0

> You and I don't take drugs not because the goverment prohibit it,
> nor because is expensive or hard to find.
But considering the fact that once these things get legalized, it won't be long before everyone starts taking it. Remember, the people around you influence you; evil is known to stick fast and hard.

Wrong. You think legalizing drugs had any influence on consumption? LOL. Look at the United States' 18th amendment to the constitution.. prohibition did nothing. All legalizing drugs will do is lower crime (because they aren't illegal, so what's the use of drug cartels?), increase government funds (With legalization, comes taxation!), and actually, I truly think less people would take drugs. Why? Why do people take drugs to begin with? They're illegal, and thus many people think it's cool to be rebellious (teens anyway). Of course, this is not the reason that all people take drugs.

Alright. I have considered and my thoughts are:
People do not use drugs not because restriction, prohibition, regulation or any block that you want to put in their way of getting the fix.
People do not use drugs for personal choice. Flip the coin, and you'll see iqual results. People use drugs for personal choice.
Whether drugs are legal or not, that would not change. Therefore the equation is the same. You can argue that it will make it easier and so on. However, increased consumption will not be a proportional reflection of legalization.

Exactly. I'm glad we finally agree on something :)

If 'n' people take drugs, there are 'n' people who contemplate on taking them, on the thin line between 'should I' and 'should I not'. Personal choice of not to take drugs comes third.

Everyone has worries, pain and sufferings in his life. Some choose to and some choose not to use drugs. Legalization would only make it easier for me to take a 'drugged decision'.

Sure, it would make it easier to come across drugs, and take them. But that doesn't mean anything.. some people would rather drink, some would rather eat, and still others would rather do something else than take drugs. People act differently when under stress and the such.

0

>assuming the same limitations are placed on marijuana as are currently in place for alcohol.

What do you mean? Like DUI restrictions? Which are already there...

Pot is near enough legal over here, I think the only real restrictions are selling it (so buying is ok) and possesing on or near (200 metres?) an education site. Possibly a "don't smoke in public" but the Sun ran some tests when it became Class C and found about half the countries cops couldnt' give a shit.

As for whether it's more or less harmfull than alcohol, there's alot of arguments for and against that, and studys etc. But most people agree taking something like weed normally leads to harder drugs, hence an argument against it.

The rest of illegal drugs? I'm undecided. All i know is if weed was 100% legal, over the counter I would do it. And most likely other drugs, or at least try them. But that's just me.

0

If 'n' people take drugs, there are 'n' people who contemplate on taking them, on the thin line between 'should I' and 'should I not'. Personal choice of not to take drugs comes third.

I truly understand what you are communicating. Nevertheless, I don't
believe that the choice goes down like you are contemplating it. You are reasoning out of your `sound' way of thinking. Consumers of drug substances do not reason analytically as you have, not even at the first time. They make a `choice' not base on reasons for nor against.
The choice is almost automatically made base in virtues values.

0

Wrong. You think legalizing drugs had any influence on consumption? LOL.

May I ask you to stop your typical absolutism.

Votes + Comments
Autocounterbalance for any rep given by somebody who uses LOL as punctuation.
... and you can shut the hell up.
0

Drug policy of the Netherlands. The way I read this is that legalization of soft drugs did not reduce drug-related crimes at all. People can openly buy soft drugs in coffee houses

So-called coffee shops are allowed to sell soft drugs openly, and to keep supplies greater than the amounts allowed by law for personal use, though they are only allowed to sell individual customers the amount allowed for personal use. The coffeeshops' wholesale suppliers, however, are still criminalized. In theory, the limit of the "for personal use" clause is 5 cannabis plants per person for growing, or possession of 5 grams of hashish or marijuana per household. However, to be prosecuted one would need to possess considerably higher quantities than that. An example of a sentence in 2004 for possession of 360 grams: confiscation and a fine of €750. Coffeeshops pay taxes just like any other business, though there are some special exemptions for them, mostly because they cannot show receipts for their supply of marijuana. Large-scale dealing, production, import and export are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, even if this does not supply end users or coffeeshops with more than the allowed amounts. Exactly how coffeeshops get their supplies is rarely investigated

0

May I ask you to stop your typical absolutism.

In this case Josh is right -- the 18th amendment did nothing more than create a huge network of illegal alcohol trafficing -- and alcohol use probably increased, not decreased. It was a failed experiement by the religious right in this country to legislate morality.

0

May I ask you to stop your typical absolutism.

Oh, and whatever do you mean? Perhaps you should stop being such a (you know what) all the time. Are you a guy or a girl btw? I could never tell.. you post like a girl, and your name is kinda girly.. but I'm not sure.

1

In this case Josh is right -- the 18th amendment did nothing more than create a huge network of illegal alcohol trafficing -- and alcohol use probably increased, not decreased. It was a failed experiement by the religious right in this country to legislate morality.

And that may be so. However there's not right nor wrong here. Just
people's opinions. And hopefully a forum to interchange those opinions.

Votes + Comments
Your sentence:fragment ratio is a huge turn-on <3 <3 <3
0

... you post like a girl, and your name is kinda girly.. but I'm not sure.

At those moments of posting I must have let my womaly side take over, since usually femine `commonsense' it is more suitable to deal with people like you.

2

My "instinct" is that most drugs should be legal.
In tandem with that, there should be some meaningful (and enforced) laws regarding their abuse. In particular, the penalty for killing someone whilst DUI is considerably less than for killing someone by any other method.

On the one hand, society should do something to protect the weak and vunerable, and help them recover from their mistakes. On the other hand, a minority of people will always find a way to harm themselves, and we should reserve a special place for them at http://www.darwinawards.com/

The vast majority of people it seems either have the sense to say "no", even when the drug is legal, or partake in it's use with no serious consequence to themselves or society at large.
The problem of course is that the minority have a disproportionate negative effect.

The US tried prohibition once. It didn't work then, and there's no reason to think that a "war on drugs" is going to work now. At best, it's an expensive stalemate maintaining the status quo. But it seems more likely to turn into another 1 or 2 decade miserable failure.

ISTR that the bulk production cost of cocaine is about the same as sugar, but the street price is inflated beyond all rationale in relation to the cost of production. None of that excessive price finds it's way back as a benefit to society at large.

Benefits of legalisation
- It removes the criminal element from the whole supply chain.
- It removes the incentive of addict users (who have no other choice) to steal to fund their habit. The amount of theft necessary to fund an illicit habit is astonishing - http://www.drugscope.org.uk/druginfo/drugsearch/faq_template.asp?file=\wip\11\1\2\crime.html
- Like alcohol and tobacco, the govt will get a nice wedge of cash from each user in the form of taxes. There are plenty of taxes already on "stupidity", so some more would be consistent.
- The product itself would be available from clean distribution points in well-defined doses (neither of which is true at the moment). One of the main causes of overdose is the user being unable to estimate the purity of their hit.
- The users themselves are no longer criminals, so anyone who (for whatever reason) is unable to control their consumption can get onto an appropriate 'help' program (like AA for alcoholics).

Once again, the UK government is off-target with the ban on smoking in public places. Personally, I think it's marvellous to be able to now go out without coming back home smelling like an ashtray for the next few days. However, the goverment is inept beyond belief when it comes to dealing with problems of alcohol abuse (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/south_yorkshire/3836225.stm (old)). Now that's over £300 per household.

When was the last time you saw someone on a tobacco induced rampage through the streets? They may be smelly, but at least they don't puke all over the place and hurl objects and abuse at anyone any anything.

Being DUI should be applied to pedestians as well as anyone responsible for operating any kind of machinery. If you're over the limit, it's a night in the tank - no questions asked.

One thing is for sure, if alcohol were a new "designer" drug, the general attitude to it would be a lot less accepting than it is at the moment.

Votes + Comments
Interesting.
Your instict may not be yet far from good reasoning
You shouldn't be posting in the Geek's Lounge. Get out while you can.
0

Salem, many of the key elements that you have concluded by way of "instinct" are the same that Ph. Milton Friedman converses in the video that Dave posted as a link.

I can not help to wonder how many has bother to watch it.

0

If drugs were legal and a group of like-minded individuals wanted to create a place where similar like-minded individuals could go outside of their own homes, and to there purchase and consume these hypothetically legal substances, should they be allowed to do so? This now moves the question from private to semi-public venues.

0

So long as people who do not want to consume these drugs are not affected.. If no one's rights are infringed upon, then it is fine ;)

0

The US tried prohibition once. It didn't work then, and there's no reason to think that a "war on drugs" is going to work now. At best, it's an expensive stalemate maintaining the status quo. But it seems more likely to turn into another 1 or 2 decade miserable failure.

One thing is for sure, if alcohol were a new "designer" drug, the general attitude to it would be a lot less accepting than it is at the moment.

I think in some ways that's the whole point of what Prohibition resulted in. Alcohol has a multi-thousand-year history as a social beverage; negating that would be nigh-impossible. For a substance which doesn't have such a history, it would be easier to prevent its use...until you do legalize it. Once that's happened, you've pretty much given up on your chance to make it illegal (and have people abide by that) again; it has become part of the common social fabric.

0

I think that if drugs were made legal then there would be more room to regulate the contents/ingredients that go into them as well as where they are sold.

However i do not think that legalising them would really solve anything especially the dangerous drugs.

I think when it comes to the more dangerous drugs such as EX, ICE, and heroine etc. we should be using more harsh ways of stopping it. In one country i forget which one you get taken to hospital and treated for an OD once and any more then that you will be left in the street to die. This so far as been a really big success and the ussage of drugs has been greatly decreased. Although this probably sounds harsh i think its the best way to get through to these people and put a stop to the drain on tax payers money as a result of these peoples repeated treatments. This i think still raises an issue with ICE users because the mortality rate for this drug is alot less then say heroine and the users are more a danger to the general public.

I am for the legalisation of Pot however i think this could still cause some probelms mainly because it has been known to trigger scitzophenia etc. in people that have a family history such things or people that already have the condition. Really though i think the studies show that it is really no worse then alcohol in its other effects.

0

I agree, marijuana should be legalized. Salem already posted most of the reasons for this and I agree with them. Alcohol is far more harmful than marijuana will ever be.

0

The one main worry i have about it is the people with either personal histories or family histories of mental illness having this kind of thing triggered as a result of it. Also i think there would have to be some way to regulate it when it comes to the rules about smoking pot and then driving because as far as i can see there is not really any way of telling how "high" someone is using any sort of roadside test. The only way i can see that you can do it is if you just bar that sort of thing completely which would mean there would have to be money spend on the machines to test weather u have had any pot or not.

Marijuana is acctually decriminalised where i come from. Meaning that you are allowed to have a certain amount on you at any given time and have a max of 3 trees under a metre for personal use. If you have more then this then you are classed as a dealer and can be arrested for this.

I used to have a legal studies teacher who used to be a lawyer. He used to represent the same guy about once a year who was a really heavy pot smoker and he would usually get picked up for having more then 3 trees in his possession and every time he would just go in there stand up and explain to the judge "look, i know that legally you can't have more then three trees but frankly its cheaper to simply pay the fine every year then it is to buy it on the streets" and because of the laws here there was nothing that could really be done about it.

0

I think that if drugs were made legal then there would be more room to regulate the contents/ingredients that go into them as well as where they are sold.

That was put well. I think you're 100% right on that one.

I don't do any drugs, aside from a cigarette here and there socially with my brother, but I think that people should be able to do marijuana legally. I just think that it should be regulated in terms of ingredients. I think that companies like Marlboro would be able to make Marlboro Blunts (kidding, but you know what I mean). It would pull in a lot of money for companies and the world.

Plus, marijuana helps people think, as I found when I smoked it the one time I did. It helped me write music as well as think about everything in a more abstract way.

That's just my two cents.

0

To be honest i have never smoked a cigarette in my life and sure as hell not pot never really saw much point in either of them. I do however like the odd cigar.... However i do not think that should stop other people who do smoke pot from doing what they want to do with their lives. Its only really when they start becoming a burnden on the tax payer that i start to have a problem with people living their lives the way they want. Such as the case is with the people who use "heavier" drugs such as Meth and heroine and are either constantly in and out of hospital or in and out of a psyc ward. My mum works with these people all the time being a psyc nurse.

But as far as i can see the amount of money spent on people who use Pot is miniscule when compared to these other drugs. Infact i think the cost to the tax payer is probably less then that of people who smoke and give themself lung cancer. So i say why not legalise it.

When i was talking about being able to control the contents of these substances i was talking more about things such as Meth, Coke and Heroine. It would basically mean that they could regulate the amount of harmful that go into these substances and therefore making it harder for people to sell the more harmful incarnations of these on the streets and therefore reducing the mortality rate and also the cost of medical treatment.

Don't get me wrong im not saying that these things really should be made legal i would be the last person to vote for seeing these sorts of things down at your local 7/11 or supermarket. All im saying is that it would probably one of the most effective ways of combatting these sorts of things. I think it would be unfair to do this however mainly because it would make it more difficult on at least surrounding countries who still have these sorts of things banned. Mainly because there would be more of it being imported into these countries from whatever country was to legalise it.

0

Plus, marijuana helps people think, as I found when I smoked it the one time I did. It helped me write music as well as think about everything in a more abstract way.

hahahaaaha.. What artist doesn't use pot as an inspiration? lol.. have you seen the music video for "Feel Good Inc." ?

To be honest i have never smoked a cigarette in my life and sure as hell not pot never really saw much point in either of them. I do however like the odd cigar.... However i do not think that should stop other people who do smoke pot from doing what they want to do with their lives. Its only really when they start becoming a burnden on the tax payer that i start to have a problem with people living their lives the way they want. Such as the case is with the people who use "heavier" drugs such as Meth and heroine and are either constantly in and out of hospital or in and out of a psyc ward. My mum works with these people all the time being a psyc nurse.

But as far as i can see the amount of money spent on people who use Pot is miniscule when compared to these other drugs. Infact i think the cost to the tax payer is probably less then that of people who smoke and give themself lung cancer. So i say why not legalise it.

When i was talking about being able to control the contents of these substances i was talking more about things such as Meth, Coke and Heroine. It would basically mean that they could regulate the amount of harmful that go into these substances and therefore making it harder for people to sell the more harmful incarnations of these on the streets and therefore reducing the mortality rate and also the cost of medical treatment.

Dude.. surprisingly enough.. I agree. The government shouldn't be able to tell people how to live their lives so long as other people's rights are not infringed upon, and tax money isn't taken from others. Legalizing marijuana would bring in tax dollars, money to the dying smoking industry, and would enable the US government to regulate production of said drugs.. to ensure they are produced correctly.. you never know these days as they are cooked in some high dude's kitchen. Also, crime rates would drastically fall.

0

swiss are pretty cool, the make good clocks / wathces (wait, a watch is kinda a clock though...?) and those smart cars and oooooh they make those nice coookoo clocks too

0

Also good chocolate. And from what I've heard they also have one of the better options regarding weaponrights.

Anyway, back to the topic.

I don't know much about marijuana. I've read elsewhere that it's got a psychoactive ingredient in it, but the definition of psychoactive seems a bit iffy on exactly what that means for the drug. (Psychoactive seems to equal mind-altering; a case could be made that alcohol does that as well, though.)

My big problem with the legalization of these substances is in terms of general use and expansion. In other circumstances, I might hold a differing opinion. (Ex: Morphine as a painkiller for the terminally ill.)

What I mean by expansion: Read back through this thread, and you'll see examples of 'Alcohol is legal, tobacco is legal, so marijuana ought to be legal' logic. The problem with this is that each new 'legal' substance would open the door for more of the currently illegal substances to be legalized. After you guys get your weed, for instance, how long before some crackhead insists that the government should legalize his 'preferred self-administered medication' using the legality of marijuana as his reasoning?

0

although that is a good point i think that there is a big difference between mariuana and Crack in both the damage it does and the effects on the rest of the comunity. It is more or less lagal in canberra where i live at the moment however it is restricted to the amount you are aloud to carry an d the no dealing side of thing. I dont think there has really been anyone arguing that because marijuana is decriminalised then why shouldn't crack be.

You have to remember that although logic says that it could be used as an argument. What Crack head really is going to make that argument let alone take that argument all the way to the courts. He is not going to have the money or the motivation to want to do these things. If he has a supply reguardless of wethere its legal or not he is not going to see any point in arguing for its legalisation.

0

Drugs change the way people think - permanently in many cases. And they usually make people more careless. Accidents caused by drug use are sufficient alone to keep them illegal.

0

Drugs change the way people think - permanently in many cases. And they usually make people more careless. Accidents caused by drug use are sufficient alone to keep them illegal.

Stupidity causes accidents as well, though as yet it is still legal.
Talking to someone in the car while driving causes accidents - legal.
Taking too much cough syrup, allergy medication, or sleeping aids may cause accidents - legal.

At some point people must be responsible for and held accountable for their own behavior. The accountable part is where government comes in. Making everything illegal is not the solution to keeping everyone safe from their own irresponsible behavior.

0

People are always goig to find a way to do it if they want to and i think that if it is illegal it almost makes it more appealing then if it was legal.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.