Drug Prohibition

[the_green_bastard]

Mexico's Congress Legalizes Drugs for Personal Use
Friday, April 28, 2006

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
MEXICO CITY — Mexico's Congress approved a bill Friday decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin for personal use — a measure sure to raise questions in Washington about Mexico's commitment to the war on drugs.

The only remaining step was the signature of President Vicente Fox, whose office indicated he would sign it.

Supporters said the law would let police focus on drug smuggling, rather than on busting casual users. The bill also would stiffen many drug-related penalties: for trafficking, for possession near schools, and for possession of even small quantities by government employees.

Criminal penalties for drug sales would remain on the books.

"We can't close our eyes to this reality," said Sen. Jorge Zermeno, of Fox's conservative National Action Party. "We cannot continue to fill our jails with people who have addictions."

The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush scrambled to come up with a response.

"We're still studying the legislation, but any effort to decriminalize illegal drugs would not be helpful," a U.S. diplomat said on condition of anonymity.

(Story continues below)

Advertise Here
Advertisements
RelatedStories
Fast Facts: What Would Be Legal in Mexico? Links
FOX News CountryWatch: Mexico The bill, passed by Mexico's Senate on a 53-26 vote with one abstention, had already been quietly approved in the lower house of Congress and was sent Friday to the president's desk. Presidential spokesman Ruben Aguilar indicated Fox would sign it.

"This law gives police and prosecutors better legal tools to combat drug crimes that do so much damage to our youth and children," he said.

If signed into law, the bill could have an impact on Mexico's relationship with the United States — and on the vast numbers of vacationing students who visit Mexico, often to take advantage of its rarely enforced drinking age of 18.

The bill says criminal charges will no longer be brought for possession of up to 25 milligrams of heroin, five grams of marijuana — about one-fifth of an ounce, or about four joints — and half a gram of cocaine — about half the standard street-size quantity, which is enough for several lines of the drug.

"No charges will be brought against ... addicts or consumers who are found in possession of any narcotic for personal use," the Senate bill reads. It also lays out allowable quantities for a large array of other drugs, including LSD, MDA, ecstasy — about two pills' worth — and amphetamines.

Some of the amounts are eye-popping: Mexicans would be allowed to possess a kilogram (2.2 pounds) of peyote, the button-sized hallucinogenic cactus used in some native Indian religious ceremonies.

Mexican law now leaves open the possibility of dropping charges against people caught with drugs if they are considered addicts and if "the amount is the quantity necessary for personal use." But the exemption isn't automatic.

The new bill drops the "addict" requirement — automatically allowing any "consumers" to have drugs — and sets out specific allowable quantities.

Sale of all drugs would remain illegal under the proposed law, unlike the Netherlands, where the sale of marijuana for medical use is legal and it can be bought with a prescription in pharmacies.

While Dutch authorities look the other way regarding the open sale of cannabis in designated coffee shops — something Mexican police seem unlikely to do — the Dutch have zero tolerance for heroin and cocaine. In both countries, commercial growing of marijuana is outlawed.

In Colombia, a 1994 court ruling decriminalized personal possession of small amounts of cocaine, heroin and other drugs. But President Alvaro Uribe, who is almost assured of re-election next month, wants to change that with a constitutional amendment.

"Allowing the personal dosage of drugs is inconsistent with a country committed to fighting the war on drugs," Uribe said at a campaign stop.

The effects could be significant, given that Mexico is rapidly becoming a drug-consuming nation as well as a shipment point for traffickers, and given the number of U.S. students who flock to border cities or resorts like Cancun and Acapulco on vacation.

"This is going to increase addictions in Mexico," said Ulisis Bon, a drug treatment expert in Tijuana, where heroin use is rampant. "A lot of Americans already come here to buy medications they can't get up there ... Just imagine, with heroin."

U.S. legalization advocates greeted the bill with glee.

Ethan Nadelmann, director of the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance, called it "a very good move," saying it removed "a huge opportunity for low-level police corruption." In Mexico, police often release people detained for minor drug possession in exchange for bribes.


Well, here we are again, folks. I'm:
1. Trying again to post a successful thread.
2. Trying to throw some fuel into the fire that is our forum.

It appears (I know this is aging news) that Mexico is poised to loosen its stranglehold on civil liberties, much to the dismay of its northern neighbours leading this moralist crusade. Drug prohibition. It is a fact of life in virtually every country on this planet. It is forced upon every member of the UN. It is as natural to some people as the blue sky, and it is thus difficult for people to even re-examine. I've been thinking quite a bit lately, in light of my more... ambitious dabblings as of recent times, and I would love to actually debate this here in a specific thread, as opposed to this being a related fringe topic. I ask, nay, challenge, people to convince me that drug prohibition is a correct policy, and welcome with open arms those who would argue on my side. Please, post your thoughts. It would make my day.

[MattSharpIsCool]

I don't really have a problem with pot being decriminalized. I'd say I'm probably actually for it. But decriminalizing most any other drug, especially drugs like heroin or meth, I am completely against. They are on a completely different plane than pot.

[lunchforthesky]

What he said above, there should be laws banning heroin, crack etc.. but i wouldnt be opposed to Cannabis being legalised. I dont smoke myself but im not adverse to others doing so.

[Give me Beer]

Fox didn't sign this bill if I remember correctly (under pressure of the US).

[Electronic Wolf]

I don't really have a problem with pot being decriminalized. I'd say I'm probably actually for it. But decriminalizing most any other drug, especially drugs like heroin or meth, I am completely against. They are on a completely different plane than pot.

This is truth.

[TojesDolan]

Fox didn't sign this bill if I remember correctly (under pressure of the US).
This

Vicente Fox flinched the **** out despite this being a good idea.

[Samuel]

Yep. It was a real shame.

Anyway, I'm for total legalisation of any substance, so long as there are proper education campaigns, marketing controls, and age restrictions. Legalisation will take drugs out of the streets, and into the corporate labs. It's just safer all around.

[griftadan]

you forget that the president has virtually all the legislative powers in mexico.

fox never signed this.

[spitfirejunky]

I don't really have a problem with pot being decriminalized. I'd say I'm probably actually for it. But decriminalizing most any other drug, especially drugs like heroin or meth, I am completely against. They are on a completely different plane than pot.

What do you mean that they are on a "completely different plane?"

[CarnageFairy]

Legalizing the so-called "hard" drugs is a touchy issue, one in which I see where both sides are coming from. I feel that a lot of problems caused by drugs are there because they're illegal in the first place.

You can't stop people from using them (whether or not it's right is another thing), prohibition is a joke.

[Danger Bird]

I really think there's a link between heroin, crack, and meth and violence, so it's really not an issue of personal rights with drugs like that, because it really becomes a matter of public safety.

Drugs like cannabis, psilocybe, mescaline, LSD, and maybe even cocaine are fine with me. I would only do cannabis though.

[CarnageFairy]

Perhaps, but I would think there's also a link between alcohol and violence.

Keeping these drugs illegal isn't doing anything to solve the problems they cause.

It almost seems like a Catch-22. They're illegal because they cause problems (among other reasons), but them being illegal just causes more.

[TojesDolan]

They don't cause problems... like that. :confused:

At most, it's all illegal mafias fighting with each other but nothing that bad =|

[Akira]

What do you mean that they are on a "completely different plane?"

You can hardly compare marijuana and meth. I don't do either, but pot is no where near as bad as meth.

[CarnageFairy]

They don't cause problems... like that. :confused:

At most, it's all illegal mafias fighting with each other but nothing that bad =|

Would these illegal mafias be fighting each other if they had nothing to fight about?

The huge illegal drug market that exists today would be greatly diminished if the drugs were legalized.

You would be able to know the quality of the product because it would be subject to government standards, which would reduce overdoses and other health problems. Violence connected to the drug trade would pretty much dissapear, and probably take a lot of revenue from the groups doing the trading.

Of course it isn't going to completely destroy the gangs and cartels and what have you, but it would be a blow to many.

I mean, who would cop from some sketchy cracked out mo****a when you could score at your local 7-11?

[Danger Bird]

But if meth and stuff is legal you'll still have very violent junkies, who are low on money and desperate for a fix.

[_Mote_]

The only problem that I see with the legalization of Mary J is the effects of people driving around high, or walking around on the streets, getting hit by cars.

Their should defidently be no legalization of any other drugs. I don't do drugs at all, but Pot seems to be such a small problem, their are just some kinks that would need to be worked out before you could pick it up at a supermarket.

[Danger Bird]

The only problem that I see with the legalization of Mary J is the effects of people driving around high, or walking around on the streets, getting hit by cars.

Their should defidently be no legalization of any other drugs. I don't do drugs at all, but Pot seems to be such a small problem, their are just some kinks that would need to be worked out before you could pick it up at a supermarket.

I don't see how driving would be more of a problem when it's legal, as long as it's still recognized as DUI.

What about mushrooms/LSD/mescaline? Those are all pretty harmless too. Well, acid can **** up your brain, but it's no heroin.

[CarnageFairy]

But if meth and stuff is legal you'll still have very violent junkies, who are low on money and desperate for a fix.

No one robs people to feed their addiction to cigarettes, and nicotine is considered by many to be the most addictive drug. That's because cigs are everywhere, and relatively cheap. Perhaps even design a way to limit how much you can purchase in a set amount of time.

Some of the money made from taxing the sale of drugs could be used to fund better rehab and education programs. And none of these rediculous advertisements telling you that smoking weed will ruin your life and that ecstasy puts holes in your brain.

Of course problems would arise, but I don't see how it would be any worse than what currently goes on.

Not to mention drug users wouldn't have to worry about gettin caught while ridin dirty. :smoke:

[the_green_bastard]

The whole rationale behind decriminalizing/legalizing cannabis while maintaining the draconian laws against the "harder" drugs is consistent with the two most blatant and fatal fallacies behind the current laws:
1) That to ban something will reduce use.
2) That to ban something is a responsible and appropriate way to deal with a potentially dangerous substance.

The whole issue here is that this campaign is charged by puritan politics and social control, not by responsible drug control. Prohibition is absolutely irresponsible, because it encourages policies consistent with those of a police state, undermines the freedom over one's own body, and turns the market over to criminal factions. The worldwide illegality of these drugs makes them the most valuable commodities on our planet. It produces tremendous profits for criminals, and proliferates more drugs, as drug dealers do not check ID, and are quite eager to sell the harder stuff. With such politics and controversy surrounding a substance, real, factual education is scarce, and often conciously destroyed and prevented by the authorities, in favour of scare tactics:
Which leads me on to the next point. It's back to the two possible reasons for any government error: incompetence, or hidden agenda. Bells go off in my head, and should in yours, once someone utters the phrase "zero tolerance." Such a policy is negligent and does not deal with problems - it's much like heroin, really. It promises a quick fix, and is a negligent way to deal with one's problems, because here we have teenagers whose future careers are ruined and who are alienated from their families by these laws and artificial social stigmas. "Zero tolerance" is the opposite and the enemy of compassion, help, and redemption. Criminal records and stigma force people out of decent occupations and into ones of crime, among the only people who will now accept them, as education is now denied, in U.S. jurisdictions, to drug users. Only drug users. The fact is, that destructive or not, this is not a crime that creates additional victims. There is something basically reprehensible about slapping a person with a criminal record and throwing them in jail, thus marring their future career, as a solution to drug use, as opposed to counselling and support - in other words, compassion. Yes, drug users are humans, too. People seem to forget that all to often. I don't care what substance on Earth you possess - you do NOT belong in a prison beside people who physically hurt other people. That is absolutely inhumane and evil.
Yes, education. Education. Consider a scenario in which you and a buddy are walking down the street, and he offers you a cigarette. You are thus presented with two possible options (assuming you don't happen to like cigarettes):
1) "No, thanks."
2) "A cigarette? What are you accusing me of? Are you trying to get me addicted to this crap? You monster! You must be part of a criminal conspiracy to get me hooked and dangerous and addictive drugs! You should be put in prison! Help! Police!"

In light of what has been hammered into our brains from the time we were small children, we have a hard time questioning why drug peddlers should be given such an ultimatum, but under the context of cigarettes, hopefully you can understand. Marijuana legalization is an absolute cop-out, and almost as irresponsible as drug prohibition to begin with. All it would do is legitimize prohibition as a means by which drugs are dealt with, and remove most of the pressure to legalize further drugs, thus prolonging the suffering of those users of the harder drugs. People addicted in the streets. People who will not seek help for fear of prosecution and social stigma. It would maintain the millionaire status of drug lords and importers. The legalization of drugs would be virtually the end of organized crime as we know it. I don't understand why people can't comprehend that.

Force is never legitimate if someone is not endangering someone else with their activities. Personally, I am absolutely sick of walking around town and seeing cops, and feeling threatened, not protected, by these men. These men who should be here to protect me, not to mar my future career and enforce Big Brother's morality. The pills in my pocket are not a threat to society, and I simply cannot see why being put in jail is a productive way to deal with them and me. If you think otherwise, then you are my enemy. You are the enemy of liberty, of justice, of compassion, and of democracy. Victimless crimes are absolutely immoral, and the product of theocracy and police states, not of social progress and advancement.

The only problem that I see with the legalization of Mary J is the effects of people driving around high, or walking around on the streets, getting hit by cars.

Their should defidently be no legalization of any other drugs. I don't do drugs at all, but Pot seems to be such a small problem, their are just some kinks that would need to be worked out before you could pick it up at a supermarket.

Are you suggesting that if marijuana became legal, people would begin to drive around high? What the hell? That's just bloody ridiculous. Most people will not drive in an intoxicated state. To suggest that once something becomes legal, the citizens will begin to blindly and constantly do it for its own sake like a group of mindless dirty monkeys is absolutely ludicrous! Absurd!

But if meth and stuff is legal you'll still have very violent junkies, who are low on money and desperate for a fix.

We will also have clinics to provide people with their fixes and provide treatment in an understanding environment for those who wish to quit. Money will not be the same problem, because the price of these drugs will absolutely plummet, not to mention the quality and potency controls that would be implemented in a government-regulated setting. People could also earn money, too, their careers and records not having been marred permanently by a non-violence drug offence, they could hold down at least a half-assed job. The one thing that would no longer exist is the organized crime scene, the street violence, the turf wars, the shootings, etc.



http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/402.htm - Everyone should browse through these pages - it is a look at not only drug prohibition, but also at consensual crime in general. It's very will-written.

[Iskandar]

There should not be restrictions upon the personal possession of anything.

[Zesty Mordant]

Are you suggesting that if marijuana became legal, people would begin to drive around high? What the hell? That's just bloody ridiculous. Most people will not drive in an intoxicated state. To suggest that once something becomes legal, the citizens will begin to blindly and constantly do it for its own sake like a group of mindless dirty monkeys is absolutely ludicrous! Absurd!

but driving under the influence of marijuana should still be illegal right?

[lunchforthesky]

There should not be restrictions upon the personal possession of anything.

So i should be able to posses Anthrax or a nuclear warhead if i so choose.

[Africa]

There should not be restrictions upon the personal possession of anything.

Srsly gtfo away from my Christmas presents.

[the_green_bastard]

but driving under the influence of marijuana should still be illegal right?

Oh, but of course. It impedes on the safety and rights of others to drive in such a state. It is an act of logical desperation to equate the legalization of drugs with the legalization of driving while under the influence.

So i should be able to posses Anthrax or a nuclear warhead if i so choose.

Ah, the paradox of libertarianism. Those are fine, debatable points. Valid ones. That being said, it is of course folly to equate the possession of a bazooka to the possession of a gram of black tar. One cannot blow up the car across the road with black tar. He can get as high as a ****, sure, he certainly can't blow up a Mercedes. Especially on horse. :chug:

[_Mote_]

Are you suggesting that if marijuana became legal, people would begin to drive around high? What the hell? That's just bloody ridiculous. Most people will not drive in an intoxicated state. To suggest that once something becomes legal, the citizens will begin to blindly and constantly do it for its own sake like a group of mindless dirty monkeys is absolutely ludicrous! Absurd!

Well, it's the same thing as a couple of stupid kids going around smoking cigs. If a dumb-*** teenager goes out and get some guy to buy him joints, which are that much easier to obtain, he's obviously going to do stupid things. And the laws will be much more lax with walking around high, because unlike beer, you get high right after you take it, as opposed to it taking 3-4 beers.

So a kid will be walking around high, which will be totally normal, and he'll just get hit by a car.

[Joey Hoser]

Well, it's the same thing as a couple of stupid kids going around smoking cigs. If a dumb-*** teenager goes out and get some guy to buy him joints, which are that much easier to obtain, he's obviously going to do stupid things. And the laws will be much more lax with walking around high, because unlike beer, you get high right after you take it, as opposed to it taking 3-4 beers.

No, there's varying degrees of being high just like being drunk.

So a kid will be walking around high, which will be totally normal, and he'll just get hit by a car.

huh...?

[Iskandar]

So i should be able to posses Anthrax or a nuclear warhead if i so choose.
1) Nuclear warheads should not be manufactured in the first place, and
2) Are you planning to use this anthrax? Is there a risk you might?

[Akira]

1) Nuclear warheads should not be manufactured in the first place, and
2) Are you planning to use this anthrax? Is there a risk you might?

1) Saying it shouldn't exist doesn't constitute an argument.
2) Are there any legitimate uses for anthrax?

[Iskandar]

1) Saying it shouldn't exist doesn't constitute an argument.
2) Are there any legitimate uses for anthrax?
1) It's impossible to possess a warhead if it doesn't exist. In any event, who would be able to buy one?
2) No, but does that constitute forbidding ownership of it? Once again, who would be able to buy it?

[Joey Hoser]

Well... how about this.... right now I'm actually working on a hydrogen powered cannon.

Should I be allowed to continue?

[Iskandar]

That post was sheer trolling.

Back to relevance, there should not be restrictions on the personal possession of what are currently deemed recreational drugs.

[CarnageFairy]

Well, it's the same thing as a couple of stupid kids going around smoking cigs. If a dumb-*** teenager goes out and get some guy to buy him joints, which are that much easier to obtain, he's obviously going to do stupid things.

Plenty of kids are already going out and buying weed, and there's no age limit on who can buy it. I don't know about you guys, but it's certainly easier for me to call up my dude and snag a bag than it is to find someone who is 21 and willing to buy my alcohol, and lets not even get into trying to get a fake ID. (Fortunately I prefer green to booze, but I digress.)


And the laws will be much more lax with walking around high, because unlike beer, you get high right after you take it, as opposed to it taking 3-4 beers.

So a kid will be walking around high, which will be totally normal, and he'll just get hit by a car.

...?

[Joey Hoser]

That post was sheer trolling.

Me? How?

Back to relevance, there should not be restrictions on the personal possession of what are currently deemed recreational drugs.

Agreed.

[Iskandar]

Me? How?



Agreed.
My original post proclaiming there should not be restrictions of any kind on personal possessions was meant to be mild trolling. However, I do believe there should be only necessary restrictions on possessions, and none on recreational drugs.

[_Mote_]

...?

What I'm saying is that it will be acceptable and normal for some dude to just be walking around high. Most people try not to walk around while high because it's, well, illigal. But if it's legal, people will just be walking around high everywhere and it wont be strange at all.

[CarnageFairy]

What I'm saying is that it will be acceptable and normal for some dude to just be walking around high. Most people try not to walk around while high because it's, well, illigal. But if it's legal, people will just be walking around high everywhere and it wont be strange at all.

I fail to see the point. Who cares if people are walking around high?

How do you feel about people walking around drunk? Or on their medications?

And most people aren't as reserved about being in public when they're high as you seem to think. I know I'd much sooner go out fried than drunk.

[PerpetualBurn]

There should not be restrictions upon the personal possession of anything.

What if I personally possess the means for you to labour?

[Iskandar]

What if I personally possess the means for you to labour?
I already stated that post was meant to troll. Now you are attempting to troll me. If you want to have a serious and productive discussion which answers the question you have posed (which you probably don't) then we can do that in another thread.

[PerpetualBurn]

I wasn't even trying to troll. It just seemed so very much wrong of you to say and, it being 4.30am Christmas morning, I pounced without reading further.

I really should've given you more credit than to say that seriously, but I'm bordering on insomnia.

[Iskandar]

I wasn't even trying to troll. It just seemed so very much wrong of you to say and, it being 4.30am Christmas morning, I pounced without reading further.

I really should've given you more credit than to say that seriously, but I'm bordering on insomnia.
Alright, then. I apologize for overreacting

[PerpetualBurn]

No worries.

I suppose I should be aiming for some Christmas spirit right about now.

[Iskandar]

No worries.

I suppose I should be aiming for some Christmas spirit right about now.I gave the gift of rep, if it counts for anything.

[PerpetualBurn]

It counts for 18 rep points apparently. Gift returned.

[the_green_bastard]

What I'm saying is that it will be acceptable and normal for some dude to just be walking around high. Most people try not to walk around while high because it's, well, illigal. But if it's legal, people will just be walking around high everywhere and it wont be strange at all.
...If it's legal, people who get high will walk around everywhere and it won't be strange at all... What exactly is your point? Isn't that the way it is now? It certainly isn't strange where I live. It isn't illegal to be high. That doesn't prove anything. They can only bust you for possession and being caught smoking a bowl red-handed. You're babbling in anti-drug rhetoric, and bad rhetoric at that... At least, I think it's anti-drug. You're not making sense. You're sounding quite like a Karl Marx book - full of obvious, boiled-down facts, but in the end, just the meaningless babble of a misguided old fool.

[Joey Hoser]

...If it's legal, people who get high will walk around everywhere and it won't be strange at all... What exactly is your point? Isn't that the way it is now? It certainly isn't strange where I live. It isn't illegal to be high. That doesn't prove anything. They can only bust you for possession and being caught smoking a bowl red-handed. You're babbling in anti-drug rhetoric, and bad rhetoric at that... At least, I think it's anti-drug. You're not making sense. You're sounding quite like a Karl Marx book - full of obvious, boiled-down facts, but in the end, just the meaningless babble of a misguided old fool.

He's just offering a point. Misguided I agree, but you don't have to be a dick about it.

People are alot more inclined to consider your view if you aren't getting angry and insulting them.

[Danger Bird]

No one robs people to feed their addiction to cigarettes, and nicotine is considered by many to be the most addictive drug. That's because cigs are everywhere, and relatively cheap. Perhaps even design a way to limit how much you can purchase in a set amount of time.

Some of the money made from taxing the sale of drugs could be used to fund better rehab and education programs. And none of these rediculous advertisements telling you that smoking weed will ruin your life and that ecstasy puts holes in your brain.

Of course problems would arise, but I don't see how it would be any worse than what currently goes on.

Not to mention drug users wouldn't have to worry about gettin caught while ridin dirty. :smoke:
You're not actually saying nicotine is more addictive than methamphetamines?

[Matt?]

i think he's saying it's easier to get addicted to ciggarettes due to the fact that they are much more easily found.

[Danger Bird]

i think he's saying it's easier to get addicted to ciggarettes due to the fact that they are much more easily found.

No, I said the severity of meth addiction makes its illegalization a matter of public safety, and he retorted by saying that cigarettes are more addictive, and they don't incite violence.

[MattSharpIsCool]

I'm not sure if I'm for the legalization of drugs like LSD or mushrooms. I would probably lean towards "no". The few times I've done acid or shrooms, I mainly walked around town or listened to music and talked to people. But I know alot of people who lost control when they take it, and do things that can cause them or someone else harm.

I'm sure a lot of people can handle those drugs no problem. Probably a pretty good majority of people. But the possibilty of a problem arising is 100 times that of doing marijuana.

[spitfirejunky]

Whatever problems that do arise, they won't near approach the number associated with alcohol.

We have to be consistent. If we maintain laws that confine drug use to the proper circumstances (much like alcohol), then I see no problem with legalizing all herbal derivatives. This includes coke and shrooms, or more loosely LSD. And I suppose if there exist safe extraction procedures for more obscured drugs, then those should be allowed as well.

[TojesDolan]

Would these illegal mafias be fighting each other if they had nothing to fight about?

The huge illegal drug market that exists today would be greatly diminished if the drugs were legalized.

You would be able to know the quality of the product because it would be subject to government standards, which would reduce overdoses and other health problems. Violence connected to the drug trade would pretty much dissapear, and probably take a lot of revenue from the groups doing the trading.

Of course it isn't going to completely destroy the gangs and cartels and what have you, but it would be a blow to many.

I mean, who would cop from some sketchy cracked out mo****a when you could score at your local 7-11?

Nope, if there was no business, they would get out of it, probably if the case is that it's not a business anymore, say legalizing. But there's some heavy rumoring and evidence that they're involved with the higher positions of government, so it's basically a loop hole.

But yeah, there's too much government and higher-positioned fellows involved in this that it'd just be plain impossible to get through. =/

[MattSharpIsCool]

Whatever problems that do arise, they won't near approach the number associated with alcohol.

We have to be consistent. If we maintain laws that confine drug use to the proper circumstances (much like alcohol), then I see no problem with legalizing all herbal derivatives. This includes coke and shrooms, or more loosely LSD. And I suppose if there exist safe extraction procedures for more obscured drugs, then those should be allowed as well.

I agree, alcohol is more harmful than most drugs. Unfortunately, you cannot take alcohol away from people, as we saw in the 1920's.

I don't think that makes it ok to allow people to use hard drugs, though.

[-1up!-]

The only problem that I see with the legalization of Mary J is the effects of people driving around high, or walking around on the streets, getting hit by cars.

Their should defidently be no legalization of any other drugs. I don't do drugs at all, but Pot seems to be such a small problem, their are just some kinks that would need to be worked out before you could pick it up at a supermarket.

Have you ever driven high? There's hardly any danger. Being high at the wheel generally makes you feel like you go faster than your actual speed, so you tend to drive slower and more carefully.

[PerpetualBurn]

And 3 pints before I get into the car relaxes me and makes me a docile slower driver.

Any drug that alters your perception should be avoided.

[veggie 3.14]

And 3 pints before I get into the car relaxes me and makes me a docile slower driver.

Any drug that alters your perception should be avoided.

:lol:

Isn't that the point of drugs?

[Retrovertigo]

not quite, it could be argued stuff like pot doesnt, but you're right, thats the point of most drugs


i have a question regarding drugs/legal status of them:

what exactly encouraged nixon to make things like weed and lsd illegal? was it even nixon? was it because of rowdy hippies?

im pretty uneducated about this stuff, so excuse me if.. yeah

[Lupus]

I believe that all drugs, including heroin and meth, can be used safely, and I support legalisation of all drugs.

[Jon]

I don't know about you but I'm moving to mother****ing mexico.

Is it just heroin, coke, weed and E?

Not speed? Oh well, good enough :D


edit: meth can be used safely I had some the other day and some of my friends had some on Saturday. I usually stick to E though. And heroin as well actually.

Drug education is absolute bullshit, there is no experience like personal experience. Not your brother, or your teacher's cat, you.

[spitfirejunky]

I agree, alcohol is more harmful than most drugs. Unfortunately, you cannot take alcohol away from people, as we saw in the 1920's.

I don't think that makes it ok to allow people to use hard drugs, though.

Well the idea is to get it off the streets so it can be regulated more easily. I wasn't trying to justify "hard" drug use, nor do I do it myself.

[-1up!-]

not quite, it could be argued stuff like pot doesnt, but you're right, thats the point of most drugs


i have a question regarding drugs/legal status of them:

what exactly encouraged nixon to make things like weed and lsd illegal? was it even nixon? was it because of rowdy hippies?

im pretty uneducated about this stuff, so excuse me if.. yeah


United States

In the United Kingdom, cultivation and use of cannabis was generally outlawed in 1928. In the United States, the use of cannabis and other drugs came under increasing scrutiny after the formation of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1930, headed by a crusading prohibitionist named Harry J. Anslinger. As part of the government's broader push to outlaw all drugs including alcohol, the FBN encouraged efforts to "educate" the public about drugs and this produced a number of highly sensationalised propaganda films which sought to demonise cannabis (or at least to capitalise on fears about it).

The most famous of these films is Reefer Madness (1936). It was originally produced as an educational film by a church group and released under the title "Tell Your Children". It might have been forgotten, but it was obtained and subjected to a radical re-edit by the notorious American 'exploitation' film-maker Dwain Esper, who intercut the existing footage with highly sensational inserts. The resulting hybrid depicted cannabis smoking as the cause of every form of sin, depravity and immorality, up to and including murder. Whether these films were effective at the time is debatable, and Reefer Madness and similar works largely disappeared from view after their initial screenings. It was not until 1971 that the pro-cannabis lobby group NORML, realising the unintended parodic quality of the work, began screening a restored print at pro-pot festivals. It became a major cult hit when distributed on American college campuses, and this is reported to have been a major early success for the New Line Cinema organization.

In the United States, the significant legislation was the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, a federal culmination of many separate state laws that had been enacted in the previous years. Some claim that the U.S. laws may have been in response to lobbying by makers of synthetic fibers that competed with hemp. While hemp was not their main competitor, it was a much easier target than cotton or wool, for example. Critics of the American prohibition have also pointed to the possibility that there was a racial underpinning to the criminalisation of marijuana in America, since it was known to be a popular and widely-used recreational drug in the African-American and Latino communities. Indeed, Harry J. Anslinger has been quoted numerous times on such subjects, implying that "musicians, not good ones, but the jazz type" smoked marijuana, or that marijuana would make white women want to have sex with black men. Nevertheless, the prohibition was strenuously resisted in some quarters, with New York Mayor Fiorello La Guardia becoming one of the new law's most prominent and outspoken critics. The LaGuardia Commission, in fact, was the first in-depth study of marijuana in 1944, and it contradicted the earlier findings of addiction, madness, and overt sexuality.

The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs finally did prohibit all non-medical, non-scientific cannabis use. However, tincture of cannabis remained available in the UK as a prescription only drug (POM) until it was banned in 1971 under the then new Misuse of Drugs Act. The international restrictions on recreational use of cannabis were further strengthened by the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

There have been over eight million cannabis arrests in the United States since 1993, including 786,545 arrests in 2005. Cannabis users have been arrested at the rate of 1 every 40 seconds. About 88% of all marijuana arrests are for possession - not manufacture or distribution. (FBI Uniform Crimes Report) While some countries do not enforce or allow a small amount of personal use marijuana, this does not solve the problem of how a user will obtain the "legal amount" of marijuana, since buying or growing marijuana is still illegal. The US Office of National Drug Control Policy points out in Who's Really in Prison for Marijuana? that these convictions are in correlation with other crimes, including cultivation, and crimes not specifically dealing with marijuana.

Laws usually govern distribution, cultivation, and possession for personal use. Enforcement of the law varies from country to country. Large-scale marijuana growing operations are frequently targeted by police in raids to attack the supply side and discourage the spread and marketing of the drug, though the great majority of those in prison for cannabis are either there for simple possession or small scale dealing.

As you see there are hardly any solid reasons it was made illegal, rather than being the consequence of the crusade of a raving lunatic, using propaganda and the power of church groups.

Harry Anslinger is a ****ing douche.

[Samuel]

Most of our drug prohibitions are rooted in racism or class supremacism. Even regardless of whether the drugs should be illegal, the reasons why they became illegal are usually pathetic, bigoted propaganda campaigns.

[Danger Bird]

not quite, it could be argued stuff like pot doesnt, but you're right, thats the point of most drugs


i have a question regarding drugs/legal status of them:

what exactly encouraged nixon to make things like weed and lsd illegal? was it even nixon? was it because of rowdy hippies?

im pretty uneducated about this stuff, so excuse me if.. yeah

Weed was illegalized by Harry J. Anslinger, back in the 1930s. Lies about cannabis were spread to persecute the Mexican work force, and Harry saw 'marihuana' (a mexican name is scarier) as a good scapegoat to gain some power. Plus, his appointer Secretary Mellon had a lot of interest in the DuPoint company, to which hemp was a great threat.

EDIT: beaten, oh well

[Retrovertigo]

kay, but what about lsd?

i know it was legal sometime in the 60s, and i think it was made illegal when nixon started the war on drugs.

to be blunt, was it a way to stop hippies?

[Kurrpt]

I think it's stupid to jail anyone for having any addiction, whether it be alcohol, nicotine, or heroine

[Jon]

The point is that prohibition doesn't work though; everyone I know that wants drugs gets drugs.

[Kurrpt]

precisely

[DBoons Ghost]

I've never been able to establish a stance on this. I've smoked pot for close to 20 years now in some capacity or another, and I have no issues with it the way it is now. Medicinial purposes of marijuana are enough of a reason to legalize it for those purposes, but the industry surrounding medical care in this country have more money and power then any lobbyist. Given our current social stance on cigarette smoking on a state to state basis, it's not going to be any different with marijuana. Legalizing drugs overall is a dangerous proposition, but legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes is something I would support wholeheartedly. The problem is the laws vary so horribly state to state as is, that it's almost absurd to ever consider each state having different legalization laws for any drug.

[beso negro]

The US Government could go out of debt if it legalized Marijuana. They could tax the hell out of it.

[lunchforthesky]

Nah they'd just spend even more on arms :p

[Steerpike]

You're not actually saying nicotine is more addictive than methamphetamines?

I think mole for mole it actually is. I'll have to check on that again.

I'm not sure if I'm for the legalization of drugs like LSD or mushrooms. I would probably lean towards "no". The few times I've done acid or shrooms, I mainly walked around town or listened to music and talked to people. But I know alot of people who lost control when they take it, and do things that can cause them or someone else harm.

I'm sure a lot of people can handle those drugs no problem. Probably a pretty good majority of people. But the possibilty of a problem arising is 100 times that of doing marijuana.

Watch commercials for new FDA approved drugs and listen to the side-effects they're legally required to tell you about.

I'm all for the decriminalization of drugs. It costs less to put one heroin junky through rehab than it costs to lock up a pothead for the mandatory sentence under drug prohibition laws. Some substances are actually far less dangerous than many people will tell you, marijuana being the prime example.

Really, they're just timewasters more often than not. ****, I have a bunch of video games that do the same thing.

The drug education is what really gets to me, though. I grew up very, very ignorant of drugs in general until late in high school and my first year of college. Reason being, the drug education "specialists" that came into schools when I was a kid didn't tell me ****.

"Marijuana's very bad."
"Well, what does it do?"
"... It's bad."
"Yeah, but what does it actually do?"
"......... Don't do marijuana."
"Jesus tap-dancing Christ..."

I've used pot a couple times. And to answer an earlier point made in this thread, the last time I did it was the other day and we were all out walking around giggling about how we were going to start a church based on Voltron. None of us were hit by cars. Actually, we went and had lunch at a Chinese buffet. All in all, a fun afternoon. That's how most pot-smoking stories go. Alcohol is far worse.

[CarnageFairy]

^^That's what I was talking about Steerpike. I've read somewhere that nicotine is the most addictive chemical based on it's chemical composition.

You're not actually saying nicotine is more addictive than methamphetamines?

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/basicfax5.htm

http://www.procon.org/AddictChart.htm

I can't find anything that compares nicotine and meth specifically, but it's pretty obvious that nicotine is up there as far as addiction potential is concerned.

[Retrovertigo]

Watch commercials for new FDA approved drugs and listen to the side-effects they're legally required to tell you about.


recreational drugs? id be interested to see these

[CarnageFairy]

recreational drugs? id be interested to see these

Oh you mean something like

Opiates (Morphine, Codiene, Oxy/Hydrocodone, Oxy/Hydromorphone, Fentanyl)
Ambien (And other sleep aids)
Benzodiazepines (Alprazolam, Midazolam, Lorazepam, Clonazepam, etc...)
Soma
Amphetamine (L-amp, D-amp, among others)
Methylphenidate (kinda)
Dextromethorphan
Diphenhydramine/Dimenhydrinate (kinda)


And none of those cause anal leakage. :thumb:

[Kurrpt]

who takes ambien for recreational use? :lol:

[Steerpike]

recreational drugs? id be interested to see these

I was referring more to the side-effects of standard drugs. Propecia for example. Women can't handle broken tablets for fear of birth defects.

If we're allowed to sell that for the purpose of vanity, hell, why not let me buy a pack of joints?

[Amit]

The US Government could go out of debt if it legalized Marijuana. They could tax the hell out of it.

impossible to tax something that grows naturally almost everywhere in the 48 states

[DBoons Ghost]

impossible to tax something that grows naturally almost everywhere in the 48 states

Tobacco, sugar and coffee are all taxed whether imported or exported or grown locally.

[Samuel]

impossible to tax something that grows naturally almost everywhere in the 48 states

Which is one of the primary reasons it's not legalized. Most people have no where near the knowledge and equipment to make decent alcohol beverages, medicines, or tobacco blends. But damn near anyone with some growlights and a book can grow smokeable weed. And they already do.

But it wouldn't last. People will get lazy very fast, and it will be a lucrative business.

EDIT: That first sentence is a massive exaggeration.

[Amit]

Tobacco, sugar and coffee are all taxed whether imported or exported or grown locally.

tobacco, sugar, and coffee take a lot more work to cultivate into a usable product than the cannabis plant; thus it's a lot easier to track and audit than a weed that tends to grow everywhere naturally

Which is one of the primary reasons it's not legalized. Most people have no where near the knowledge and equipment to make decent alcohol beverages, medicines, or tobacco blends. But damn near anyone with some growlights and a book can grow smokeable weed. And they already do.

exactly

it would be like taxing dandelions

[Kurrpt]

honestly, if they had various kinds and blends of pot that I could stare at for too long, eventually come to a conclusion, and be charged a premium for, I'd be at that store about 3-4 times a week :lol:

[Amit]

haha

well if it was legalized to that extend then taxation might work

but the loss in productivity would be unimaginable; at least for a period of time to account for cultural readjustment

[DBoons Ghost]

tobacco, sugar, and coffee take a lot more work to cultivate into a usable product than the cannabis plant; thus it's a lot easier to track and audit than a weed that tends to grow everywhere naturally

I wouldn't say that necesarrily. It doesn't grow everywhere naturally. It's a lot like growing grapes for wine. The region and weather has a direct bearing on the potency as well as maturity levels of the plant itself. It's why certain areas of California, Panama, Jamaica and Canada (BC respectively) are known for the most tasty and powerful bud.

Though, the best stuff these days is grown in a 10 gallon fish tank with heat lamps.

[Kurrpt]

I see his point though. Potentially, if it were completely legalized, you'd have people growing all types of seeds in their home "garden"


I think if the government was selling some high quality sh!t at a decent price, they could EASILY cause an upheaval of the black market. Its like, if you were getting 8ths from your dealer, and expected a certain potency for the "normal" price, you'd be less likely to get it from him if you had a RELIABLE source, that had better product for the same money, or the same product for less money

It really doesn't seem too far fetched. Obviously, it wouldn't be an over-night process

[Amit]

yeah i'll agree to that

to dboon and krups as well

[DBoons Ghost]

It's possible but very hard. Examples being people who make grain alchohol are given a free pass. You cna buy a home brewing kit for making your own beer. This is all legal. If they legalize pot, no one would accept it if the government kept their grips on it. It's a natural plant. How can you expect that can of worms to be opened up without serious misgivings? It wouldn't be the same with pot. I could grow better bud then anyone given the right seeds and heat lamps, and the government would be powerless to stop me unless the laws are written and scrutinized in such a way that it would make it not worth it.

Legal to smoke? Legal to grow for use? Legal to grow for sale? Legal to carry and travel?

Too much legislation and not enough money to dedicate to such a cause.

[Kurrpt]

yea...


I'll continue to buy it from my "boy" until they get the kinks worked out :lol:

[CarnageFairy]

who takes ambien for recreational use? :lol:

Take like 20mg and stay awake.

You'll have yourself a wierd *** time and probably not remember a lot of it in the morning.

[Amit]

It's possible but very hard. Examples being people who make grain alchohol are given a free pass. You cna buy a home brewing kit for making your own beer. This is all legal. If they legalize pot, no one would accept it if the government kept their grips on it. It's a natural plant. How can you expect that can of worms to be opened up without serious misgivings? It wouldn't be the same with pot. I could grow better bud then anyone given the right seeds and heat lamps, and the government would be powerless to stop me unless the laws are written and scrutinized in such a way that it would make it not worth it.

Legal to smoke? Legal to grow for use? Legal to grow for sale? Legal to carry and travel?

Too much legislation and not enough money to dedicate to such a cause.

only thing to balance it out economically would be the money saved from the "war on drugs"

comparing the savings and the expenses is the only way to see what would be logically feasible solution

[Mr. Ron]

I don't really have a set-in-stone opinion regarding the legalization of drugs. I support the legalization of the lesser kinds, but at the same time there are always the negatives that make me think twice about it all.

[DBoons Ghost]

I don't really have a set-in-stone opinion regarding the legalization of drugs. I support the legalization of the lesser kinds, but at the same time there are always the negatives that make me think twice about it all.

Same here. You cannot legalize one and not the other. If we put the responsibilty of burden on the user, I dunno. Look how many people alcohol kills each year both in death resulting from over-abuse as well as death from drinking and driving and all the rest that go with it. If our society is this pathetic with handling the use and abuse of booze, do you really think legalizing all levels of drugs would be smart? I don't. That's why I really don't think legalizing drugs will ever be a good idea. Pot for medicinal purposes all the way, but only for that. Otherwise, it's still illegal and always should be.

[veggie 3.14]

Soma
Soma's a drug?

I always thought it was invented by Aldous Huxley.

Hurm...

/Brave New World.

[CarnageFairy]

Soma's a drug?

I always thought it was invented by Aldous Huxley.

Hurm...

/Brave New World.

:lol:


And just in case you weren't joking:
http://www.drugs.com/soma.html

[CarnageFairy]

Same here. You cannot legalize one and not the other. If we put the responsibilty of burden on the user, I dunno. Look how many people alcohol kills each year both in death resulting from over-abuse as well as death from drinking and driving and all the rest that go with it. If our society is this pathetic with handling the use and abuse of booze, do you really think legalizing all levels of drugs would be smart? I don't. That's why I really don't think legalizing drugs will ever be a good idea. Pot for medicinal purposes all the way, but only for that. Otherwise, it's still illegal and always should be.

I agree.

Personally, I really don't know if I think all drugs should be legalized, I just like playing devil's advocate.

But I have to wonder how much use of harder drugs would really go up. I mean, if crack was made legal tomorrow would you run out and smoke some rocks?

Even if they are made legal, most people probably still wouldn't touch the ones that they consider too dangerous. Remember, things like heroin and meth will still carry a negative stigma for many.

But perhaps after they had been legal for a while that image would fade? Who knows.

[Iskandar]

But perhaps after they had been legal for a while that image would fade? Who knows.
I doubt it. Heroin will always have a negative effect on the human body and psyche.

[conselation]

This is a kinda random point, but surely if by law it's not criminalized, it gives the message that it's okay for people to do it?

[italic zero]

cigarettes are legal and we still demonize them

[-1up!-]

Pretty much. So?

[conselation]

Yes but if they were illegal, then I would bet that far fewer people would be inclined to start, simply for the fact that they are an illegal substance.

[-1up!-]

So are you afraid that if some drugs are un-criminalized, consumption rates will suddenly make a huge leap?

People usually have judgments, attitudes and conceptions about drugs that go beyond the legal/illegal factor. I severely doubt that most people will be inclined to use drugs just because they turn legal.

[conselation]

Well yes. Isn't that inevitable?

[-1up!-]

Well yes. Isn't that inevitable?

No.

People usually have judgments, attitudes and conceptions about drugs that go beyond the legal/illegal factor. I severely doubt that most people will be inclined to use drugs just because they turn legal.

[conselation]

People usually have judgments, attitudes and conceptions about drugs that go beyond the legal/illegal factor. I severely doubt that most people will be inclined to use drugs just because they turn legal.

Yes, to some extent. I'm not saying people's views will be radically changed by the law, but for example, alcohol is legal, it's socially accepted and we don't really think much of doing it. It's not immensely safer that weed or other class C drugs, but there are still people who readily drink, but won't touch weed, even though alcohol is just as much a drug as weed.

[-1up!-]

People's views don't radically change like that. And even if views did change radically, views do not immediately translate into acts.

"OMG Pot just turned legal! I've never taken a hit in my life but tonight let's smoke like there's no tomorrow!1!!!!1!!"

[Danger Bird]

Maybe legality is the only thing holding a lot of people back though?

[Steerpike]

Maybe legality is the only thing holding a lot of people back though?

If a person is so bloody stupid that they're going to start regularly shooting up heroin the instant it's decriminalized, they were going to find some way to kill themselves anyway. These are the sort of people that miraculously survived torching themselves and jumping off roofs trying to impress their TVs.

The idea that the decriminalization of drugs will open a floodgate of abuse is bullshit. They said the same thing in the 1920's about Prohibition. Prohibition did not slow down alcohol consumption, it forced it underground. And a lot of people ****ed themselves up on bathtub booze.

I choose not to abuse various substances because I know what they do. I have a couple beers with friends, but I know my limits. I've gotten stoned a couple times, and I'm still alive and healthy. I've never used the harder stuff, even though it's fairly easy to get in my college town, because I don't want to.

If you educate people on what a substance does, they're less likely to abuse it. It'll still happen, but not at the apocalyptic rates that the drug czars are claiming will happen.

[deadinholywood]

I think if the government was selling some high quality sh!t at a decent price, they could EASILY cause an upheaval of the black market. Its like, if you were getting 8ths from your dealer, and expected a certain potency for the "normal" price, you'd be less likely to get it from him if you had a RELIABLE source, that had better product for the same money, or the same product for less money


And what would you expect those currently selling on the black market to do sit back and just let this happen? The Government is now selling my product so now I'm going to go work in a cafe to support myself, I doubt it.

[Kurrpt]

What could they do, really? If they can't compete with the stuff that's sold in shops, they would either need to get some sort of specialty "kind", or they would have to move along

[deadinholywood]

Undersell the stores
Threaten the owners of the stores to not sell the product
Bribe/threaten the politicians in charge of the program
Move onto other organised crime

Just throwing up some suggestions, but i doubt they will just retire to the quite life without some sort of battle.

[Kurrpt]

thats the problem with "dealers". They are extremely unreliable, and theres no guarentee that the product will be equal, or better than the last shipment.

Based on that fact alone, I can see dealers becoming obsolete

[deadinholywood]

Valid point, but what's going to stop them from getting hold of the 'legal' drug while it is in the processing or distribution stage?

[Steerpike]

They first few months, even years, after Prohibition was struck down by FDR weren't smooth, but it payed off.

Yes, the rumrunners just moved onto other venues of vice for profit, but on the other hand, the government was actually able to safely regulate the trafficking of alcohol, establish legislation that wasn't as idiotically draconian, make a ton of money off of it, and since the quality of the product went up, homebrewed booze that you couldn't trust became obsolete.

You can't completely wipe out organized crime, but the War on Drugs just gives them an extra venue of profit that we actually have the power to take away from them.

[Jon]

I'm going to say this again because people are obviously blind.

1) The people saying "[drug] is so addictive" have never tried it, have they?

2) Alcohol is the only drug I've ever found addictive. Sure, sometimes things are a bit moreish mayyybe, or maybe I have a craving for something, but that's more "urgh I'm bored, I wanna get ****ed up" than "goshdarn, I sure do NEEED some of this substance".

Whereas with alcohol I actually have a bit of a dependency on it, which is why I try not to drink much anymore.

Yes, I said it, Alcohol is more addictive that Heroin, Crack, Meth and Nicotine. Don't believe me? Take some cash down to Brixton and try it for yourself :)

3) All these people saying to legalise shrooms/acid/other hallucinogens but not speed/E/whatever.

The only drug I've ever hurt myself on is shrooms. Bad drug, that. Everytime as well, I really physically hurt myself because I always end up literally trying to pull myself apart, and dislocate all my joints on my hands and stuff. Tell me thats safer than walking around a club with a smile on your face, dancing, hugging your friends and giving everyone compliments?

4) mmmm substances. I'm moving to mexico man.

[Kurrpt]

saying one drug is more addictive than another is pretty futile, considering drugs affect people differently. I don't find alcohol that addictive, mainly because I don't care for it. I find it very easy to go months without taking a shot, and have little problems limiting myself to one beer, or none what so ever.

[Jon]

Fair enough, I guess I just hate people assuming alcohol isn't as bad as x, y, or z.

Everything you put into your body has the potential to be harmful, and everything has the potential to not be harmful.

At this moment in time I could actually do with a nice Guinness, but by the same token on Saturday nights I do like the odd pill or 3.

Different strokes.

I just hate people without personal experience reiterating DARE lines.

[Kurrpt]

Yea, you get the ignorant response a lot from people that have had no experience with drugs, at all. This is usually thought of as a bad thing, but I try to see it from both angles.

If you thought all drugs were evil, then I think you'd be more prone to stay away from them in the first place.

[DBoons Ghost]

When it comes to substance abuse, I don't think it wise for people to need personal experience to have an opinion. That's silly.

People put blinders on themselves to do their very best to have their own selfish needs come first. This thread is an obvious lead into that. Look at you claiming to be some amazing drug user when you're still missing the point. How old are you? Howlong you been getting high? Life is long. You realize this I am sure.

Alcohol is still more dangerous than any other substance, whether legal or illegal, but that's not the issue here.

Alcohol is legal. Esctacy is not. Pot is not. Heroin is not. Alchohol costs us more in lost healthcare then all the drug related issues combined, but even that is not the issue.

Different strokes you say. Ironic that. Just because your mind has yet to succumb to the weakness doesn't mean the masses are in the same frame of mind. You get high for the fun of it? Or do you need to get high? Can you have fun without it? Do you just use or do you abuse? Are you the type to claim your coolness because you can hold your drugs? Is that still cool to you? I've done it all. I will never be a fan of legalizing drugs because I've seen what they can do. Maybe you haven't yet. Or maybe in all your selfishness you claim holier then thou because you don't care about the people around you, only you.

[Kurrpt]

I'm not sure if the majority of those comments were directed at me or not. If they were, I can assure you that i don't condone the behavior, really, and that if you "think" any of those motives apply to me, or are my motivation for doing so, I'd have to disagree, completely.

I wouldn't really consider alcohol more dangerous, by itself, but because it is SO prevalent, it is a big issue, and yes, a bigger health risk as a whole.

Just because I don't have a dependency on a specific drug (like alcohol) doesn't mean it's any less addictive for another person. I'm not not that gullible :lol:

[Jon]

When it comes to substance abuse, I don't think it wise for people to need personal experience to have an opinion. That's silly.
Well, I don't think you can't form a full opinion on something unless you have first hand experience.

Because nothing in life is how you would imagine it would be before you try it.

Hell, the difference between how you think sex will be after teenage years of porn, and then when you actually use it? Correlates pretty well to years of drug education thinking that you'll become hooked the first time you try coke? I'm not saying that everyone should go out and become cokeheads, or even that coke is a good drug, but the amount of people who point blank think that do drug => drug addict
People put blinders on themselves to do their very best to have their own selfish needs come first. This thread is an obvious lead into that. Look at you claiming to be some amazing drug user when you're still missing the point. How old are you? Howlong you been getting high? Life is long. You realize this I am sure.
I'm not claiming to be some junkie, all I know is that what I was taught at school, and what my glimpse of experience has taught me are two very, very different things.
Alcohol is still more dangerous than any other substance, whether legal or illegal, but that's not the issue here.

Alcohol is legal. Esctacy is not. Pot is not. Heroin is not. Alchohol costs us more in lost healthcare then all the drug related issues combined, but even that is not the issue.
Of course its the issue!

In a drug legalization thread how can you not compare illegal drugs to legal drugs?

How about the huge, huge amount of crime commited seemingly only because drugs are illegal? Surely that adds another dimension to the arguement? That if junkies were treated at the local hospital then old women wouldn't be getting mugged in the street.
Different strokes you say. Ironic that.
Selfishness? All I know is that if I want to have fun one way then I don't want a room full of people to pidgeon-hole that way as bad, and a more damaging way (alcohol, or weed in the case of 95% of MX) as better.

The only reason people do drugs is because of drug education, I have a lot of people agreeing with me on that - if you were never taught about drugs in school you wouldn't have any curiousity towards them. How about we just legalise drugs but only give 'drug' education as much as we give alcohol 'education'?

[Samuel]

It's not even an issue of personal experience. The issue is that the only people who have any real, factual information on the drugs that are on the market are users. School drug education programs have nothing to do with education, and everything to do with scare tactics and propaganda. You create this giant taboo around a subject, and don't disseminate any real information, then you can expect people to be curious. You can also expect people to practice dangerous use habits, and be unaware of how their bodies are reacting to that.

[veggie 3.14]

The only reason people do drugs is because of drug education, I have a lot of people agreeing with me on that - if you were never taught about drugs in school you wouldn't have any curiousity towards them. How about we just legalise drugs but only give 'drug' education as much as we give alcohol 'education'?
I didn't start smoking weed because of the complete disaster that is drug education in my school, I did it because people said it was awesome, and I'd gotten tired of doing stupid things whilst pissed.

[Kurrpt]

precisely...


you did it out of curiosity

[DBoons Ghost]

I think Jon is a burnout. I can't respond to that nonsense. Who the hell decides what drug to use based on a class in school? Do they really teach you about all the various drug types and their effects? And to go on to blame crime on drug use? What nonsense is that. Like we need to add heroin addiction as a disease that is treatable? The only treatment is not to do herion. I truly can't argue stupidity.

[veggie 3.14]

precisely...


you did it out of curiosity

Gnnnh.

Maybe, but then, don't you do most new things out of curiousity?

[Jon]

I think Jon is a burnout. I can't respond to that nonsense. Who the hell decides what drug to use based on a class in school? Do they really teach you about all the various drug types and their effects? And to go on to blame crime on drug use? What nonsense is that. Like we need to add heroin addiction as a disease that is treatable? The only treatment is not to do herion. I truly can't argue stupidity.
I can place my hand on my heart and say that:
a) I had absolutely no interest in drugs
b) I knew nothing about drugs

before Drug Education.

Specifically, I had to go on Erowid every day for weeks to get information about all different types of drugs.

That breeds curiousity.

That makes you think "hmm, z doesn't sound so bad"

Yes, we were actually taught about the effects.

To compare UK drug education to US drug education, the current government 'initiative'.

http://www.talktofrank.com

As for crime -- if junkies got their treatment on the NHS they wouldn't have to rely on petty theft to make ends meet.

Similarly, if drugs were sold, regulated, over the counter at a pharmacy or off license, you wouldn't create a massive black market for distribution.

Compare the amount of people dying from lethal homebrew liquor in the 1930s to the rat poison and other cuts used in drugs today.

[Give me Beer]

Well, I only check the Marijuana page, since that's the only drug I use... but it seems fairly accurate.

[DBoons Ghost]

You raise some good points, but if a drug needs to be regulated, it shouldn't be sold legally at all. With all we know about Heroin for example, why would we willingly legalize it and control how much we give those dependant on it? Same with cocaine. Same with any controlled substance. Better to ban it or simply keep it the way it is.

I think it's wild you learned about drugs in school. I really don't understand that. All we learned about drugs in school was from the "Just Say No" posters hung around with a picture of Nancy Reagan smiling pleasantly with her hands folded neatly about her ultra conservative sundress.. We of course used markers to vandalize them to make it look like she was holding a bong or smoking a joint, or holding a straw and a pouch of blow.

Junkies shouldn't be junkies at all, but that's a whole other thread in my opinion.

I still know for a fact that you can combine all the drug related deaths in the entire United States and sit the numbers side by side and alcohol still kills more people, and costs taxpayers more money in healthcare and insurance costs. Smokers get screwed because of politics. Drinkers get the green light because of politicians love for booze. It's all about the money. No one actually cares about people.

[Jon]

ALCOHOL NEEDS TO BE REGULATED BECAUSE IT WAS LETHAL DURING THE PROHIBITION.

jesus ****ing christ, americans :rolleyes:

[Excursions]

I think drug education taught me not to use drugs or at least use them responsibly.

[StrawberryFieldsForever]

I got friggin baked outta my mind the other night...kicked ***...and I had really no desire to go out driving or even walking around for that matter like I do when I drink.

Legalize it all but provide proper education about the effects. They provide good education about alcohol (atleast where I live anyway). I drink but I know my limits. It's someones personal choice to do drugs so if they get ****ed up it's their own fault.

Legalizing drugs would probably save more lives than it would take away. Just a few weeks ago four cops - good men with wives, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, friends...and so on and so on - were killed raiding the house of a couple of people who were making and selling meth. I'm sure those cops didn't even wanna be there, but had to for the sake of their jobs. If meth was legal, and people still had proper education about it, the same amount of people who may or may not be messed up to begin with could have bought it safely elsewhere, supporting the economy, and making it so innocent police officers wouldn't get shot.

Yeah that was a bit of a long story...oh well.

[Carrionshine]

I actually would not like to see marijuana be legalized. I'm thinking maybe the legal form would have less THC content and more dangerous chemicals. I'm sure they'd make it extra addictive to keep you buying more.

No thank you, I'd rather buy it off my friends who sell it.

[Danger Bird]

Yeah, tobacco companies would do horrible things to cannabis, but you could still grow it yourself.

[halfdeadhippo]

Yeah, tobacco companies would do horrible things to cannabis, but you could still grow it yourself.I doubt that. You'd likely need some sort of license to grow it. That way the government has some sort of hypothetical way to prevent under-the-table, untaxed sale.

[Danger Bird]

I doubt that. You'd likely need some sort of license to grow it. That way the government has some sort of hypothetical way to prevent under-the-table, untaxed sale.

Really? I don't think they'd go that far. People are still allowed to grow tobacco aren't they?

[Steerpike]

I actually would not like to see marijuana be legalized. I'm thinking maybe the legal form would have less THC content and more dangerous chemicals. I'm sure they'd make it extra addictive to keep you buying more.

No thank you, I'd rather buy it off my friends who sell it.

That would be impressive considering it isn't addictive at all by nature.

I doubt that. You'd likely need some sort of license to grow it. That way the government has some sort of hypothetical way to prevent under-the-table, untaxed sale.

If you can be an alcoholic and still have a license to carry firearms and hunt deer, there shouldn't be anything standing between me and a license to grow some mary-jane in an aquarium in my basement.

[halfdeadhippo]

If you can be an alcoholic and still have a license to carry firearms and hunt deer, there shouldn't be anything standing between me and a license to grow some mary-jane in an aquarium in my basement.I wasn't really saying that I agreed with it, just that it seemed likely to be a part of the legislation.

Besides, I think I stand corrected, as the only site I've been able to find with regards to tobacco says that it's legal to grow for personal use without a permit/license, so maybe weed wouldn't be subject to that either.

[Danger Bird]

Yeah, that's what I would think.

[the_green_bastard]

I think Jon is a burnout. I can't respond to that nonsense. Who the hell decides what drug to use based on a class in school? Do they really teach you about all the various drug types and their effects? And to go on to blame crime on drug use? What nonsense is that. Like we need to add heroin addiction as a disease that is treatable? The only treatment is not to do herion. I truly can't argue stupidity.

Jesus Christ, exactly! Addiction is a behaviour, not a disease! If you are a slave to a chemical which is interfering greatly with your life, then you are weak and irresponsible. I agree whole-heartedly with your post in its entirety... I'm scared. :chug:

If you can be an alcoholic and still have a license to carry firearms and hunt deer, there shouldn't be anything standing between me and a license to grow some mary-jane in an aquarium in my basement.

If you can have your door kicked in by a paramilitary raid force, your assets seized and your children taken from you, all for growing a type of plant which the government or society finds disagreeable, then you have absolutely no rights.

I doubt that. You'd likely need some sort of license to grow it. That way the government has some sort of hypothetical way to prevent under-the-table, untaxed sale.

And that, my friend, is why taxation and government involvement in the marketplace need to be kept to a healthy minimum.

I actually would not like to see marijuana be legalized. I'm thinking maybe the legal form would have less THC content and more dangerous chemicals. I'm sure they'd make it extra addictive to keep you buying more.

No thank you, I'd rather buy it off my friends who sell it.

I agree with you, but I'd just grow my own. What really isn't fun, though, is buying chemicals from drug dealers. Ecstasy is a dirty drug. The cocaine is never pure, either. Cunts.

You raise some good points, but if a drug needs to be regulated, it shouldn't be sold legally at all. With all we know about Heroin for example, why would we willingly legalize it and control how much we give those dependant on it? Same with cocaine. Same with any controlled substance. Better to ban it or simply keep it the way it is.

I think it's wild you learned about drugs in school. I really don't understand that. All we learned about drugs in school was from the "Just Say No" posters hung around with a picture of Nancy Reagan smiling pleasantly with her hands folded neatly about her ultra conservative sundress.. We of course used markers to vandalize them to make it look like she was holding a bong or smoking a joint, or holding a straw and a pouch of blow.

Junkies shouldn't be junkies at all, but that's a whole other thread in my opinion.

I still know for a fact that you can combine all the drug related deaths in the entire United States and sit the numbers side by side and alcohol still kills more people, and costs taxpayers more money in healthcare and insurance costs. Smokers get screwed because of politics. Drinkers get the green light because of politicians love for booze. It's all about the money. No one actually cares about people.

Oh, wait, I spoke too soon. Looks like you simply had a lapse. Oh well.

Different strokes you say. Ironic that. Just because your mind has yet to succumb to the weakness doesn't mean the masses are in the same frame of mind. You get high for the fun of it? Or do you need to get high? Can you have fun without it? Do you just use or do you abuse? Are you the type to claim your coolness because you can hold your drugs? Is that still cool to you? I've done it all. I will never be a fan of legalizing drugs because I've seen what they can do. Maybe you haven't yet. Or maybe in all your selfishness you claim holier then thou because you don't care about the people around you, only you.

The comparison between illicit drugs is a common argument. Cliche, even. Irritatingly so. So irritating that it literally pains me to use it. But I cannot deny its usefulness, or its truthfulness. You get drunk for the fun of it? Or do you need to get drunk? Can you have fun without it? Do you just use or do you abuse? Are you the type to claim your coolness because you can hold your booze? Is that still cool to you? Bullshit. You haven't done it all. You haven't even scratched the surface. You probably consider a few hits off a joint at a high school party to be "getting into drugs." Either that or you're simply thick. Drug abuse will happen. Whether you shoot up or do too many lines, or simply drink too many God damned beers, you are abusing drugs.

This is a public health issue. It seems to me that the situation of some bastard holding up the local gas station attendant is of more concern to public safety than some dick smoking a joint in an alley or some junkie shooting up some horse beside a dumpster. I know I'm just a "stupid yung'un who oughta learn his place," but my logic tells me that an armed robbery is dangerous and volatile, whereas a stoned teenager in an alley is simply a mundane annoyance to puritan nutjobs. Why are illicit drugs a matter of police work, whereas tobacco, alcohol, and prescription drug use are not? I'll tell you why - it has nothing to do with logic or fact. Those battles were lost, with "Reefer Madness" an eternal relic to their failure; an effigy of all knowledge and truth. This is about social control, and the blind and total denial that alcohol and tobacco are more mundane dangers to public health. This is about oppressing substances which expand the conciousness and encourage us to live in a more just and less wasteful manner - a danger to capitalism and mindless consumerism. This is about puritan politics. It is about preserving law enforcement employment, and asset forfeiture so that the local police chief can buy a fishing boat and a cottage. To flat-out deny this as you have done is to demonstrate our human predisposition towards flawed logic, such as blind faith and blind disregard of evidence, and thus that you are not of the mind to transcend this predisposition.

To attempt to attack this issue with a prohibition law strikes down the principles of a free and democratic society. It is a perversion of science and logic - it is the stuff of theocracy and cudgel diplomacy, of brutal suppression and denial of an individual's right and capacity to govern his or her self. It is absolutely irresponsible to "ban" something other than violence and theft; to declare war on everything which we view as a problem. We declare war on terrorism, on crime, on drugs, on this or on that, and it is a reflection of our society that this travesty continues to flourish. We live in a society in which personal freedom and responsibility is no longer a life lesson, but irresponsible and an enemy. We live in a society of laziness, of fast food, of fat, of cheap reality TV and sensationalist news, of mindless consumerism - we want government to solve our problems by banning this or that. We want respond with force to questions involving some higher brain work. We cannot declare war on objects, concepts, and facts of human life. We cannot order our children to "just say no" to all of life's threats. That is absolutely irresponsible, and not fair or just on any deep or meaningful level. It is to perpetually fish for a man, but never teach him how. It creates helpless children of the citizens to be watched over by an ever-present, quasi-parental state. This is the stuff of George Orwell's nightmares, and it's not very American, either. Shame on you.

[conselation]

The only reason people do drugs is because of drug education, I have a lot of people agreeing with me on that - if you were never taught about drugs in school you wouldn't have any curiousity towards them. How about we just legalise drugs but only give 'drug' education as much as we give alcohol 'education'?

I agree with the first part - had I not had drug education I probably would have been exposed to any knowledge of drugs, or been excited to try weed. I did it of my own accord, not because of friends.
But I don't think that's a reason to legalize it.

You raise some good points, but if a drug needs to be regulated, it shouldn't be sold legally at all. With all we know about Heroin for example, why would we willingly legalize it and control how much we give those dependant on it? Same with cocaine. Same with any controlled substance. Better to ban it or simply keep it the way it is.

I agree with this

I still know for a fact that you can combine all the drug related deaths in the entire United States and sit the numbers side by side and alcohol still kills more people, and costs taxpayers more money in healthcare and insurance costs. Smokers get screwed because of politics. Drinkers get the green light because of politicians love for booze. It's all about the money. No one actually cares about people.

Most likely, because of the fact that it is legal. As I said before (even though no one agreed), by legallizing something it is in effect approving of it - if for example, I had been brought up with drugs legallized, I probably wouldn't really think much of taking stuff. (Obviously my views are pretty set now so if it were to be done so now it wouldn't make a difference) but anyway basically I don't think it should be legallized.

Legalize it all but provide proper education about the effects. They provide good education about alcohol (atleast where I live anyway). I drink but I know my limits. It's someones personal choice to do drugs so if they get ****ed up it's their own fault.

Legalizing drugs would probably save more lives than it would take away. Just a few weeks ago four cops - good men with wives, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, friends...and so on and so on - were killed raiding the house of a couple of people who were making and selling meth. I'm sure those cops didn't even wanna be there, but had to for the sake of their jobs. If meth was legal, and people still had proper education about it, the same amount of people who may or may not be messed up to begin with could have bought it safely elsewhere, supporting the economy, and making it so innocent police officers wouldn't get shot.

Yeah that was a bit of a long story...oh well.

Yes, but what about the innocent people who would be brought up viewing illegal drugs with the same regard that they see alcohol? If the law doesn't distinguish, neither will people.
Of course it is a huge problem the culture [of violence ect] which drugs create, but surely that culture is best kept seperate from our society?

Btw people who are interested in this issue, I highly recommend reading High Soicety by Ben Elton - it didn't entirely convince me but it sure made me think about stuff.

[Kurrpt]

addiction is clearly a disease. Look it up in any medical journal or study.


Prescription drugs are regulated, and are legal, as long as you have a prescription.

[DBoons Ghost]

Does this green bastard guy have a clue?

Democracy? The US of A is a Republic, not a Democracy. If someone wishes to bend rules to suit their selfish needs, so be it. You're not considering everyone here because you're being selfish. I barely read all the nonsense you posted because it reads like a paranoia crapfest.

Also, George Orwell was a fiction writer. 1984 was a work of fiction. Your immature delusional ramblings are making me aggravated. For all your name calling, you really are living in a tunnel of illusions.

[Kurrpt]

honestly, after reading the first two sentences he posted, I realized the rest of his post would be a waste of everyone's time

[the_green_bastard]

Does this green bastard guy have a clue?

Democracy? The US of A is a Republic, not a Democracy. If someone wishes to bend rules to suit their selfish needs, so be it. You're not considering everyone here because you're being selfish. I barely read all the nonsense you posted because it reads like a paranoia crapfest.

Also, George Orwell was a fiction writer. 1984 was a work of fiction. Your immature delusional ramblings are making me aggravated. For all your name calling, you really are living in a tunnel of illusions.

I shouldn't have devoted so much time to responding, since you don't actually read my posts before shooting them down. Being selfish? What about alcoholism? Chain-smoking? Skiing? The fact is, to claim selfishness as a defense for drug prohibition is absolutely inconsistent with the rest of the freedoms which we allow people. There is nothing more selfish than to quell with force any behaviour which might take them away from us; to show no respect fot their choices in life. There is nothing more selfish in believing that our loved ones' lives should revolve around us, not themselves and what's best for them. There is nothing more selfish than to use taxes as an excuse to pry into the business of other people, and turn our society over to your hive mentality. We are humans, we error, we **** up, and we need to show compassion to those who have ****ed themselves up with drugs, to those who have fallen off of the wagon. Imprisoning people for "living selfishly" does not benefit society. It creates artificial divisions among us. It alienates the youth, and those who need help with their drug problems. It artificially creates a puritan elite (who still drink and smoke but maintain a mindless formality as a social judgement and preservation of their inflated egos) who shun all else. It demeans us all. Your idea of a "healthy society" is absolutely perverted, my friend. I know you'll only probably read the last two lines or so, so there you go. Maybe my insults will give rise to come healthy curiosity, or maybe you simply don't want to read anything which might shake up your worldview. In any case, I've defended myself for all else to see, and hopefully they will join in my quest to make you read my posts before denouncing them, as you so often, and with such self-proclamation, do. Shame on you. You closed-minded old coot. Have more respect. I respond to the most depraved lunatic babbling on this forum. Clearly, I must really be ****ed in the head. So please, enlighten me, old man. Do so, or your words are meaningless.

honestly, after reading the first two sentences he posted, I realized the rest of his post would be a waste of everyone's time

That was absolutely pathetic. You consider yourself an honest debater, but refuse to hear the other side. That doesn't sound like skepticism. Real skeptics demand to be convinced. It sounds to me like arrogance and quasi-religious zeal. Get away from me until you have something intelligent to say. Smokey D, where are you? People are spamming up a storm in here.

addiction is clearly a disease. Look it up in any medical journal or study.


Prescription drugs are regulated, and are legal, as long as you have a prescription.

Addiction is a behaviour. A behaviour which approximately 1.4% of the population are predisposed to, but a behaviour nonetheless. You can't suddenly "decide" to be free of cancer, can you? I quite smoking, and it was a pain in the ***, but it was a predicament which I was responsible for, and which I made the decision to get myself out of. Give people more credit than that. Might I add that illicit drugs make up approximately 1.9% of all drug-related deaths? Do your research. Take a stroll around the real world, too. You don't seem to understand human nature yet. Oh, and **** you in the neck, mother****er. That's for believing I should be in prison, though not having hurt anyone. You elitist prick.

[DBoons Ghost]

Dude you're an absolute idiot. To the ignore list with you.

[Jon]

Jesus Christ, exactly! Addiction is a behaviour, not a disease! If you are a slave to a chemical which is interfering greatly with your life, then you are weak and irresponsible. I agree whole-heartedly with your post in its entirety... I'm scared. :chug:
I think you're contradicting yourself, I'm not entirely sure.

I'm pretty sure its a disease, because I have plenty of friends who use x, y or z responsibly. I also know addicts (not friends with them, because of the influence I guess).

Basically my point is that if a chemical can be used responsibly then its unfair to ban it for everyone who uses it sensibly.

"if a substance needs to be regulated...."

WHAT ABOUT ALCOHOL.

Alcohol is addictive.
Alcohol causes harm.
Alcohol was hideously unsafe during the prohibition but generally considered to be less so now that it is legal. Hint hint?

This is a public health issue. It seems to me that the situation of some bastard holding up the local gas station attendant is of more concern to public safety than some dick smoking a joint in an alley or some junkie shooting up some horse beside a dumpster. I know I'm just a "stupid yung'un who oughta learn his place," but my logic tells me that an armed robbery is dangerous and volatile, whereas a stoned teenager in an alley is simply a mundane annoyance to puritan nutjobs. Why are illicit drugs a matter of police work, whereas tobacco, alcohol, and prescription drug use are not?
you can have some rep because you can understand a good point when it comes.

I was thinking back to that time when I got mugged (:() or when one of my friends got mugged or whatever.

No one nicks phones or wallets because they feel like wanting a phone, they do it so they have cash for drugs.

If junkies were getting treated on the NHS (considering how the NHS evidently has all the money to waste on food addicts and tobacco addicts*) then logic dictates the streets would be a safer place.

*I am a smoker, but surely its a fair point that if people who eat themselves to illness get treatment then people who have fallen on hard times and resorted to opiates should get treatment?

And PEP pills.

WHY ARE THE LEGAL?

They make you feel like ****, and are more expensive than E.

If E was just legal it could be made cleaner, and it would be a better high than PEP pills. Gah.

[DBoons Ghost]

We should have the freedom of choice, so why not make it legal. It is our own choice over what we do to ourselves isn't it?

Not when those choices potentially affect those around you. I suppose that part of it has escaped most in this thread.

Drugs have harmful side effects. Some of them are worse then others. Can you imagine life insurance premiums for not only smokers, but cocaine users? Heroin users? It's almost ridiculous to even consider. Not to mention drugs that are physically addictive. It becomes our burden as a society to care for junkies as is, imagine if it's legal. It's not fair to those around you. Even if you forsake your right to care as a result of your drug abuse.

I really can't even believe I have to explain that.

[TheDMV]

We should have the freedom of choice, so why not make it legal. It is our own choice over what we do to ourselves isn't it?

Everyone has a freedom of choice, but the government has some duty to the people wherein they need to protect them. Heroin, LSD, Methamphetamines; these are all extrememely dangerous drugs that can't be legal or they would literally decimate the country.

[the_green_bastard]

I think you're contradicting yourself, I'm not entirely sure.

I'm pretty sure its a disease, because I have plenty of friends who use x, y or z responsibly. I also know addicts (not friends with them, because of the influence I guess).

Basically my point is that if a chemical can be used responsibly then its unfair to ban it for everyone who uses it sensibly.
...

Yes, but such robberies only occur in a prohibition environment because of the artificially high prices involved. Remember, too, that this isn't happening on every street corner every night. It happens, but it is not the national crisis which we have been led to believe it is. No one holds up the 7/11 for smokes, because they're as cheap as a ****. We see that a black market arises once sin taxes are raised. It appears DBoon has, in quite immature fasion, set me to ignore. Tell him he's a cunt for me.

Wouldn't make much of a difference since people are doing drugs anyway. Legalizing it would only stop violence over drugs and so on. People are getting drunk and killing themselves in accidents. Well I have never heard of someone smoking weed and crashing themselves to death.

Alcohol is the most popular, lethal, and ****ing pointless ****ing stupid drug in the world, and yet all of these benign substances are illegal. It's been hanging out there all pink and naked and yet people are absolutely ignoring it. People don't need facts to accept something as truth. This was the premise of 1984, and religion and politics, time and time again, prove it true. Morons.

Everyone has a freedom of choice, but the government has some duty to the people wherein they need to protect them. Heroin, LSD, Methamphetamines; these are all extrememely dangerous drugs that can't be legal or they would literally decimate the country.

You're missing the point. Prohibition simply doesn't work. It doesn't decrease usage, and only further endangers that small portion of the population that does use them. LSD a dangerous drug? **** no. Same with mushrooms. Awful drugs by the way. Never use salvia, either. It's legal, and not for long at that, but it's crap, which is why most people don't use it. Use a sitter, by the way - it completely eliminates the danger involved. Much like how people like to cite all of the reasons why people shouldn't ****, ignoring the fact that a condom aleviates all of them - it's puritan social control. People aren't sparking up bowls of salvia on the 401 for the sole purpose that it's legal. We aren't stupid monkeys who would talk on cell phones and drink big 26ers of booze behind the wheel if those were legal. Heroin? Of course, but artificial overdoses are created in a prohibition environment wherein no one can ever rely on the purity of a given drug. Heroin is processed by the body and turned into heroin. Would you shoot up if it became legal - for that reason alone? People don't often do dangerous things such as that "because they can." I certainly don't know anyone who would. Those who would shoot up heroin to begin with don't give a rat's arse about society's rules anyway. I certainly don't when I do a line of E. It's no one else's business, and I doubt I would see crowds of people joining in if it were made legal.

And PEP pills.

WHY ARE THE LEGAL?

They make you feel like ****, and are more expensive than E.

If E was just legal it could be made cleaner, and it would be a better high than PEP pills. Gah.

They're legal because pep pills don't cause your neighbour any harm - you've punished yourself. You know what else sucks? Being too full. Antidepressants make you feel like ****, too. So does DXM. It isn't fun to be too wired either. These are the things that happen when people misuse drugs, but I don't really understand your point that after such an experience, people should be thrown into prison for it, instead of simply educating everyone else on the dangers of pep pills, DXM, overusing caffeine, etc. etc. Making something illegal is not a magic ticket to a place where no one does these things - it would involve a college student behind on his work eating too many pep pills, staying up all night, feeling like ****, and then being thrown into prison for it, as if he had endangered someone, or clotheslined a granny in the streets. It would seem to me that there's something basically senseless about that. Perhaps it's just me.

I'm pretty sure its a disease, because I have plenty of friends who use x, y or z responsibly. I also know addicts (not friends with them, because of the influence I guess).


No, I think you're misunderstanding me. If it were a disease, people would have no choice in the matter - the drug would take control of them. If some use it responsibly, and some don't, then that is a behaviour issue, just as some are responsible drivers/eaters/studiers/drinkers etc. etc. Alcoholics suck, believe me. The belief that it is a "disease" and that people have no control with certain substances is called "voodoo pharmacology." This is something largely perpetuated by 12-step programs, which demand a submission to God and for people to admit that they are powerless before him. Interesting thing to read up on if you have some spare time. The government used to say these things of marijuana, but that blew over. It's much easier to perpetuate lies about other substances, because the difference between the amount of E and cocaine users and the amount of marijuana users is astronomical.

[Jon]

Wouldn't make much of a difference since people are doing drugs anyway. Legalizing it would only stop violence over drugs and so on. People are getting drunk and killing themselves in accidents. Well I have never heard of someone smoking weed and crashing themselves to death.
YES
Yes, but such robberies only occur in a prohibition environment because of the artificially high prices involved. Remember, too, that this isn't happening on every street corner every night. It happens, but it is not the national crisis which we have been led to believe it is. No one holds up the 7/11 for smokes, because they're as cheap as a ****. We see that a black market arises once sin taxes are raised. It appears DBoon has, in quite immature fasion, set me to ignore. Tell him he's a cunt for me.
I think we're both on the same side of this arguement.

No prohibition = no drug related violence.

Because like, you totally see Smirnoff employees battling it out in the streets with Grolsch brewers.

DBoon, apparently you're a cunt :confused:
You're missing the point. Prohibition simply doesn't work. It doesn't decrease usage, and only further endangers that small portion of the population that does use them.
Indeed.

Why are we arguing?
Heroin? Of course, but artificial overdoses are created in a prohibition environment wherein no one can ever rely on the purity of a given drug. Heroin is processed by the body and turned into heroin. Would you shoot up if it became legal - for that reason alone? People don't often do dangerous things such as that "because they can." I certainly don't know anyone who would. Those who would shoot up heroin to begin with don't give a rat's arse about society's rules anyway. I certainly don't when I do a line of E. It's no one else's business, and I doubt I would see crowds of people joining in if it were made legal.
Exactly, all overdoses apart from intended ones are because of the prohibition environment.

The only thing thats stopping me from going out right now and buying a bag of smack is...uh...oh wait, because I don't want any.

Legality =/= people wanting to use anything.

For the 15th time this thread, if people want drugs, they'll get the drugs.

Prohibition affects the kingpins in Columbia, it has exactly no effect to the user on the street, besides guaranteeing their danger.
No, I think you're misunderstanding me. If it were a disease, people would have no choice in the matter - the drug would take control of them. If some use it responsibly, and some don't, then that is a behaviour issue, just as some are responsible drivers/eaters/studiers/drinkers etc. etc. Alcoholics suck, believe me. The belief that it is a "disease" and that people have no control with certain substances is called "voodoo pharmacology." This is something largely perpetuated by 12-step programs, which demand a submission to God and for people to admit that they are powerless before him. Interesting thing to read up on if you have some spare time. The government used to say these things of marijuana, but that blew over. It's much easier to perpetuate lies about other substances, because the difference between the amount of E and cocaine users and the amount of marijuana users is astronomical.
Well no, because not everyone has the same predisposition to become an addict.

I don't know. Maybe I'll be an addict when I'm older. Maybe you will. Who knows. All I know is that at the moment said gene has not been activated, and I'm sitting happy.

Whether or not its genetic or a behavioural disorder, it doesn't affect anyone, because if it did then DARE would be right - have a microgram of cocaine and you *will* be a slave to peru for the rest of your life.

[Steerpike]

If you can have your door kicked in by a paramilitary raid force, your assets seized and your children taken from you, all for growing a type of plant which the government or society finds disagreeable, then you have absolutely no rights.

What the **** does that have to do with what I was saying?

Most likely, because of the fact that it is legal. As I said before (even though no one agreed), by legallizing something it is in effect approving of it - if for example, I had been brought up with drugs legallized, I probably wouldn't really think much of taking stuff. (Obviously my views are pretty set now so if it were to be done so now it wouldn't make a difference) but anyway basically I don't think it should be legallized.

Yeah, because if it's legal everyone will still do it despite widespread knowledge of the dangers.
/sarcasm

Tobacco and alcohol both suck, but last time I checked, the law doesn't force me to consume either. I was able to (on my own, mind you) get some decent education about both substances and made my decision that I don't want to smoke, and I only drink in moderation.

Now, give others access to the knowledge I have, and see how many will choose to abuse either substance.

I'm pretty sure its a disease, because I have plenty of friends who use x, y or z responsibly. I also know addicts (not friends with them, because of the influence I guess).

I have yet to meet a single doctor who considers addiction a true disease. It's a behavior.

Yes, certain substances such as nicotine cause a chemical dependence. However, that is not criteria to be classified as a disease. By cutting oneself off from the substance (in this case, nicotine), the body naturally corrects itself. You can choose to resist the cravings and stop putting nicotine in your body. You cannot choose to stop having AIDS.

[Alcore]

And PEP pills.

WHY ARE THE LEGAL?

They make you feel like ****, and are more expensive than E.

If E was just legal it could be made cleaner, and it would be a better high than PEP pills. Gah.

Man don't get me started on them...am never gonna touch them again after my experience with them. E to me seems purer and has much fewer side effects (the PEP side effects were a total nightmare). They are being criminalised at the moment (in the UK anyway), and are legal due to a loophole somewhere (they don't have any illegal chemicals in them basically).

[Loser]

but if a drug needs to be regulated, it shouldn't be sold legally at all.


I agree, **** prescription medications.. Heck, OTC ones too!

[lfantwister]

Yes, certain substances such as nicotine cause a chemical dependence. However, that is not criteria to be classified as a disease. By cutting oneself off from the substance (in this case, nicotine), the body naturally corrects itself. You can choose to resist the cravings and stop putting nicotine in your body. You cannot choose to stop having AIDS.
I don't think it's safe to go cold turkey when you're talking about something like heroin

[DBoons Ghost]

I agree, **** prescription medications.. Heck, OTC ones too!

Way to take one line totally out of the context of the overall post. Really, this thread wouldn't have been the same without that idiotic statement you have made. Your ability to take a snippet of text completely out of whack and make a witty retort about it is amazing. I would surely read again. Good work. I am your newest fan for sure. At least you can live up to your username without any shred of doubt.

[Samuel]

I don't think it's safe to go cold turkey when you're talking about something like heroin

Heroin is actually safe to quit cold. Alcohol, Benzodiazepines, and amphetamines should be tapered off, or stopped in conjuction with different meds.

[lfantwister]

That's what I meant, then

[Steerpike]

None of this however contradicts my assertion that addiction is not a disease.

[Danger Bird]

Everybody who claims that legalization would put an end to drug violence only seems to take into account violence on the part of the dealers. What about junkies?

[TheDMV]

You're missing the point. Prohibition simply doesn't work. It doesn't decrease usage, and only further endangers that small portion of the population that does use them. LSD a dangerous drug? **** no. Same with mushrooms. Awful drugs by the way. Never use salvia, either. It's legal, and not for long at that, but it's crap, which is why most people don't use it. Use a sitter, by the way - it completely eliminates the danger involved. Much like how people like to cite all of the reasons why people shouldn't ****, ignoring the fact that a condom aleviates all of them - it's puritan social control. People aren't sparking up bowls of salvia on the 401 for the sole purpose that it's legal. We aren't stupid monkeys who would talk on cell phones and drink big 26ers of booze behind the wheel if those were legal. Heroin? Of course, but artificial overdoses are created in a prohibition environment wherein no one can ever rely on the purity of a given drug. Heroin is processed by the body and turned into heroin. Would you shoot up if it became legal - for that reason alone? People don't often do dangerous things such as that "because they can." I certainly don't know anyone who would. Those who would shoot up heroin to begin with don't give a rat's arse about society's rules anyway. I certainly don't when I do a line of E. It's no one else's business, and I doubt I would see crowds of people joining in if it were made legal.

If cigarettes were illegal, would there be such a high rate of heart and lung problems? If alcohol was illegal, would there be so many deaths as result of drunk driving? No, because it would be too hard for the people to get. Cigarettes and alcohol are extremely easy to acquire illegaly; why? Becasue since there legal for the adult population everyone can acquire them more easily. Even though some people do illegal drugs the masses cant because its such a hassle to get into. if drugs were legal mass marketing would take over and the addictive properties of most of these drugs would just keep people coming back for more. Companies could try and fool people into buying 'safe versions' of dangerous drugs. People wont start doing drugs just becasue they became legal, they'll start doing them because now they have the oppurtunity and if these drugs were available, people would think they're safer than before (which big companies would jump all over).

Don't tell me LSD is safe either. While having a sitter might prevent one who uses LSED from ripping there skin off, it won't stop the mental hallucienations and flashbacks that occur after living through a plethora of acid trips thinking that one's invincible and that this drug can't harm them.

[Danger Bird]

Yeah, you can cause very serious permanent mental problems with LSD.

See: Syd Barrett

[Steerpike]

Everybody who claims that legalization would put an end to drug violence only seems to take into account violence on the part of the dealers. What about junkies?

Until I can see some actual stats put forward by individual police precincts to corroborate this assertion instead of more claims put forward by the drug czars (whom I have absolutely no trust in), then I'll remain rather skeptical of this talking point as well.

I'm sure it happens. But in the last few months, I've begun to doubt that it is quite the civilization-destroying epidemic we've been led to believe it is.

[Steerpike]

If cigarettes were illegal, would there be such a high rate of heart and lung problems? If alcohol was illegal, would there be so many deaths as result of drunk driving? No, because it would be too hard for the people to get.

I've been told in the past that it's unfair of me to compare harder drugs to tobacco and alcohol in any way. So before I address this point, please explain this double standard to me.

Even though some people do illegal drugs the masses cant because its such a hassle to get into.

Pfft! You ever tried scoring some weed? It's easier than going to the liquor store, I'm not kidding.

if drugs were legal mass marketing would take over and the addictive properties of most of these drugs would just keep people coming back for more. Companies could try and fool people into buying 'safe versions' of dangerous drugs.

Because it's not like the FDA to do ****, right?

People wont start doing drugs just becasue they became legal, they'll start doing them because now they have the oppurtunity and if these drugs were available, people would think they're safer than before (which big companies would jump all over).

Drug education can combat that. Cigarette consumption is going down because there's better education. Throughout most of the 20th century, that sort of education didn't exist.

You can't stop all the stupid people in the world, but you can cure ignorance.

Don't tell me LSD is safe either. While having a sitter might prevent one who uses LSED from ripping there skin off, it won't stop the mental hallucienations and flashbacks that occur after living through a plethora of acid trips thinking that one's invincible and that this drug can't harm them.

Actually, recent research is calling the conventional knowledge of flashbacks into question.

[Jon]

if drugs were legal mass marketing would take over and the addictive properties of most of these drugs would just keep people coming back for more. Companies could try and fool people into buying 'safe versions' of dangerous drugs. People wont start doing drugs just becasue they became legal, they'll start doing them because now they have the oppurtunity and if these drugs were available, people would think they're safer than before (which big companies would jump all over).
nononononono you are an idiot.

i don't know anyone who wants drugs and doesn't do them because they are illegal.

if you want drugs you get them, prohibition has absolutely zero affect on that.
Everybody who claims that legalization would put an end to drug violence only seems to take into account violence on the part of the dealers. What about junkies?
I was talking about junkies actually. If heroin addiction was treated on the NHS then the junkies wouldn't be in the streets mugging old ladies.

[TheDMV]

I've been told in the past that it's unfair of me to compare harder drugs to tobacco and alcohol in any way. So before I address this point, please explain this double standard to me.

I'm not sure what you what you're asking...


Pfft! You ever tried scoring some weed? It's easier than going to the liquor store, I'm not kidding.

weed is incredibly easy to get and would be no problem for me to acquire. Heroin on the hand, would not. Same with many other drugs much more dangerous than pot. If you live in the city you can get htose drugs but out in the suburbs or in the country it's really hard.

Because it's not like the FDA to do ****, right?

I won't deny that. That was just my opinion and I could forsee companies "watering down" drugs to try and make them more acceptable for public use. I just don't like the ideae of rdugs being marketed to the people in any way.

Drug education can combat that. Cigarette consumption is going down because there's better education. Throughout most of the 20th century, that sort of education didn't exist.

You can't stop all the stupid people in the world, but you can cure ignorance.

Why even give those stupid people the oppurtunity to get there hands on even more lethal substances? People have a great amount of freedom of choice and beleive that is a right that every human should have, but there are some cases where people just need to be protected.

Actually, recent research is calling the conventional knowledge of flashbacks into question.

That's pretty interesting. I only know so much about this subject so if you have any articles that would be cool.

nononononono you are an idiot.

i don't know anyone who wants drugs and doesn't do them because they are illegal.

if you want drugs you get them, prohibition has absolutely zero affect on that.

Maybe that's because you live in a major city. You must understand that drugs are illegal to produce and are in limited supply. If I was closer to a major city, I know that many more of my friends would try and experiment with drugs like LSD, cocaine, etc. People out in suburbs and the country don't have these drugs as readily available as in large heavily populated areas.

[Steerpike]

I'm not sure what you what you're asking...

In previous debates, I made analogies involving alcohol and tobacco, and people told me I wasn't allowed to do that because they were too different. However, other people make negative analogies to harder drugs with booze. It's an unfair double standard.

weed is incredibly easy to get and would be no problem for me to acquire. Heroin on the hand, would not. Same with many other drugs much more dangerous than pot. If you live in the city you can get htose drugs but out in the suburbs or in the country it's really hard.

Getting them in the suburbs is easier than you imagine. And people I've met who live out in the country tend to have stronger work ethics and wouldn't start on smack anyway.

I won't deny that. That was just my opinion and I could forsee companies "watering down" drugs to try and make them more acceptable for public use. I just don't like the ideae of rdugs being marketed to the people in any way.

I'm not an economist, pharmacist, marketing expert, or whathaveyou. But I think the statement of "drugs being marketed to people publicly" is a gross oversimplification of what would actually happen.

Why even give those stupid people the oppurtunity to get there hands on even more lethal substances? People have a great amount of freedom of choice and beleive that is a right that every human should have, but there are some cases where people just need to be protected.

Most people get started on this stuff out of ignorance. Effective teaching combats ignorance. Do you know what drug education is like now? It ****ing blows. It tells you nothing. It gives absolutely no incentive to avoid the stuff other than a few vague scary stories, and some cartoonish fictional characters.

That's pretty interesting. I only know so much about this subject so if you have any articles that would be cool.

I'll see what I can pull up. My mother is a medical transcriptionist, so she has easy access to a lot of the news coming out of the medical community.

[eburton04]

Don't tell me LSD is safe either. While having a sitter might prevent one who uses LSED from ripping there skin off, it won't stop the mental hallucienations and flashbacks that occur after living through a plethora of acid trips thinking that one's invincible and that this drug can't harm them.


dude, okay, you obviously know nothing about acid.

acid will NOT make you want to rip your skin off. thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard. makes me feel like im in DARE again.


acid MAINLY opens up your mind to things you wouldnt normally think about. a regular good acip trip will involve you seeing objects and the walls "breathe" or slightly moving, waving around, etc. also it will mainly involve you THINKING like you never have before. youre basically looking at everything around you as if youve never seen it before. the only way you can have a bad acid trip is if you come upon something that really truly scares you.

acid is something that can be easily controlled by knowledge of the substance. dont start usage with the drug by taking multiple hits. know your limits and work up from there. LSD can be an extremely spiritual drug and can actually help people out sometimes.





WEED should be completely legal. its in no way more harmful than cigarettes.


and for everything other than weed (LSD, Mushrooms, Cocaine, X, Heroin, Meth, Mescaline, etc, etc) i think the small quantities being legal is a good idea. I've done all of the above drugs (except for heroin and mescaline) and i think theyre safe enough for small quanities to be legal. I love to trip (moreso on mushrooms) but i dont like the idea of LSD being technically a lethal weapon. and other drugs are fun on certain occasions (blow, x).. they shouldnt be carried in stores, but people are going to have them regardless if theyre legal, esp in those amounts. theres really nothing WRONG about it. we should actually have the freedom here to ingest any substance that we feel okay with. lets keep some people out of jail and use some tax dollars on something else for a change. set up more FREE rehab clinics.


thats what i feel anyway.

[Jon]

Actually drug education
a) Tells you all the negative effects and long term risks of drug abuse in a scary way thus creating a sense of danger and a sense of curiousity
b) Doesn't really tell you about how great x, y & z are; you figure there must be a reason why people are hooked on them, and decide to experiment.

The most abused drugs are only the most abused because they're the best (MDMA, meth, smack, whatever).

[deadinholywood]

In my opinion there is going to be very little change in the amount of drug users regardless of the legality of certain substances. If you want to get something now it's fairly easy to obtain, if the substance is legalised it does not mean everyone will run out and start to shoot up.

Having them illegal makes my job a hell of a lot more fun though, I pulled over an speeding, unregistered car the other day and asked the driver blow into a PBT (preliminary breath testing device) as he does that i see something fall from his mouth, he bends over to pick it up and shows me that it's his tooth. (he has the worst Heroin teeth i have ever seen) the guy i was working with told him "He told you to blow into the tube, not bite it off you dickhead, your under arrest for......." I LMAO :lol:

[Loser]

Actually drug education
a) Tells you all the negative effects and long term risks of drug abuse in a scary way thus creating a sense of danger and a sense of curiousity


I remember when I had a drug education class in 6th grade, they just told us that marijuana will make you stupid, alcohol will get you in a car accident, and smoking will make your lungs black. They hardly went into any detail about the risks of any substance at all.

[DBoons Ghost]

Yeah, you can cause very serious permanent mental problems with LSD.

See: Syd Barrett

I just want to make sure people understand what happened to Syd is not commonplace.

Syd was schizophrenic, and was taking inhibitors to treat his delusions. Most inhibitors push serotonin into the brain or whatever chemicals the chemical imbalance one would be treated for. LSD doesn't react well to inhibitors and if you take LSD while under the influence of an inhibitor you increase your chances of making your trip lethal. LSD stores in fatty tissues, which inhibitors are known for ignoring, so without me being a doctor and using medical terms, the inhibitors prevented the LSD from leaving Syd's fatty tissues, forcing the effects of the LSD to stick with him permanently. Given that he was suffering from schizophrenia, the fact that he loved acid and took way too much of it didn't help his condition.

It is said that if you take LSD too much you will go insane. I've taken at least 500 hits of Acid from 1985 to the year 2005. I tripped for the last time in my life sometime last year after my divorce. When I went to Woodstock in 1994 I took close to 20 hits of LSD in the course of 48 hours. I am not insane. I am not even close.

Learn the truth.

[Jon]

eep a cop everyone hide

[Danger Bird]

I just want to make sure people understand what happened to Syd is not commonplace.

Syd was schizophrenic, and was taking inhibitors to treat his delusions. Most inhibitors push serotonin into the brain or whatever chemicals the chemical imbalance one would be treated for. LSD doesn't react well to inhibitors and if you take LSD while under the influence of an inhibitor you increase your chances of making your trip lethal. LSD stores in fatty tissues, which inhibitors are known for ignoring, so without me being a doctor and using medical terms, the inhibitors prevented the LSD from leaving Syd's fatty tissues, forcing the effects of the LSD to stick with him permanently. Given that he was suffering from schizophrenia, the fact that he loved acid and took way too much of it didn't help his condition.

Okay, what about Roky Ericson?

[DBoons Ghost]

Okay, what about Roky Ericson?

What about him?

Make no mistake about it. Drugs are dangerous when you abuse them. Use don't abuse is a good motto.

However, some weaker minded people will be more susceptible to the long term affects of drug abuse.

I am not excusing the use of LSD as not harmful, but as stated, any drug when it's abused becomes harmful. If you use drugs as an escape from a difficult reality, you're well on your way to disaster. If you use drugs as a recreational tool to have some extra fun simply for the fun of it, you're probably going to recognize when enough is enough and you will have the capacity and wherewithall to stop or take a break.

I am for keeping all drugs illegal mind you. With the exception of medicinal marijuana.

[Steerpike]

****, anything is dangerous if no moderation is exercised.

Heroin kills you, hallucinogens can upset your psychological health, tobacco gives you black lung, alcohol obliterates your liver, chocolate turns you into a talking elephant seal, and salads make you lose your sex drive and **** with your bones.

That said, the risks of certain substances are higher than others. The point is that if you cannot exercise a modicum of control and cost/benefit analysis, then you are going to screw yourself.

However, being stupid is not a crime. Jailing someone for possessing heroin doesn't help anybody. It's infinitely more effective to send that person to rehab so they can kick their addiction and have a doctor regularly check in with them to try and get things running smoothly.

[Mr. Ron]

****, anything is dangerous if no moderation is exercised.

Heroin kills you, hallucinogens can upset your psychological health, tobacco gives you black lung, alcohol obliterates your liver, chocolate turns you into a talking elephant seal, and salads make you lose your sex drive and **** with your bones.

That said, the risks of certain substances are higher than others. The point is that if you cannot exercise a modicum of control and cost/benefit analysis, then you are going to screw yourself.

However, being stupid is not a crime. Jailing someone for possessing heroin doesn't help anybody. It's infinitely more effective to send that person to rehab so they can kick their addiction and have a doctor regularly check in with them to try and get things running smoothly.

So would you think legalizing all drugs would make them more accepted and therefore not as much of a problem as they are now? Just curious.

[DBoons Ghost]

Steerpike makes a great point indirectly.

I agree that locking up drug users is retarded. The government does nothing to stop the flow of drugs in and out of this country, and then crucify those who wish to take slight advantage of a drug's availablity. The prison system needs money. Money comes from funding. Funding comes from headcount. Headcount comes from catching criminals. Criminals refers to a large umbrella. I have many friends in law enforcement. They affectionately refer to most drug users as unwilling customers. It's funny, but not really all that funny. Everyone knows locking up drug users is the biggest sham ever, but it doesn't change the fact that's the law.

I don't think it's fair at all.

[Jon]

Heroin doesn't kill people.

Prohibition makes heroin kill people.

Overdoses are from impure heroin.

If you had regulated, good smack, you wouldn't get overdoses, and infact heroin is a perfectly safe drug to be addicted to.

Compared to say meth, which ravages your body (urgh, even dabs leave you feeling awful for weeks)

[Steerpike]

So would you think legalizing all drugs would make them more accepted and therefore not as much of a problem as they are now? Just curious.

If that decriminalization/legalization was accompanied with infinitely more effective education programs, supervision from the FDA, and a well-staffed and funded federal rehab program as a safety net, then yes.

[eburton04]

I just want to make sure people understand what happened to Syd is not commonplace.

Syd was schizophrenic, and was taking inhibitors to treat his delusions. Most inhibitors push serotonin into the brain or whatever chemicals the chemical imbalance one would be treated for. LSD doesn't react well to inhibitors and if you take LSD while under the influence of an inhibitor you increase your chances of making your trip lethal. LSD stores in fatty tissues, which inhibitors are known for ignoring, so without me being a doctor and using medical terms, the inhibitors prevented the LSD from leaving Syd's fatty tissues, forcing the effects of the LSD to stick with him permanently. Given that he was suffering from schizophrenia, the fact that he loved acid and took way too much of it didn't help his condition.

It is said that if you take LSD too much you will go insane. I've taken at least 500 hits of Acid from 1985 to the year 2005. I tripped for the last time in my life sometime last year after my divorce. When I went to Woodstock in 1994 I took close to 20 hits of LSD in the course of 48 hours. I am not insane. I am not even close.

Learn the truth.



ACTUALLY, taking acid over and over again really isnt good for your brain and you ARE legally "insane" after doing it a good few times. youre not going to feel insane at all, but it will change your mindset on lots of things, most of which are for the better. like i said it can be an extremely spiritual drug. BUT it can make you kind of scatter-brained. which is why you SHOULDNT do it too often. you have to know how often you should use it. the days after i drop i always feel retarded.


i'm kinda spent out on most drugs (except for herb, i love it! haha)... i havent touched glass since the first time i did it. all it did was keep me awake. i've had a lot of fun with cocaine but after a friend of mine got seriously addicted to it (he started banging it and smoking it because he did it so much that just puttin it in his nose wasnt doing ****... but he quit cold-turkey about 3 months ago after being hooked for a year) and the fact that its too expensive for me at the time being, ive decided i'm gonna try my hardest to stay away from it. it really is an incredibly addictive drug if you didnt know that. i've done X a handful of times, and as long as you space out your rolls, its not so bad.. but if you get hooked on that **** itll ****ing ruin your brain, man. the same friend of mine that was hooked on coke was hooked on X before that, and he did it so much that the first time he got bunk tabs it totally fried his nerves in his brain and now to feel normal he has to take bars... he's prescribed by his psychiatrist to 5 bars a day.. ****in crazy. but god i love to trip, too, but again its not something ill do all the time.



just smoke weed, damnit. that **** should be legal. i could really care less about everything else.

[Loser]

ACTUALLY, taking acid over and over again really isnt good for your brain and you ARE legally "insane" after doing it a good few times.

You don't know what you're talking about. There isn't even a legal definition of "insane."

[DBoons Ghost]

The reason you feel "retarded" when taking acid is it's cut with strichnine and speed. Pure LSD is hard to get, but people will buy anything if it's similar. Once the real good chemists stopped making pure LSD and started making their own mixture, is when people like you starting getting acid hangovers because what you're taking isn't LSD, it's junk some retard threw together and sold you. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you should know what you were taking probably wasn't good acid. Acid doesn't give you a hangover. It gives you an aching jaw from laughing, maybe a bit of dehydration from not drinking because your stomach was doing backflips, and maybe some hunger for the same reasons. I knew a chemist. He was awesome. We got some street crap and when tested it yielded strichnine and speed, and this was stuff that was spread all around the street. The liquid stuff is much of the same. Pure designer junk. Not LSD.

As to the status of my mindset, I couldn't tell you if that's too much acid or just aging and maturing at a normal pace with what life throws your way.

[Steerpike]

You don't know what you're talking about. There isn't even a legal definition of "insane."

Actually, yes there is.

And it is very possible to develop various psychoses through hallucinogen abuse. The reason Syd Barret just happens to be a bad example is because he was a schizophrenic on medication that interacted poorly with LSD in the human body. That's like making a case for banning guns based on the action of Son of Sam.

The reason you feel "retarded" when taking acid is it's cut with strichnine and speed. Pure LSD is hard to get, but people will buy anything if it's similar. Once the real good chemists stopped making pure LSD and started making their own mixture, is when people like you starting getting acid hangovers because what you're taking isn't LSD, it's junk some retard threw together and sold you. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you should know what you were taking probably wasn't good acid. Acid doesn't give you a hangover. It gives you an aching jaw from laughing, maybe a bit of dehydration from not drinking because your stomach was doing backflips, and maybe some hunger for the same reasons. I knew a chemist. He was awesome. We got some street crap and when tested it yielded strichnine and speed, and this was stuff that was spread all around the street. The liquid stuff is much of the same. Pure designer junk. Not LSD.

Which is actually another good argument to legalize the stuff. Removing this tainted **** is a pretty good counter.

[Lupus]

Wow, people in here really need to look at http://www.erowid.org.

[Danger Bird]

ACTUALLY, taking acid over and over again really isnt good for your brain and you ARE legally "insane" after doing it a good few times.
Urban myth.

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lsdcrazy.asp

The reason you feel "retarded" when taking acid is it's cut with strichnine and speed. Pure LSD is hard to get, but people will buy anything if it's similar. Once the real good chemists stopped making pure LSD and started making their own mixture, is when people like you starting getting acid hangovers because what you're taking isn't LSD, it's junk some retard threw together and sold you. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you should know what you were taking probably wasn't good acid. Acid doesn't give you a hangover. It gives you an aching jaw from laughing, maybe a bit of dehydration from not drinking because your stomach was doing backflips, and maybe some hunger for the same reasons. I knew a chemist. He was awesome. We got some street crap and when tested it yielded strichnine and speed, and this was stuff that was spread all around the street. The liquid stuff is much of the same. Pure designer junk. Not LSD.

As to the status of my mindset, I couldn't tell you if that's too much acid or just aging and maturing at a normal pace with what life throws your way.

From wikipedia:
Bad LSD
The most widespread misinformation about LSD, is that it is possible for LSD to be tainted, and bad, or adulterated. While it is possible that a pill sold with the claim that it contains LSD actually contains something else, there are few substances as potent as LSD and also psychoactive that can be ingested in blotter or droplet form; most are effective only in doses too high for such administration. (The only possible exceptions are various psychedelic amphetamines including DOB, which produce LSD-like effects but would require larger pieces of blotter paper and is noticeably more bitter in taste, and Salvinorin-A, a drug with a very different side effects profile.) The most famous example of this legend spreading was at Woodstock, where there was an announcement from the stage not to use a certain variety of blotter. Expecting an LSD trip to be bad (due to concerns about contamination, or any other reason) is likely to cause the trip to be bad, perhaps reinforcing the legend. Contamination is a concern with certain other drugs.

Strychnine
Anti-drug educators frequently tell their students some variant on the theme of inevitable strychnine poisoning through LSD use, for example, that strychnine is commonly sold as a cheaper substitute for LSD by unscrupulous drug dealers; that strychnine is a byproduct of LSD synthesis; that the body produces strychnine as a result of LSD metabolism; or that strychnine is somehow necessary to bond LSD to blotter paper. None of these are true. These memes may even be believed and propagated by drug users themselves. Occasionally, LSD users themselves assume that the minor aches and fatigue associated with "coming down" off the drug are the result of strychnine. In reality, most hallucinogens cause some degree of mental or physical discomfort after the "trip" is over. This is a direct effect of the drug, not strychnine or any other adulterant. Additionally, strychnine itself is one of the most bitter substances known. The bitter taste can be detected at 1 part per million, which is well below the toxic level. Finally, the dangerous dose of strychnine is too high to be contained in a blotter square, even if the entire square were composed of the poison.

Strychnine has indeed rarely been discovered mixed with LSD and other drugs in a few samples recovered by law enforcement agencies, but these were all found in murder or attempted murder investigations where someone was being specifically targeted for poisoning, and not associated with recreational LSD use.

A related myth is that a new type of gang initiation requires the initiate to put a mixture of LSD and strychnine on the buttons of as many payphones as possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_urban_legends

[eburton04]

Well, whatever, it's fun as ****. hahaha

[DBoons Ghost]

Oh well. Wiki said it so it must be true.

All hail Wiki!

[Akira]

Oh well. Wiki said it so it must be true.

All hail Wiki!

Wiki>You and a scientist.

Wait...

[DBoons Ghost]

Exactly.

I can't be bothered. I mean, if I was talking out of my butt I would admit as much. I trust my chemist buddy, and I trust the fact I been buying and taking drugs for 20 years.

But Wiki is proof.

[Loser]

I often trust wikipedia, as it has sources other than buying drugs and having a chemist friend. But that's just me.

Because you know, you don't really know for certain what's in something just by buying it.

[DBoons Ghost]

Wikipedia is a community created and updated online encyclopedia. The people who add to it are no better or worse then you or I, and are not qualified as far as anyone knows.

[Steerpike]

I often trust wikipedia, as it has sources other than buying drugs and having a chemist friend. But that's just me.

I'm gonna have to side with the chemist on this one. Testing for various substances is easy when you have the right materials.

[CarnageFairy]

Syd was schizophrenic, and was taking inhibitors to treat his delusions. Most inhibitors push serotonin into the brain or whatever chemicals the chemical imbalance one would be treated for. LSD doesn't react well to inhibitors and if you take LSD while under the influence of an inhibitor you increase your chances of making your trip lethal. LSD stores in fatty tissues, which inhibitors are known for ignoring, so without me being a doctor and using medical terms, the inhibitors prevented the LSD from leaving Syd's fatty tissues, forcing the effects of the LSD to stick with him permanently. Given that he was suffering from schizophrenia, the fact that he loved acid and took way too much of it didn't help his condition.


LSD isn't stored in fatty tissues, it's actually completely out of your body before the trip is even over, having a half life of only 3 hours.

However, you're right that SSRI's (and other medications) can react badly with LSD. And it's not smart for someone with any mental disease, especially one as severe as schizophrenia, to be taking acid.

[spitfirejunky]

The fact that the (physio) half-life is 3 hours is completely irrelevent to how fast it discipates from the body.

LSD does clutter in certain parts of the brain, and it can even induce a high hours after it's been taken.

[CarnageFairy]

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_myth1.shtml

http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/mcb/165_001/papers/manuscripts/_278.html
Weeks(WWW2). This debunks the myth that LSD stays in your body forever. The main thing that keeps these rumors circulating the is fact that some people (though very few) experience "flashbacks" (generally within a few months after a hallucinogenic experience). It is generally accepted, however, that these flashbacks are not the result of LSD remaining in the system. Flashbacks are psychological phenomenon, and are in no way related to deposits of LSD in the body. LSD may cause what a person thinks is a flashback, which is really just state-dependent learning. Users sometimes can get themselves into a slightly shifted perspective when a stimulus is similar to one experienced while on LSD, or if one is familiar enough with the LSD state they can sometimes create this mild perspective shift themself.

http://archives.higheredcenter.org/drughied/0560.html

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by LSD "cluttering" in the brain, but flashbacks are mentally constructed. People can have flashbacks about any intense experience, ever seen the stereotyped Vietnam vet that is suddenly gripped with vivid memories of that firefight 20 clicks outside Denang because a car backfires?

[spitfirejunky]

Those articles verify that it not only clutters in the brain, but takes around 24 hours (not the suggested "few" hours) to be excreted.

It's a known fact that indolene chemicals reside in the brain until they're fully metabolized. That's also the same reason why LSD is extremely hallucinogenic at low concentrations. Few drugs can establish this feat because they don't remain in the brain for the entirity of their psychoactivity.

[Danger Bird]

Hey, I wasn't saying you were wrong by posting those articles, I just thought I should post them because I was checking out what you said and thought others should be able to hear both sides and decide for themselves.

I would tend to believe DBoon.

[CarnageFairy]

Those articles verify that it not only clutters in the brain, but takes around 24 hours (not the suggested "few" hours) to be excreted.

It's a known fact that indolene chemicals reside in the brain until they're fully metabolized. That's also the same reason why LSD is extremely hallucinogenic at low concentrations. Few drugs can establish this feat because they don't remain in the brain for the entirity of their psychoactivity.

Ok, so it stays in your system for more than a few hours, like I previously said, sorry everyone for the misinformation. But we can both agree than after a few days, all traces will be gone, yes?

I think we're arguing the same point tbh...

What I'm trying to say is that LSD does NOT stay in your body forever/crystallize in your spine/whatever else you may have heard.

[the_green_bastard]

Wikipedia is a community created and updated online encyclopedia. The people who add to it are no better or worse then you or I, and are not qualified as far as anyone knows.

Except for the quality control, moderators, anti-vandalism measures, and citations of significant statements which require the author to fulfill a burden of proof. Others are typically marked with a "citation needed" marker. Articles with questionable neutrality and factuality are also typically marked as such.

And also, regarding all of this LSD talk - www.erowid.org - excellent, professional site. As far as I know, and please correct me if I'm wrong, raw chemicals, such as LSD, MDMA, etc., typically are flushed out of the body within a few days or couple weeks or so. The most notorious "drug" for drug tests is marijuana, rendering these tests substantially less useful for such other drugs - not that those are what they're looking for anyway - they're looking for civil dissent, not cocaine.

What I'm trying to say is that LSD does NOT stay in your body forever/crystallize in your spine/whatever else you may have heard.

Yes. That myth is right up there with MDMA "putting holes in your brain" and the smoking of mushrooms "putting holes in your lungs (although smoking mushrooms must be absolutely horrendous for your lungs)," as if the effects could be that simple. Anti-drug propaganda, and nothing more. One of my dealers once told me of people eating too many mushrooms and getting a "perma-trip." Humbug.

[spitfirejunky]

Ok, so it stays in your system for more than a few hours, like I previously said, sorry everyone for the misinformation. But we can both agree than after a few days, all traces will be gone, yes?

I think we're arguing the same point tbh...

What I'm trying to say is that LSD does NOT stay in your body forever/crystallize in your spine/whatever else you may have heard.

No incorrect information has been passed really. :) I was merely trying to put things in perspective when you said that it has a half-life of 3 hours.

Also, when I said it clutters in the brain, I simply meant that it exists in high concentrations in the brain at any given time compared to other body parts. Never did I imply that it remains in the body for long periods of time.

[Loser]

From the Psychedelics Encyclopedia: "LSD is a very curious chemical. When given by injection, it disappears rapidly from the blood. It can be observed when tagged with Carbon 14 in all the tissues, particularly the liver, spleen, kidnes, and adrenal glands. The concentration found in the brain is lower than in any other organ -- being only about 0.01 percent of the administered dose."

[spitfirejunky]

After 4 hours or so, the only body parts with detectable concentrations of LSD are the brain and blood.

Perhaps I should rephrase:

The brain has the most consistent concentration of LSD than any of the other body parts.

[Jon]

MDMA actually does put holes in your brain though.

Makes you stupider than a stoner.

facebovvad though?

[-1up!-]

MDMA actually does put holes in your brain though.

Makes you stupider than a stoner.

facebovvad though?

lol holes in your brain? Where d'you hear this?

[thickasabrick]

The drug use at my old highschool was pretty bad to the point where they actually hired a teacher to teach "drug class," so at least we could be informed about the drugs we are taking.

He was an old alcoholic/drug user, shot speed for many years, that sorta stuff.

Anyways, he said that a lot of teenagers lately have been going to doctors/hospitals and it turns out they suddenly developed really bad cases of MS. He said the one thing they all had in common was that they were all heavy Ecstacy users. Which is pretty scary considering how serious MS is.

He said it's probably not as simple as "MDMA causes MS," and the last time I spoke to him about it, he hadn't heard anything new. But it's just something to think about if you like using ecstacy.

[GreyHam]

it is a fact that a huge sum of money from drugs goes towards funding organised crime. i know you get small groups that make theyre own but largely, organised crime gets the benefit. thing is, smack and coke arent really good for you, so decriminalizing them isnt a very good idea. does this law mean that shops can start selling drugs? or do people still buy from dodgy drug dealers with gravy in the junk and grit in the pot

[Steerpike]

thing is, smack and coke arent really good for you, so decriminalizing them isnt a very good idea.

Decriminalization means that you can't get thrown in jail for possessing or using the stuff. Bit of a difference between that and having National Heroin Day with free hypodermic needles being handed out at the 7/11.

[GreyHam]

yea i wasnt really going for that, i wasnt really sure to what extent it was being decriminalised, especially when it comes to dealing. it doesnt make much sense for a substance to be legal to own, and legal to take, but illegal to sell because, well, noone would have any. im sure manufacturing and growing would be frowned on too..

[Steerpike]

Decriminalizing it means it would still be taken from you if you were caught with it, but you wouldn't serve jail time.

As I've said, I want federally funded rehab programs instead of mandatory jail sentences for drug users.

[GreyHam]

that makes sense, apart from the people that dont want to come off the stuff. as long as its an option though

[thickasabrick]

All the money spent on the "drug war" could much more easily be spent educating kids at a young age about the /truth/ about drugs, and then the rest could be spent on rehabilitation clinics for the people who still didn't listen.

Mind you, most of the governemnts of "modern" countries can't seem to wrap their heads around all the stupid choices they make.

[Swill_Merchant]

Well, here we are again, folks. I'm:
1. Trying again to post a successful thread.
2. Trying to throw some fuel into the fire that is our forum.

It appears (I know this is aging news) that Mexico is poised to loosen its stranglehold on civil liberties, much to the dismay of its northern neighbours leading this moralist crusade. Drug prohibition. It is a fact of life in virtually every country on this planet. It is forced upon every member of the UN. It is as natural to some people as the blue sky, and it is thus difficult for people to even re-examine. I've been thinking quite a bit lately, in light of my more... ambitious dabblings as of recent times, and I would love to actually debate this here in a specific thread, as opposed to this being a related fringe topic. I ask, nay, challenge, people to convince me that drug prohibition is a correct policy, and welcome with open arms those who would argue on my side. Please, post your thoughts. It would make my day.

I think we should put more effort into re-habilitating drug users instead of locking them up. Our jails and prisons are already over-crowded.

[Danger Bird]

MDMA actually does put holes in your brain though.

Makes you stupider than a stoner.

facebovvad though?

It's fine if you have your own opinion but don't just come in here and spout stupid urban legends.

http://www.dancesafe.org/48hours.html

[dei]

I think we should put more effort into re-habilitating drug users instead of locking them up. Our jails and prisons are already over-crowded.

Yeah, that's basically how I feel.

[faelun]

i have to agree with the main article, like leave the stupid punks who simply do drugs on their own free time alone, they are just wasting space/tax payers money in jail, as they said the bill will allow police forces to focus on the more urgent problems of dealers and producers etc. and yeah im all for the 0 tolerance around schools and by government workers but as someone mentioned before like using/having pot is one thing...but using/having meth and coke is something totaly different

[Danger Bird]

I wouldn't put coke on the same level as meth. Maybe crack.

[Jon]

lol holes in your brain? Where d'you hear this?
I'm joking, but it seriously makes you stupid.

:(
He said it's probably not as simple as "MDMA causes MS," and the last time I spoke to him about it, he hadn't heard anything new. But it's just something to think about if you like using ecstacy.
I don't think I have many friends who don't do E :(
I wouldn't put coke on the same level as meth. Maybe crack.
I wouldn't put any of them on that 'level'. You do coke and you realise that it isn't a big deal, then you do crack and realise it isn't a big deal, then you do meth and realise it isn't a big deal either.

Its all down to the user.

I could do speed every day of the week to keep me focused at work, but then I realised if I did that, I'd be dependant, full stop.

Bad idea.

All down to the user.

[Swill_Merchant]

Ecstasy puts holes in your brain, don't you watch oprah?

[PerpetualBurn]

I don't take health advice from someone that overweight.

[Tha End]

ok drugs should stay illegal (minus Marijuana...) because they put the public in jeopardy

yes I know alcohol does this too

[Love2Lust]

I think marijuana, and only marijuana should be legalized. Some could argue that doing so would open a gateway for others to be legalized, but that is highly doubtful. Marijuana wouldnt open a gateway because it isnt as harmful as most others. Cocaine, heroin, meth all have EXTREMELY high addiction rates, and very harmful qualities. Marijuana has the same qualities as tobacco mostly. If it was legalized, one could expect a quick market, and taxation on the product, as well as government regulated Pot Farms. It would pretty much be treated like alcohol, with age limits, high tax rates, and they probably wouldnt let you wander around while high.

I am completely for the legalization of marijuana, and think that it would actually turn into a sort of cash crop for the government, because the taxes would be very high I'm sure...I think it would be smart for them to do it, but far too many would be outraged...

[Jon]

oh my god i am so sick of all you stupid stoners.

weed is not harmless.

'hard' drugs are not necessarily addictive or dangerous.

[Rabbi]

IMHO, ciggarettes are worse than marijuana. Ciggarettes are no doubt one of the hardest addictions to quit, and as far as I know mary j is less dangerous for your lungs, correct me if I'm wrong. I also think alcahol is more dangerous. So many more people die due to alcahol poisoning and such then they do from marijuana.

My mom has been smoking for around 20 years and is getting the flu constantly and a terrible cough. Marijuana dosn't do that.

[Danger Bird]

Marijuana has the same qualities as tobacco mostly.
Except nowhere nearly as harmful as tobacco. Tobacco is nearly as addictive as cocaine, whereas cannabis has been proven not to be physically addictive. And I"m not saying smoking pot is harmless to your lungs, being that it does create tar, but it's not packed full of carcinogens like tobacco.

And eating or vaping weed is pretty much harmless.

[Jon]

I know I'd prefer to be a braindead idiot wearing tiedye than coughing up a bit of phlegm every few days :rolleyes:

[Danger Bird]

You're right, smoking grass automatically makes you a hippie. Just look at Carl Sagan.

[Jon]

weed is terrible for you, just like a multitude of other substances - legal or illegal.

do to your body what you want, but don't try to classify something that you have no experience of versus something you try with your little freshman friends behind the bikeshed every two weeks.

[RockAndRoll]

I know I'd prefer to be a braindead idiot wearing tiedye than coughing up a bit of phlegm every few days :rolleyes:

So go buy a shirt....

[Danger Bird]

weed is terrible for you, just like a multitude of other substances - legal or illegal.
Proof or gtfo

do to your body what you want, but don't try to classify something that you have no experience of versus something you try with your little freshman friends behind the bikeshed every two weeks.

Uh... what?

[Jon]

How about you tell me about the last time you tried meth so you can prove that its really harmful to everyone who does it!

[CarnageFairy]

The idea of a "hard" drug is completely subjective, depending on who you ask.

[Tha End]

oh my god i am so sick of all you stupid stoners.

weed is not harmless.

'hard' drugs are not necessarily addictive or dangerous.

1. I'm sick of your stupid 'glam-rock' nonsense too, so don't whine.
2. I'm not a stoner.
3. Weed is harmless, you would have to smoke about a tonne of it to OD. Other than that I don't see the harmful side of laughing and eating good food (maybe weight gain...).

[PsychoTronn]

oh my god i am so sick of all you stupid stoners.

weed is not harmless.

'hard' drugs are not necessarily addictive or dangerous.

wow you are a moron

[Loser]

3. Weed is harmless, you would have to smoke about a tonne of it to OD. Other than that I don't see the harmful side of laughing and eating good food (maybe weight gain...).

It's closer to a kilogram than a tonne. Also, inhaling any smoke is not harmless.

[JuggerKnoT]

How about you tell me about the last time you tried meth so you can prove that its really harmful to everyone who does it!

stop posting.

[CarnageFairy]

It's closer to a kilogram than a tonne. Also, inhaling any smoke is not harmless.

Of course inhaling smoke isn't good. The difference between weed smoke and say, cigs are that THC actually inhibits the growth of cancerous cells.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051019003339.htm

At least that's the word on the street.

Of course weed isn't totally harmless, but it's close. Problems generally arise when someone who can't handle their **** starts smoking, which is when you get people who are "addicted" to weed, or just let it ruin/control their life.

To me, drugs are a responsibility. If you want to use, you better be ready to deal with whatever adverse effects come your way. Use in moderation, and always educate yourself.

[Steerpike]

ok drugs should stay illegal (minus Marijuana...) because they put the public in jeopardy

yes I know alcohol does this too

Then you support raging hypocricy. If I'm allowed to get blind ****-faced drunk, I should be allowed to drop acid. Doesn't mean I will though.

Cocaine, heroin, meth all have EXTREMELY high addiction rates, and very harmful qualities.

Actually, the last I checked there is no conclusive evidence that cocaine has any chemically addictive properties. Long-term use can create a psychological hook, but other than that.

And anyway, what about simple decriminalization?

Marijuana has the same qualities as tobacco mostly.

No it doesn't! Where the hell did you get that from?

and they probably wouldnt let you wander around while high.

You ever met a stoner in public?

Ciggarettes are no doubt one of the hardest addictions to quit,

Mole for mole, nicotene is more addictive than heroin.

and as far as I know mary j is less dangerous for your lungs, correct me if I'm wrong.

Filtered, yes. But it's still not a good idea to put smoke of any kind in your lungs several times a day.

I also think alcahol is more dangerous. So many more people die due to alcahol poisoning and such then they do from marijuana.

That's because you can't OD on pot. It' simply not humanly possible to consume that much at one time.


3. Weed is harmless, you would have to smoke about a tonne of it to OD. Other than that I don't see the harmful side of laughing and eating good food (maybe weight gain...).

There are long-term side-effects. Smoking regularly does hurt your throat and lungs because no matter where it's coming from, smoke is still burning vapor

Long-term near daily use of marijuana can affect short-term recollection and perception of the passage of time.

There are always associated risks with any substance you choose to use. In the grand scheme of things, marijuana carries the least risk as it's side-effects are minimal, long-term side-effects are easy to avoid if moderation if properly exercised, it's not humanly possible to OD on it, and it's non-addictive.

[Jon]

To me, drugs are a responsibility. If you want to use, you better be ready to deal with whatever adverse effects come your way. Use in moderation, and always educate yourself.
Yes exactly. You can use meth or heroin or coke or crack or anything and be a completely functioning human being, with a career and whatever else.

You can also let weed completely ruin your life, and I know many people this has happened to or have been affected by it.

I think I want to make love to Steerpike though, I'm glad not everyone on MX is a moron :)

[Danger Bird]

Everybody seems to forget that you can cook food with ganja. Smoke inhalation = 0.

Jon, I don't see what point you've been trying to make. Can you spell it out for me?

[Jon]

Doesn't stop it from being harmful.

Psychosis is a myth. I really actually don't know anyone who's family has been ****ed up by psychosis.

And having parents that smoke too much weed and ruin your life? Nope, don't have any friends with parents like that either.

Because weed really is completely and utterly harmless.

[CarnageFairy]

Doesn't stop it from being harmful.

Psychosis is a myth. I really actually don't know anyone who's family has been ****ed up by psychosis.

Reefer madness!


And having parents that smoke too much weed and ruin your life? Nope, don't have any friends with parents like that either.

It's your life, you have to let your stoner parents ruin it.

[Danger Bird]

Because weed really is completely and utterly harmless.

Well, you have to think, is it the weed's fault or the person's?

[Jon]

waitwaitwait

so if several of my close friends have ****ed up lives because of alcoholism, weed psychosis etc etc, then its the person's fault, but if you're addicted to coke its the drug's fault?

fantastic logic there, retard.

[Rabbi]

Jon srsly, whats more dangerous, weed or ciggarettes? Have you ever heard of someone getting lung cancer or emphazema (sp?) because of their constant use of mary j? Its probably happened but its just not as likely.

How about you tell me about the last time you tried meth so you can prove that its really harmful to everyone who does it!

I've never done meth to this date, but I can still say its harmful. And you know why that is? Because there are statistics that say people who use meth regularly are harming their bodies. http://www.freevibe.com/Drug_Facts/meth.asp

Thats scientific proof. Didn't you ever have D.A.R.E?

And people that use meth are the ones who are ignorant about it hurting their bodies.


Nice try though.

[Rabbi]

weed is not harmless.


Because weed really is completely and utterly harmless.

You're not being consistant.

[Jon]

no no, not ignorant about hurting their bodies.

just apathetic.

whereas weed users are brought up to believe, by their peers, that weed is so very harmless, so when there are statistics brought in (or personal experience) about psychosis this is quietly ignored.

and yes we did have drug education, if you backtracked in the thread we were talking about how education basically causes drug abuse.
You're not being consistant.
sarcasm

[Steerpike]

Everybody seems to forget that you can cook food with ganja. Smoke inhalation = 0.

The other effects I described can still happen, but if you consume enough of those magic brownies to experience those side-effects, you're also going to be morbidly obese.

Well, you have to think, is it the weed's fault or the person's?

Addiction is a behavior, not a disease. That in mind, it is the person's fault, always. You can't blame a substance for your own stupidity.

Thats scientific proof. Didn't you ever have D.A.R.E?

The DARE program is perhaps the worst drug education program in the US. It equates marijuana with heroin and meth without actually telling you what any of them do.

I learned more through my own independent research than I ever learned in grade school.

[Shell]

I went through DARE, and can't tell you a thing about drugs...
except, they are BAD. :p

[Rabbi]

I went through DARE, and can't tell you a thing about drugs...
except, they are BAD. :p

Thats pretty much all you learn in D.A.R.E.

[Jon]

Addiction is a behavior, not a disease. That in mind, it is the person's fault, always. You can't blame a substance for your own stupidity.
Yes.

I wish you could rep people more often :(

[CarnageFairy]

waitwaitwait

so if several of my close friends have ****ed up lives because of alcoholism, weed psychosis etc etc

I keep seeing you mention this and can't help but wonder what you're talking about.

If you mean people with things like schizophrenia, you're born with it. Using drugs can be an impetus which causes it to show itself, just like many other things.


Because there are statistics that say people who use meth regularly are harming their bodies. http://www.freevibe.com/Drug_Facts/meth.asp

Freevibe doesn't count. :D