Drugs: Prohibition, Decriminalization or Legalization?

[BalanceofTerror]

I would make all non-perscription drugs illegal (IE: Marijuana, heroin, opium.) The things they can do to your body and mind are just... sick. I really will not listen nor care about anything positive people say about them. They're deadly, period.

 

[Mixedpotatoes]

I would make all non-perscription drugs illegal (IE: Marijuana, heroin, opium.) The things they can do to your body and mind are just... sick. I really will not listen nor care about anything positive people say about them. They're deadly, period.

That's why the government has to control the selling of the drugs so they become less deadly. No overdoses for the junkies, and no poisonous substances (except for the heroine) to have in the syringe. It should be a human right to at least give junkies clean drugs in proper amounts, clean space and clean equipment. It's not like the prohibition stops them from getting drugs, so it would be better if we could legalize it - for their sake.

 

[Mage246]

It is in the nature of an addictive drug to create addiction, and it is in the nature of an addict to crave excess. How long do you imagine it would take before the process would be subverted to feed the excesses of addicts? Personally, I doubt it would even start out uncorrupted.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

I think drugs like heroin should be gotten rid of completely. Opiates should be used only for their medicinal properties.

Kinda impossible to ensure.

I know? I'm talking about a hypothetical perfect situation in my own view.

 

[bgfan]

Marijuana is far less dangerous than Alcohol or even tobacco. On top of that it helps to relax people who normally are very stressed out (it could even be said it helps blood pressure by doing so), makes people feel good, and is minimally dangerous to those around the user (unlike alcohol). In fact, it should be alcohol that is illegalized if anything. Most people pass out before they get to the point where they are driving under the influence on marijuana.

 

[Jock]

Make alcohol illegal?

 

[Cookie Eating Huskarl]

Marijuana is far less dangerous than Alcohol or even tobacco. On top of that it helps to relax people who normally are very stressed out (it could even be said it helps blood pressure by doing so), makes people feel good, and is minimally dangerous to those around the user (unlike alcohol). In fact, it should be alcohol that is illegalized if anything. Most people pass out before they get to the point where they are driving under the influence on marijuana.

3 words are required to make this system work. Legit doctor's prescription. Give it to people who are stressed out and depressed, not some goddamn yuppie who can't appreciated his surroundings without getting high.

 

[Kobrag]

I would make all non-perscription drugs illegal (IE: Marijuana, heroin, opium.) The things they can do to your body and mind are just... sick. I really will not listen nor care about anything positive people say about them. They're deadly, period.

You can;t OD on Marijuana, idiot.
You seem even less informed  then people who take the ****. =/

 

[FrisianDude]

I know? I'm talking about a hypothetical perfect situation in my own view.

I know.

 

[Lyze]

I would make all non-perscription drugs illegal (IE: Marijuana, heroin, opium.) The things they can do to your body and mind are just... sick. I really will not listen nor care about anything positive people say about them. They're deadly, period.

I must applaud you. Ignorance and a stubborn declaration of close-mindedness in one sentence? Truly admirable. Also, following your statement to its logical conclusion, making all non-prescription drugs illegal would mean you wouldn't have your ibuprofen or aspirin for when you have a bit of a headache. But then again, it's deadly, right?

 

[Radalan]

I would make all non-perscription drugs illegal (IE: Marijuana, heroin, opium.) The things they can do to your body and mind are just... sick. I really will not listen nor care about anything positive people say about them. They're deadly, period.

You can;t OD on Marijuana, idiot.
You seem even less informed  then people who take the ****. =/

I agree, marijuana = | = Opiates.
You can't really place both substances under the same category.

 

[AWdeV]

Free Marijuana for everyone!

Or atleast less *****in'.

Frankly, I'm in definite favour of legalising soft stuff like marijuana and in some ways I quite like the way it's arranged in the Netherlands although it's bloody stupid in some respects and adjacent countries whine about drugs-tourism and want it changed. It's a bit silly.

 

[Kobrag]

Free Marijuana for everyone!

Or atleast less *****in'.

Frankly, I'm in definite favour of legalising soft stuff like marijuana and in some ways I quite like the way it's arranged in the Netherlands although it's bloody stupid in some respects and adjacent countries whine about drugs-tourism and want it changed. It's a bit silly.

But tourism is always a good thing. 

 

[AWdeV]

Yeah, but these are folk that try ****ing everything all at once and then jump out of third floor windows thinking they can fly. Hell, it's actually doing those countries a favour by getting rid of the dumbest ****s.

You can probably get rid of a hell of a lot of problems by legalising it properly, allowing a decent industry to start up with quality control, taxation and less problems with smuggling.

AFAIK tourists are now pretty much banned from buying stuff in coffeeshops.

fun fact; it's the two christian parties that call for a tighter rein on cannabis use. Buzzkills.

 

[Wheem]

That's a retarded argument, should we also legalise suicide vests?

Snorting cocaine can certainly have some terrible effects on the user, but it doesn't cause an explosion that kills or injures innocent bystanders. Even the lethality rate on users is a bit lower than suicide terrorism, last time I checked.

Hard drugs like cocaine and meth impact the user's friends and family. And in the wider context the immediate community that the individual is in. While emotional trauma isn't directly tangible, it's still very real.

What about emotional trauma on friends and family caused by other things? Like; alcoholism, homosexuality, conversion of theistic/atheistic beliefs, being a part of some subculture, choice of profession, etc...I'd be willing to bet that most of my family and friends would have an easier time accepting me as a junkie than a gay emo pornstar. Lucky for them I'm neither; but regardless, the government should have no say in the matter.

As for responsibility, quite a few of the people that try this stuff out are young people, or people who are, by and large in this segment of their life, rash and experimental. It's well understood that most teenagers do things they are not entirely informed on, just as I suspect many of your friends as well as mine in the teenage years, or perhaps even yourself and I, do things that weren't exactly rational or well thought-out.

Our current policy of prohibition, which in America has been the case for what, ~80 years now? hasn't done a very good job of keeping drugs out of the hands of teenagers. In fact, rates of teenage drug use are actually higher in the US than they are in the Netherlands, despite the fact that anyone over the age of...16 I think? can legally smoke pot in a coffee house over there.

And while I don't think there's any "societal responsibility" to provide "free" rehab to drug addicts, I don't see how such a policy could possibly be more expensive than America's current war on drugs. I imagine all the SWAT raids get pretty expensive:

"Over the last six months of 2009, SWAT teams were deployed 804 times in the state of Maryland, or about 4.5 times per day. In Prince George's County alone, with its 850,000 residents, a SWAT team was deployed about once per day. According to a Baltimore Sun analysis, 94 percent of the state's SWAT deployments were used to serve search or arrest warrants, leaving just 6 percent in response to the kinds of barricades, bank robberies, hostage takings, and emergency situations for which SWAT teams were originally intended."

(From http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/01/45-swat-raids-per-day)

"Victimless crime" is an oxymoron, and we shouldn't be locking people up for the consensual acts of buying, selling, or using certain substances. If they harm someone else while under the influence of said substances - whether that be meth, LSD, alcohol, or what have you - then that's a different matter entirely.

We should stop the widespread domestic terrorism of the war on drugs, and treat all currently illicit drugs like alcohol (minus the sin taxes, which should be removed from everything). It's never going to be legal for little kids to buy cocaine - just like it's not legal for them to buy whiskey - and being under the influence of either is not a sufficient excuse to negate responsibility for harm, malicious or otherwise, caused to another person or their property.

 

[Finzi]

I have absolutely no credible evidence to back this up, but maybe the legalisation of softer drugs such as Marijuana, MDMA, Akyl Nitrates would actually deter people from taking up the so-called "Hard drugs". I doubt somebody would go and shoot up if they had access to safe and legal cannabis. 

We should stop the widespread domestic terrorism of the war on drugs, and treat all currently illicit drugs like alcohol (minus the sin taxes, which should be removed from everything). It's never going to be legal for little kids to buy cocaine - just like it's not legal for them to buy whiskey - and being under the influence of either is not a sufficient excuse to negate responsibility for harm, malicious or otherwise, caused to another person or their property.

Agreed.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Hard drugs like cocaine and meth impact the user's friends and family. And in the wider context the immediate community that the individual is in. While emotional trauma isn't directly tangible, it's still very real.

What about emotional trauma on friends and family caused by other things? Like; alcoholism, homosexuality, conversion of theistic/atheistic beliefs, being a part of some subculture, choice of profession, etc...I'd be willing to bet that most of my family and friends would have an easier time accepting me as a junkie than a gay emo pornstar. Lucky for them I'm neither; but regardless, the government should have no say in the matter.

I guess the main point I'm trying to raise here is the incredibly addicting nature of these drugs. A person doesn't take a single sip of alcohol and lose all self control. The difference between switching to another belief and being an addict of cocaine is that the later is voluntary and the former not.

As for responsibility, quite a few of the people that try this stuff out are young people, or people who are, by and large in this segment of their life, rash and experimental. It's well understood that most teenagers do things they are not entirely informed on, just as I suspect many of your friends as well as mine in the teenage years, or perhaps even yourself and I, do things that weren't exactly rational or well thought-out.

Our current policy of prohibition, which in America has been the case for what, ~80 years now? hasn't done a very good job of keeping drugs out of the hands of teenagers. In fact, rates of teenage drug use are actually higher in the US than they are in the Netherlands, despite the fact that anyone over the age of...16 I think? can legally smoke pot in a coffee house over there.

Pot's a lot easier to acquire than meth and cocaine. I think the context of highly addicting drugs is carried well onto here.

And while I don't think there's any "societal responsibility" to provide "free" rehab to drug addicts, I don't see how such a policy could possibly be more expensive than America's current war on drugs. I imagine all the SWAT raids get pretty expensive:

"Over the last six months of 2009, SWAT teams were deployed 804 times in the state of Maryland, or about 4.5 times per day. In Prince George's County alone, with its 850,000 residents, a SWAT team was deployed about once per day. According to a Baltimore Sun analysis, 94 percent of the state's SWAT deployments were used to serve search or arrest warrants, leaving just 6 percent in response to the kinds of barricades, bank robberies, hostage takings, and emergency situations for which SWAT teams were originally intended."

(From http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/01/45-swat-raids-per-day)

Seems like the methods of going after these drugs seem to be in err. Someone mentioned the Spanish have it pretty well down I think earlier in the thread?

"Victimless crime" is an oxymoron, and we shouldn't be locking people up for the consensual acts of buying, selling, or using certain substances. If they harm someone else while under the influence of said substances - whether that be meth, LSD, alcohol, or what have you - then that's a different matter entirely.

What is your stance about someone who is obligated to do some things in life, but neglects it either due to an act of suicide or losing all self control due to the use of highly addictive drugs?

We should stop the widespread domestic terrorism of the war on drugs, and treat all currently illicit drugs like alcohol (minus the sin taxes, which should be removed from everything). It's never going to be legal for little kids to buy cocaine - just like it's not legal for them to buy whiskey - and being under the influence of either is not a sufficient excuse to negate responsibility for harm, malicious or otherwise, caused to another person or their property.

Why would it be illegal for kids to buy cocaine? Most children in states that have a low or no drinking age seem to be doing pretty well. Some children there seem to be able to understand the responsibilities of using these substances.

In any case, I think you have lost the context of that post.

That post was aimed at a comment that said highly addictive drugs should be legalized because trying it would be the individual's fault anyways. While this may be true, many people who try these drugs tend to partake in illicit behaviour. It's not in the proportions of alcoholism or any other substance abuse either, every addict who can't afford their habits pretty much try every option available to make money. The emotional trauma from this isn't about a change in lifestyles or belief systems, it's about the person actively taking steps to kill themselves while not fully knowing or caring about what they are doing.

 

[Austupaio]

Has this point been brought up?

In the States, legalizing something loosely means that you can't hire based on discriminating against it, drug tests would become un-constitutional. Do I want to hire or be forced to work with more junkies than I already do?

Hell no. I'm working towards a business where I'll need at least three employees and I'm sure as hell getting workers who don't smoke or drink.

 

[Kobrag]

Has this point been brought up?

In the States, legalizing something loosely means that you can't hire based on discriminating against it, drug tests would become un-constitutional. Do I want to hire or be forced to work with more junkies than I already do?

Hell no. I'm working towards a business where I'll need at least three employees and I'm sure as hell getting workers who don't smoke or drink.

Good luck on that. 
Prohibition only increases underworld power and the ability to shoot innocents. Legalising drugs would cripple the black market, as it makes safer drugs more easily bought so the new desiner drugs go out of fashion.

 

[Faunus]

I'd be more than happy if my country would regulate marijuana's laws. Something along the lines of: ...

• Be allowed to possess marijuana up to 10 grams for personal use, apply for a license or something in order to gain permission for more (e.g for a cannabis caffeteria).
• Marijuana smoking would be banned in public, government buildings, educational facilities, hospitals, enclosed sport facilities and public transportation and generally in-doors (I wager that if you'll lit a joint in a bar then some may not like it) BUT the exception being your own land/house/apartment/area.
• Prohibit marijuana usage for users below the age of the legal drinking/smoking age.

That'd be my dream.