smoking tobacco.

Also, stop bashing America.

Yes, I'm trying to be abrasive. Deal with it.

Show me the studies. You can't simply raise some alleged science and not show it. You make broad statements like "Smoking pot is also just as bad for you as smoking tobacco" without a single iota of proof. What's wrong with you? (this is not even mentioning the fact that the only true negative side effect of smoking marijuana is because of the "smoking" part - any smoke in your body is bad, but "smoking" is not the only way to get the effects of the substance, twit.)

Secondly, I don't need you to "take me seriously." What you do is your own business. If you don't like my tone and methods, walk away. If you wanna get in a debate, and try learning something not just about my views but about your own, then you better be prepared to get your hands dirty. Timidity never won anything.

Thirdly, you can't bash "America." It's a concept, an idea. I've consistantly bashed bad government behavior. Deal with it or refute it.

[VelvetElvis]

It's just as possible to bash an idea as it is to bash an actual entity. Poor government behavior doesn't mean the same thing as "America". These terms are not interchangeable.

Do you even know why smoking is bad for you? And if you do, what is the difference between smoking pot, smoking tobacco, or smoking the leaves of the nearest houseplant (assuming it isn't poisonous) to your lungs?

Also, you do need me to take you seriously if you want to have a discussion about anything. If two people don't respect each other, it's essentially yelling at air, not exchage of ideas. Respect is involved in lots of areas of the Real World.

[AnthonyByakko]

It's just as possible to bash an idea as it is to bash an actual entity. Poor government behavior doesn't mean the same thing as "America". These terms are not interchangeable.

Do you even know why smoking is bad for you? And if you do, what is the difference between smoking pot, smoking tobacco, or smoking the leaves of the nearest houseplant (assuming it isn't poisonous) to your lungs?

Also, you do need me to take you seriously if you want to have a discussion about anything. If two people don't respect each other, it's essentially yelling at air, not exchage of ideas. Respect is involved in lots of areas of the Real World.

1. Deal with it. 2. Yes. Since you offer no real insight into the question you raise, neither will I. 3. No, I don't. I never valued your opinion in the first place because you never gave me reason to. Come up with the PROOF you keep dodging and I might have reason to take your stance to heart. Otherwise, stop wasting our time. Respect is EARNED, in case you haven't heard.

[VelvetElvis]

If you really are interested in the proof, contact me an I will find the appropriate sources for you. I will not longer acknowledge your posts in this thread until you learn that respect is not earned, it is understood for any task to be accomplished.

[AnthonyByakko]

What's that I hear? The sound of a cowardly evasion? I still don't see any proof.

Listen honey, if I wanted a private lesson in organic pharmaceutical medicine and physiological side effects, I'd contact an expert - not some random forum busy-body too stuck up to deal with an abrasive personality. If you're so fragile and weak-minded that you can't control your intellectual mind long enough to inform me of your oh-so-highly-rated opinion, then get the hell out of here. Leaving in a huffy snit with some condescending "if you want _____, then do _____" blanket statement only makes people think less of you than they already do. And if you can't understand the simple abstract idiom that "Respect is Earned" and you think I OWE you respect for DEIGNING to reply to me, you've got another thing coming. So, if you're leaving this discussion, then LEAVE. And possibly neuter yourself to save the next generation the trouble.

EDIT: If you had "appropriate resources" at your disposal, you'd use them since they'd show me up. But since your resources don't exist (since no objective studies proving your claims exist) you can't, and are forced to retreat {or rather, FLEE} like a looter from New Orleans.)

[hive_king]

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99 ... lth_1.html

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

I hope these should be good starters, anothony. I do believe the ball's in your court now.

[AnthonyByakko]

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99 ... lth_1.html

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

I hope these should be good starters, anothony. I do believe the ball's in your court now.

Exactly. And here's what I do with the ball...

First link's OPENENING STATEMENT:

"I must preface these statements with the remark that there is still a great deal of research to be done concerning the effects of marijuana on the health of humans due to the fact that widespread marijuana use has only become prevalent in this country within the last three decades, so the effects of long-term use are just beginning to become apparent. I should also add that in making these observations, I have concentrated on the risks of smoking natural marijuana, since it is the most effective method of ingesting its active cannabinoids."

I don't know who wrote this article (since it NEVER SAYS), but the last sentence shows a clear misunderstanding of basic medicinal delivery systems - smoking is one of the LEAST effective methods of deliverying ANY chemical substance. Burning away at an organic substance makes it lose a high percentage of the desired substance (in this case, Tetra-HydraCannibinol) in the chemical process of burning. Ingesting marijuana orally is almost always more potent and has longer lasting effects (and since this requires no smoking, much safer), in addition to requiring LESS of the substance. The only reason people even SMOKE it is the convenience factor of not having to cook anything. This is to say nothing of vaporizors. As I've already conceded, smoking ANY substance is a poor method to receive the effects, as smoke is a dangerous thing to put into your body.

The second, more consistant and verified link, offers impact analysis based on SMOKERS who CHRONICALLY ABUSE the substance. I would posit that anyone who chronically abuses any substance (marijuana, alcohol, chocolate, coffee) will have long-term health problems. The issue here is not whether people who willfully put hot smoke into their respiratory system will have health problems (they invariably WILL) but whether mariijuana is a dangerous substance worthy of being BANNED from society. It is clearly not.

[jotabe]

http://jama.highwire.org/cgi/content/ab ... 287/9/1123

link too long

another too long link

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte ... /156/4/319

[anonshadow]

Well, but Anthony, I never claimed that marijuana was so dangerous that it should be banned from society; I also never claimed that a few uses would cause the effects that I mentioned.

I said:

While it is not chemically addictive, and while it is not life-threatening when used on its own, it still has very real and permanent effects on your body if you used it long enough.

That very obviously is not referring to the one-time user or the occasional user. I said nothing in that statement that said that marijuana should or should not be banned; I merely stated that it can have long-term effects on your health, and in arguments about this topic, I often see people say that it can't.

Marijuana is not harmless.

Now, as far as anything being used in overabundance causing health problems--yes, this is certainly true, at least of drugs. However, I would posit that a person who eats a chocolate bar every day for five years will not develop the issues a marijuana user would if a comparable amount was used.

The person who uses marijuana a few times a month will likely not develop the effects we are talking about, nor are any of us claiming it will.

[AnthonyByakko]

Well, but Anthony, I never claimed that marijuana was so dangerous that it should be banned from society; I also never claimed that a few uses would cause the effects that I mentioned.

I said:

While it is not chemically addictive, and while it is not life-threatening when used on its own, it still has very real and permanent effects on your body if you used it long enough.

That very obviously is not referring to the one-time user or the occasional user. I said nothing in that statement that said that marijuana should or should not be banned; I merely stated that it can have long-term effects on your health, and in arguments about this topic, I often see people say that it can't.

Marijuana is not harmless.

Now, as far as anything being used in overabundance causing health problems--yes, this is certainly true, at least of drugs. However, I would posit that a person who eats a chocolate bar every day for five years will not develop the issues a marijuana user would if a comparable amount was used.

The person who uses marijuana a few times a month will likely not develop the effects we are talking about, nor are any of us claiming it will.

One chocolate bar every day for five years, comparative to the amount of marijuana it would take a person to get a "high" once a day for five years - neither of which would develop "issues." Chronic abuse, defined by the people who test for the effects of marijuana by exposing animal brains to large amounts of smoke, would consist of daily, high-volume consumption - not the smoker's 2 jnts a day.

[Paul]

I would posit that a person who eats a chocolate bar every day for five years will not develop the issues a marijuana user would if a comparable amount was used.

One chocolate bar every day for five years, comparative to the amount of marijuana it would take a person to get a "high" once a day for five years - neither of which would develop "issues." Chronic abuse, defined by the people who test for the effects of marijuana by exposing animal brains to large amounts of smoke, would consist of daily, high-volume consumption - not the smoker's 2 jnts a day.

I would have to agree with anthony here. The amount of marijuana smoked to get hight only once is such a small amount. If anything, i think eating a candy bar (well, king size anway) is prob worst for you.

Having one cigarette a day is def worst.

On to other things, i dont think all illigal drugs should be legilized, but i DO think that all drugs should be decriminalized. Meaning, arrest the coke dealer, but not the user.

In Holland, since Heroin was decriminalized, the average age for an addict has gone from age 25 to about 35. The joke is that soon they will have to start opening retirement homes for heroin addicts...

I remember recently seeing somewhere that anti-smoking tv advertisements havge been shown to actually increase the likelihood of a teen smoking. I mean kids always want to do what their parents tell them not too.

'Sides, without the whole war on drugs, there would be no market for the stuff. The prices for drugs are kept so high (no pun attended) because they are illigal. If drugs were made legal, the price would drop so much that it would no longer be profitable to traffic them, the market would just collapse.

Another interesting fact: in 2005, for the first time, there were more people arrested for marijuana related crimes than all the violent crimes COMBINED. That means rape, murder, assault....

By decrimalizing drugs, it would free up the cops to fight real crime...

[Paul]

:double post:

I do love the morons that do say pot is harmless... first hand experence has taught me otherwise...

[the HiveQueen]

Putting health and crime issues aside, here's one interesting argument for the legalization of marijuana:

Basically the biggest danger of smoking pot in countries where it's illegal is that one has to buy it from pretty shady people and smoke it in pretty sketchy places, leading to crime and dangerous situations in itself. Legalizing marijuana would take people out of those situations. Also, you never know what the stuff you buy is laced with - there could be all sorts of poisonous chemicals in them for one reason or another. Government regulation could end that.

the HiveQueen

[Caspian]

Putting health and crime issues aside?

If you have to put both health and crime issues aside to make a convincing argument then you haven't made a convincing argument.