Should drugs be illegal?

[Shaggy Flasko]

Legalise the drugs and the government will get a slice of that pie as well. I don't think anyone is suggesting that legalisation = open slather. The government will then regulate and tax the drug industry much the same way as it does the tobacco and alcohol industries. It should actually push the criminal element out of the game.

This sums up everything I would say.

Why is there such a strong criminal element in the US? What's with the black market, the gangs and mobs, the dirty money and the violence? Why are they here? It's because people want to get high, but the government won't let them make their own decisions. Therefore, they disobey the government. If the drugs are not legal, then the citizens of this great nation do not feel it necessary to disobey the government to fulfill their desires. Plus, who are they buying from? It's other americans, along with the government getting its piece of the pie. Everyone wins!

How about this, let's make drugs legal, but controlled. As far as harder psychoactives like coke, acid, heroine, speed, etc., use the same policy, except perhaps with a higher age requirement and possibly medical release form from a doctor. By the way, minors should not be able to purchase or possess drugs legally. In my opinion, they're not legally capable of thinking until they're 18.

The fact that marijuana is illegal is simply ridiculous and based on false evidence, lies and propaganda. Realistically, it's much more healthy and less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. This isn't coming from the fact that I used to be a biiiiig fan, either.

Legalizing coke may be dangerous. Don't get me wrong, it shouldn't be illegal, but I'm not sure if America can handle a drug that amazing quite yet. I don't know if we want a whole country acting ten feet tall and invincible. *laugh out loud*
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

God bless.
-Bill

Note: I'm not advocating drug use in this post, just the ability to partake of them freely and responsibly. There may be a little drug humor injected in along the serious points, probably because I find drugs hilarious when used responsibly.
If you're offended, I'm sorry. If you laugh, you're probably a stoner.

 

[Radar]

This sums up everything I would say.

Why is there such a strong criminal element in the US? What's with the black market, the gangs and mobs, the dirty money and the violence? Why are they here? It's because people want to get high, but the government won't let them make their own decisions. Therefore, they disobey the government. If the drugs are not legal, then the citizens of this great nation do not feel it necessary to disobey the government to fulfill their desires. Plus, who are they buying from? It's other americans, along with the government getting its piece of the pie. Everyone wins!

How about this, let's make drugs legal, but controlled. As far as harder psychoactives like coke, acid, heroine, speed, etc., use the same policy, except perhaps with a higher age requirement and possibly medical release form from a doctor. By the way, minors should not be able to purchase or possess drugs legally. In my opinion, they're not legally capable of thinking until they're 18.

The fact that marijuana is illegal is simply ridiculous and based on false evidence, lies and propaganda. Realistically, it's much more healthy and less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. This isn't coming from the fact that I used to be a biiiiig fan, either.

Legalizing coke may be dangerous. Don't get me wrong, it shouldn't be illegal, but I'm not sure if America can handle a drug that amazing quite yet. I don't know if we want a whole country acting ten feet tall and invincible. *laugh out loud*
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

God bless.
-Bill

Note: I'm not advocating drug use in this post, just the ability to partake of them freely and responsibly. There may be a little drug humor injected in along the serious points, probably because I find drugs hilarious when used responsibly.
If you're offended, I'm sorry. If you laugh, you're probably a stoner.

Good post Isaid this earlier we should be able to make adult decisions on our own.

 

[Ryan2065]

Everyone says that people are adult enough and rational enough to make their own decisions... Are you also saying that while ON the drug you are adult and rational enough to make your own decisions? The problem is not one of saying you are rational enough when you are not high on coke, the problem is saying that you are rational when you are on the drug. If this is not the case, and the drug takes away your ability to think rationally, how can you possibly advocate that it should stay legal?

And saying "Oh, and minors won't get the drugs" is like saying "Minors never drink alchol or smoke anything at all!" If you introduce drugs minors will be able to get them more readily...

Now, to address more specific points...

Why is there such a strong criminal element in the US? What's with the black market, the gangs and mobs, the dirty money and the violence? Why are they here? It's because people want to get high, but the government won't let them make their own decisions. Therefore, they disobey the government. If the drugs are not legal, then the citizens of this great nation do not feel it necessary to disobey the government to fulfill their desires. Plus, who are they buying from? It's other americans, along with the government getting its piece of the pie. Everyone wins!

Just because people want to do something does not make it right or legal. Also, if we made all crime legal we would have no criminal element in the US... your point? This does not futher the debate or your side at all... Again, just because people do commit crimes does not mean that those crimes should then be legalized...

How about this, let's make drugs legal, but controlled. As far as harder psychoactives like coke, acid, heroine, speed, etc., use the same policy, except perhaps with a higher age requirement and possibly medical release form from a doctor. By the way, minors should not be able to purchase or possess drugs legally. In my opinion, they're not legally capable of thinking until they're 18.

So basically make it so only people who are physically fit can do the drugs? Will this doctor also sit with these people through withdrawl as they go through it? Would this be covered under your favorite insurance plan? Would this not cost alot?

The fact that marijuana is illegal is simply ridiculous and based on false evidence, lies and propaganda. Realistically, it's much more healthy and less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. This isn't coming from the fact that I used to be a biiiiig fan, either.

This I actually agree with. Marijuana is not as bad as people make it out to be, and I do not believe it should be illegal when worse things are legal. However, to make any jump from Marijuana to coke, pcp, meth, or anything like that is very silly.

Also, you are not considering one huge fact. If you legalize drugs for adults, there will still be a criminal element to drugs. In fact if you make it IMPOSSIBLE for underage people to get drugs, then there will be a criminal element in drugs for people underage. Also, if you have the US start to sell drugs, what do you think the drug cartels would do? Be like "Oh, our biggest client now has another supplier... We will just roll over quietly and not do the practical thing, like sell our stuff cheaper than the US stuff..."

 

[Radar]

Everyone says that people are adult enough and rational enough to make their own decisions... Are you also saying that while ON the drug you are adult and rational enough to make your own decisions? The problem is not one of saying you are rational enough when you are not high on coke, the problem is saying that you are rational when you are on the drug. If this is not the case, and the drug takes away your ability to think rationally, how can you possibly advocate that it should stay legal?
"

It is just like drinking. People are not always rational while drinking. But drinking isn't a crime. Irrational behavior can be. Like drive while impaired, public intoxication, etc. even people can get DWI while on a doctors prescription. You don't have to be intoxicated at all to act irrational. The irrational actions are the crimes. Besides it is not illegal to be high on any drug, it is illegal to possess them. So you can be as high as kite and as long as you are not acting irrational or in possession of any drugs you will be left alone. We already have laws for irrational behavior it is peoples actions which are crimes it shouldn't be ones possessions.

 

[Ryan2065]

It is just like drinking. People are not always rational while drinking. But drinking isn't a crime. Irrational behavior can be. Like drive while impaired, public intoxication, etc. even people can get DWI while on a doctors prescription. You don't have to be intoxicated at all to act irrational. The irrational actions are the crimes. Besides it is not illegal to be high on any drug, it is illegal to possess them. So you can be as high as kite and as long as you are not acting irrational or in possession of any drugs you will be left alone. We already have laws for irrational behavior it is peoples actions which are crimes it shouldn't be ones possessions.

It is not illegal to be high or on any other type of drugs? Then why do police have the facilities to do drug testing?

Also, how much coke, pcp, or heroine do you need to do to start acting irrational? Will you act worse than you would when on alchol? The reason drunk driving is not allowed is because it is a danger to others.... Can you say, with confidence, that someone on coke, pcp, or heroine will not be a danger to others? What about LSD? The fun drug that makes you hallunicate... My dad stopped one person high on LSD from jumping out a window (apparently he thought he could fly...)

 

[michel]

That depends on what you think "better" means. Is it better to allow a government, with all it's weapons and power, have the authority to tell the people what they can and what they cannot ingest; or is it better that the government, with the resources it has taken from the people, establish a culture of education, discouraging the use of harmful foods and drugs, aiding private and charitable endeavors to rehabilitate addicts and possibly (I'm not sure I like this though, as I can see it getting out of hand) establishing State run facilities to help the poor who cannot afford to help themselves and those with no support group?

Both in the case of law enforcement and rehabilitation, the same result remains: People are using drugs and they need help. Now, either we can approach this from a legalistic manner, punishing people who use and distribute drugs by locking them away and depriving them of their liberty, or we can act from compassion and as a society deal with the problem together.

Firstly, congratulations on your one thousand's post!

I agree with you totally about compassion towards people who are using drugs; I would never go against that - it would be inhuman; what I do think though is that there ought to be a way of stopping drugs from being 'peddled' in the street.

I have seen lives ruined by drug taking; and I hate to be a killjoy, but I don't accept "I can control my 'recreational habit' - I thought I could do so with smoking and alcohol, but I have been proved wrong with both of those. The effort required to give both of those habits up was bad enough; to give up a chemical addiction....well, I can't even imagine what that must be like.

 

[Radar]

It is not illegal to be high or on any other type of drugs? Then why do police have the facilities to do drug testing?

Also, how much coke, pcp, or heroine do you need to do to start acting irrational? Will you act worse than you would when on alchol? The reason drunk driving is not allowed is because it is a danger to others.... Can you say, with confidence, that someone on coke, pcp, or heroine will not be a danger to others? What about LSD? The fun drug that makes you hallunicate... My dad stopped one person high on LSD from jumping out a window (apparently he thought he could fly...)

They have drug testing facilities prove DWI, public intoxication and other crimes not what's in your body. You can't go to jail for being high. If a police officer were to come to your home and you were intoxicated acting civil and there was no drugs on your property you would not go to jail.

Everyone is a danger to others and themselves. You don't have to be high to be a danger to someone else. What about that guy who comes home stone sober and beat the crap out of his wife or that priest that is molesting the little boy. But by what you are saying only high people are dangerous. Murders, rapes, child abuse, molestations and many other crimes are committed every day by completely sober and lucid people.

 

[WillieHutch]

They have drug testing facilities prove DWI, public intoxication and other crimes not what's in your body. You can't go to jail for being high. If a police officer were to come to your home and you were intoxicated acting civil and there was no drugs on your property you would not go to jail.

you would not go to jail, this is correct. people can be arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) on drugs (not alcohol), and as long as they do not also have the drugs on their property/person, they will not also be charged for possession.

anyway, most people here seem to agree drugs be decriminalized, does anyone think it will ever happen?

 

[Shaggy Flasko]

Everyone says that people are adult enough and rational enough to make their own decisions... Are you also saying that while ON the drug you are adult and rational enough to make your own decisions? The problem is not one of saying you are rational enough when you are not high on coke, the problem is saying that you are rational when you are on the drug. If this is not the case, and the drug takes away your ability to think rationally, how can you possibly advocate that it should stay legal?

I think the qualifier was that it should be used "responsibly". That's why I advocate medical examinations prior to allowing people to partake of such substances.

And saying "Oh, and minors won't get the drugs" is like saying "Minors never drink alchol or smoke anything at all!" If you introduce drugs minors will be able to get them more readily...

It's much easier for a minor to get weed or coke than it is for them to get beer. Why is that? It's because there adults can already get what they want and no one creates a black market for children.

Just because people want to do something does not make it right or legal. Also, if we made all crime legal we would have no criminal element in the US... your point? This does not futher the debate or your side at all... Again, just because people do commit crimes does not mean that those crimes should then be legalized...

Make crime legal? That doesn't even make sense. I'm saying that by completely destroying the accessability of these things to responsible adults, the the government has created a black market for those substances. How are those markets destroyed? It's in the same way that the criminals were defeated during prohibition, legalization and partial restriction. I suggest not that crime should be legal, but that other intoxicant substances should be treated in a similar way as alcohol, perhaps with different limitations.

So basically make it so only people who are physically fit can do the drugs? Will this doctor also sit with these people through withdrawl as they go through it?

Psychological, as well as physical, fitness is necessary to partake of any drug. There can be severe consequences if your body doesn't react well to a particular substance, which is another reason that the black market needs to be destroyed and placed in the hands of the american government and populace, who can regulate it.

Would this be covered under your favorite insurance plan? Would this not cost alot?

I'm not a big fan of socialist healthcare.

Also, you are not considering one huge fact. If you legalize drugs for adults, there will still be a criminal element to drugs. In fact if you make it IMPOSSIBLE for underage people to get drugs, then there will be a criminal element in drugs for people underage.

There's not much money and a lot of danger in selling to minors. Large drug traffickers do not sell to children, thus there is no black market for them.

Also, if you have the US start to sell drugs, what do you think the drug cartels would do? Be like "Oh, our biggest client now has another supplier... We will just roll over quietly and not do the practical thing, like sell our stuff cheaper than the US stuff..."

Would the american public rather save a few bucks on a lesser product, or go to jail?

God bless.
-Bill

 

[Shaggy Flasko]

Sorry, meant to edit.

 

[Ryan2065]

Everyone is a danger to others and themselves. You don't have to be high to be a danger to someone else. What about that guy who comes home stone sober and beat the crap out of his wife or that priest that is molesting the little boy. But by what you are saying only high people are dangerous. Murders, rapes, child abuse, molestations and many other crimes are committed every day by completely sober and lucid people.

1. I have said many places that being high is not that bad and should be legal.
2. The argument that "Being high is not that bad, so you should legalize all drugs" is completely bogus. The only sensible arguments so far have been for marijuana and nothing else.. Until someone convinces me that all drugs (even the date rape drugs, LSD, and PCP) could be used in a sensible manner by 1 person without another supervising then I still say they should remain illegal.
3. Please point out where I said the only people who are a danger to others is high people... As far as I know I have never stated anything of the sort.

I think the qualifier was that it should be used "responsibly". That's why I advocate medical examinations prior to allowing people to partake of such substances.

And how is this realistic? Also, please provide me studies that show that the harder drugs (Date rape, PCP, and LSD) can be used responsibly by adults WITHOUT someone looking over them.

It's much easier for a minor to get weed or coke than it is for them to get beer. Why is that? It's because there adults can already get what they want and no one creates a black market for children.

Wow, really? When I was groing up I could get all the beer I wanted (2 bars right by my house that dont card) but I didn't know where to get weed from. Trust me, it is easier for the youth of today to get alchol than to get weed. In some cases it might be easier to get weed (like say if your brother was a dealer it would be =P ) but in most cases it is easier for an underaged person to get alchol than weed.

Make crime legal? That doesn't even make sense. I'm saying that by completely destroying the accessability of these things to responsible adults, the the government has created a black market for those substances. How are those markets destroyed? It's in the same way that the criminals were defeated during prohibition, legalization and partial restriction. I suggest not that crime should be legal, but that other intoxicant substances should be treated in a similar way as alcohol, perhaps with different limitations.

Your argument is this... Correct me if im wrong.
1. Lots of people break this law.
2. Therefore, the law should be taken away to make less criminals.

I was just wondering why we could not apply that logic to all other crimes? How about this one...
1. Lots of people speed and break the speed limit.
2. Therefore, we should get rid of speed limits.

The logic is the exact same...

Psychological, as well as physical, fitness is necessary to partake of any drug. There can be severe consequences if your body doesn't react well to a particular substance, which is another reason that the black market needs to be destroyed and placed in the hands of the american government and populace, who can regulate it.

I am pretty sure the harder drugs have an extremely high addictive rate and there is no sure way to know if you will or will not be addicted to the drug. Also, the harder drugs react differently with different people... It would be interesting to see what doctors would want to become drug doctors... If a druggie came into their office and they prescribed them some really hard stuff (like lsd or pcp) could the doctor be sued if the person then died from an overdose (remember, some of the drugs are deadly because when you are shot up with them you want more and more and then overdose...) If the drug cannot be taken alone and if you need someone with you or you will die, it should not be legal.

There's not much money and a lot of danger in selling to minors. Large drug traffickers do not sell to children, thus there is no black market for them.

There is no black market for high school aged kids and illegal drugs? Hrm, yet above you said that it is easier for teenagers to get weed or coke than for them to get beer... Then you implied that there IS a black market for children... So which is it... Is there or isn't there? Usually people contridct themselves over a few posts... wow, you do it in the same post! =)

Would the american public rather save a few bucks on a lesser product, or go to jail?

How about a person addicted to your favorite addictive substance and is cut off by the doctor from the legal stuff? I would be willing to bet they would pay alot of money for the illegal version to keep their fix comming... You know, instead of going through withdrawl.

And do you think that with your plan of action it would not be more expensive than it currently is? Ok, here is what it requires...
1. Making the stuff (which is currently done)
2. Transporting the stuff (which is currently done)
3. Packaging (which is not done)
4. Paying doctors to get approved for a certain drug (not currently done)
As a subset of 4... more than likely one would need very frequent visits to the doctor to make sure everything is going fine for the harder drugs.
5. Doctors insurance.
6. More than likely, personal drug insurance.

So all in all... I am pretty positive it will be more expensive than it is now.

 

[Fluffy]

I disagree. If someone wants to come off drugs, part of the revenue gained from the tax imposed on the sale of drugs should be devoted to the benefit of these people. In this way, they pay for their own "recovery".

Yes I agree, that is a much better idea. No other taxes other than that though. Oh by the way, for all those people who believe that debate cannot change a person's views, here is an example of debate changing my views .

All drugs should be legal? Including the following?

PCP, cocaine, GHB and heroin should all be legal, yes.

To me anything that creates a dependance from the person takes that persons right to choose away and therefore should be illegal.

A dependence? Hundreds of things create a dependance for us and people do not have a problem with them. I assume you are talking about a chemical dependance, however, in which case you would merely be advocating the banning of non-prescription drugs (painkillers etc.), caffeine, alcohol, all solvents etc.

Plus, if you make it legal, then you will increase the chance that under-aged people will get the drugs (be honest, how many of you have tried smoking or drinking before you were legal)

How many people do you know who regularly go about sniffing solvents? Or those addicted to caffeine tablets? Assumedly drug usage will go up if all drugs are legalised but I do not see how this will help children get these drugs more easily unless you feel that such legalisation should be coupled with a removal of age identification, proper regulation and the like.

I have not seen any good arguments for making these drugs legal yet...

I have never seen a good argument, or any argument for that matter, about why breathing air should be legal.... therefore it should be illegal, right? We do not need good arguments or any arguments for why something should be legal, we merely need to poke holes in the argument for why it should be illegal. Of course we have plenty of good arguments too but these are merely icing on the cake.

But if your behavior starts affecting others then you do need a nanny state telling you what to do because you're not responsible enough on your own.

That is not a nanny state. A nanny state is one that restricts personal freedoms in order to protect one's own safety from one's own actions. I fully support the legality of alcohol whilst making drink driving illegal. I do not see why similar legislation could not be equally effective with problems caused by other drugs.

By the way, if, when you say "affecting others", you are talking about the emotional impact of the loss of a loved one because of an overdose etc. then I do not find this argument sufficient to warrant making drugs illegal. Since I'm not sure whether this is what you are arguing I won't go into it now.

But how do you feel about the fact that if everyone thought the way youn do, the National health Service would be totally defuct through lack of funds; the costs of liver transplants and the cost of smoking related hospital treatment is exhorbitant ?

I do not feel that people should be treated on the NHS for self harm no matter what form it may take. That is to say they should be forced to pay for any treatment they do recieve in such circumstances.

If this was my perfect world, no one would drink, because the masses in general have proven time and time again that they cannot drink responsibly...

I do not think that would be your perfect world Ryan. People would not like such a perfect world and so would be unhappy and I am sure that would not be perfection for you. I think it would be great if noone drank either. I just think they have to choose to do so and not be forced into it.

 

[Ryan2065]

PCP, cocaine, GHB and heroin should all be legal, yes.

Ok, one at a time...
PCP... From wikipedia...

Whether PCP has any strong and consistent effects which are markedly different from other similar compounds is controversial. Some think that the drug's effects are as varied as its appearance. It may be that a moderate amount of PCP will cause users to feel detached, distant, and estranged from their surroundings. Numbness, slurred speech, and loss of coordination may be accompanied by a sense of strength and invulnerability. A blank stare, rapid and involuntary eye movements, and an exaggerated gait are alleged to be among the more observable effects. Horrifying acts of violence have been committed by people high on the drug; a well-known example is Brenda Ann Spencer, who claimed to have committed her high school massacre while under the influence of alcohol and PCP.

Auditory hallucinations, image distortion, severe mood disorders, and amnesia may also occur. In some users, PCP may cause acute anxiety and a feeling of impending doom; in others, paranoia and violent hostility; and in some, it may produce a psychosis indistinguishable from schizophrenia. Modification of the manufacturing process may yield chemically related analogues capable of producing psychotic effects similar to PCP.

What a nice drug to release to the public!
Cocaine -for one... No countries listed on wikepedia have this drug listed as being legal for the public to consume (some say legal for medical reasons though)

The initial signs of stimulation are hyperactivity, restlessness, increased blood pressure, increased heart rate and euphoria. The euphoria is quickly followed by feelings of discomfort and depression and a craving to re-experience the drug. Side effects can include twitching and paranoia, which usually increase with frequent usage.

So the person who takes cocaine quickly has a feeling of wanting more, so it would be reasonable that if left unsupervised, one would take more than what he should...

Cocaine abuse is associated with a lifetime risk of heart attack that is seven times that of non-users. During the hour after cocaine is used, heart attack risk rises 24-fold. It accounts for 25% of the heart attacks in the 18–45 year-old age group.

Oh, so nice...
And GHB...
Well the problem with GHB is more common sense. This drug makes it extremely easy to rape someone, and because of that it is been made illegal for recreational use. This I fully support.
And lastly, Heroin...

The withdrawal syndrome from heroin (or any other short-acting opioid) can begin within 12 hours of discontinuation of sustained use of the drug: sweating, malaise, anxiety, depression, emesis, persistent and intense penile erection in males (priapism), general feeling of heaviness, cramp-like pains in the limbs, yawning and lachrymation, sleep difficulties, cold sweats, chills, severe muscle and bone aches not precipitated by any physical trauma, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, gooseflesh (hence, the term "cold turkey"), cramps, and fever occur. Many addicts also complain of a painful condition, the so-called "itchy blood", which often results in compulsive scratching that causes bruises and sometimes ruptures the skin leaving scabs. Abrupt termination of heroin use causes muscle spasms in the legs of the user (restless leg syndrome), hence the term "kicking the habit". However, it must be noted that each person's symptoms can be unique. Users seeking to take the "cold turkey" (without any preparation or accompaniments) approach are generally more likely to experience the negative effects of withdrawal in a more pronounced manner.

Ohh, nice withdrawl symptoms that happen within 12 hours of stopping the heroin... I could see how it is very easy to get off this drug!

 

[Ryan2065]

A dependence? Hundreds of things create a dependance for us and people do not have a problem with them. I assume you are talking about a chemical dependance, however, in which case you would merely be advocating the banning of non-prescription drugs (painkillers etc.), caffeine, alcohol, all solvents etc

I hope you see how absurd this statement is... To advocate that caffeine is like these drugs would be like saying a bb gun is the same as an assult rifle. The risk of getting a dependance on the things you listed are EXTREMELY lower than the risks for most of the illegal drugs.

How many people do you know who regularly go about sniffing solvents? Or those addicted to caffeine tablets? Assumedly drug usage will go up if all drugs are legalised but I do not see how this will help children get these drugs more easily unless you feel that such legalisation should be coupled with a removal of age identification, proper regulation and the like.

You do not see how legalizing drugs would make it easier for underaged people to get drugs? Ok... lets use simple terms... If your brother is legally getting lots of heroin, but only uses a little bit (or none at all as I am sure some would sell it on the side) then it would be quite easy to get this drug from your brother (Seeing as he got it legally, so if any questions were asked about why you are carrying it, one could just say "oh, its my brothers") Plus, there would be more drugs out on the street and in the public eye. Also, as I have demonistrated... Caffeine is NOT as addictive as other substances... Jeeze... Is your argument really that bad that you have to say "Well caffeine users get addicted and they don't run around sniffing up everywhere so someone addicted to heroin wouldn't do the same!"

I have never seen a good argument, or any argument for that matter, about why breathing air should be legal.... therefore it should be illegal, right? We do not need good arguments or any arguments for why something should be legal, we merely need to poke holes in the argument for why it should be illegal. Of course we have plenty of good arguments too but these are merely icing on the cake.

Actually, when something is illegal, one needs a REASON to make it legal, wether it be an infringement of rights, or a need in society, there has to be a need or it isn't made legal. So far the arguments I have seen are..
1. It is my body, I can do what I want with it.
- Argument against: When you are under the influence of the drugs you are more likely to act in a rash way. As I pointed out earlier, PCP has been attributed to horrifying acts of violence due to its effects...
- Argument against: When one gets addicted to a substance, it takes away their right to make a choice. So when many find it quite impossible to get off of a substance, this would be taking away their right to chose, and therefore against the law.

All other arguments I have seen for drugs can pretty much be countered by those two arguments.

That is not a nanny state. A nanny state is one that restricts personal freedoms in order to protect one's own safety from one's own actions. I fully support the legality of alcohol whilst making drink driving illegal. I do not see why similar legislation could not be equally effective with problems caused by other drugs.

If a substance is out on the market.... and 50% of the people who take that substance feel inclined to go out and murder people, and 25% of the people on this substance actually go out and murder the people... Apparently we are not a nanny state so we would not make this drug illegal. Just being ON the drug makes you a threat to others with some of these drugs, it doesn't matter if you are behind a car or behind a knife or behind anything.. You still are a danger to society. I really don't care what you do to your own body... but when things like PCP incite people to go and murder people (the above is not about pcp and i know this is a rare case, but it is a case) then you have to start thinking about restricting these freedoms.

By the way, if, when you say "affecting others", you are talking about the emotional impact of the loss of a loved one because of an overdose etc. then I do not find this argument sufficient to warrant making drugs illegal. Since I'm not sure whether this is what you are arguing I won't go into it now.

I was not refering to this.

I do not feel that people should be treated on the NHS for self harm no matter what form it may take. That is to say they should be forced to pay for any treatment they do recieve in such circumstances.

And what about the people who start when they are underaged and too poor to pay for a new liver now that they are older and wiser? Would you tell them no as well?

I do not think that would be your perfect world Ryan. People would not like such a perfect world and so would be unhappy and I am sure that would not be perfection for you. I think it would be great if noone drank either. I just think they have to choose to do so and not be forced into it.

I did not say that I would make drinking illegal, just that no one would drink... IE no one would want to drink, therefore wouldn't drink. Never said that I would force anyone into it or anything of the like... Its a perfect world, ie NOTHING can go wrong. The idea that you found a flaw in my perfect world is absurd because it is my perfect world. Unless if you know exactly how I think you have no basis to find a flaw in it.

 

[Fluffy]

I hope you see how absurd this statement is... To advocate that caffeine is like these drugs would be like saying a bb gun is the same as an assult rifle. The risk of getting a dependance on the things you listed are EXTREMELY lower than the risks for most of the illegal drugs.

I do not think my statement is absurd because I do not believe I am stating that "caffeine is like these drugs". However, I am pointing out that the criteria you are using to discriminate between drugs and other substances would include these drugs and therefore you need to refine the limitations you are placing on the scenario. Furthermore, focusing on caffeine, which is very dangerous if, for example, injected, whilst ignoring issues with solvents and painkillers does not make such issues go away.

You do not see how legalizing drugs would make it easier for underaged people to get drugs? Ok... lets use simple terms... If your brother is legally getting lots of heroin, but only uses a little bit (or none at all as I am sure some would sell it on the side)

A possibility certainly but one that can be reduced significantly if a heavy jail sentence is in effect for such activity.

then it would be quite easy to get this drug from your brother (Seeing as he got it legally, so if any questions were asked about why you are carrying it, one could just say "oh, its my brothers")

This excuse does not work with the current legalised drugs so I do not see why you would make the assumption that it would work with legalised heroin.

Plus, there would be more drugs out on the street and in the public eye.

To a certain extent yes but probably in a different way to how you mean. I advocate removal of the right to do drugs in a public place unless it is specifically liscenced (and therefore would carry an age restriction on entry).

Also, as I have demonistrated... Caffeine is NOT as addictive as other substances... Jeeze... Is your argument really that bad that you have to say "Well caffeine users get addicted and they don't run around sniffing up everywhere so someone addicted to heroin wouldn't do the same!"

You have not demonstrated that caffeine is less addictive than other substances, you have assumed such a fact based on common knowledge. However, I am not, nor have I ever, disputed such a fact so please do not feel the need to produce such evidence.

From reading your posts, I feel that you do not have a clear enough grasp of what my argument actually does and does not attempt to do so perhaps making assumptions about whether it is bad or not is rather preemptive. For example, in this instance you have failed to explain to me why solvents which are legal to obtain and highly addictive are not being sniffed by every impressionable child of today. Instead you have focused on belittling an argument without demonstrating its invalidity.

Actually, when something is illegal, one needs a REASON to make it legal, wether it be an infringement of rights, or a need in society, there has to be a need or it isn't made legal.

This might be what you feel should happen, however, it is not what occurs in reality. There are many things which are not covered in law because they are not considered yet or have not arisen as a problem. These things are assumed to be legal until the law says otherwise. If I had been alive when the witch laws were repealed or when homosexuality became legal, I would have needed no reason why these things should be legal. The inability of the opposing argument to defend the case for why they should be illegal is sufficient grounds for them not being illegal.

1. It is my body, I can do what I want with it.
- Argument against: When you are under the influence of the drugs you are more likely to act in a rash way. As I pointed out earlier, PCP has been attributed to horrifying acts of violence due to its effects...

PCP is in a minority in terms of this effect. Indeed focusing on it shows up the same underlying fallacy that you demonstrated earlier when you focused on caffeine at the expense of solvents or painkillers. I have not put enough thought into the problem of dealing with the effects of violent drugs such as PCP to 'finalise' my decision with regards to what should be done to legalise them safetly. However, at the moment I am in favour of taking such steps as preventing those people with a criminal record of violent crimes from purchasing the drug etc.

- Argument against: When one gets addicted to a substance, it takes away their right to make a choice. So when many find it quite impossible to get off of a substance, this would be taking away their right to chose, and therefore against the law.

I do not believe in choice since I am a follower of determinism therefore I do not believe people are in possession of a choice that drugs are capable of taking away.

Just being ON the drug makes you a threat to others with some of these drugs, it doesn't matter if you are behind a car or behind a knife or behind anything.. You still are a danger to society.

Yet selling the drug and thereby having the ability to regulate it, monitor the people who purchase it and prevent them from committing violent crimes is a possibility when the drug is legal and privitised whilst it is not if it is illegal. Therefore more violent drug crimes will be committed when the drug is illegal.

And what about the people who start when they are underaged and too poor to pay for a new liver now that they are older and wiser? Would you tell them no as well?

Yes because otherwise there would be less of an incentive to not do it whilst you are younger. Plus other people should not be forced to pay for others stupidity. Furthermore, there is nothing to stop people who recieve treatment from going out and doing the same thing again and, if they have done it from a very young age, the likelihood of them doing so is higher so it is a money that they should be forced to waste.

I did not say that I would make drinking illegal, just that no one would drink... IE no one would want to drink, therefore wouldn't drink. Never said that I would force anyone into it or anything of the like... Its a perfect world, ie NOTHING can go wrong. The idea that you found a flaw in my perfect world is absurd because it is my perfect world. Unless if you know exactly how I think you have no basis to find a flaw in it.

I did not say that your perfect world would involve drinking being made illegal. Just that a motivation to keep drugs illegal cannot be reconciled with such a perfect world.

 

[Ryan2065]

For example, in this instance you have failed to explain to me why solvents which are legal to obtain and highly addictive are not being sniffed by every impressionable child of today. Instead you have focused on belittling an argument without demonstrating its invalidity.

This is a fallacy.. Please explain to me how me explaining to you why solvents are not being sniffed by everyone in the public will further the debate of "Should drugs be illegal?" Unless if you can demonstrate that solvents are similar to drugs (Besides being addictive) I do not see how it is an effective argument. Do solvents give someone a high like no others and are they pleasant to do? Do they have the same type of withdrawl or does someone merely want more after they are addicted?

This might be what you feel should happen, however, it is not what occurs in reality. There are many things which are not covered in law because they are not considered yet or have not arisen as a problem. These things are assumed to be legal until the law says otherwise. If I had been alive when the witch laws were repealed or when homosexuality became legal, I would have needed no reason why these things should be legal. The inability of the opposing argument to defend the case for why they should be illegal is sufficient grounds for them not being illegal.

Here you make the argument for "Things that are not covered by law are considered legal" which is all fine and dandy but not the case here... As I stated, drugs are ALREADY illegal, so it is a different process altogether to change the law here... Again, one must demonstrate that rights are being infringed on or that the law is unconstitutional for them to change the law. All that you said was under the basis of "No law is on the books yet about this" and has no bearing for this topic.

PCP is in a minority in terms of this effect. Indeed focusing on it shows up the same underlying fallacy that you demonstrated earlier when you focused on caffeine at the expense of solvents or painkillers. I have not put enough thought into the problem of dealing with the effects of violent drugs such as PCP to 'finalise' my decision with regards to what should be done to legalise them safetly. However, at the moment I am in favour of taking such steps as preventing those people with a criminal record of violent crimes from purchasing the drug etc.

That is nice... but how is this a fallacy? Your statement was that "All drugs should be legal." Which is the same as saying "PCP should be legal." Unless if you want to modify your origional statement and say that there are some drugs that should not be legal I will continue to give statements and facts about the worse drugs out there (because you do say they should be legal)

I do not believe in choice since I am a follower of determinism therefore I do not believe people are in possession of a choice that drugs are capable of taking away.

So you do not believe that someone who does a drug has a choice to do the drug? Then do you also not believe that someone who kills another has any choice in the matter? If not, how can we proscute them? Just because you believe that no one apparently has a choice, does not mean that it is the case and does not mean that our legal system takes it into account. Currently the way our legal system is set up, is that everyone has a choice. Drugs can make someone get addicted, so they no longer have that choice, and therefore takes away a right that people have. And taking away rights is pretty illegal in this country.

Yet selling the drug and thereby having the ability to regulate it, monitor the people who purchase it and prevent them from committing violent crimes is a possibility when the drug is legal and privitised whilst it is not if it is illegal. Therefore more violent drug crimes will be committed when the drug is illegal.

Please give some practical scenarios where this will be used... Will everyone on PCP need a desgniated watcher? Will they have to pay for this watcher? Or will faries come down and protect all people around the PCP junkie? Currently PCP is illegal, so it is hard to get... If we say "Oh, now pcp is legal..." There will more than likely be more people on PCP than there are currently. People keep saying "Oh the drugs are going to make us a ton of money" but yet they have offered NO evidence of this for the harder drugs and the more addictive drugs... Please offer evidence to back up this statement (other countries that have legalized these drugs would be a good start... oh wait, im sorry, as far as I know, they are not legal for public consumption ANYWHERE)


It is nice that you made no statements on the effects of the said drugs that you want to legalize. And even when pressed about PCP agreed that it was a dangerous drug and that you currently did not know how we would regulate such a dangerous drug.

The bottom line is that there are certain drugs that are not so bad when compared to smoking and alchol (some are even better than alchol and cigs), but to make any blanket statements for drugs is quite absurd without looking at the actual data for the drugs. The harder drugs, the ones that are highly addictive, the ones that make you hallunicate, the ones that take away your ability to think rationally, and the ones that make you violent are not the kind of drugs we should want on our streets. I agree that there are SOME drugs that can be made legal and would more than likely benefit society if they are made legal, but in order to determine which drugs should be made legal you have to look and present evidence for EACH drug separately.

 

[Shaggy Flasko]

The harder drugs, the ones that are highly addictive, the ones that make you hallunicate, the ones that take away your ability to think rationally, and the ones that make you violent are not the kind of drugs we should want on our streets.

I think the key minsunderstanding here is the idea that the drugs are not "on our streets". They are. You mention that it would be difficult to get PCP. On the contrary, I know for a fact that I could attain a reasonable amount by next weekend, and a steady supply after that provided that I had the cash. It's really not hard. I could go out tonight and get some weed, meth, ex, coke, acid, speed, or heroine to prove it? I can make two phone calls and have it in my hand in the morning. So where's the control? There is none.

Note: I'm speaking in all seriousness and truthfulness.

But who am I? I'm just a junior at a christian high school, down in the good ol' "Bible Belt" as they call it. Wow, "and it's that easy?" you might say. Yes, it is. On the other hand, how many people would be willing to sell those substances to me if they were of similar legal standing as beer or cigarettes (except, perhaps, available only at government monitered facilities, such as privately owned pharmacies)? Would drug cartels think it worthwhile to ship thousands of pounds of marijuana and cocaine into southern Texas every month the market among licensed adults was destroyed?

The idea in legalizing, but limiting drugs according to their effect and potential personal hazard is to make the market unprofitable. Having a "drug sitter" is an infinitely better way to handle things than making a call to your columbian buddy downtown for some unsupervised, uncontrolled, unregulated substances.

The "war on drugs" provides no protection and no control. It only serves to fuel the market of illicit substances for anyone who wants them. Basically, it's a failure.

The ultimate question is, where should people get these substances? Should it be from drug dealers selling on the streets, or from a pharmacy, where the substances can be controlled and the illegal market crippled or destroyed. Obviously it won't fix all the problems, but control is better than none. Right now, there is absolutely none.

I have a question about something that seemed to be extra relevent.

Again, one must demonstrate that rights are being infringed on or that the law is unconstitutional for them to change the law. All that you said was under the basis of "No law is on the books yet about this" and has no bearing for this topic.

Is there anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that provides the government the ability to institute prohibition?

Actually, the government must prove its right to establish and enforce a law before it can be implemented. It, so far, has failed to do this.

According to the extent your logic (as it appears to me, but correct me if I'm mistaken), all drugs that can be misused should be illegal. However, as we've seen in history with the prohibition of alcohol, the problems become much more severe and widespread when the government forfeits the control and supply of these substances to an illegal market. After the government legalized and placed alcohol within a (comparatively) controlled economy, the black market was destroyed.

God bless.
-Bill

 

[Ryan2065]

I think the key minsunderstanding here is the idea that the drugs are not "on our streets". They are. You mention that it would be difficult to get PCP. On the contrary, I know for a fact that I could attain a reasonable amount by next weekend, and a steady supply after that provided that I had the cash. It's really not hard. I could go out tonight and get some weed, meth, ex, coke, acid, speed, or heroine to prove it? I can make two phone calls and have it in my hand in the morning. So where's the control? There is none.

Note: I'm speaking in all seriousness and truthfulness.

My best friend is a drug dealer... I would only need to make one call to get any substance that I want... Your point?

Again, the fact that "people do it" is NO basis to make a law legal, which seems to be your biggest point. I mention that it is difficult to get PCP, actually it is quite difficult... Ask the average RF'er here if they know how to get PCP, I highly doubt they would know how to go about getting any. Just because YOU yourself can get drugs does not mean that the average person can get them just as easily.

But who am I? I'm just a junior at a christian high school, down in the good ol' "Bible Belt" as they call it. Wow, "and it's that easy?" you might say. Yes, it is. On the other hand, how many people would be willing to sell those substances to me if they were of similar legal standing as beer or cigarettes (except, perhaps, available only at government monitered facilities, such as privately owned pharmacies)? Would drug cartels think it worthwhile to ship thousands of pounds of marijuana and cocaine into southern Texas every month the market among licensed adults was destroyed?

Do you really think that legalizing it would make it better or worse? You are the one who says that "If we legalize it then the drug cartels will not be able to get any money out of their product in the US" yet you have not demonistrated anything of the sort. Demonistration would be demonistrating that the average drug user would be the average person cleared by the doctors that people want to check them in order to get the drugs. You say that you want regulation? Do you really think that the average drug user would be cleared for all the drugs that they would require to keep their habit going. I have already shown that the average heroin user will suffer withdrawl symptoms if they do not get heroin every 12 hours... if you have something other than personal opinion to offer to this debate that would be fine and dandy.

The idea in legalizing, but limiting drugs according to their effect and potential personal hazard is to make the market unprofitable. Having a "drug sitter" is an infinitely better way to handle things than making a call to your columbian buddy downtown for some unsupervised, uncontrolled, unregulated substances.

Can you demonistrate where the drug sitters would be supplied from and how we can ensure that all drug users will use with a drug sitter and with no one else. Also demonistrate how people on these drugs would not become a risk to the sitter. Also demonistrate where the MONEY for the sitter would come from (so far, your plan seems like it would make the prices skyrocket for these drugs...)

The "war on drugs" provides no protection and no control. It only serves to fuel the market of illicit substances for anyone who wants them. Basically, it's a failure.

This is a completely false statement... The war on drugs educates people about potential drug use. I more than likely would have started on drugs if I did not know eactly what they did to me... I made the decision to not start on the drugs and I think that played a huge factor in making me who I am today. If the war on drugs did not educate me, I would more than likely have tried drugs, and who knows, maybe have liked them and become a "junkie"

The ultimate question is, where should people get these substances? Should it be from drug dealers selling on the streets, or from a pharmacy, where the substances can be controlled and the illegal market crippled or destroyed. Obviously it won't fix all the problems, but control is better than none. Right now, there is absolutely none.

To say that we have absolutely no control over the market of drugs is completely absurd... We might not have a huge grasp of the market, but we have some control over it (every time the war on drugs confinsicates a shipment they are asserting some control over the market.)

Is there anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that provides the government the ability to institute prohibition?

If something takes away the rights of others then the government has the right to "prohibit" it. To argue otherwise is quite silly...

Actually, the government must prove its right to establish and enforce a law before it can be implemented. It, so far, has failed to do this.

Actually the government has proven time and time again that these drugs should be illegal... So far you have just furthered your statements and have not debated me on any of the statements I have made concerning the government making drugs illegal.

According to the extent your logic (as it appears to me, but correct me if I'm mistaken), all drugs that can be misused should be illegal. However, as we've seen in history with the prohibition of alcohol, the problems become much more severe and widespread when the government forfeits the control and supply of these substances to an illegal market. After the government legalized and placed alcohol within a (comparatively) controlled economy, the black market was destroyed.

So that is why you haven't really debated any of the points I have made.. You didn't read them!

The bottom line is that there are certain drugs that are not so bad when compared to smoking and alchol (some are even better than alchol and cigs), but to make any blanket statements for drugs is quite absurd without looking at the actual data for the drugs. The harder drugs, the ones that are highly addictive, the ones that make you hallunicate, the ones that take away your ability to think rationally, and the ones that make you violent are not the kind of drugs we should want on our streets. I agree that there are SOME drugs that can be made legal and would more than likely benefit society if they are made legal, but in order to determine which drugs should be made legal you have to look and present evidence for EACH drug separately.

Here I say that some drugs should be legal as well as alchol and cigarrettes...

There are some things I want to see from the pro making drugs legal side... Here, I will help you construct a good argument...

1) The argument keeps coming up that having America make drugs legal but restricting them to certain people would cripple or destroy the drug trafficing industry. The problem with this argument is no one has posted any information on the specific drugs and what type of people would be able to handle them and if this time of person is the average drug user. Also, no one has demonistrated that America selling the drug would make it cheaper than the drug cartels selling it. I agree that SOME people would get the drugs legally, but I still say that most of the drug users of today would not be able to obtain these drugs legally under any rational system.

2) The argument that drugs being illegal is somehow against the rights brought to us by the constitution keeps coming up. I have offered two arguments against this statement... They were that some drugs make the user a danger to society, and some drugs take the users right to choose away when they get the user addicted. All the pro drug people do is keep saying "It is against the constitution" yet offer no evidence to support their claim.

3) The argument that a doctor can apparently pick out the people who will not be affected by these drugs has come up... Yet no evidence has been offered to back this claim up.

4) The argument that a physically fit rational thinking adult can handel any type of drug and not be a danger to himself or society has come up, yet no evidence has been offered to support this view.

You all have many arguments... But they are just your own thoughts supported by no evidence what so ever... Please offer some evidence for your views (Like if you say a doctor can pick out who will or will not be affected by a drug, prove it!)

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

OK, new solution then.

Legalize marijuana, mushrooms and powdered cocaine, keep crack, heroine and LSD restricted,
but don't sentence users of these harder drugs to jail. Decriminalize simple possession and
send those caught for simple possession of the harder drugs into mandatory detox.

This make anyone happy?

B.

 

[Ryan2065]

Legalize marijuana, mushrooms and powdered cocaine, keep crack, heroine and LSD restricted,
but don't sentence users of these harder drugs to jail. Decriminalize simple possession and
send those caught for simple possession of the harder drugs into mandatory detox.

This make anyone happy?

Heh, doesn't make me happy... Because if simple possession isn't illegal then the government has no right to send anyone to mandatory detox =P "Yea, you didn't break any laws here... but you gotta go straight to detox!"