Poll: Should ALL drugs be legalized?

[YmirGF]

There was a great program I heard about on NPR. I can't remember where (Oregon, maybe?) but they offered clean needles for drug users and a safe place to shoot up (without legal consequence) under the agreement that they would have a mandatory meeting with a substance abuse specialist. Their initial findings seemed promising but not conclusive, of course. What do you think of something like that?

You are talking about the program that began in my hometown (Vancouver, Canada) about 14 years ago. It's the "Safe injection site" program and we truly are the world leaders. Now, after more than a decade other Canadian cities are beginning to adopt the program. (My old roommate actually did a lot of the construction work on the 1st site. He was foreman of the construction crew.)

Supervised Injection Sites

 

[Quetzal]

You are talking about the program that began in my hometown (Vancouver, Canada) about 14 years ago. It's the "Safe injection site" program and we truly are the world leaders. Now, after more than a decade other Canadian cities are beginning to adopt the program. (My old roommate actually did a lot of the construction work on the 1st site. He was foreman of the construction crew.)

Supervised Injection Sites

Wow, I was way off on the location and timeline. I did not realize that program was 14 years old. You Canadians get all the cool stuff.

 

[DavidFirth]

I think all drugs should be legal. People are going to get what they want, anyway, so what does it matter?

 

[columbus]

I think a big part of the problem with discussing this issue is that regular folks, like RF posters, simply don't grasp some of the dynamics of combining addicts with a totally unregulated industry and black market.
For example, the opioid overdose epidemic. If most people knew that a particular brand of product was lethal, they'd stay away from it. But not addicts, when a dealer's customer ODs other dealers customers search him out because he has extra strong stuff for sale. An OD, or string of them, is good advertising for a drug dealer.

It's just a different world.
Tom

 

[David1967]

ADHD meds like Ritalin and Adderal are forms of meth.

You know what I am talking about.

 

[Quetzal]

You know what I am talking about.

This is the internet! We take everything literally unless it can blow back on us! Then everything is figurative. Get it? Got it? Good!

 

[columbus]

You know what I am talking about.

It sounds like you're saying, "Meth is Ok, even for children, if it's regulated."

Is that correct?
Tom

 

[Stevicus]

I voted yes, but I'm also with those who believe it should be regulated and taxed. But along with that, there should be truth in packaging, warning labels, and free dissemination of information regarding the pros and cons, side effects, etc. Not something like "Reefer Madness" or "this is your brain on drugs" kind of nonsense.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Selectively. Pot? Sure, why not. I dont think it's as bad as alcohol. Plus the medicinal value. Meth? Never under any circumstances.

My view is simple, and I have never used any illicit drugs by the way. The government should not control what people do with their own bodies. One should never be prosecuted for putting a certain substance into his/her body, no matter what that substance is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You know what I am talking about.

Actually, I do but I don't, because it is this pretending that meth is one big blanket drug that is completely bad and always bad while failing to recognize that meth has legit medical uses that is a very big problem when discussing drugs in our society, because it means the discussion must first begin by dispelling myths and putting things into perspective. I'd would rather see "street meth" vanish entirely, but methamphetamines (or, rather, amphetamines in general) have their uses and place in society and medical treatments.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not something like "Reefer Madness" or "this is your brain on drugs" kind of nonsense.

"That's not a brain, it's breakfast!"
--(Late and great) Bill HIcks

 

[David1967]

It sounds like you're saying, "Meth is Ok, even for children, if it's regulated."

Is that correct?
Tom

No!! I said "Meth? Never under any circumstances."

 

[David1967]

Actually, I do but I don't, because it is this pretending that meth is one big blanket drug that is completely bad and always bad while failing to recognize that meth has legit medical uses that is a very big problem when discussing drugs in our society, because it means the discussion must first begin by dispelling myths and putting things into perspective. I'd would rather see "street meth" vanish entirely, but methamphetamines (or, rather, amphetamines in general) have their uses and place in society and medical treatments.

Yeah, I know what you mean. So for clarity, I am talking about "street meth".

 

[David1967]

This is the internet! We take everything literally unless it can blow back on us! Then everything is figurative. Get it? Got it? Good!

Thanks. Is that considered Alien wisdom?

 

[David1967]

My view is simple, and I have never used any illicit drugs by the way. The government should not control what people do with their own bodies. One should never be prosecuted for putting a certain substance into his/her body, no matter what that substance is.

I don't, have never, and never intend to use drugs or alcohol. I do disagree with you about 'under no circumstances should anyone be prosecuted for putting such things in their body.' For instance; Driving under the influence. Lot of death caused by these people. I know, being in Law enforcement. Or how about the meth head that has kids removed from the home because of the level of neglect and abuse they have been subject to? Not a victimless crime. Again, I know.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I don't, have never, and never intend to use drugs or alcohol. I do disagree with you about 'under no circumstances should anyone be prosecuted for putting such things in their body.' For instance; Driving under the influence. Lot of death caused by these people. I know, being in Law enforcement. Or how about the meth head that has kids removed from the home because of the level of neglect and abuse they have been subject to? Not a victimless crime. Again, I know.

Drunk driving is a terrible problem; I agree, however, it does not directly relate to personal use of the actual substance. It is the action that is taken, not the use of the substance itself, that is the problem. In your second scenario, again, it is not the act of putting the substance into the body that causes the problem. Child abuse and neglect should of course always be prosecuted, whether drugs are involved or not. My point is that drug use in the absence of any other behavior is a victimless crime.

 

[Father Heathen]

Unhealthy - well, there's more and more evidence about the dangers of cannabis all the time. Some of it is preliminary such as
Marijuana associated with three-fold risk of death from hypertension

Some of the evidence is stronger such as for example the special risk to those under 21 and risks of stroke and heart failure.

According to a 2014 Northwestern Medicine study of teen marijuana users, memory-related structures in the brain appeared to shrink, a possible signs of a decrease in neurons. These abnormalities remained two years after the teen stopped using marijuana, indicating that the drug has long-term effects and look similar to brains of schizophrenics. Those who started using marijuana after 21 generally do not experience the same type of brain abnormalities as those who started using the drug earlier.

A 2017 study by the Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia found that those who used marijuana were 26 percent more likely to have a stroke than those who did not use marijuana. Those studied were also 10 percent more likely to have developed heart failure.

As far as addiction goes, casual occasional use is one thing but there is evidence that heavy use is something else
While it is widely thought that marijuana is not addictive, about 30 percent users may have some degree of marijuana use disorder, according to NIDA. Long-term marijuana users who try to quit experience cravings, irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite and anxiety — some of the same physical symptoms of those trying to quit other types of drugs or alcohol.

A 2016 study found a link between certain genetic markers and symptoms of marijuana addiction, suggesting that some people may have a genetic predisposition to marijuana addiction.

So while both can be argued as safe for casual and occasional moderate use, it's not clear to me that heavy regular use of alcohol is more dangerous to health than heavy regular use of marijuana.

I never claimed that it was harmless. As with all things, moderation is key.

 

[sun rise]

I never claimed that it was harmless. As with all things, moderation is key.

I'm not saying you did. But too many here and elsewhere claim it's harmless. I once did as well before I learned better.

 

[England my lionheart]

I voted yes,it can be regulated taxed and quality controlled,there should be consequences if driving under the influence just like alcohol.

 

[VioletVortex]

I think that drugs are outside of the state's dealings, though if legalized they should be taxed like any other item. The real reason they are illegal, however, is to generate money for the courts and lawyers. Not to protect people. Marijuana is a similar case, but it is also a threat to the tobacco industry, which is a major source of tax money for the US government. Marijuana doesn't have that same potential. The government always has ulterior motives when they claim to be protecting you.