Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

All Drugs Should be Legalized


  • Please log in to reply
223 replies to this topic

#51 frostz

frostz
  • 594 posts

Posted 16 May 2011 - 08:59 AM

if people are going to get high why not get some of the benefits, jobs from distribution, creating the drugs, not only that but tax money to try and help bail this sinking country out of debt. illegal drugs will still be out there, but doing it legally would be pulling some people away from the illegal market. Make them drop the price on their products, less profit in it for them. True the underage market will still exist but crackdowns on it could help to solve that problem.


maybe because drugs are generally bad for you, and decrease productivity. See China and the whole opium thing. Drugs are not only bad for the individual but it destroys the country.

We don't need the people who arn't doing them because they are afraid of breaking the law to suddenly start trying drugs because it has been legalized

#52 Surrico

Surrico
  • 51 posts

Posted 16 May 2011 - 09:03 AM

maybe because drugs are generally bad for you, and decrease productivity. See China and the whole opium thing. Drugs are not only bad for the individual but it destroys the country.

We don't need the people who arn't doing them because they are afraid of breaking the law to suddenly start trying drugs because it has been legalized


Legally or illegally people will do drugs. But as long as them doing drugs isn't going to hurt someone else why not let them and tax them on it while they do it?

And people that Are afraid to do them because it's illegal more than likely won't go after the harder drugs.

#53 frostz

frostz
  • 594 posts

Posted 16 May 2011 - 09:10 AM

Legally or illegally people will do drugs. But as long as them doing drugs isn't going to hurt someone else why not let them and tax them on it while they do it?

And people that Are afraid to do them because it's illegal more than likely won't go after the harder drugs.


not only will the people who are afraid of breaking the law do drugs but others will get hooked on drugs because they are suddenly readily available and they no longer have to go through back channels to get their hands on them.

Meaning that if drugs are suddenly available over the counter, then people who would never have touched drugs for w/e reasons such as the law, don't have a contact, never heard of it might suddenly try it and get hooked.

This is why drugs should never be legalized in any country, and again i reiterate the effects of opium upon China in the 19th century. Obviously the drug opium was legal for a time, but the country eventually recognized how much it was harming the citizens leading to prohibition but by then it was too late.

#54 Surrico

Surrico
  • 51 posts

Posted 16 May 2011 - 09:15 AM

I'm not talking about recreational drugs becoming an OTC (over the counter). I'm talking about drugs being sold from specialized pharmacies more or less. Ones that are meant, built and managed to specifically handle druggies, addicts, and those that just want to buy for recreational use. I mean for drugs to become a controlled substance that can be bought without a prescription.

True drugs can make you lazy, but if it's a way for you to relax after a day of work why not let them?

We legalize drugs we could also cut down on the amount of deaths from drug overdoses.

#55 frostz

frostz
  • 594 posts

Posted 16 May 2011 - 09:22 AM

I'm not talking about recreational drugs becoming an OTC (over the counter). I'm talking about drugs being sold from specialized pharmacies more or less. Ones that are meant, built and managed to specifically handle druggies, addicts, and those that just want to buy for recreational use. I mean for drugs to become a controlled substance that can be bought without a prescription.

True drugs can make you lazy, but if it's a way for you to relax after a day of work why not let them?

We legalize drugs we could also cut down on the amount of deaths from drug overdoses.


because drugs cause addiction, i know some people who smoke weed, and they do it all the time, whether or not they have work to do they will find an excuse to smoke. And the argument about how weed doesnt cause true addiction is ridiculous. If people have something that will make them feel good and only that thing can produce the effect, then they will obviously want more of it, hence addiction. It doesnt have to be a biological chemically induced addiction but an addiction is an addiction, just like how one can be addicted to a video game.

Secondly you just contradicted yourself. If you are not talking about recreational drugs becoming OTC then why would these specialized pharmacies sell recreational drugs without a prescription. How is it controlled if i can just walk in without a prescription and ask for (insert drug here)?

and finally what does drug overdose have anything to do with legalizing drugs, if anything you would have more deaths from drug overdose simply from the fact that there will be an increase number of people using drugs. Legalized drugs does not mean drug education nor does it mean more self control

Edited by frostz, 16 May 2011 - 09:25 AM.


#56 Surrico

Surrico
  • 51 posts

Posted 16 May 2011 - 09:31 AM

If recreational drugs were over the counter then someone could walk in, buy 500 lbs of weed and walk out. What I mean is a limitation on how much one can buy to control doses. If the amount that they are given doesn't get them high anymore than I see two possible outcomes, one, they stop using for a while, let their resistance to the drug lower, or two, they seek an alternate mean of getting the drug. And how to stop someone from going in one pharmacy and going into another to buy drugs? Create a computer system that requires a state ID to buy it, simply scan the ID and see how long it's been since they last bought what drug.

#57 frostz

frostz
  • 594 posts

Posted 16 May 2011 - 09:34 AM

If recreational drugs were over the counter then someone could walk in, buy 500 lbs of weed and walk out. What I mean is a limitation on how much one can buy to control doses. If the amount that they are given doesn't get them high anymore than I see two possible outcomes, one, they stop using for a while, let their resistance to the drug lower, or two, they seek an alternate mean of getting the drug. And how to stop someone from going in one pharmacy and going into another to buy drugs? Create a computer system that requires a state ID to buy it, simply scan the ID and see how long it's been since they last bought what drug.


Then you would get people selling drugs illegally for those who want to bypass the pharmacies...meaning that illegal sale of drugs would still be there, except now its worse because more people are getting addicted due to the newfound ease of getting into it thus illegal drug sale will actually increase.

#58 Surrico

Surrico
  • 51 posts

Posted 16 May 2011 - 09:46 AM

Then you would get people selling drugs illegally for those who want to bypass the pharmacies...meaning that illegal sale of drugs would still be there, except now its worse because more people are getting addicted due to the newfound ease of getting into it thus illegal drug sale will actually increase.


We already have people selling drugs illegally to bypass the laws. I never said that this would end illegal sales. And no I don't see more people getting addicted to drugs. Why? Because I don't see them getting it often enough to form a serious habit out of it. If they could buy it every hour then yes I could see people getting addicted and then eventually going through illegal means to obtain them. But regulating how much and how often people can buy it would be a safe way to handle addiction. Just because I like to have a beer with the occasional meal doesn't make me an alcoholic. Just because I smoke after a meal or before bed doesn't mean I'm a chain smoker. It just means I partake in these because it's a way to relax. If I had a beer or smoke during a stressful time then I would be worried about becoming addicted because I would be using it as a crutch to get through a situation.

#59 frostz

frostz
  • 594 posts

Posted 16 May 2011 - 10:03 AM

We already have people selling drugs illegally to bypass the laws. I never said that this would end illegal sales. And no I don't see more people getting addicted to drugs. Why? Because I don't see them getting it often enough to form a serious habit out of it. If they could buy it every hour then yes I could see people getting addicted and then eventually going through illegal means to obtain them. But regulating how much and how often people can buy it would be a safe way to handle addiction. Just because I like to have a beer with the occasional meal doesn't make me an alcoholic. Just because I smoke after a meal or before bed doesn't mean I'm a chain smoker. It just means I partake in these because it's a way to relax. If I had a beer or smoke during a stressful time then I would be worried about becoming addicted because I would be using it as a crutch to get through a situation.


just because you as an individual have self control does not mean that everyone else does as well. There are plenty of alcoholics and drug addicts out there, and the increase of drug users that come about as a direct result of the ease of entry due to legalization will also mean that there will also be a number of "addicts" drawn from this new population of drug users who will be abusing it. Addicts who would have otherwise not come into contact with these substances had drugs not been legalized.

#60 Surrico

Surrico
  • 51 posts

Posted 16 May 2011 - 10:20 AM

just because you as an individual have self control does not mean that everyone else does as well. There are plenty of alcoholics and drug addicts out there, and the increase of drug users that come about as a direct result of the ease of entry due to legalization will also mean that there will also be a number of "addicts" drawn from this new population of drug users who will be abusing it. Addicts who would have otherwise not come into contact with these substances had drugs not been legalized.


But if they are really addicts then what is stopping them from getting addicted to cigs or alcohol? I won't lie, I am addicted to video games, and I am working on stopping that. But I'm not jumping to something else and become addicted to it. My point is those who do have self control, which I believe to be the majority, won't become addicted. Yes having an open shop like this of drugs will bear some addicts, just like openly selling cigs or beer will create chain smokers and alcoholics.

#61 Abradix

Abradix
  • 769 posts

Posted 16 May 2011 - 04:01 PM

First off, good on ya for getting off the junk CodyRat.

Secondly, to Mel... I can see where you're coming from about PCP vs meth, but I haven't tried meth and don't ever plan to. LSD has also left me feeling empty after the trip, whats the commonality? They're all man made.

Natural drugs are the answer, laws and regulation and paper dragons are not. People should be able to choose their own fate and a community should be able to take care of itself. Perhaps humanity really has permanently branched off into a narcissist semi-society where we constantly put ourselves first and forsake our neighbors constantly... But maybe its not too late.

#62 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 May 2011 - 06:28 PM

Actually his post does make a good bit of sense. Frizzle is a London Police Officer and I'm sure has seen it first hand. That's one big downfall of negligent parenting and drugs... A 5 y/o is likely not to overdose on alcohol as the taste is incredibly off-putting.

Wait a second Lee! You almost fooled even me! Heroin has an incredibly low oral bioavailability! Something like in the single digits! That's why they don't really offer diamorphine (short for diacetylmorphine or heroin) in tablet form... I'm not suggesting that it is impossible by any means... but humans rarely die from an oral overdose of heroin (with the exception of mules carrying waaayyy too much inside of them). So yes, I do suppose it is possible that a child may die from a heroin overdose... but it's very, very unlikely.

If you were to make the same statement about something like cocaine or methamphetamine, I would agree with you. Children swallowing a bag of powder or the like could definitely be fatal.


Then my point still stands in the sense that legalisation of all drugs will result in fatalities.

#63 frostz

frostz
  • 594 posts

Posted 16 May 2011 - 07:03 PM

But if they are really addicts then what is stopping them from getting addicted to cigs or alcohol? I won't lie, I am addicted to video games, and I am working on stopping that. But I'm not jumping to something else and become addicted to it. My point is those who do have self control, which I believe to be the majority, won't become addicted. Yes having an open shop like this of drugs will bear some addicts, just like openly selling cigs or beer will create chain smokers and alcoholics.


Because a lot of drugs are much much more harmful than alcohol and cigs will ever be. Its already bad enough that people are getting addicted to Cigs and alcohol so honestly we do not need something worse readily available on the market.

#64 WharfRat

WharfRat
  • 11,157 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 May 2011 - 12:26 PM

Then my point still stands in the sense that legalisation of all drugs will result in fatalities.

Your point is still based upon an assumption that if hard drugs were legal, more people would do them and be negligent parents and leave drugs in places that are easily reached by five year old children. I dunno about you, but even if heroin was legal, I wouldn't be doing it. ;)

To the rest of you spammy fucks above; First to frostz, your arguments are so flawed at their very premise. First, the legalization of marijuana doesn't actually mean it would be more readily available for children/teens. A study was done by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy that showed that for all age category of students polled, marijuana was much more easily accessible than was alcohol. That should make it blatantly clear that age restrictions and legal measures are more effective than allowing the black market to dictate trade to minors.

My second point to yours was you said something about kids in high school are the most likely to start using drugs right now. A) I'd like to see some statistical evidence for such a claim. I believe that this "fact" is simply an anecdote due to your age. As a recovering drug addict, I've met and spent a lot of time with drug addicts. Logically, yes, people will START using drugs at an earlier age than a later age... that only makes sense. However, I think that university is actually when most people begin to smoke marijuana/binge drink/etc as they begin to have more freedom away from the control of their parents. I do not have any statistical evidence to prove this point (though I'm sure it is somewhere), however, I believe that even comparing our two anecdotal experiences, one could see that my conclusion would appear more valid.

I honestly didn't read anything past that post about high schoolers as the face palming was too much for me to handle.


Wharf Rat

#65 frostz

frostz
  • 594 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 01:03 PM

you are trying to quote me out of context
Secondly reading the entirety of the thread and using quotations help when you are trying to prove a point because i honestly have no idea what you are trying to say considering that most of my posts are about the addictive nature of drugs and how legalizing them will make it easier for the majority of the population to get.

Who is actually spamming now, when you arnt keeping up with the direction in which the debate is going and are still going on about whatever it is you posted 2 pages ago.

#66 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 May 2011 - 01:16 PM

Your point is still based upon an assumption that if hard drugs were legal, more people would do them and be negligent parents and leave drugs in places that are easily reached by five year old children. I dunno about you, but even if heroin was legal, I wouldn't be doing it. ;)


Not an assumption, that's based on fact. If something is legalised (notice the s) and given the green light from the government then the usage will increase. No-one plans to use heroin, do you think teenagers start on heroin?

#67 frostz

frostz
  • 594 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 01:20 PM

Not an assumption, that's based on fact. If something is legalised (notice the s) and given the green light from the government then the usage will increase. No-one plans to use heroin, do you think teenagers start on heroin?


Thats exactly what i was trying to point out, and a certain somebody would know this if they read my posts properly. I was saying that people who are reluctant to use drugs because of it being illegal will start using them when they become legalized thus increasing the number of drug users in the country.

#68 WharfRat

WharfRat
  • 11,157 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 May 2011 - 01:40 PM

Despite that arguing with you is appearing to be an exercise in futility; I must be a bit of a masochist. I will now quote your posts and then exactly what I said above here to make things a little more clear for you as you seem to have forgotten what you have said.

You said:

how would this be any different from it is now, considering that many people who start using drugs are in high school. they would still be obtaining it illegally and thus the market for illegal drugs would still exist.


I said:

. First, the legalization of marijuana doesn't actually mean it would be more readily available for children/teens. A study was done by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy that showed that for all age category of students polled, marijuana was much more easily accessible than was alcohol. That should make it blatantly clear that age restrictions and legal measures are more effective than allowing the black market to dictate trade to minors.



That single quote of yours was what my entire response was in reference to. Just because I have a few extra minutes of time, I'll dispute a few of the other falsehoods that you proclaim.

Because a lot of drugs are much much more harmful than alcohol and cigs will ever be. Its already bad enough that people are getting addicted to Cigs and alcohol so honestly we do not need something worse readily available on the market.


Annual causes of death in the United States:

Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol induced 23,199
Microbial Agents 75,000
Poisoning 40,059
Motor Vehicle Crashes 42,031
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 34,598
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Drugs Including Prescription and OTC 21,000
Homicide 18,361
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) 11,295
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0

It certainly doesn't appear that drugs (in particular marijuana) are worse for you than Tobacco or Alcohol as you stated above.

Moving right along, by your own admission you stated:

the above poster said that it would only be sold to people of a certain age.

so the market for those group of people would still exist.

besides a lot of people grow weed themselves and sell it to other people, its still gona go around easily.

So you are on record saying that drugs are still going to be around regardless of them being illegal or not. Logically, the only reason they would still be around is because people are choosing to use them and hence the demand. So from your own version of reality, the thing that changes circumstantially to the legalization of marijuana isn't the demand or the use, but instead you'd prefer to see people who you claim are addicted,(Skip to next paragraph to finish this sentence)(See your claim here:

because drugs cause addiction, i know some people who smoke weed, and they do it all the time, whether or not they have work to do they will find an excuse to smoke. And the argument about how weed doesnt cause true addiction is ridiculous. If people have something that will make them feel good and only that thing can produce the effect, then they will obviously want more of it, hence addiction. It doesnt have to be a biological chemically induced addiction but an addiction is an addiction, just like how one can be addicted to a video game.

[Side note to comment on this line in particular: " And the argument about how weed doesnt cause true addiction is ridiculous. If people have something that will make them feel good and only that thing can produce the effect, then they will obviously want more of it, hence addiction. It doesnt have to be a biological chemically induced addiction but an addiction is an addiction, just like how one can be addicted to a video game." What do you think an addiction to a video game is then if it is not a biochemical dependency? Addiction by it's very nature is derived from the need of the person be it psychologically or physically. Both forms of addiction are caused through a biochemical link to the act at hand and the feeling of pleasure.]

go to jail for their addiction than for it to be treated as a medical issue over a criminal one. (sorry that point got a bit abstract and distracted from having to correct all of your other factual inaccuracies.)

and finally, the last thing I have time to correct you on.

and finally what does drug overdose have anything to do with legalizing drugs, if anything you would have more deaths from drug overdose simply from the fact that there will be an increase number of people using drugs. Legalized drugs does not mean drug education nor does it mean more self control

False. Let's take heroin as a prime example. (As most illicit drug overdoses are attributed to heroin, I think it is a fair drug to bring forth to the table.) The reason for heroin overdoses isn't caused from some lack of self control as you seem to imply. The problem exists due to varying potency of heroin from one dealer to the next; one batch to the next. They do the same one bag shot they always do but this time the purity is 21% instead of 12% and they overdose. Through legalization, heroin would be a regulated product sold at a pharmaceutical grade purity. Much like any other medication, it could come in prepackaged doses and come included with plenty of information about proper dosing. Also to your last point, I think the whole premise of legalizing drugs comes implicit with further drug education and treatment facilities instead of prisons and criminals. ;)

There you are. I posted a long post including tons of quotations and in the post before that I cited a study done by a government body on the matter. All you've contributed to this thread is a series of useless, factless opinions that may amount in totality to half the size of this single post.


Wharf Rat


Second post that was added after the one above to respond to Lee. --------

Not an assumption, that's based on fact. If something is legalised (notice the s) and given the green light from the government then the usage will increase. No-one plans to use heroin, do you think teenagers start on heroin?

I lol'ed at your pointing out the British spelling to me. :p No, I don't think most people plan on starting out on heroin... (Though I'm sure it does happen. Before I ever had a cigarette, a drop of alcohol, or any marijuana, I was doing cocaine; my first drug that I actively sought to find.) but I also don't think that people just accidentally end up doing heroin either. I think this theory of gateway drugs that you are pulling from is inherently flawed. (The, "ask any drug addict what the first drug they ever did was and they will all tell you it was marijuana" thing) The same could be applied to alcohol, tobacco, or paracetamol (look at me throwing in British shit for you. :p)

p.s. frostz, err.. I mean, a certain somebody, see my long post above. :)

#69 frostz

frostz
  • 594 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 01:53 PM

your argument is great and convincing, but only if we are saying that drugs are harmful from the point of view of number of deaths. But what about the other symptoms of drug abuse that do not lead to death, and the effect that a drug addict has upon the rest of their families and friends.

As a past drug addict are you saying that it is a good thing for drugs to be legalized, the fact that you decided to quit means you realized that it was bad for you.

I would post an analysis on your other points except that i am not posting from home right now and cant actually do that yet.

Edited by frostz, 17 May 2011 - 01:53 PM.


#70 Brennon

Brennon
  • 929 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 May 2011 - 02:00 PM

Case and point: fat naked lady tweeking on PCP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKM1UD4ZPTg

Edit:
Won't embed
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=iKM1UD4ZPTg

I lol'd

#71 frostz

frostz
  • 594 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 02:07 PM

I lol'd


Even though i am going off topic i would like to point out the hypocrisy of the guy who began spam accusations against me saying that my posts are completely meaningless and then goes on to posting a single word that is irrelevant to the topic in the debate section.

Forgive my inability to resist the urge to point this out.

#72 WharfRat

WharfRat
  • 11,157 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 May 2011 - 02:11 PM

your argument is great and convincing, but only if we are saying that drugs are harmful from the point of view of number of deaths. But what about the other symptoms of drug abuse that do not lead to death, and the effect that a drug addict has upon the rest of their families and friends.

As a past drug addict are you saying that it is a good thing for drugs to be legalized, the fact that you decided to quit means you realized that it was bad for you.

I would post an analysis on your other points except that i am not posting from home right now and cant actually do that yet.

What about the symptoms of having your mother or father incarcerated for your entire life? What about your son or daughter? Brother or sister? Incarcerated because they have a disease of addiction.

You make the claim that drugs must stay illegal as we already have horrible addictions to alcohol and cigarettes. Although the evidence is in the preliminary stages, it has long been believed (and a study recently out of (I believe) the University of Iowa showed a direct DNA link to addiction) that the disease of addiction is one largely of genetics. You can look up the statistics, but the odds of a child being an addict are drastically higher if one parents is an addict and ridiculously high if both are. Yes, some people who are addicts do stay away from drugs, but they are what you call alcoholics. My argument here is that people who will be addicts are already predetermined and that we wouldn't realistically see a spike in addiction rates. Instead, we could be focusing on teaching the true dangers (read: not fear-mongering) of alcohol and drugs and providing treatment for those who do suffer from addiction instead of placing them into prisons where, in America, the recidivism rate is outrageous.

As to me personally being a drug addict; Yes. I did recognize that I was destroying my life through my substance abuse. In my journey, I have met countless people who could use drugs socially. (Much like I've met tons of people who can drink socially, a behavior that I cannot fathom.) Essentially, as you saw in the other thread, I believe in freedom and sovereignty over ones own body. I believe that adage goes "everything in moderation." Those are words that an addict simply cannot understand... if it feels good, I must have as much as I can humanly take. The majority of people do have the ability to ration and moderate their consumption of things that are bad for them. (Like fatty foods for example.) I don't believe that just because I cannot control my desires that someone who can should not be allowed the freedom to choose so if they would like.

I apologize for being a bit... antagonistic above. I've had a really long few days and I kind of took it out on you a bit... and for that, I do apologize. I still think that you are largely wrong and your arguments are mostly inaccurate... but I still feel I should apologize as I shouldn't have been so antagonistic. :p

Cody

Even though i am going off topic i would like to point out the hypocrisy of the guy who began spam accusations against me saying that my posts are completely meaningless and then goes on to posting a single word that is irrelevant to the topic in the debate section.

Forgive my inability to resist the urge to point this out.

p.s. it was me who accused you of being a bit spammy... not Brennon. (Who is without a doubt spammy.)

#73 Melchoire

Melchoire
  • 5,284 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 May 2011 - 02:31 PM

First off, good on ya for getting off the junk CodyRat.

Secondly, to Mel... I can see where you're coming from about PCP vs meth, but I haven't tried meth and don't ever plan to. LSD has also left me feeling empty after the trip, whats the commonality? They're all man made.

Natural drugs are the answer, laws and regulation and paper dragons are not. People should be able to choose their own fate and a community should be able to take care of itself. Perhaps humanity really has permanently branched off into a narcissist semi-society where we constantly put ourselves first and forsake our neighbors constantly... But maybe its not too late.


"Natural" is a very broad term. LSD for example, is synthesized from LSA which is found in plants. Heroin is synthesized from opium.

I was just pointing out, in the case of PCP, that the public are not as "stupid" and pleasure/instinct driven as you might think. Legalizing a drug will not cause a significant increase in it's usage or fatalities.

I lol'd


Ever heard of Big Lurch?

Antron Singleton (born September 15, 1976), better known by his stage name Big Lurch, is an American rapper. He is serving a life sentence for murdering 21-year-old female roommate Tynisha Ysais and eating parts of her body while under the influence of PCP in April 2002.



#74 frostz

frostz
  • 594 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 02:32 PM

Even if someone is genetically pre-disposed to addiction, if they never come into contact with the substance then they will never develop the problem see? if drugs became over the counter as was being argued above, then some of these people might waltz into one of these pharmacies and try the drug simply because it is there, or because they read about it on the internet.

I am saying that legalizing drugs will make it easier to come by, whereas keeping it illegal will make it so that people are forced to go through channels to get them.

And either way, a drug addicts family will have to deal with the consequences of the individual's drug addiction

Freedom has its consequences of course, if an individual had the freedom of trying a drug, and they decided to try it once just to know what it feels like and it produced a feeling that cant be replicated through other means, would it not be incorrect to say that they would be extremely tempted to continue to take the drug hence addiction?

#75 Nunc

Nunc
  • 443 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 02:36 PM

All poisons should be legalized.

Seriously, they should be. It should not be the government's business to tell you what you can and cannot put into your body. I don't like the idea that if I am caught taking a swig of illegal poison walking down the street minding my own business a police officer can quite literally choose to rip me from society and lock me in a cage with the murders and rapists of the world. Thats what criminalization of substances does, it creates nothing but criminals (at the expense of the tax payer mind you!) Non violent poison offenders, to me, are not criminals. They are just people who made the decision to consume a poisonous substance and experience and altered state of death.

The bottom line is that poison use is not a CRIMINAL problem but a SOCIAL and HEALTH problem.

:rolleyes:

Edited by Nunc, 17 May 2011 - 02:36 PM.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users