Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

All Drugs Should be Legalized


  • Please log in to reply
223 replies to this topic

#176 frostz

frostz
  • 594 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 01:54 AM

I don't think legalizing drugs would cause a huge problem in society. If they were, I feel that people might have easier access to them, but the reasons for not doing them would basically be the same. It's tough to say though, without a good model to really analyze


umm post number 150 on page 6 provides a model for you to analyze. Stats were given about drug usage in the United States and in the Netherlands in which drugs were legalized.

Netherlands have a lower rate of drug use than the United States, which although does not provide enough proof to "tell the future" in the United States if drugs were to be legalized, it still nevertheless shows that there could probably be some correlation between drug usage and legalization.

#177 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 May 2011 - 05:00 AM

Drugs aren't legal in the Netherlands. You're wrong. Infact the Dutch are notoriously tough on hard drugs.

#178 frostz

frostz
  • 594 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 05:20 AM

Drugs aren't legal in the Netherlands. You're wrong. Infact the Dutch are notoriously tough on hard drugs.


i'm sorry if i didn't specify

The most scientific approach I can come up with is to look at the crime and drug usage rates of countries that have decriminalized soft drugs such as the Netherlands.


i guess "legalized isnt the correct term to use"

but the stats show that the Netherlands with "decriminalized soft drugs" have a lower percentage of drug users than the United States

#179 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 May 2011 - 07:54 AM

That's because there's over 300 million people in the US which is more than the whole of Europe let alone a tiny country.

#180 frostz

frostz
  • 594 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 08:14 AM

That's because there's over 300 million people in the US which is more than the whole of Europe let alone a tiny country.


I already mentioned this in my previous post where i took the inaccuracies of the statistics into account from which i quote

<br style="mso-special-character:line-break">
Ok so i read the whole thing, and while i am still skeptical on the effects of legalization, the example of prohibition seems to tie closely enough with drugs to convince me of your argument for the most part. I am aware that drugs are often cut with other substances, and yea sure you would probably make the whole thing safer should drugs be legalized for people who already do drugs.

I remain on my point that keeping drugs illegal will still protect a few who would not have access to drugs, but honestly i don't have numbers of just how much of the population this makes up. Maybe it isnt a significant enough number to make it so that it balances out the benefits of legalizing drugs? If we are looking it from a purely numerical perspective and not from the matter of principle (which as you say is probably pretty worthless) then yea i could be completely wrong.

As far as the percentages of decriminalized drug use in Netherlands, vs the United states

im sure there are various factors as to why the numbers look the way they do aside from simply because drugs are decriminalized. Culture/ total population could play a huge role. As well as just who took part in the survey.

If drugs are actually legal in the netherlands, then id probably say that their statistic is probably accurateish, but the United States % may probably be higher because less people would admit it.


But again, id look at the survey with a grain of salt if we are gona use it as proof that legalization would result in decreased usage because of factors i mentioned above.

Yes legalization may decrease the percentage of people who do it for purposes of rebeling, but the percentage may also increase for the population of people that i am arguing to protect through keeping drugs illegal. But again, i have no numbers of that population so i cannot actually argue against the statistics you provide.


Edited by frostz, 22 May 2011 - 08:15 AM.


#181 Fresca

Fresca
  • 514 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 09:27 AM

Posted Image

False.


#182 vurty

vurty
  • 208 posts

Posted 23 May 2011 - 01:23 PM

I believe if drugs were legalized it wouldn't be much different than how it is now, illegal drugs are so easy to get. easier to get than prescription drugs. I am for this.

#183 giraffe

giraffe
  • 182 posts

Posted 24 May 2011 - 03:34 PM

Because cocaine and caffeine are exactly the same thing?

Let's not try to compare class A/class I drugs to a relatively harmless additive shall we?



That's because there's over 300 million people in the US which is more than the whole of Europe let alone a tiny country.


Actually, Europe's whole population is over 700 million according to wiki, so please check your facts. Second, the rates are given as PERCENTAGES. Therefore, total population doesn't matter. This is exactly why statistics are given as percentages or rates per/x people (I think when comparing drug use in the Netherlands and the US it was per 1000 people). A rate of 500/1000 is worse than 200/1000 regardless of the total population (note: these numbers are exaggerated as an example).

Also, classification isn't a great way compare drugs when you consider This BBC article in which independent scientists rank the harmfulness of various drugs. Not that I disagree that coke is much worse than caffeine, but you'd be surprised at how harmful caffeine can be. I've definitely seen someone make caffeine crystals in high school "so they could study" and I've seen someone who couldn't function at noon if they hadn't had four red bulls yet. It's still a dangerous drug if abused, regardless of if it's legal or not.

#184 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 May 2011 - 04:09 PM

I like how you take examples as such literal that you miss the point. Drug usage may be lower in the Netherlands but so is alcohol consumption. That's a cultural effect.

Also again, drugs aren't legal in 'Dam. So I fail to see how the "if drugs are legal, more people won't do them" theory has come about.

And yes cocaine is more dangerous and deadly then caffeine. The most caffeine will do is give you heart murmurs and withdrawal symptoms. Cocaine will get you addicted and kill. Trust someone who deals with the victims everyday.

Lets not try and even compare the two.

#185 giraffe

giraffe
  • 182 posts

Posted 24 May 2011 - 04:21 PM

I like how you take examples as such literal that you miss the point. Drug usage may be lower in the Netherlands but so is alcohol consumption. That's a cultural effect.

Also again, drugs aren't legal in 'Dam. So I fail to see how the "if drugs are legal, more people won't do them" theory has come about.

And yes cocaine is more dangerous and deadly then caffeine. The most caffeine will do is give you heart murmurs and withdrawal symptoms. Cocaine will get you addicted and kill. Trust someone who deals with the victims everyday.

Lets not try and even compare the two.



If your point is about cultural effects, then please say that and don't try to muddle it up with false arguments about statistics.

And I wasn't arguing that cocaine wasn't more dangerous. I wasn't trying to compare them. I was just saying caffeine shouldn't be dismissed as harmless, because it's not. It is highly regulated in commercial products, so people don't have harmful effects often.

Edited by giraffe, 24 May 2011 - 04:21 PM.


#186 Lucian

Lucian
  • 875 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 May 2011 - 05:08 PM

I've taken LSD, I didn't kill myself

I've taken PCP, I didn't kill anyone else.

I've taken MDMA, I loved everyone else.

I've taken heroin, I had an awesome nap.

Meth is the only drug that really would worry me with widespread use.


Everyone has a different high.

#187 Chalk

Chalk
  • 311 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 May 2011 - 09:16 PM

Because your guys are saying that people are smart enough to not abuse it.

If you hooked up electronodes to someones brain and they could press it to have an orgasm. They wouldn't stop pressing it.

I said humans and their entity. Clearly because you believe that drugs should be allowed, despite the fact that they can kill you without issue... States that you wont come to the conclusion, and I must tell you it.


We're useless. Might as well take advantage.

I like how you take examples as such literal that you miss the point. Drug usage may be lower in the Netherlands but so is alcohol consumption. That's a cultural effect.

Also again, drugs aren't legal in 'Dam. So I fail to see how the "if drugs are legal, more people won't do them" theory has come about.


I've heard a few positive things from Portugal's legal approach on drugs. I've also seen that statistically (from actual statistics) it's been a success compared to other nations.

Edited by Chalk, 24 May 2011 - 09:21 PM.


#188 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 May 2011 - 10:53 PM

The question is not whether legalisation would increase drug use. It almost certainly would.

The real question is whether the negative societal impact of that increase would outweigh the positive; taxable revenue, saved police time, better help and support for addicts, better control on drug content/quality, reduced stigma, and increased social liberty.

#189 Lucian

Lucian
  • 875 posts


Users Awards

Posted 25 May 2011 - 07:40 AM

It would man. It would.

#190 Abradix

Abradix
  • 769 posts

Posted 27 May 2011 - 02:32 AM

Everyone has a different high.


But there are obvious similarities. I think you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

#191 Surrico

Surrico
  • 51 posts

Posted 27 May 2011 - 11:02 AM

But there are obvious similarities. I think you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.


There are similarities but there are also differences. Take Alcohol for example. People that get drunk can get really angry, there are those that get tired, some that get chatty and happy, others that are quiet when drunk and the ones that hump anything that moves. But no matter what attitude difference you can still tell physically that they're drunk. usually they're stumbling around, sometimes mumbling, and other times just doing things they normally wouldn't do.

#192 nugget111

nugget111
  • 113 posts

Posted 30 June 2011 - 10:14 AM

WTH is meth and what does it feel like when u take it

#193 lonewolf

lonewolf
  • 243 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 12:00 AM

O.o I dont really mind if their legalised or not. Im never going to do drugs.
Its up to the person weather or not to take drugs and if it screws up their life, its their own fault

#194 necospes

necospes
  • 140 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 02:56 AM

Its up to the person weather or not to take drugs and if it screws up their life, its their own fault


Exactly. The government should never have the power to strip us of our personal lifestyle choices.

Furthermore, the war on drugs is failing, hard. Why should we pour our resources into this futile fight? Instead, we can correct this misallocation of tax money and convert it to tax revenue by legalizing and taxing drugs. As Portugal has shown, there are better ways to discourage the use of drugs: sending drug addicts to rehab, not prison.

#195 M4ry

M4ry
  • 31 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 03:29 PM

I think it doesn't matter if drugs are legalized or not, there will be always problems from both sides :/

even though the government bans the use of it, drugs will be always circulating among people and there's nothing we can do about it.

#196 Shampoo

Shampoo
  • 295 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 08:09 PM

The government should never have the power to strip us of our personal lifestyle choices.


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.

#197 Ziz

Ziz
  • 936 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 10:17 PM

The question is not whether legalisation would increase drug use. It almost certainly would.

The real question is whether the negative societal impact of that increase would outweigh the positive; taxable revenue, saved police time, better help and support for addicts, better control on drug content/quality, reduced stigma, and increased social liberty.


*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 :whistling:).
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...)

#198 Donaldmax

Donaldmax
  • 473 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 10:23 PM

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...

#199 Raui

Raui
  • 5687 posts


Users Awards

Posted 10 July 2011 - 10:35 PM

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.

#200 ToxicS

ToxicS
  • 2580 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 10:37 PM

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?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWwkR-py1J0

I hope you can realize the damage it could do to society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaDeG4Pmkq0&feature=related

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

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.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users