223 replies to this topic

[Raui]

You sir, need to read studies more.

http://www.google.co...dd931c6f679.5e1

Seriously. Don't just say stuff off the top of your head without any evidence really backing you up.

But that would require them to think for themselves rather than being told whats right from wrong..

[WharfRat]

*Inb4 Cody appears and tells that it won't cause any negative social impact*



Well, I think that it would surely decrease public violence, increase income and taxable revenue and save resources, etc.
But talking about the negative social impact:


You would have more family's with problems because of drugs
(Probably Cody will appear and tell me that it won't cause any problem of that kind)
But even if they increase, I wouldn't really blame the drugs, but a weak marriage with a lack of good communication or something else (wich with or without drugs would have ended up screwed).

The same could be said with people ruining their lifes because of an addiction (if they wanted to kill themselves, an knife could be as effective as an overdose to kill themselves, or if they wanted toe vade reality they could also find an addiction in something else than drugs).

And I could continue with more problems that could be detonated, but you can imagine them.

But I agree with cody in this: If legalizing drugs increase social violence, drugs wouldn't be the cause. They would be caused by a weak formation inside the family, lack of moral formation, education, job opportunities, etc.
However, one thing is sure: in a country (like mine) in wich you don't have the things I mentioned above, legalizing drugs would detonate/make worse social problems.




So, my conclusion from that would be that legalizing dugs doesn't have a major negative social impact if that country has covered most of the social needs of it's people (like Netherlands ).
Netherlands legalized drugs and no big social poblems detonated, but they have very low rates of social violence
I'll take the homicide rate as a way to mesure violence since it's the most objective stat for that: http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rateIf you add education problems, poverty and corruption (I'm talking about my own country here), it would be really dangerous.


But in the other hand, the country would get more resources from that market (or at lest not wste money trying to fight drug dealing), and the economy of the countries that produce it would rise, and that money could be destined to cove those needs. The sad part is that coruption could sink that money... but overall it sounds like it could have more benefits than downfalls (as long as the government does his job...)

You paint a picture of me as someone who will make baseless claims, with great vigilance, to distort the facts in order to make my argument appear more valid... Firstly, I do not appreciate that. Secondly, it is simply not true. (Granted, it has been a while but...) I believe I'm the only person in this thread to have linked to actual studies performed by government agencies whose job it is to conduct study and to evaluate policy on this issue. I'm not pissing drunken ideas onto the internet based upon any sense of morality, but of the facts that make up the argument. So, this caricaturization of my argument is completely false and is a bit offensive.

As to the "negative social impact" of the legalization on drugs, you really must first define what a negative social impact is. I'm sure that homicide rates is one that we would both agree upon... However, I would say that the restriction of the most basic of civil liberties, the right to the possession of ones one body, is one of the greatest of negative social impacts...

As to domestic issues; I've stated above that addictive behavior is linked genetically. That is demonstrated highly with statistics, but, as I believe I mentioned earlier, there was a recent university study that found an actual genetic link in addiction. Thus, even those who may not be currently using drugs, will undoubtedly be currently exposed to other addictive behaviors/substances. (I.e. tobacco, alcohol, gambling, food, sex, etc...) The dynamic of a family littered with addiction isn't pretty... I know, because I am a part of one and have done a lot of research and had a good bit of education on this matter to better cope with my "disease." Will making drugs legal help the family dynamic of addicts? Absolutely not... It will likely make it increasingly difficult by adding newer layers of addictions to break away from... There is no denying that... However, there is really no legitimate basis to assume that addiction rates would increase along with the legalization of drugs.

It's late and my brain is too tired to continue arguing this at this point or even to make a strong closing statement... (I may edit this later...) I really don't feel like continuing this debate much further as it is already growing increasingly recycled. My overall point here isn't that drugs are good, that people should take drugs, or that taking drugs won't cause any problems for you physically, socially, emotionally, or psychologically... My point is that the government doesn't have the right to restrict what you can do with YOUR body as they do not own you.

[ToxicS]

You paint a picture of me as someone who will make baseless claims, with great vigilance, to distort the facts in order to make my argument appear more valid... Firstly, I do not appreciate that. Secondly, it is simply not true. (Granted, it has been a while but...) I believe I'm the only person in this thread to have linked to actual studies performed by government agencies whose job it is to conduct study and to evaluate policy on this issue. I'm not pissing drunken ideas onto the internet based upon any sense of morality, but of the facts that make up the argument. So, this caricaturization of my argument is completely false and is a bit offensive.

As to the "negative social impact" of the legalization on drugs, you really must first define what a negative social impact is. I'm sure that homicide rates is one that we would both agree upon... However, I would say that the restriction of the most basic of civil liberties, the right to the possession of ones one body, is one of the greatest of negative social impacts...

As to domestic issues; I've stated above that addictive behavior is linked genetically. That is demonstrated highly with statistics, but, as I believe I mentioned earlier, there was a recent university study that found an actual genetic link in addiction. Thus, even those who may not be currently using drugs, will undoubtedly be currently exposed to other addictive behaviors/substances. (I.e. tobacco, alcohol, gambling, food, sex, etc...) The dynamic of a family littered with addiction isn't pretty... I know, because I am a part of one and have done a lot of research and had a good bit of education on this matter to better cope with my "disease." Will making drugs legal help the family dynamic of addicts? Absolutely not... It will likely make it increasingly difficult by adding newer layers of addictions to break away from... There is no denying that... However, there is really no legitimate basis to assume that addiction rates would increase along with the legalization of drugs.

It's late and my brain is too tired to continue arguing this at this point or even to make a strong closing statement... (I may edit this later...) I really don't feel like continuing this debate much further as it is already growing increasingly recycled. My overall point here isn't that drugs are good, that people should take drugs, or that taking drugs won't cause any problems for you physically, socially, emotionally, or psychologically... My point is that the government doesn't have the right to restrict what you can do with YOUR body as they do not own you.

My post is a simpler solution .

[WharfRat]

I am very for the use of drugs that have been used since the dawning of our consciousness but only if they are used responsibly. The Native American Church is allowed to administer peyote to their members. Peyote is a hallucinogenic cactus which has been used for atleast 5000 years. It is a 'schedule 1' drug in the US unless your a member of this church. They are able to do so because the courts could not prove that they were endangering themselves or anyone else by participating in these ceremonies. UDV church is able to give their members ayahuasca a hallucinogenic tea which contains the craziest psychedelic known to man - Dimethyltryptamine or DMT. They were able to give their members this tea for the same reason as the Native American Chruch is able to give their members Peyote. They use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to argue their case in court by arguing that they are taking these substances in spiritual context and they are basically a religious sacrament. Now I don't see a difference between general recreational use of these drugs and spiritual other than their set and setting. If people were more educated on how to produce the correct set and setting to get these experiences then there is no difference what so ever. There are still risks associated with these drugs but they are minimized by controlling the right conditions for example there are extreme risks doing 200km/h on a windy road but there is not as much risk doing 50 or 60 km/h on a windy road. That said even the person doing 60km/h cannot stop being endangered by the idiot drifting around the corners at 200km/h and smashing into them. Drugs are the same as driving.

Also the government's policy isn't there because they wish to stop people 'harming' themselves otherwise alcohol and cigarettes would be banned. Cigarettes have very high addiction potential and no medical use therefore they match both of the major qualities to a Schedule 1 substance in the US. Cody was nice enough to do some statistics on drug usage. Notice that illegal drugs were below even prescription drugs! They are NOT all as dangerous as the government makes them out to be. In fact the government's classifications are flawed for some substances particularly hallucinogens. For example LSD and psilocybin (magic mushrooms) are Schedule 1 substances which should mean they are highly addictive and have no medical benefit. If the law makers went over to their medical schools and asked for their advice they'd be told by any decent pharmacologist that both of these substances have no physically addictive qualities, rather the opposite. Then if they go and ask psychologists if they've found any benefits from psychedelics on their patients they'd find again that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that these substances can help with depression if they are taken in the right set and setting. Here is an article straight from John Hopkins that shows that peoples spiritual experiences encountered with a controlled set, setting and dose of magic mushrooms had very beneficial psychological benefits 14 months after the dosage here. There is both the criteria for two hallucinogens being Schedule 1 substances completely blown out of the water. So one must ask what are they trying to hide? Why are they lying about the true classifications of these substances? One problem could be that scientists don't make the laws, instead our money hungry politicians do who don't care about outcomes only votes. Who does the research? Scientists. Who makes the laws on whether these drugs are okay for us to use or not? Politicians, does anyone see the problem here? I'd go a step further and say that you are the only one who should be able to say whether or not you're allowed to ingest a certain substance. Perhaps I don't give politicians enough credit perhaps they are smart enough to go look up medical journals and find that their classifications are wrong, maybe there is a different reason why they so heavily control these substances - to control the ways we think. More on that soon.

Why don't those opposed to the decriminalization of drugs look to the most obvious source of information in regard to proving that decriminalization leads to a worse society - statistics from the countries with a more lax drug policy than your own? Because if they do they'll find that there is naught but good these statistics say about society after drug decriminalisation. Go and find your evidence against drug decriminalization and I assure you that one will find that the evidence is in - the war on drugs has failed. People shouldn't be harassed for smoking a spliff as much as they should be for drinking a beer. In fact I think there should be less harassment but that may just be my personal experience with problem drinkers and how it effects their families. To all you who are against drugs, go have another drink or smoke another cigarette for they do just as much (evidently more) than these 'bad drugs'. For all of those who have alcoholics in their families do you feel as though your mum/dad, brother/sister, aunt/uncle should have been thrown in jail for their alcohol addiction? Well consider your answer next time you hear of a junkie going to prison.

Personally I have smoked marijuana many times (I have cut back recently from smoking every day to every 3 - 4 weeks) and I've taken LSD 3 times tried speed once and will never do it again even if it is decriminalized because I knew from that one time that it was a very dangerous substance which will cause a lot of harm to society if people aren't educated on the topic. I love smoking weed as it helps me think creatively but weed alas has absolutely nothing, almost as if to hold a paddlepop stick to a army of assault rifle wielding soliders, compared to LSD. Every single time I've had it it's shown me things about myself that I would have NEVER known otherwise. It has taught me the relationships between my mind, body and surroundings. It has helped me through problems I was having simply by giving me a new way to think. It puts things into perspective for me. It also has frightened the fuck out of me and made me think I was going insane but to me it was those feelings which taught me the most about myself. You have to give in to the experience to really gain something from it which is why I feel a lot of people have bad experiences because they're trying to control it. Now if you go back to say the hippies their core message was peace and love. As John Lennon famously said 'All we are saying, is give peace a chance'. Now tell me what the fuck is wrong with that? Well in my way of thinking I believe that because you don't want to work anymore, you're happier with a simpler way of life the system doesn't like it because your programmed from a young age with things like; You must have money to be happy, you must do well in school, you must do this, you must do that etc but then you realize the absurdity to it all. Maybe that's the conspiracy theorist coming out in me. Once I suffered what you'd call ego death. I completely lost my identity with the world and at first it scared me a lot but then my friend told me simply to relax and give in so thats what I did. I realized all we are is a spec of conscious awareness on the fabric of the universe and that all our problems that we face day to day are really insignificant and are really of our own creation. All is one. Separateness is only an illusion. It's brought much peace to my life and in many ways I no longer fear death. To be balanced though I know people who've been badly effected by LSD but i'll argue it only brings up what's already within your own consciousness so if you've got schizophrenic genes and don't want to turn out like your relatives stay away from hallucinogens kids!

Peace.

A) +1

B) Paragraphs, motherfucker! Do you use them?!?! *inserts Samuel L. Jackson .gif here*

C) I agree with you almost entirely and can relate on nearly all of those things. I find LSD to be the most fascinating and complex experience that I have ever... well... experienced. (DMT just scares the piss out of me... too much so to actually break through.) In my most recent trips (read: still a long time ago... ) I realized that the LSD wasn't necessary, though. The answer was always inside of me and that the state of mind is attainable at any time... The LSD was a great tool in showing me the other side, but in the end, it does end. The real work must be achieved and not bought or sold for the eternal peace of mind. (blahblahblah, I'll stop with the hippy shit for all of you who aren't Raui. )

D) good to see your face around these parts again!

My post is a simpler solution

yeah... but your post wasn't there as I was writing that. (P.s. you are assuming they'll bother to click the link, let alone to actually read the study! )

[redlion]

Why is there a debate on this? How could one not see the negative aspects if the government legalizes all drugs. Stupid debate is stupid.
You want more of this in society?

I hope you can realize the damage it could do to society.

Violence and criminal rates would surely increase. This isn't just merely a health and social problem...

Why is there a debate? What a stupid rhetorical question. This section, unlike many other sections of this board, requires you to actually back up your opinion, if not with hard evidence, then at least with well reasoned logic. Posting a couple videos googled from 'drug violence' or whatever is not going to change anyone's mind. Nor is using the word 'surely' before a pretentious assumption. L2argue.

Onward!

From Raui's post: "They use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to argue their case in court by arguing that they are taking these substances in spiritual context and they are basically a religious sacrament. Now I don't see a difference between general recreational use of these drugs and spiritual other than their set and setting."

You've hit upon the heart of the matter right there. In an age where secularism, atheism and humanism are on the rise, why should it be the religious that are the most free?

I'm of the opinion that the general public is prohibited from recreational use because it is more profitable for the defense industry to wage a war on drugs than not to. But that's just my crackpot theory. For some reason the Military-Industrial complex is less known these days than in the 1960s.

[Frizzle]

Even though 80% of crime is related to drugs you're completely right./sarcasm

I'm sure we all want little johnny and -insert stereotypical American girls name- snorting coke of a strippers minge.

Drug legalisation is down to common sense.

Legalise weed, decriminalise ecstasy, mandatory imprisonment for class A's. (that's heroin, coke, crack, speed etc).

People do not realise that all drugs affect someone else, their families and friends. At that point it's my job to get involved which makes it affect me. Fuck you drug addicts, I want to go home after a 12 hour shift, not take you to hospital because you forgot your methadone.

[Raui]

Even though 80% of crime is related to drugs you're completely right./sarcasm

I'm sure we all want little johnny and -insert stereotypical American girls name- snorting coke of a strippers minge.

Drug legalisation is down to common sense.

Legalise weed, decriminalise ecstasy, mandatory imprisonment for class A's. (that's heroin, coke, crack, speed etc).

People do not realise that all drugs affect someone else, their families and friends. At that point it's my job to get involved which makes it affect me. Fuck you drug addicts, I want to go home after a 12 hour shift, not take you to hospital because you forgot your methadone.

You might be right in your sarcasm that 80% of crime is related to drugs but I'd say that at least 80% of money used for organised crime would have to come from the proceeds of drugs. I'm not just talking about a petty crook here and there I'm talking the king pins. They have to get their money from somewhere and most wouldn't get it legitimately. I'm sure your job would be made easier if the king pins had less money. I sure know the Mexican drug cartels would be for lack of a better word; fucked.

I don't agree that there should be mandatory imprisonment for class A drugs for two reasons. What's the difference between an alcoholic and a smack addict? What makes one someone we help and the other we stereotype and throw in prison? Yes smack addicts might goto more extremes to get their fix but there wouldn't be that level of extremity if they didn't have to partake in illegal acts in the first place. The second is that the drugs in class A classification mightn't be deserving of this status, I argue this quite heavily for most hallucinogens. Of course there are dangers associated with them but like I said before there is a danger each and every time you operate a motor vehicle. From a statistic I remember it was about 1 in 1000 people that had an adverse reaction to the psychedelics administered in a controlled setting. I'll find the paper tomorrow when I get on my desktop. I'd be interested in the stats of how many motor vehicle operators experience any sort of crash in a year. I'd say that it'd be pretty close to 1 in 1000. So what are they going to do ban driving?

Drugs will only effect other people when those other people let it. For example if you had a parent who is addicted to caffeine do you let it bother you? Not usually because if you're addicted to coffee you can just go down the shop and buy some problem solved. If someone is so badly addicted to caffeine that they get violent in a similar way to a junkie do we treat them like a junkie? No. So what's the difference? Because meth is illegal and caffeine isn't? I sure as hell won't let no suited man tell me what I can and can't put in my body and I would only put something in my body after I've researched it to a fairly big degree (well ever since that meth experience, seriously anyone who wants to try it I highly suggest you don't, I wish I did some research on that before doing it).

Also another point that I feel should be raised is another problem prohibition has caused. Any Aussie out there will have no doubt at least heard about the whole 'chronic' debacle on the news as of late. Basically Chronic is a synthetic cannabis while is sold as a weed alternative. Now while it was still legal I tried some and I would put all the money I'll earn in my life that the active ingredient in Chronic will have worse long term side effects than the real deal. Now it is also illegal and someone will go find another chemical and yet another political cat and mouse game will be played. Krokodil which is a heroine alternative is a bad problem in Russia. It's side effects are so bad that it'll eat your flesh. It's a very sad situation but it's the result purely due to prohibition.

Peace.

[Legault]

I support the legalization of ALL NATURAL drugs. Not any of the lab drugs. Yes, they're all bad for you, but I'm sure you'll die shoving Big Macs down your mouth everyday first apposed to smoking a joint everyday.

[Ziz]

You paint a picture of me as someone who will make baseless claims, with great vigilance, to distort the facts in order to make my argument appear more valid... Firstly, I do not appreciate that. Secondly, it is simply not true. (Granted, it has been a while but...) I believe I'm the only person in this thread to have linked to actual studies performed by government agencies whose job it is to conduct study and to evaluate policy on this issue. I'm not pissing drunken ideas onto the internet based upon any sense of morality, but of the facts that make up the argument. So, this caricaturization of my argument is completely false and is a bit offensive.

Yup, I caricaturized you c:
But I never wanted to paint you as dumb that writes nonsense (actually I really appreciate how you post).
I apologize for being a little rude

yeah... but your post wasn't there as I was writing that. (P.s. you are assuming they'll bother to click the link, let alone to actually read the study! )

Well, now you caricaturized me too, so we're even
I've read completely the most recent posts. I like to read the topic (or at least the first and last 2 pages if it's really long) before posting.

As to the "negative social impact" of the legalization on drugs, you really must first define what a negative social impact is. I'm sure that homicide rates is one that we would both agree upon... However, I would say that the restriction of the most basic of civil liberties, the right to the possession of ones one body, is one of the greatest of negative social impacts...

As to domestic issues; I've stated above that addictive behavior is linked genetically. That is demonstrated highly with statistics, but, as I believe I mentioned earlier, there was a recent university study that found an actual genetic link in addiction. Thus, even those who may not be currently using drugs, will undoubtedly be currently exposed to other addictive behaviors/substances. (I.e. tobacco, alcohol, gambling, food, sex, etc...) The dynamic of a family littered with addiction isn't pretty... I know, because I am a part of one and have done a lot of research and had a good bit of education on this matter to better cope with my "disease." Will making drugs legal help the family dynamic of addicts? Absolutely not... It will likely make it increasingly difficult by adding newer layers of addictions to break away from... There is no denying that... However, there is really no legitimate basis to assume that addiction rates would increase along with the legalization of drugs.

It's late and my brain is too tired to continue arguing this at this point or even to make a strong closing statement... (I may edit this later...) I really don't feel like continuing this debate much further as it is already growing increasingly recycled. My overall point here isn't that drugs are good, that people should take drugs, or that taking drugs won't cause any problems for you physically, socially, emotionally, or psychologically... My point is that the government doesn't have the right to restrict what you can do with YOUR body as they do not own you.

If you've read my previous post, you've known that I'm not blaming drugs as the reasons for those problems, but rather like detonators that makes them worse.
I thing legalization of drugs is great in countries that have fulfilled the people needs, but as I've told before, I don't think it would be that great on a country with a lot of social problems like mine.
Maybe in the U.S. it would be great, as they have nice education levels, nice GDP levels, etc. (I can't really tell about other things because even if I can see statistics I've never lived there).
But in countries like mine... It's completely different.

You may be right about that of free will and no repression from the government, but I don't think it's a nice idea in all the countries.
In countries where more than 50% of the population live in poverty, education isn't guaranteed (although education is free, children have to work for food and stay alive before they can think about studying), unemployment rates are scary, and the government is shit (a lot of corruption), legalization of drugs would open a can of worms.

http://www.google.co...dd931c6f679.5e1

Portugal may not live in a bed of roses, but they are pretty well compared to other countries, so legalization of drugs worked.
In a country with lots of internal problems, it would be a different story...

You might be right in your sarcasm that 80% of crime is related to drugs but I'd say that at least 80% of money used for organised crime would have to come from the proceeds of drugs. I'm not just talking about a petty crook here and there I'm talking the king pins. They have to get their money from somewhere and most wouldn't get it legitimately. I'm sure your job would be made easier if the king pins had less money. I sure know the Mexican drug cartels would be for lack of a better word; fucked.

...

I agree in the most part of your post with you. Also, if they legalize them, every drug should be legalized as well (if you legalize one and not another, drug dealing would continue and other problems caused by considering some drugs illegal).

However, drug dealers won't be fucked just by legalizing drugs.
The kingpins would become world-renowned entrepreneurs, and illegal organizations wouldn't be crushed just that easy.
Drug cartels are not caused by drugs, they are caused by the same rasons that crime is caused. They would only stop dealing with drugs, and move on to sale of organs, human trafficking, etc. ("drug cartels" don't rely only on drug dealing).

So that's why I think that maybe it would work on the U.S., but I prefer people being privatized from that liberty than the problms than the ugly scenaio that could happen on poor countries.

Edited by Ziz, 11 July 2011 - 05:34 PM.

[Donaldmax]

Lol. I'm never going to step my foot in general debate again. You have to research + do more work just for a post. Too much time-consuming efforts. You guys must have nothing else better to do lol. Some of you are writing like essays.... lul

[WharfRat]

Lol. I'm never going to step my foot in general debate again. You have to research + do more work just for a post. Too much time-consuming efforts. You guys must have nothing else better to do lol. Some of you are writing like essays.... lul

Sounds great! Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

[Juturna]

You guys really make big... posts. @.@ In that case, I'm going to shorten my opinion, which was short in the first place. I've read most of the posts, and agree with most of the legalize drugs points.

Yes. Do it. Please. Honestly, I've never met a person who does drugs. (Well at least my awareness that they did it. Of course I've met somebody who's done them, but you get the point) But, imho, there's a better way to get people to stop using them than to illegalize them. I know there's a lot of factors in why people use drugs, and it's very complicated, but trying to scare people away from them with 'your life will be ruined' and 'your skeleton will lie in the prison forever' really doesn't help. Sure, it stops scaredy cat idiots like me from doing anything, but those without that fear, are not even going to pay attention to attention it, and do it anyways.

Although I really really like the law, and the effect Portugal put in, not legalizing them, but not straight out punishing them either.

This was probably really stupid for a debate post. Feel free to ignore this.

[necospes]

and yet you would never see this statement on a thread titled "pedophilia should be legalized"
fact is, not all lifestyle choices are acceptable in every society.

Let me clarify myself. When I say lifestyle choice, I mean personal decisions that do not affect anyone else but yourself. Sure, being a stonehead is not acceptable in society, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Social norms is not and should not be the law.

As a side note: pedophilia is legal. You can be a pedophile all you want as long you don't act on it.

The fundamental difference between having sex with a kid and smoking pot is that smoking pot never hurt anyone other than the pot smoker. Your extension of my argument to having sex with a kid is flawed.

Lol. I'm never going to step my foot in general debate again. You have to research + do more work just for a post. Too much time-consuming efforts. You guys must have nothing else better to do lol. Some of you are writing like essays.... lul

What? You need to do research in order to make an argument? That is ridiculous. You should be able to debate in ignorance and misinformation! Why are facts important anyways?

Edited by necospes, 12 July 2011 - 07:13 PM.

[Ziz]

You guys really make big... posts. @.@ In that case, I'm going to shorten my opinion, which was short in the first place. I've read most of the posts, and agree with most of the legalize drugs points.

Yes. Do it. Please. Honestly, I've never met a person who does drugs. (Well at least my awareness that they did it. Of course I've met somebody who's done them, but you get the point) But, imho, there's a better way to get people to stop using them than to illegalize them. I know there's a lot of factors in why people use drugs, and it's very complicated, but trying to scare people away from them with 'your life will be ruined' and 'your skeleton will lie in the prison forever' really doesn't help. Sure, it stops scaredy cat idiots like me from doing anything, but those without that fear, are not even going to pay attention to attention it, and do it anyways.

Although I really really like the law, and the effect Portugal put in, not legalizing them, but not straight out punishing them either.

This was probably really stupid for a debate post. Feel free to ignore this.

This post meet the basic requirements. What makes people rage on serious debate forums is posting something like one-liners or just opinions that you get out fom yourself without any other fundamnts (they can be information sources or even well thought logic can suffice).


You're right. Forbiding something and making it a taboo to prevent it is just stupid.
What they shuld do is infoming people, but not trying to scare them, but so that they can do it with responsability.
Forbiding them causes more prblems making it harder to help addicts and causing peopl to reject them like if they wer criminals.

Drugs should be legalized (but not in counties where a lot of people doesn't have access to the education because that people wouldn't consume them with responsability).

[Frizzle]

Let me clarify myself. When I say lifestyle choice, I mean personal decisions that do not affect anyone else but yourself. Sure, being a stonehead is not acceptable in society, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Social norms is not and should not be the law.

As a side note: pedophilia is legal. You can be a pedophile all you want as long you don't act on it.

The fundamental difference between having sex with a kid and smoking pot is that smoking pot never hurt anyone other than the pot smoker. Your extension of my argument to having sex with a kid is flawed.

The thing is, drug useage will eventually affect people. This can be as basic as drug abuse affects the body; you will become a strain to national resources, friends, family and your career. The well devoloped drug users will eventually succumb to drug addiction and become an empty shell of their former selves. Put it this way, you can end up injecting heroin into your body at 3PM in a busy supermarker toilet. This of course only refers to class A/Hardcore drugs as I've already mentioned my views on drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy.

Also, basic definition of UK/English law states the completion of the mens rea (intent) is enough for the offence to be committed. Proving in court is another story.

[Donaldmax]

What? You need to do research in order to make an argument? That is ridiculous. You should be able to debate in ignorance and misinformation! Why are facts important anyways?

Yeah bro, tried that. Ain't going to work on this forum. All you get is bash and even more bash.

[redlion]

The thing is, drug useage will eventually affect people.

Sure. But you are mistaken in assuming that this will necessarily be a bad thing. When I took LSD for the first time it affected me, and it affected the next ten people I talked to as well, because all I could do was recommend it to them. That drug changed my life, and I've never become addicted to it. In fact, I've only used it four times in five years.

Yeah bro, tried that. Ain't going to work on this forum. All you get is bash and even more bash.

Do you know what sarcasm is? You should become acquainted with the various forms of sarcasm before coming back. Obviously you didn't pick up on the fact that he was poking fun at you.

This is the Debate section where we hold debates about facts and policy. The recent batch of idiot-proof topics notwithstanding *cough*coffeevtea*cough* we generally hold ourselves to a higher degree of intellectual honesty here than on other subforums of codex.

[necospes]

The thing is, drug useage will eventually affect people. This can be as basic as drug abuse affects the body; you will become a strain to national resources, friends, family and your career. The well devoloped drug users will eventually succumb to drug addiction and become an empty shell of their former selves. Put it this way, you can end up injecting heroin into your body at 3PM in a busy supermarker toilet. This of course only refers to class A/Hardcore drugs as I've already mentioned my views on drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy.

Also, basic definition of UK/English law states the completion of the mens rea (intent) is enough for the offence to be committed. Proving in court is another story.

I was really thinking of marijuana when I wrote that. I think I only support the legalization of the lighter drugs like pot.

For the hardcore drugs, I agree with you. Hardcore drugs also just destroy your brain. This ex-heroin addict was telling people about how he didn't feel happy anymore. He explained that the pure happiness he felt from heroin kinda just destroyed his ability to feel happy now. I believe it should be illegal to destroy your brain like that, but the current war on drugs is failing. Instead, we need to adopt Portugal's strategy of decriminalization and sending people to rehab, not jail. After ten years of decriminalization, Portugal's addictions rates have dropped. Who knows if decriminalization is the direct cause, but it's a better shot than our current sinkhole of a draconian attitude towards drugs abuse.

[Frizzle]

Sure. But you are mistaken in assuming that this will necessarily be a bad thing. When I took LSD for the first time it affected me, and it affected the next ten people I talked to as well, because all I could do was recommend it to them. That drug changed my life, and I've never become addicted to it. In fact, I've only used it four times in five years.


Do you know what sarcasm is? You should become acquainted with the various forms of sarcasm before coming back. Obviously you didn't pick up on the fact that he was poking fun at you.

This is the Debate section where we hold debates about facts and policy. The recent batch of idiot-proof topics notwithstanding *cough*coffeevtea*cough* we generally hold ourselves to a higher degree of intellectual honesty here than on other subforums of codex.

Read again paddy, I was talking about more serious drugs. If you want to waste your time on acid, go for it. Just don't play in traffic.

Sure. But you are mistaken in assuming that this will necessarily be a bad thing. When I took LSD for the first time it affected me, and it affected the next ten people I talked to as well, because all I could do was recommend it to them. That drug changed my life, and I've never become addicted to it. In fact, I've only used it four times in five years.


Do you know what sarcasm is? You should become acquainted with the various forms of sarcasm before coming back. Obviously you didn't pick up on the fact that he was poking fun at you.

This is the Debate section where we hold debates about facts and policy. The recent batch of idiot-proof topics notwithstanding *cough*coffeevtea*cough* we generally hold ourselves to a higher degree of intellectual honesty here than on other subforums of codex.

Read again paddy, I was talking about more serious drugs. If you want to waste your time on acid, go for it. Just don't play in traffic.

[redlion]

Read again paddy, I was talking about more serious drugs. If you want to waste your time on acid, go for it. Just don't play in traffic.

Hey, they're all Schedule I. I'm just pointing out that almost any drug can be used responsibly. If you want another example, your country is one of the few in the world that prescribes heroin (as diamorphine) through doctors. Although that's Schedule I as well.

[Raui]

Slightly off-topic but just a question to Lee regarding law enforcement/acid. How often do you have to deal with people who have genuinely been negatively effected by lsd? Not people who freak out a little bit and by the next day are fine but people who it effects negatively on the long term. I know you probably wouldn't see it like someone in the medical field would but I'm still curious.

Peace.

[MarvelGirl]

At least weed. Geez.

[Ellipses]

I don't really have a strong opinion toward legalizing drugs or continuing prohibiting drugs.

As far as tobacco is concerned, the government does have a small incentive to allow cigarettes to be sold. People who smoke cigarettes generally die younger and quicker. This saves money from medicare and such.

People say that we will eliminate drug dealers if we legalize drugs. Yes, I can believe that. However, drug dealers are criminals. Just because they can't sell drugs anymore doesn't mean they'll try to get a job. More likely, I see it that they will commit other crimes for the money. Perhaps even resort to violent crimes - desperate times call for desperate measures.

I think most people think drug usage causes a negative social impact. If we legalize/regulate the drugs out today. We can expect the price of drugs to go down and usage of drugs to increase. Since usage of drug increases, it might be reasonable to think more families would be broken and such because of addiction. Despite this, addiction can be tied to genetic factors by some studies - of course the amount of usage by the individual should definitely be a factor too. Those who would be addicted to LSD/Meth would likely try other drugs and likely be addicted to other drugs even if government didn't legalize it. Individuals should be blame for poor family sttucture/bad morals/bad parenting/abuse/whatever. Not drugs. It is the individual who chooses to use drugs. If there was a spectrum of blame for these problems to place on both the individual and drugs. It should fall mostly on the individual side and slightly on the drug side.

Legalizing drugs can generate much needed tax revenue. However, like I said, I'm kind of undecided on this issue. I'm not too sure if an increase in crime in other areas/increase in usage of drug is worth benefits.