Should Drugs Be Legal?

[Saryctos]

Or seatbelt laws?

[Haezed]

What about thalidomide?

 

 

I would be against allowing pregnant women to use thalidomide.

[Haezed]

Or seatbelt laws?

 

 

I'm agen em!

[Dak]

Why not? We already have laws that make it very clear what situations you're not allowed to be intoxicated in, driving, operating heavy machinery, around firearms et cetera. Why not extend those same laws to cannabis?

 

as a practicle point, iirc there are no easy 'cannabis breathalysers', so enforsing the no drugged driving laws would be a pita.

 

Or seatbelt laws?

 

this only works with certain drugs. the majority of people who 'take nicotine' want to stop but can't, so you'd be somewhat justified in stopping people from making that mistake by illegalising ciggarettes.

 

the same can't be said of stuff like cannabis. and, like i said, places like holand where drugs are legal generally have lower rates of drug abuse, even for stuff like heroine...

[ParanoiA]

What about thalidomide?

 

Sure...why not?

 

Or seatbelt laws?

 

Shouldn't be required.

 

I would be against allowing pregnant women to use thalidomide.

 

What about pregnant women smoking and drinking? Mountain climbing? Heh..driving somewhere?

 

the same can't be said of stuff like cannabis. and, like i said, places like holand where drugs are legal generally have lower rates of drug abuse, even for stuff like heroine...

 

Yeah, but get our drug czar to admit it... I really don't know why they don't get it by now. Is it as simple as human pride? Are our legislators too proud to admit it's not the national crisis they thought it was?

 

I think all drugs should be legal. If you are going to have laws that are for the purpose of protecting people from themselves then it would have to be illegal to do anything dangerous, like mountaineering, skiing, riding motorbikes, etc.

 

Good point. There is no justification for trampling on my freedom to do stupid shit. Stupid shit is subjective when no other person or property is damaged. And we all have a basic human right to risk our own lives however we please for whatever reason we choose.

 

Eating carries the same issues and you can't ban food, so at some point you have to admit that personal responsibility makes more sense than emboldening and inflating your ego into believing you should regulate them with law and jail them when they don't comply. I just don't have the gumption to assign myself that kind of judgemental superiority.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Good point. There is no justification for trampling on my freedom to do stupid shit. Stupid shit is subjective when no other person or property is damaged. And we all have a basic human right to risk our own lives however we please for whatever reason we choose.

The problem is that when under the influence of drugs, you no longer have the necessary judgment skills to determine if your actions will damage other persons or property.

[JustStuit]

The problem is that when under the influence of drugs, you no longer have the necessary judgment skills to determine if your actions will damage other persons or property.

That's the only problem I have with it too; I guess you can't save people from themselves but you can try to protect others from them.

[Dak]

The problem is that when under the influence of drugs, you no longer have the necessary judgment skills to determine if your actions will damage other persons or property.

 

yeah, but alcohol also has that risk.

 

i'm not trying to say it's not a problem. coked-up thugs are definately a problem, for example.

[CPL.Luke]

I think were missing a fundamental point here, who profits?

 

with a drug like heroin or coke you can quite eaily get addicted (I have friends who have been), and getting off can be difficult to impossible due to withdrawal.

 

For substances like that people can get addicted and may never be able to get off of them, and yet all the while somebody is making money. And i'm not aying that this doesn't occur now, its just that we try to eliminate it.

[ParanoiA]

The problem is that when under the influence of drugs, you no longer have the necessary judgment skills to determine if your actions will damage other persons or property.

 

The same with alcohol. So now we're moving from "it's bad for you" to "you can't control yourself". This is what I call "connect the dots" legislation. Where you don't directly do anything wrong - but paranoid people who don't understand marijuana assume connections before they happen! I love it.

 

If you're overweight, you obviously don't have the necessary judgement skills to control yourself, so how do I know you're not going to rob a bank? You can't control your actions, so...

 

I know that's a stretch, but this indirect behavioral connectivity is pure BS. When you drink and hurt somebody, nobody gets away with it. You get in trouble for the damage. Period. I say let there be damage before you step in. That's what freedom is all about. That's how our laws are designed. Why all of the sudden do drugs change everything?

 

Freedom isn't about cherry picking the stuff you don't like and making it illegal - because you're uncomfortable with it. Try thinking beyond yourself and consider that other people are just not like you and don't want to be you. They might like drugs, sex, speed metal, or they might prefer punch, a G rated movie and christian gospel...

[Edtharan]

with a drug like heroin or coke you can quite eaily get addicted

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known. But cigarettes are legal.

 

The problem is that when under the influence of drugs, you no longer have the necessary judgment skills to determine if your actions will damage other persons or property.

Like alcohol. And it is legal.

 

You make certain activities illegal to undertake while under the influence, and set a limit of acceptable intake (essentially the law about being drunk in public).

 

For every argument on keeping certain drug illegal, it also applies to the current drugs that we do consider legal. This either means that these arguments are not good arguments, or that the reason that certain drugs are legal and others aren't is due to emotional knee-jerk responses.

[ParanoiA]

I think were missing a fundamental point here, who profits?

 

Who cares? I like pot. I like meth sometimes. I used to like LSD. I don't care who profits from it, I want to practice my freedom. Who profits from Doritos? Why would it matter if we were talking about making it illegal?

 

For substances like that people can get addicted and may never be able to get off of them, and yet all the while somebody is making money. And i'm not aying that this doesn't occur now, its just that we try to eliminate it.

 

You want to eliminate it. I don't. I like drugs. I want to purchase them - legally - where capitalism will do its thing and they will be better and cheaper. Consumer demand will help make them safer. You don't think there's any possible way to make a drug safe?

 

We're not being duped and swindled into a drug "trap". We see all of the addiction and the effects of it before we ever do it. Not a single addict was under any impresson their drug wasn't addictive before they did it. So, I really don't care if they're making money. I'm more concerned with making it cheaper and better. Safety and drugs can happen, but only when the free market is allowed to work.

[ParanoiA]

For every argument on keeping certain drug illegal, it also applies to the current drugs that we do consider legal. This either means that these arguments are not good arguments, or that the reason that certain drugs are legal and others aren't is due to emotional knee-jerk responses.

 

You've nailed it. Rush won't accept calls from people comparing marijuana to alcohol for just that reason. He knows damn good and well you can't defend alcohol and keeping drugs illegal without being a total hypocrite. It doesn't hold water.

[Royston]

We're not being duped and swindled into a drug "trap". We see all of the addiction and the effects of it before we ever do it. Not a single addict was under any impresson their drug wasn't addictive before they did it. So, I really don't care if they're making money. I'm more concerned with making it cheaper and better. Safety and drugs can happen, but only when the free market is allowed to work.

 

This is really my reasons as well as a few others for legalization...

A. safer non-contaminated drugs,

B. reduction in overcrowded prisons

C. profit going to the right areas i.e support programmes, rehabilitation programmes, drug advice et.c not into the hands of dealers.

D. it's a basic human right to have pleasure. Millions go to work at jobs they don't particularly enjoy, and have no choice in the matter...why deny them that right...if they want to abuse that right, that's their problem, it's up to the individual.

E. Irradicate the resonance of 'reefer madness' propoganda that still sways public opinion on drugs...Daily Mail headline two days ago 'another cannabis murder.' completely overlooking the fact the guy was a lunatic anyway.

F. Open avenues for research on psychoactive drugs. I could go on, drugs being illegal has clearly failed with regards to drug abuse, so it just needs to be safer and have the support it requires. It's going to be a problem if it's legal or illegal, but simply brushing it under the carpet as 'it's bad' is clearly not the right attitude.

 

Having 'dabbled' as I grew up, I know first hand the kind of problems that arise, but it's always been the individual not acting responsibly. It's impossible to eliminate, so best to make it safer for the individual.

[GutZ]

Only point I'd like to add is that a society will never learn to become responsible if you make judgements for them. I think personally the idea of punishment for everything has come due to the fact that population and technological rate is gone up so fast that messages are lost. There is no global connection anymore.

 

The message now is just don't get caught. No one really understands why, especially the youth. Why should I fear the system if there is no legitimate reason too...Punishment has to have reason to be affective

[Haezed]

What about pregnant women . . . driving somewhere?

 

In which trimester?

[john5746]

You want to eliminate it. I don't. I like drugs. I want to purchase them - legally - where capitalism will do its thing and they will be better and cheaper. Consumer demand will help make them safer. You don't think there's any possible way to make a drug safe?

 

I think you are confusing quality with safety. Cigarettes might have an excellent quality, but they are not safe. Regulations are sometimes required in order to make companies adhere to safety standards, at a reduction of thier profit.

 

Meth addiction rates and its devestating effects on the population correlate to the purity of the drug. The more pure, the higher the addiction rate and subsequent damage. The chemical itself is a poison to the body. So, no I don't think it is possible to make meth safe, especially with people who only seek to make a profit from selling more and more of it.

 

We're not being duped and swindled into a drug "trap". We see all of the addiction and the effects of it before we ever do it. Not a single addict was under any impresson their drug wasn't addictive before they did it. So, I really don't care if they're making money. I'm more concerned with making it cheaper and better. Safety and drugs can happen, but only when the free market is allowed to work.

 

Why does society have any laws? Because we have a certain segment of the population who are morons. They do stupid things that are dangerous to them and to society. Drugs change the chemistry of the brain. It destroys the person and their potential. Many of these people have an effect on others, so their destruction harms others.

[thechronic]

Should all drugs be Illegal, if not which drugs should be legal or illegal. Please explain why you think this way also. Feel free to express your position in ways I may have not covered with the question, such as you may support drugs being legal for people with medical conditions, etc...

 

ALL drugs should be legalized. It's my body to mess up, butt out of my life.

[thechronic]

Why does society have any laws? Because we have a certain segment of the population who are morons. They do stupid things that are dangerous to them and to society. Drugs change the chemistry of the brain. It destroys the person and their potential. Many of these people have an effect on others, so their destruction harms others.

 

We have laws to protect one's inalienable rights, and to punish those who infringe upon those rights. So people who are against legalization are actually INFRINGING ON MY RIGHTS. Why should I let this continue? Oh, it's for my own good, eh? Yeah, I know. Big Brother is watching me. He knows best, right? Just like Billo says, "We're looking out for you!".

 

Well **** you. I can look after myself thanks.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How are they infringing upon your inalienable rights? How is taking drugs a right?

[Sisyphus]

Yeah, it's not a right. Certainly not an inalienable one. (If it were, those laws wouldn't exist.) What we're debating is whether it should be a right.

[Dak]

well, if a drug was addictive, and 100% of all people who use it end up wishing they hadn't, then i dont think anyone would have any trouble with removing peoples right to do it in order to protect them.

 

the only reason it's complicated is because drugs don't have a 100% regret rate... but, what rate is enough to justify banning it? 80%?

 

don't forget, we take this attetude with kids all the time. kids cant drink alcohol, or smoke, or have sex, or live on their own, or choose wether they wish to go to school or not, because, at the end of the day, they're too stupid to make their own desisions without screwing up in these areas, so we make their desicions for them. sure, a few kids are sensible enough to make their own desisions reguarding alcohol, and drink sensibly; however, their right to make their own desision is taken away for the protection of the whole from their own stupidity, due to the fact that most kids cannot choose wizely when it comes to alcohol (etc).

 

the fallicy is in assuming that the same shouldn't apply to adults. we allow adults to drink, but not kids, not because adults 'deserve the right to be stupid', but because, in reguards to alcohol, adults (unlike kids) are generally more likely to be able to make a desision that they wont later wish that they'd been prevented from making on alcohol consumption.

 

if theres a drug that is to adults like alcohol is to kids (i.e., they're largely incapable of making their own desisions wizely in reguards to it), then why shouldn't they be prevented from making their desision and just denied access to the drug?

[Pangloss]

Well one thing is for sure, it'll be a sad day for American libertarians and objectivists if we actually reach a point where Democrats are once again in power, jobs have been declared a right, but taking drugs remains firmly outlawed by popular consensus.

[foodchain]

So many good points as to why drugs should be legal or illegal, its nice to see it actually.

 

Personally I could care less to have some methead zombie addict wondering the streets near my home, nor could I care to be on the road with a drunk driver, or could I care to live near some slightly crazed and aggravated person with an arsenal of weapons, or could I care to live next to some toxic waste dump.

 

I like the point made by dax in some regards. A form of a confidence test, for a majority of people that mess with meth end up making mistakes because of such use and end up in jail or prison from crime not directly related to meth such as possession, but by crimes because there lives slowly became nothing but a support for the addiction, such as robbery for instance, there is a clear link of such drug use and crime because the addiction is debilitating to the persons ability to hold a socially acceptable life, such as going to work.

 

On that note though, what percent would it be when a drug should be banned, and does the fact that such is a harm to society at large then become applicable to anything or everything? Also how to you rule out the idea it could be the product of a "moral crusade" belonging to a certain pattern of thought, such as a particular religion for instance, or by political motivations alone, such as the war on drugs was or become a legit angle to raid property and even go into foreign nations, at least in America it has become such. I don’t think we have the tools to bring such a confidence test online because it would require objectivity to be regular and paramount in political or social institutions and personal behavior.

 

Then you have the idea that there are drugs that really pose no real threat, such as marijuana which to date has no case of death related directly to use anywhere in the world, such as an overdose of marijuana. The statistics around alcohol alone paint a far more damaging picture. The reality of it is the illegalization of hemp and the birth of the pulp industry in America are surprisingly close. Marijuana I think was outlawed in U.S history in 1937. The use of hemp alone, not the THC the typical user is after has a multitude of applications and in itself should not be illegal, its a hardy plant that is no where near as damaging on soil as many other plants currently is use and has a broad and dynamic range of applications. Not to mention the medicinal properties of that drug, which are simply positive in the regard it lessens pain, is barely addictive and not hard to withdraw from, and can give a patient an appetite, all of which is documented if you want to read on it, from a varying a large source of bodies. It has a negative stigma attached to it though, I mean refer madness is bad while you smoke a cigarette and drink a fifth of J&D, which is socially so cool or accepted.

 

I think I will have to cut my rant short here though, as the post is getting rather long in the tooth I just noticed.

[the tree]

"medical" uses of cannabis is a silly justification I think, there are plenty of plants in the same family that have cannabinoids and terpenoids needed for relaxation or pain relief without the Δ⁹-THC needed to get high.

 

As it goes, cat-nip already is legal if people want a really crude smokeable relaxant (which doesn't do too much harm by the way, can be an alternative to tobacco y'know) but cannabis sativa does do other things which don't serve a medical purpose in the slightest.