Should drugs be decriminalised?

[el_flel]

So, a pretty simple question but opinion is usually very mixed.

Now, before people start screaming "They should stay illegal! Drugs are bad!" it is important to consider both sides of the argument:

For legalisation:
- We already do legalise some drugs: alcohol and nicotine being the most obvious.
- Some drugs have benefits: cannaboids can help glaucoma and relieve pain, medication for ADHD/ADD is a stimulant which works in the same way as cocaine, and morphine is an opiate.
- By illegalising drugs it causes a huge rise in crime rates.
- If drugs were legalised they could be properly regulated and thus made safer.

Against legalisation
- They are dangerous and harmful in a huge number of ways - both long-term and short-term - the most well-known being increasing the risk of cancer and other diseases/conditions, causing organ or psychological damage, and in some cases, death.

Statistics on the most dangerous drugs vary, but heroin and cocaine are usually at the top, shortly followed by alcohol.

So, do you think drugs should be legalised? None, all or just some? What is the reasoning behind your opinion?

[Lance]

Legalize it, but sterilize those who use it.
They will never be able to have healthy children anyway, also the possibility for them being good parents is pretty close to zero.
But when it goes to their own bodies, they should be able to swallow/drink/inject anything they want as much as they want.

[HystericalParoxysm]

I'm completely behind decriminalizing marijuana. There's no reason for it to be criminal when alcohol isn't - alcohol is more immediately problematic (more extreme behavioral changes, loss of inhibitions, sickness due to overindulgence) and more problematic over time (liver damage and so forth). I'd also like to see a greater emphasis on treatment rather than prosecution.

The way it works here in the Netherlands seems to be pretty good - and despite there being shops to buy weed in every town, the usage rates are actually pretty low and it's not exactly like scenes from Reefer Madness here.

Other hard drugs, I don't know. While on one hand, I don't like the idea of adults being told what they can and cannot do to their own bodies, cocaine, heroin, etc., are so physically and psychologically damaging, I can't understand why anyone would want to do them.

[el_flel]

"They will never be able to have healthy children anyway, also the possibility for them being good parents is pretty close to zero." - Got any evidence to back that up, Lance? Seems that there is an important distinction to make between a recreational user and an addict.

[Lance]

Of course, I did not mean those who took it once, or with medical purposes.
What of evidence, there is organizations in every country dedicated to raise those children of nacromans and alcoholics and such.

[HystericalParoxysm]

There's also organizations dedicated to curing the evil out of gays. Existence of organizations doesn't serve as evidence that drug users cannot raise happy, healthy children. Just because someone has a drink now and then (or a joint now and then) to relax at the end of a hard day doesn't mean they're a drug abuser, or incapable of raising children well.

[bulu77]

I've had friends who had their lives torn apart by meth, cannabis, ecstasy, alcohol, and anti-depressants. I saw them basically from being a happy person turned into a wreck. Their parents cried each night, praying for them. Friends alienate them because they no longer became the person we all used to love being with. I also once had these addictions and it ruined me. It is these experience that tells me that drugs should NEVER be decriminalized even if the drug is classified as a " soft drug ". I thought I would never venture through that meth road when I was on cannabis, but there I was nearly spent two or three years in jail for meth. Those are my opinions and everyone have their own, but to me I see any drugs whatsoever is destructive but again that's just me. Different people, different choices, different experiences, and different mentality but ONE thing is certain. DRUGS is DANGEROUS.

[Lance]

There's also organizations dedicated to curing the evil out of gays. Existence of organizations doesn't serve as evidence that drug users cannot raise happy, healthy children. Just because someone has a drink now and then (or a joint now and then) to relax at the end of a hard day doesn't mean they're a drug abuser, or incapable of raising children well.
The mystical gay-threat to society is something that goes from one's personal faith and fears, not consciousness.
But unhappy children in all those social care houses are pretty real... Did you ever seen one?
You cannot use medium-to-heavy drugs just for recreation, you know. What it does is destroys your body and your brain, and this is exactly why it is forbidden now.

Edit: Modern synthetic narcotics make you addicted after you've used them twice in you life, by the way. So you cannot really distinguish between "occasional" user and an "addicted" one.

[crocobaura]

If drugs were legalised they could be properly regulated and thus made safer.


Actually there's a problem with legalising them. Right now, morphine and opium are legal drugs, but with very strict distribution limitations. If, by legalising them you mean to make them easily available to everyone, then you'll need to take responsibility for what happens as a result of that. You don't see anyone asking the government to make freely available antibiotics or sleeping pills, there's a reason why they are not sold over the counter in the US. Also, on what grounds would any doctor write a prespcription for any strong drugs? Most people take them because they are bored or depressed, and there's better alternatives available to cure both.

[HystericalParoxysm]

I've seen firsthand the effects of hard drugs and alcohol abuse, yes. I understand many people really can't handle that kind of thing. My uncle, rest his soul, abused many drugs (illegal and legal) for many years and it likely contributed to his death.

I've also seen great parents who have never let their personal vices get in the way of raising their children. And people who have led productive, happy lives while doing various drugs now and then, without it ever having much of a negative impact. I daresay I've seen more functional drug users than non-functional ones.

Just as there are people who can happily have a glass of wine or a beer now and then with dinner and do fine with it and never abuse it, there are folks who can handle soft drugs now and then without abusing them.

Making drugs illegal doesn't stop people from doing them - just as making them legal doesn't cause people to do them. I don't think folks should just go "Woo yeah do drugs!" of course, but it doesn't make sense to lock people up for it, when police could be spending their time and effort going after people who are truly harmful to others, regardless of what they choose to put in their bodies.

[Lance]

But just as there are people who can happily have a glass of wine or a beer now and then with dinner and do fine with it and never abuse it, there are folks who can handle soft drugs now and then without abusing them.

Making drugs illegal doesn't stop people from doing them - just as making them legal doesn't cause people to do them. I don't think folks should just go "Woo yeah do drugs!" of course, but it doesn't make sense to lock people up for it, when police could be spending their time and effort going after people who are truly harmful to others.
I have a question for you. Did you really ever met any person who was able to use soft drugs without abusing them? All those I've met in my life, those who were persuading me to try to smoke harmless weed, now either dead of overdose from heavier things or lead such a life I just cannot call them humans anymore.
What I propose, let them ruin their lives freely, but do not let them reproduce unhappy children whose minds will be damaged from the beginning.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Yes. Many people I've known - both friends and family and hell, myself, have been able to do soft drugs (caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, marijuana) without abusing them. Many of those folks I've known have done fine with raising children.

There are others I know who have not been able to use moderation in their vices, have turned to hard drugs, and have gone down a path of sickness and ruin. I know much more of the former than the latter. And the only folks I know who went down that darker path started off with problems - ones they were trying to "self-medicate" away. They're people that I don't think would have had a happy, healthy life in any case, because they had decided they weren't going to have one, and drugs were their way of numbing that pain.

I've also known several folks who didn't do any drugs at all, and have been horrible parents... and horrible people.

I only drink coffee and have a glass of wine now and then nowadays. I don't smoke anything anymore or do anything other than caffeine/alcohol, and have no urge to. I have always been very careful to monitor my own behavior as I know addictive personalities run in my family. I'm still functional, happy, healthy, and doing just fine, as are the other folks I know who have done various soft drugs, with the exception of my uncle, who passed away a couple months ago.

His issues started as mental illness, and developed into drug abuse. I believe if he had been treated for his mental issues, his drug issues would have never been so severe, or would have been something he could have recovered from.

Almost half of adults in the US admit to having used marijuana at least once in their lifetime. Yet here in the Netherlands, where you can actually buy it in shops, it's more like a quarter. And there's no huge increase in crime, child abuse, etc., as a result... Hell, most of the native Dutch people I know don't do it at all. Probably because it's treated as no big thing here.

Almost anything can be used responsibly, or abused. I don't think criminalization is the way to handle it. Education and treatment for those that do have a problem with it is really the way to go, IMO. It is possible for an individual to do soft drugs a few times, or even more than a few, and then to quit, and not really be affected by the experience.

IMO, the idea of sterilizing someone because they want to do drugs is just... silly. Exactly which drugs should you sterilize for? Alcohol and cigarettes, if done during pregnancy, can have serious consequences for the unborn child, yet are legal. What if someone doesn't begin taking drugs until after they have children? Do you take those children away and put them in foster care (which often can be as bad or worse than what they were taken away from)... even if the child's home life is just fine? Poverty is also a strong indicator of poor performance in life for children - should poor people not be able to have children too?

Edited several times because I wasn't really making my point clearly.

[unalisaa]

Other hard drugs, I don't know. While on one hand, I don't like the idea of adults being told what they can and cannot do to their own bodies, cocaine, heroin, etc., are so physically and psychologically damaging, I can't understand why anyone would want to do them.
I, too (despite not being a legal adult), am somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of being told what I can and cannot do to myself. Everyone has glue somewhere in their house, but a very low percentage of people sniff glue recreationally.

Drug abuse is a horrible, horrible thing, but by keeping drugs illegal, you're only creating criminals and making a solid foundation for a black market.
By legalising drugs, you get rid of most of the organised crime pertaining to drug sales; you're able to enforce government-mandated quality control; and as a state, you'll earn money on sales tax.
Any person seeking help with a drug addiction doesn't risk being considered a criminal, and you get drug dealing "off the streets".
It's possible to legalise a product without necessarily encouraging its use. Tobacco, for example is marked with huge signs screaming "YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES WILL DIE AND ROCKS WILL FALL AND EVERYONE WILL BE KILLED", but it's still legal. As long as people are properly educated, you won't be "creating" drug addicts. It's not about putting drugs instead of candy in the super market aisles, it's about not being turned into a criminal for doing something that does not pose any risk to anyone but yourself.

To use a two-hit combo of trite arguments in the form of an alcohol comparison and a personal anecdote, the consumption of alcohol is legal, socially acceptable, and even encouraged where I live. Yet, for various reasons, I do not drink. Were cocaine legal, socially acceptable, and even encouraged, I don't think I'd be snortin' snow.

The issue with prescription drugs is an interesting one. I think the main distinction is that with the kind of drugs we are discussing, they're for recreational use, and thus it's up to the individual to make an informed choice. Medical drugs, on the other hand, are for curing disease, and it's difficult for a layperson to navigate medicine -- this is why we have doctors. So you're not actually able to make an informed decision in terms of what will make you healthier, and you risk doing unintentional damage on yourself. By buying cocaine to have fun, you know what you're doing, but if you're using it cure toothaches, you risk doing serious harm. As a rule of thumb, I'd say that it should be legal for anyone to buy anything, but taking a stance on this particular issue is difficult for some reason; I'd be very interested in hearing more people's thoughts on it.

[Rawra]

For real drug addicts it doesn't matter whether they're legal or not. So I don't really care, though it would be a big danger for teens.

[unalisaa]

[...] though it would be a big danger for teens.
Why so?

[Lance]

Yes. Many people I've known - both friends and family and hell, myself, have been able to do soft drugs (caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, marijuana) without abusing them. Many of those folks I've known have done fine with raising children.

IMO, the idea of sterilizing someone because they want to do drugs is just... silly. Exactly which drugs should you sterilize for? Alcohol and cigarettes, if done during pregnancy, can have serious consequences for the unborn child, yet are legal. What if someone doesn't begin taking drugs until after they have children? Do you take those children away and put them in foster care (which often can be as bad or worse than what they were taken away from)... even if the child's home life is just fine? Poverty is also a strong indicator of poor performance in life for children - should poor people not be able to have children too?


It seems we have completely different experiences of the subject.

There is drugs which is basically "point of no return". Also there is people who took too many drugs in their lives to ever recover.
What of those pregnant already, there is no much you can do - you are late at the moment and when the child will be born, you should watch the family for some time so to save the child if his parents will not be able to care for him properly.
And when you are talking of such a poverty when children live on streets and starve and forced to crime to survive... well, my answer is obvious.

PS Ok, maybe I sound kind of dramatic. But as I remember those who was turned into animals with their own free will, I feel such a disgust...

[HystericalParoxysm]

I think governments are more concerned with the safety of the people at large. If they see that a neglected, innocent child cooking meth in its own kitchen for the mother and father...

Well, yes. I personally have never seen a responsible recreational meth user, and between the problems it causes in making it as well as the effects on the user, it seems like a bad idea to make/take. Still not really okay with government telling individuals what they can do to their own bodies, but if any drug is going to be illegal, I'm okay with meth, heroin, coke, and crack being illegal.


You say that you are among the people who use caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, marijuana. Caffeine seems to be a milder form of drug. It can create alertness and energy for the user, but a lethal dose of it can cause major heart failure.

It's also addictive, and can cause various other vascular effects like increased risk of stroke.

Nicotine and marijuana are usually smoked and can produce negative effects. Your body may have raise tolerance to the drugs, but that will just encourage you to consume more and more until you become a drug addict.

That's not really how addiction works. It has nothing to do with tolerance. Nicotine is highly addictive, though I never found it so for me (I stopped smoking cold turkey with no ill effects). Cigarettes have some pretty serious health effects, yet remain legal.

Marijuana is not physically addictive. There are no withdrawl symptoms, though you may still crave it (like you may crave chocolate or, I dunno, Chinese food). And out of all the soft drugs, it has quite a low health impact over time (mostly psychological for people who already had psychological issues, and a slight increase in risk for lung cancer - which disappears if it's eaten or vaporized rather than smoked). And you cannot overdose on it.

Lastly, alcohol isn't that illegal. It's just illegal if you're under 21 years of age and especially illegal if you're under 21 and driving a car, because driving and drinking is a violation of public safety.

The list I gave was soft drugs that, if handled with care, don't have to ruin your life if you take them... not necessarily those that are illegal. Alcohol, out of all the "soft drugs" though, I believe is by far the most harmful, with a risk of accidental overdose, massive changes in behavior and inhibitions, is physically addictive, and if used over time, causes major health issues.

We saw, with US Prohibition of alcohol, that making a drug illegal doesn't stop its use, and only provides an avenue for lucrative underground markets. Despite the harm it can cause, alcohol was re-legalized for adults, and is regulated with regards to how it can be sold (usually only in certain stores that must be licensed, sales only to adults, and in some places, only can be sold on certain days between certain hours). Minors can still get ahold of it, abuse it, and die from alcohol poisoning. Adults can still abuse it to the point of killing their livers.

And yet, it is still legal, but other, less harmful drugs like marijuana are not. Again, this is what doesn't make sense to me.

I would really like to see an overhaul of how drugs are treated in terms of their immediate and long-term health effects, and in the case of drugs like marijuana, legalized with regulation similar to alcohol.

[HystericalParoxysm]

It seems we have completely different experiences of the subject.

There is drugs which is basically "point of no return". Also there is people who took too many drugs in their lives to ever recover.

Well, personal experience colours individuals' viewpoints a lot. Nothing wrong with that... just have to remember that what we have experienced may not be the same as what another person has experienced.

There are certainly a lot of drugs that I don't see any reason anyone would ever want to do them. It seems that all they do is harm. Stuff like heroin, meth, coke (and crack), with such huge health problems involved that it seems insane to even try them, even though the effects might be temporarily pleasant.

But I'd rather not see -all- drugs lumped together (especially since some already are legal that are really no more harmful than some illegal ones - and some legal ones are more harmful than some illegal ones), just as I'd like to not see all drug users lumped together. Everyone's an individual, capable of handling things differently.

It would be nice to see a greater emphasis on education in general on how to handle vice, so that individuals who haven't tried anything yet know how to keep themselves safe when they go off to college and suddenly they're surrounded by people offering them all manner of things. Not just "just say no" but if you've got to try something, how to do so safely, how to recognize signs that it's getting out of control, and how to get help if you need it.

[Lance]

Hmm. I recall having heard caffeine is not actually physically addictive, all it does is stumulates brain functioning. Hence it is addictive phychically. Yes, overdose can provoke a heart attack, but... well, even salt have its lethal dose.
And there is different kinds of alcohol, and they all are of different danger level.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Caffeine is definitely physically addictive, with the withdrawl symptoms and dependency that goes along with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine

Note that I'm not saying that a substance having addictive properties is necessarily harmful - after all, I know damn well I'm addicted to caffeine, and have willingly and quite happily consumed it almost every day of my life since I was about 2 years old. Just that it is indeed an addictive drug, and one that can have consequences. But because it's so prevalent, people don't treat it like it's an addictive drug.

There are different types of alcohol in that there are different types of drinks which may contain various other stuff in 'em, but they all use the same actual chemical to achieve intoxication. The danger involved comes with how the different types are treated - for example, "sweet" drinks like Schnapps and premixed drinks can have a very high alcohol content, but because of the taste, you don't realize just how much you're drinking, and can get much more intoxicated more quickly than you intended. This makes the more likely to be abused by young people, since they can drink without the "ick" factor. I daresay you'll see a lot more college kids hammered on peppermint Schnapps than, I dunno, scotch. ;)

The actual physical effects of the different types tend to be pretty much the same though in terms of behavior, and health effects, for the same quantity of alcohol consumed. Though I still insist vodka gives me a headache, and gin makes me silly and naked.

[Lance]

Err, what I actually meant, was that alcohol itself mixed with different things will have different effects on you and your body.
I can not find the part of caffeine being addictive in a physical way.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Not unless there are other psychoactive substances you're mixing it with.

[wickedblue]

I think marijuana should be decriminalized for reasons that have pretty much been covered here already. It's no worse than alcohol and in fact, is actually less harmful. There's no long term health risks for using it and is actually a very safe and effective method of controlling pain. It's also very useful for treating side effects of chemotherapy. It's also a fantastic antidepressant. Yes there are legal antidepressants available but they are expensive and the side effects can be just as bad (if not worse) than the symptoms. What makes anyone assume those drugs are safer just because they have the support of the government? Personally, I've never heard of suicidal thoughts as a side effect of marijuana but it definitely can be a side effect of those legal antidepressants.

The argument that people can't be functioning members of society because they smoke a joint once in a while is ludicrous. Hell, I know a business owner who smokes it. It's not like he goes to work high and sits in his office smoking pot all day long, he just uses it for recreation and it really isn't a big deal. The suggestion that people who have used or continue to use recreational drugs can't have healthy children or be good parents is equally ludicrous.

Just to be clear: I'm talking about marijuana here. I do not support the use of harder drugs like meth, cocaine, etc. Those are highly addictive and very destructive to a person's health and general well-being. Whether they should be decriminalized or not is a tough one to answer. My emotional reaction is to keep them illegal because they are so destructive and having experienced that destruction first hand, I'm probably too close to it to be unbiased. But then there's my radical liberal mindset that says "my body, my life, my choice" and feel that it shouldn't be the government's place to dictate what I can't do with it. I'm just not entirely there on the emotional side of it.

[fakepeeps7]

I don't know. I'd like to see decriminalization of marijuana, but I don't know if the gang focus would then shift to the harder drugs and we'd still have the same problem. You'd probably have to decriminalize all drugs to get rid of that issue.

Here in British Columbia, we're kind of in the middle of an unofficial drug war. Marijuana is a huge industry for the gangs, and there's really not much the government can do about it. I doubt they're going to decriminalize it any time soon (they're too stubborn), but even if they wanted to do so, they couldn't realistically do it unless the U.S. relaxed their laws, too... or we'd just become a drug haven.

When you keep hearing stories about people getting killed over this, it's scary. Just last week, 10 people were shot at a restaurant. A couple years ago, six people were killed in an apartment building (including two innocent people who just happened to stumble across the scene). And there have been a couple of cases where people have been shot and killed in their car while their small child was strapped into the backseat. When you hear about the connections with the drug trade, you can't help but make comparisons to the time of Prohibition... and you wonder if things might be better if these drugs were just made legal.

[bulu77]

I've seen firsthand the effects of hard drugs and alcohol abuse, yes. I understand many people really can't handle that kind of thing. My uncle, rest his soul, abused many drugs (illegal and legal) for many years and it likely contributed to his death.

I've also seen great parents who have never let their personal vices get in the way of raising their children. And people who have led productive, happy lives while doing various drugs now and then, without it ever having much of a negative impact. I daresay I've seen more functional drug users than non-functional ones.

Just as there are people who can happily have a glass of wine or a beer now and then with dinner and do fine with it and never abuse it, there are folks who can handle soft drugs now and then without abusing them.

This is rare. I can really say I've never met one who doesn't end up a wreck but again, it heavily depends on the area you live in I guess ? Having went down that path, sometimes I would notice some teenagers or adults who is likewise stoned or high on something when I go out to eat at the local restaurant. Seeing them brings me nostalgic moments of the exciting times I had but it also brings disappointment in my face. Nonetheless, I wouldn't want my children or my relatives associated to any drugs whatsoever and I'm glad to see that drugs is still outlawed. :)

[unalisaa]

Wojtek, this discussion is about whether or not drugs *should* be legal, not whether or not they *are*. People's place of residence is largely irrelevant.

[wickedblue]

The argument about the effects wearing off and the problems still being there is also true of alcohol yet many people drink alcohol and never become addicted. I didn't see anyone here suggesting that it solves your problems or that it's somehow a magical cure for everything wrong with your life. It isn't. Using any substance to numb the pain isn't really effective in the long run and that's true even of prescribed antidepressants.

[pinketamine]

I think drugs should be decriminalized, as criminalizing them does not really have a big amount of advantages, in my opinion.
I'll start with "soft" drugs, specifically marijuana. It has been proven (scientifically) that the harmful effects of alcohol are worse than the harmful effects of marijuana. Alcohol is legal, even when it is a dangerous substance, so there isn't any reason for marijuana not to be legal too. Considering the state the economy is nowadays, legalizing marijuana would mean an extra income via taxes.
Also, as el_flel pointed in the first post, legalizing drugs would make possible to make them go through some controls, allowing them being less dangerous for those who decide to use them.
It is obvious too that, as drugs are illegal, its traffic is controlled by mafias and criminal organizations, who earn millions of dollars every year. Criminal activities are related between them usually, and this causes a lot of violence related to drugs.

Some people have pointed that drugs are bad and everyone who takes them becomes and addict. Well, this is obviously totally false. You probably everyday see people drinking some alcoholic drink, but not all of those people are alcoholics (in fact there is a small rate of alcoholism amongst all the people who eventually drink alcohol).

I have a question for you. Did you really ever met any person who was able to use soft drugs without abusing them? All those I've met in my life, those who were persuading me to try to smoke harmless weed, now either dead of overdose from heavier things or lead such a life I just cannot call them humans anymore.
What I propose, let them ruin their lives freely, but do not let them reproduce unhappy children whose minds will be damaged from the beginning.
I am, myself, one of those people. Some people can become addicts to marijuana, but there is people who is addicted to alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, etc. and you don't ban them all.
If someone wants to use drugs, they'll use it, no matter if it is illegal. If someone does not want to try any drug they'll not use it, even when it can be legally bought. Considering this, maybe the intelligent path is to legalize them so those who want to use them can use this drugs in a safe way.

Many of the things I wanted to say have already been said by others, so I really don't have much to add.
I am, like others, a bit more hesitant about legalizing things like heroine, but I think I agree with fakepeeps7 in this.

Marijuana will not solve your problems or make you feel better.
The use of any substance to make you feel better is psychologically bad, as any psychologist could tell you, that is called psychological dependence. Most people don't smoke marijuana to solve their problems, they smoke it because they like it. I personally like the sensation marijuana gives you, but I don't assume smoking it will solve my problems.

It will only create an illusion of happiness and when the effects of this drug wear off you still have to face the reality. Then you want more...and an addiction begins.
Not necessarily. I don't really know who does people make this association. I've been occasionally smoking pot for many years, and I've never become addicted to it or felt like "needing more". Maybe it happens for some people but not for all. I have a lot of friends who occasionally smoke pot and I don't have any who is an addict.

Using any substance to numb the pain isn't really effective in the long run and that's true even of prescribed antidepressants.
I totally agree with you on this. I had an anxiety problem some years ago, and doctors prescribed me some pills. I had to stop the treatment really soon, as my body was starting to develop some physical addiction (I could not sleep without them, for example) to them.

[wickedblue]

I am, myself, one of those people. Some people can become addicts to marijuana, but there is people who is addicted to alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, etc. and you don't ban them all.


This. So hard.

Anything can be abused. Even our sims games can be addictive. People could choose to spend all of their time playing with their sims instead of working, or paying attention to their children or their spouse or their homes. *tries to not look guilty*

If we made everything illegal because it can be addictive there would be nothing left to do and that would only serve to punish those who don't abuse those things. People have to be responsible for their own choices.

[el_flel]

Basically, I'm kind of torn on the issue because on one hand they are dangerous but on the other they could potentially be made safer if they were legalised and it would dramatically reduce crime rates. I completely understand that drugs are dangerous but then we have legalised alcohol and nicotine which are also dangerous, so that aspect of the anti- argument is a little conflicting, particularly when it comes to softer drugs like marijuana. I also think that much of the 'danger' aspect of illegal drugs has come about by criminalising them, such as people unknowingly taking drugs which have been cut with other substances that shouldn't be ingested, having to buy them from dodgy sources and getting into trouble with their dealers over money, or receiving false or confusing information about how to take them safely (see Leah Betts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Betts)). Drugs have a huge impact on the criminal justice system, not just in the prevention of selling/taking them but because there are a large number of offenders who commit crime because of drug habits. We will never win this war on drugs because people will always take them so perhaps it's better to just legalise it.

However, with the possibility of legalisation comes a large number of questions. As crocobaura said, how do you go about selling them? Are they available to everyone or are there restrictions? Take the example of opiates: heroin is illegal but methadone - which is prescribed for heroin addicts - isn't (though restricted). But this situation applies to people who are already addicted, how do you decide whether to issue heroin to a non-addict? If you make them available to everyone then that’s likely to have a big impact on all other legal drugs such as medicine, but if you restrict them what is the best way to do that? Do you legalise everything or just soft drugs, like marijuana? If only the soft drugs, how is it decided which ones are soft enough? If there are restrictions and not all drugs are legalised then there would still a criminal market for those ones which are still illegal, which sort of goes against the case for legalising them however there would undoubtedly still be a drop in crime rates. Is it ethical for a government to allow these substances to be taken every Tom, Dick and Harry?

For the record: not everyone who takes drugs becomes an addict or changes as a person or ruins their life (a suggestion I've seen in this thread). The vast majority of the people I know who take drugs do so without any of the above problems.

The idea of sterilising drug users is very judgemental, unnecessary, and immoral because: it assumes that all drug users would make bad parents which isn’t the case; it assumes that they will either be a user forever (which also isn’t the case) or that as a ‘punishment’ of their former drug use they should never have children; and it could never be realistically introduced because you can’t force people to have the procedure done, if they are an addict how do you know they are in sound enough mind to make the decision, and paying them as an incentive is really quite disgusting because many drug addicts will go to great lengths for money and so this act is very manipulative.

[Mistermook]

I'm for decriminalization, even for the hard stuff. That doesn't mean I think anyone should do drugs, but that I don't think people who do drugs are best turned away from the activity by serving prison time alongside people in prison for the illegal activity of illegally selling, manufacturing and distributing drugs. It doesn't solve the real problem of drugs, it just compounds them with another.

Also, I would greatly appreciate it if the manufacturing of crystal meth were performed in real factories with safety protocols and EPA oversight.

The way to combat issues of addiction is to treat the addiction, not to try to sweep it into prison where you can convenientally forget about the addict.

[crocobaura]

this discussion is about whether or not drugs *should* be legal, not whether or not they *are*.

Speaking of what should or not be legal, in my country marijuana, cocaine, and other commonly known drugs are illegal. However, there are a number of "spice shops" that sell herbs traditionally known for their mood altering properties. Mind you, all those herbs were not on the controlled substances list, so they could be sold just like pepper and paprika. Nothing wrong with that, right? Except that many people abused them and got sick on their account, which lead to many of those substances to be included, guess what, in the controlled substances list. :faceslap: So, the point is, some people just don't know when to stop. Anyway, I agree with a poster above who said that a substance abuser will abuse it regardless of whether it's legal or not, so the issue isn't really with the substance, but with the substance user. Glue and paint solvents are both legal, yet there are some people abusing them and suffering irreversible brain damage as a consequance. If more people started abusing these substance they might become controlled, special permit use only.

[fakepeeps7]

What about caffeine? Should we start controlling that with special permits, too?

[el_flel]

Mind you, all those herbs were not on the controlled substances list, so they could be sold just like pepper and paprika. Nothing wrong with that, right? Except that many people abused them and got sick on their account, which lead to many of those substances to be included, guess what, in the controlled substances list. :faceslap:That happened here with a drug called Meow Meow. It was a legal high that people were buying off the internet, a couple of people died and it was then illegalised. Based on this I doubt my government is going to make drugs legal any time soon, especially not as marijuana was downgraded to a Class C in 2004 then reclassified as a Class B in 2009. Although that was under different government to that we have now it was still Labour and I really can't see the Conservatives making things more liberal (even with the LibDems on side).

Anyway, I agree with a poster above who said that a substance abuser will abuse it regardless of whether it's legal or not, so the issue isn't really with the substance, but with the substance user. This is really important, I think. I do wonder whether legalisation would positively, negatively, or have no effect on the number of drug addicts.

[fakepeeps7]

This is really important, I think. I do wonder whether legalisation would positively, negatively, or have no effect on the number of drug addicts.

Most drugs are already illegal, and people still find ways to use them. I doubt it would make much difference. People with addictive personalities and mental illnesses will still be around whether you pass the laws or not.

[el_flel]

But if they were legalised would it be easier or harder to get hold of them? Because I think that would make a difference. It's easier to become an alcoholic than a heroin addict, for example, because booze is way easier to get hold of therefore there are probably more alcoholics than heroin addicts. If it was as easy to get hold of heroin as it is alcohol would the number of heroin addicts increase? <- Was what I was getting at in my last post.

[Mistermook]

Again, I think the answer to that question revolves around the addictive and damaging "vice" chemicals we already sell legally. Do more people smoke cigarettes and drink booze because they're legal? Maybe, but is cigarette smoking declining? Do more people smoke than huff paint and sniff glue?

I think people mostly recognize than doing stuff like heroin is flirting with disaster for most people. I don't think that, given legalization, most people will rush out to blow their money on meth. Just because something would be made less than illegal doesn't mean it will lose the social stigma. Smokers have been transformed into second class citizens in my lifetime. I don't see why hard drug users would get a free social pass for bad decisions.

See, I don't care if you can't get a job and everyone thinks you're a fucked up loser for doing drugs. That's a good thing in my mind, compared to the wholesale incarceration of the poor that the War on Drugs has amounted too. It's a social issue, not a criminal one. It's a medical problem that should be treated in hospitals and with therapy, not a justice system issue that we try to resolve by locking people up and forcing them to socialize with criminals.

And really, speaking of the criminals that are dealers and producers of drugs, isn't the world itself just ever so slightly safer once those sorts of people aren't organized criminals and doped up high school dropouts playing with toxic chemistry in the apartment next door? For once we'd have the satisfaction of watching corporations gut a criminal enterprise entirely

[ElementMK]

As a lifelong resident of a rural state, I've developed a similar view to some people in this thread. While I live in a miraculously safe city of around 50,000, there are plenty of offshoots and rural areas that have been dealing with a meth issue for a long time.

I am not opposed to legalizing marijuana at all. As it has been mentioned, pot is a soft drug, so it wouldn't be very detrimental to put it alongside alcohol and tobacco.

Hard drugs like methamphetamine should still be restricted, though. It feels like at least once a month I'll see a news story about another meth addict injuring a state trooper or killing their neighbor. Meth is a completely synthetic drug that can't be well regulated by either the government or the individual. One of the main reasons it's not a problem in my town is because of the proximity of houses and neighbors. You can't simply set up a meth lab here without someone knowing; the smell will travel for hundreds of meters.

I'm all for giving people freedom, but the use of hard drugs (heroin and meth, though I'm on the fence about cocaine) typically end in disaster for not only the person using them, but the people that interact with that user. I would love to educate these people properly, but population densities of .4 people per kilometer can be difficult to maintain. Our best bet is to work on the problem with laws and enforce them.

[longears15]

I'm not really sure where I stand.

There is certainly a lot of argument to favour legalisation of softer drugs such as marijuana - regulation would help reduce petty crime rates quite a lot I think, and make things a lot easier for those who use it for medicinal purposes. I know several people who use cannabinoids for pain relief, some illegally, and all have problems with the stigma of using an 'illicit drug'.

My major reservation with its legalisation is its potential adverse effects in people with certain mental illnesses. The two marijuana users I know who went well and truly off the rails also suffered from schizophrenia- and in both of them it was a disaster. I think there is still some debate as to whether cannabis can contribute to development of schizophrenia in some individuals, but its ability to worsen and prolong episodes seems to be well documented. I know it's a small group, but of course one's person experience tends to cloud one's opinions.

I don't really believe in legalisation of hard drugs - cocaine, amphetamines, heroin.. Their medicinal 'relatives' - dexamphetamine for ADD/ADHD, morphine, etc., for pain relief, are already here and regulated for their proper uses. They have significant side effects - so granted, regulation could make them safer - but my inclination would be to keep them illegal. I've used almost every opioid in existence, currently use oxycodone (some of you will probably have heard the term 'hillbilly heroin') and honestly, knowing what the side effects are like I don't think anyone ought to be using them without genuine reason.

[Lance]

I've been occasionally smoking pot for many years, and I've never become addicted to it or felt like "needing more". Maybe it happens for some people but not for all. I have a lot of friends who occasionally smoke pot and I don't have any who is an addict.

Really? I know many people who smoke cigarettes for many years and do not believe they are addicted.
But then you ask them not to smoke while they are at your place, they agree... but still every half an hour they go into closet to smoke.
(Strangely enough, people who admit they are addicted is much more able to control themselves.)

[HystericalParoxysm]

Lance, nicotine, found in cigarettes, has true addictive effects. The definition of "addiction" is not just "does it a lot". There are withdrawl symptoms involved if you stop. While someone can habitually use marijuana (as in, it's a habit for them) it is not physically addictive. There are no withdrawl symptoms, and while one may crave it and like to do it again, that's not really the same thing as an addiction (after all, you can crave chocolate and want to use it again, but that doesn't make you an addict). The mind may crave it, but the body doesn't. Quitting marijuana, even after doing it for quite a while, is nothing like quitting smoking. One may think, "Dang, I'd like a joint..." but there's not the physiological effects associated with it like quitting nicotine like mood changes, weight gain, etc.... Perhaps if you've been using it to self-medicate as a painkiller or anti-depressant, there may be some additional effects involved, but you're not really going to see someone who'd like a bong hit jittery and shaking and unable to think about anything else.

[Lance]

Hm. So does "addiction" mean only physiological addiction?

[Lance]

Still, I was not comparing nicotine and marijuana with their physiological influences on human body, I was talking of psychological... "dependence" then?
People commonly do not admit they are addicted to something, even when everyone else can see they truly are. So excuse me, I am not eager to trust someone who says that (s)he uses drugs for several years and is not dependant on it. Even if all we are talking about is psychological dependence.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Well, people can become dependent on -anything-. There's folks who can't go 5 minutes without checking their email (or IMs, or Twitter). There's people who compulsively chew gum, eat mints, or bite their fingernails. Doesn't mean we need to have computers, gum, mints, or fingers outlawed for folks who are capable of using those things without dependence.

How about the millions of people who can't really wake up or function without a cup of coffee?

[Lance]

Any kind of dependence is destructive for human mind.
But did I say we should outlaw something? What I've said we should allow people do everything they want unless they want to harm someone else.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Well, the whole subject of this thread is whether or not drugs should be decriminalized or not. Whether or not people actually -should- use them is a whole 'nother ball of wax - though with decriminalization could come regulation like there is for alcohol, to try to regulate usage.

I don't think dependence is necessarily destructive though. We're dependent on plenty of things that we require for life, health, and happiness - food, oxygen, water, shelter, warmth, companionship... Seems pretty easy for folks to become "addicted" to food and over-indulge, forgetting or not understanding how to use it responsibly. To become "addicted" to companionship and be unable to feel comfortable being alone.

Of course, I'm not saying we should outlaw food, just that if someone is the sort to become psychologically dependent on something, they will find -something- to become dependent on, no matter how many things you make illegal.

[Lance]

Don't throw "needs" and "dependence" in the same bowl. Needs is something we cannot live happily without, while dependence is someting we imagine we cannot live happily without. Be you stripped of food, you'll starve to death. Be you stripped of companionship, you'll go mad. Be you stripped of bubble-gum... well... I hope you'll survive.

[Rawra]

Why so?
Because the majority of teens are afraid to do something illegal, and it'd be handier for them to buy drugs if they're legal.

[HystericalParoxysm]

I think you missed my point entirely, Lance. Yes, I know you would starve without food, but there are lots of people who overeat and have a dependence on food far beyond basic physiological needs. That was my whole point - almost anything can be abused, and there are things we need that we can also become psychologically dependent on. We can also become dependent on things we don't necessarily need, but enjoy anyway. Or, we can understand -before- we try those things that moderation is a good thing, and that too much of anything can be bad for you, and use the things we enjoy responsibly, taking care not to become dependent on them... whether those things are your iPod, booze, or pot.

[pinketamine]

Because the majority of teens are afraid to do something illegal, and it'd be handier for them to buy drugs if they're legal.

My feeling about this is just the opposite. Teens drink, even when it is forbidden for them, would they drink more if it was allowed for them? I don't think so. HystericalParoxism gave the numbers about the people who usually smoke pot in the Netherlands, and they are WAY LOWER than the numbers in my country. Smoking in Netherlands is legal, and in Spain it isn't, so I don't think there is a direct relation between something being legal and people doing it more.

[noobkiller138]

I am in the middle on this. Legalising pot would make, ironically, pot safer to use because big companies (i.e. Eli Lilly, etc) could make medicinal quality marijuana rather than the coarse stuff with your neighborhood drug dealer. In addition the Columbian and Mexican cartels would come crashing down, which is both good and: good, less illegal drugs coming into the US. bad: thousands of former cartel workers out of jobs, and they have weapons... But on the other hand, thousands of people are killed when they are hit by drunk drivers. But what about high drivers?

however, I am completely and totally against legalising 'hard' drugs like meth, LSD, heroin. These are much worse than pot, and we have prescription drugs that are (marginally) safer than heroin and meth, like oxycodone.

If we wanted to ban ALL drug use, you have to ban, in addition to cigars and liquor, glue, paint thinner, cleaners, computer cleaner, and a host of other products.

[Ledgo]

I'm completely behind decriminalizing marijuana. There's no reason for it to be criminal when alcohol isn't - alcohol is more immediately problematic (more extreme behavioral changes, loss of inhibitions, sickness due to overindulgence) and more problematic over time (liver damage and so forth). I'd also like to see a greater emphasis on treatment rather than prosecution.

The way it works here in the Netherlands seems to be pretty good - and despite there being shops to buy weed in every town, the usage rates are actually pretty low and it's not exactly like scenes from Reefer Madness here.

Other hard drugs, I don't know. While on one hand, I don't like the idea of adults being told what they can and cannot do to their own bodies, cocaine, heroin, etc., are so physically and psychologically damaging, I can't understand why anyone would want to do them.

I think the only reason marijuana is illegal in the U.S is purely user responsibility, most likely. Enough people have done stupid things under the influence and it was the common factor. Alcohol is probably only legal for custom purposes, and would be almost as hard as it would to control marijuana on top of the fact we mine as well make it legal and tax it. I don't smoke the stuff, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's legalized within 20 years. Both marijuana and alcohol are both something that definatley varies with user responsibility because one person can use it without disturbing others, yet others will get packed up on the stuff and drive into children.

I wouldn't be surprised if we have marijuana legalized and taxed in order to get more money into the U.S.

As for hard drugs, no way. They're too much of a danger and the average person/business has no use for it other than to get hiked on it.

[fakepeeps7]

Legalising pot would make, ironically, pot safer to use because big companies (i.e. Eli Lilly, etc) could make medicinal quality marijuana rather than the coarse stuff with your neighborhood drug dealer.

Of course! Because pharmaceutical companies are saintly entities that fart rainbows and never sell any drug that could cause an adverse reaction.

Oh, wait... :faceslap:

I recall hearing something a few years ago about medicinal marijuana here in Canada. Patients were not happy with the government-regulated stuff because it wasn't very potent and it didn't have the same benefits as the stuff on the street. If you want people to use your legal product, you need to make it just as good as the illegal stuff. Otherwise, guess where people will end up when their prescription needs refilling...

[longears15]

I'm going to throw in another personal perspective on this one...I'm currently in hospital on a ketamine drip after my pain spiralled so badly out of control last weekend that by Monday morning I was almost ready to chuck in the towel. Ketamine is of course used as a party drug because of its dissociative and hallucinogenic properties...but I tell you...no way in the world should they be making this one legal as a recreational drug. The first time I had it - a couple of years ago now - my heart rate shot up to about 180 bpm when they started infusing it (at a controlled rate, in a 'safe' medical setting.) Even this time, at a much lower, slower rate, I'm having side effects galore. I move too far, too fast...my whole world falls over in front of my eyes. Friend of mine was in here last week for the same treatment...she came very close to going into respiratory arrest. Some people might be for the argument that it's Joe/Jane Bloggs' business what he/she does with his/her body, but some things are just too dangerous to have readily available

[Daisie]

Of course! Because pharmaceutical companies are saintly entities that fart rainbows and never sell any drug that could cause an adverse reaction.

Oh, wait... :faceslap: Well, yeah. Some of them suck. But are you telling me you've never taken legal drugs?

You really trust your neighborhood pot dealer (and a greedy, ruthless drug lord at the end of the line) more than pharmaceutical companies subject to government oversight, however imperfect?

[fakepeeps7]

Well, yeah. Some of them suck. But are you telling me you've never taken legal drugs?

You really trust your neighborhood pot dealer (and a greedy, ruthless drug lord at the end of the line) more than pharmaceutical companies subject to government oversight, however imperfect?

Of course I've taken legal drugs. That wasn't my point. I'm just wary of big pharmaceutical companies coming in and selling a natural substance. Because, to make any money with a patent, they'll have to alter the substance somehow. And that alteration may not have been properly tested for efficacy or safety in humans before it's released to the public.

So yes, I would trust a neighbourhood pot dealer more than a pharmaceutical company... at least when it comes to something like marijuana. You stick it in a pot, add some light, add some water, add some fertilizer. It would be pretty hard to screw up at the street level. The big pharmaceutical companies have the ability to make the stuff a lot more dangerous. Let's not forget that these are the companies that gave us things like thalidomide, Vioxx, and Zelnorm... and claimed they were safe.

For a plant like marijuana, if it's legalized, probably the best way to do it would be to let farmers (not drug companies) grow and process it, and then regulate it and tax it like alcohol. Instead of a winery, people could have a... pottery (or something like that). :lol:

[HystericalParoxysm]

So yes, I would trust a neighbourhood pot dealer more than a pharmaceutical company... at least when it comes to something like marijuana. You stick it in a pot, add some light, add some water, add some fertilizer. It would be pretty hard to screw up at the street level.

On average, this is likely true. However, with it being illegal, what sometimes happens is...

Dealer gets a large quantity of marijuana. It is low quality (what the kids call "Mexican dirt weed") and thus won't sell for very much. Dealer laces the marijuana with a small amount of some other drug that can also be smoked (often cocaine, but sometimes stuff like PCP), to increase the "potency" of the marijuana so they can sell it for more. In practice, this doesn't really work as it changes the effects entirely, from the mellow feeling you get from marijuana to that mellow feeling plus heart racing, over-excited, over-energetic or hallucinating, which is not really what most potheads are looking for (otherwise, they'd just be doing those other drugs).

There's also issues of mold (improperly dried/stored marijuana can mold, which, when smoked can cause issues), pesticides, or even just using crappy strains that have an undesirable mix of effects so you mostly get paranoid and hungry rather than mellow and creative.

I doubt drug companies would be the growers if pot were legalized, but having it legal would allow regulation in growing, storage, and sales that could help eliminate some of the problems I mentioned above.

[pinketamine]

You really trust your neighborhood pot dealer (and a greedy, ruthless drug lord at the end of the line) more than pharmaceutical companies subject to government oversight, however imperfect?

Personally, I trust my neighborhood pot dealer a million times more than a pharmaceutical company. The reasons are as simple as: I personally know him, he sells the stuff he grows at his own home and I can personally see the plants and even choose what I want. Of course, not all neighborhood dealers are the same.

[simbalena]

A huge benefit of decriminalising drugs is that some deaths would be avoided as the users would know what they were taking.

Dealer gets a large quantity of marijuana. It is low quality (what the kids call "Mexican dirt weed") and thus won't sell for very much. Dealer laces the marijuana with a small amount of some other drug that can also be smoked (often cocaine, but sometimes stuff like PCP), to increase the "potency" of the marijuana so they can sell it for more.

Does this happen anywhere other than America? It definitely doesn't happen in Australia, but maybe that's because the marijuana laws aren't as strict here.

[smorbie1]

I have so many opinions on this that I could be a politician. I don't like drugs criminalized because addiction is a disease and making a sick person into a criminal doesn't do any good. There is some evidence that forced residential treatment does help, but jail does not equal treatment.

I spent many years working with people in rehab. The relapse rate is horrific, enough to tell me that rehab isn't the whole answer; it's part of it, but something is missing.

Anyway, I saw so many lives in tatters because of drugs and alcohol. I don't want anyone to go down that road. So, I don't want it decriminalized because it destroys people, their families, and their loved ones. It really does. And even if the person pulls himself out of the depths of the disease, he has lost so much of his life to it, wasted so much time. It's evil; it really is. It makes people betray their families, values, and bodies as it gains more control over them. At the end lies insanity, ruined health, or death. That will be true whether it is legal or not.

On the other hand, as I said, making a sick person a criminal doesn't help either.

This was driven home to me when I discovered they could put you in jail for hoarding. Really! That's such a complicated form of OCD, a mental disorder, but like drug addiction, it has been criminalized. Stupid. The idea that the government could incarcerate someone for being sick was a chilling thought to me.

[jay_envy]

If people feel so inclined to do drugs they will, regardless if they're legal or otherwise. I find it ridiculous that the governments will legalize alcohol but won't even think about legalizing non-addictive drugs, specifically pot. There is such a stigma that revolves around drugs and instead of educating themselves on the matter, its easier for the government to just say, "its not family friendly!" y'know, because everyone lives the suburban "dream."-.-

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I think the only reason marijuana is illegal in the U.S is purely user responsibility, most likely. Enough people have done stupid things under the influence and it was the common factor. Alcohol is probably only legal for custom purposes, and would be almost as hard as it would to control marijuana on top of the fact we mine as well make it legal and tax it. I don't smoke the stuff, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's legalized within 20 years. Both marijuana and alcohol are both something that definatley varies with user responsibility because one person can use it without disturbing others, yet others will get packed up on the stuff and drive into children.

I wouldn't be surprised if we have marijuana legalized and taxed in order to get more money into the U.S.

As for hard drugs, no way. They're too much of a danger and the average person/business has no use for it other than to get hiked on it.

bolded are the reasons i love your post.

though i would like to add that america has enough problems without turning to mind altering chemicals to flee from them.
im ok with pot being used for medicinal, pain relieving purposes...but past that, that crap smells like the worst thing ive ever laid nostrils upon, and aggravates my heart condition. so while others may scream 'its harmless' at me, i have to say, its really not that way for everyone. blanket assumptions are what get us in the biggest trouble, positive or negative. but the major issue is that most people dont want to recognize the differences between each other and wish to plug their ears and live in a world where we all have the same bodies and the same reasons for our same opinions.

it doesnt work that way.

my mother knew a neighbor who smoked pot and DIED from it, because he had a heart condition, and the weed aggravated it to the point of doing him serious harm. so please, if anyone feels inclined to try to convince me that weed is a kitten and that im a heartless bitch for not buying into its adorable, purely good-fun appeal, save it.

but then i also just have a general distrust for humanity.
i live in an area of the world where people have sued for spilling hot coffee on themselves. i find it hard to believe that we are ready to handle legalized, powerful mind-altering chemicals for any reason.

[jay_envy]

my mother knew a neighbor who smoked pot and DIED from it, because he had a heart condition, and the weed aggravated it to the point of doing him serious harm. so please, if anyone feels inclined to try to convince me that weed is a kitten and that im a heartless bitch for not buying into its adorable, purely good-fun appeal, save it.

but then i also just have a general distrust for humanity.
i live in an area of the world where people have sued for spilling hot coffee on themselves. i find it hard to believe that we are ready to handle legalized, powerful mind-altering chemicals for any reason.

Your mother's neighbor died from smoking pot? Thats one in a billion. I'm not condoning people smoking pot in public, just as I don't condone smoking tobacco cigarettes or cigars in public. Its rude. I just think if the government is going to allow the sale of alcohol and tobacco, which both kill hundreds of thousands of people DAILY, and let pot remain illegal, though the death-rate is like two people a year, its unfair and hypocritical.

I mean good grief, its not like I'm going to go on a shooting rampage if I smoke too much pot. Its not like smoking meth (which should never be legalized btw). For the most part when I smoke pot I just sit on my couch, eating 2 bags of Doritos and watching zombie movies -- which is about as hardcore as it gets when it comes to pot.

Is it too much to ask for the government to educate themselves about the matter instead of just sticking it in the 'LETZ PROTECT THE CHILDRENZ FROM THE EVILZ!!!11' file??

[Purity4]

For the most part when I smoke pot I just sit on my couch, eating 2 bags of Doritos and watching zombie movies -- which is about as hardcore as it gets when it comes to pot.

So does this mean pot is a contributing factor in the obesity of america? :p

[jay_envy]

So does this mean pot is a contributing factor in the obesity of america? :p

I only eat that shit when I'm blasted. Obese Americans are obese because they're ignorant and eat that shit on a regular basis. If more Americans smoked pot, there would be a lot less judgement passed on other people. It'd be a nice, mellow country. :beer: I mean, just look at The Netherlands!

[KeiraLou]

My god I have such mixed views about drugs.

I am an open person so will admit I have taken ecstacy, pills, speed, weed, mdma and cocaine in the past when going out clubbing.

I think a part of me thinks drugs should stay illegal as they have stupidly dangerous side effects. But then I would be a hypocrite because alcohol is a much more dangerous substance then weed etc due to damage on the liver.

[HystericalParoxysm]

svetlanat - "What's wrong with booze?"

To be clear, I am not behind legalizing most illegal drugs. I think marijuana should be legalized and regulated, even though I have no interest in using it myself anymore.

Alcohol's effects are numbing and sort of stupid-ifying. It makes you clumsy, uncoordinated, slurring, and slow - for some, it alters their personality, making them violent or abusive. It reduces your ability to perform many tasks, and for many people, those are not desirable effects that I would call anything like a "high." It is an altered state but that alone doesn't necessarily make it enjoyable. Marijuana, on the other hand, for many people, tends to make them feel relaxed, creative, and comfortable, without feeling stupid or uncoordinated. When using marijuana, one won't tend to do anything they wouldn't do when sober, and a pothead is much more likely to just eat a whole bag of chips and fall asleep on the couch than to beat their spouse.

The effects of alcohol are somewhat longer-lasting, and the "fallout" of alcohol use the next day is much more. Marijuana doesn't really make you feel hung over - after a few hours, the effects just fade and you feel fine. It's not going to make you puke your guts out, give you a headache, or make you feel like death if you overindulge - for some people, a hangover may come from even a relatively small amount of alcohol.

Alcohol readily interacts with over the counter and prescription medication, sometimes fatally. It has much greater long-term health effects, causing serious liver damage if used too much and too often. There are people in their 20s needing liver transplants because they overindulged in college. Alcohol can be overdosed on, causing permanent damage or death. Marijuana's health effects are much less, generally limited to people with preexisting conditions who shouldn't have been using it in the first place, and you cannot overdose on it no matter how much you use - you'll just fall asleep first.

I don't believe this is a "slippery slope" situation. We, as a society, are capable of dealing with legal alcohol despite its effects being more potentially damaging both over the short and long-term. We regulate it, tax it, have penalties for providing it to children or using it when driving, and while there is room for improvement (mostly, I think, in the way people are educated in the use of it), we tend to accept that adults should be allowed to decide whether they use it or not, and trust them to be responsible in doing so. I see no real logical reason why marijuana should not also be legalized, regulated, taxed, with penalties for providing it to children or using it when driving.

Other drugs are much more physically damaging, addictive, and dangerous; yes, there will be people who want to use them, but legalizing one thing doesn't mean you have to legalize everything. After all, alcohol is legal but very little else is. Lifting alcohol prohibition didn't immediately lead to every other drug being legalized, and I don't believe lifting marijuana prohibition will lead to much of a pro-meth movement either.

[HystericalParoxysm]

*shrugs* If I had to choose which one to be legal, I'd switch it. Alcohol could be illegal, marijuana legal - since the effects of alcohol can be so much worse both immediately and long-term. But I don't think one has to choose one.

Marijuana has been around for a long time too. There's a reason it's called "weed" - it grows as a weed pretty much anywhere you let it. It has been consumed for a long time over many cultures too. I don't think we're genetically adapted to alcohol - it still kills people every day. It's more of how a culture deals with it - a matter of education, teaching people how to deal with intoxicating substances from a young age (not hiding it, explaining the real true effects of it, how to recognize physical or psychological addiction, etc.) and setting up a good support system and treatment programs for people who can't handle it. There definitely are some people for whom ANY intoxicant is a "gateway drug" but there's also many many more for whom they can be perfectly happy with a glass of wine or a joint now and then and never do anything else.

It -does- work in practice too. It's not simply a matter of "what might happen" but one can look to places like the Netherlands and see that legal, regulated marijuana alongside legal, regulated alcohol can and does work.

[HystericalParoxysm]

You really don't see many people causing a public disturbance, nor do you see all that much urinating in public - they have public urinals here. :) And you sure don't see people getting busted for using them - or even for not using them, as long as they're not just whipping it out and pissing in the middle of the street. People are quite laid back here most of the time. They mind their own business for the most part, and don't bother other people. Sure, there's problems, but I saw MANY more homeless, junkies, addicts, etc. in the US than I ever have here. There are also a lot more social programs to help people in need, I think, and less of the demonizing of people for their vices - if someone needs help, they help them, and don't look down on them because they've made some mistakes. More of a live and let live mindset.

"It sounds like you want a bit of pot now and then and you don't want to go to jail for mere posession." I live in the Netherlands. I know what it's like here. I see every day what it's like. I could have a bit of pot now and then if I wanted. I don't - been there, done that, not my thing anymore. But I did enough of it back in the day that I understand the effects of it, and really don't see how it can be illegal, but alcohol isn't.

There are, unfortunately, people who get busted -all the time- for small amounts of weed. I guess it depends on where you are, but I grew up in Texas and constantly, people were getting busted for small, personal-use quantities. Cops would use some minor traffic offense (not using a turn signal, for instance) as an excuse to stop young people and search their vehicle to bust them for small, personal use amounts. This happened to -many- of my friends when I was younger. Maybe it's changed in the past 10 years or is different in certain parts of the US, but I don't think it can have changed -that- much. It -was- as you describe when I was living in western Canada though - as long as you weren't obviously dealing, you could have it on your person, even smoke it in public and the cops didn't care, but it is still illegal and they've had a lot of issues with the illegality part of the trade in it causing violence there.

"The whole point is, and I don't think you've really addressed it yet is, why open yet another Pandora's Box?"

It's already open. Pretending it's still closed doesn't make it so. Having it illegal doesn't mean that people don't do it. It means it's there, being used by many people, completely unregulated, much more expensive than it really should be and thus helping to fund organized crime and creating violence as a result.

If it were legal, it could be carefully regulated so it wouldn't be sold to minors (after all, an illegal drug dealer doesn't care if they're selling to a 14 year old - hell, that's probably preferrable as you can be darn sure they're not a cop trying to bust you) and the amount could be limited per sale/person/etc... It could be taxed to provide additional revenue that could be used for education, treatment of users of harder drugs, paving roads, you name it. Even if it were $50/oz, the growers would still be making a profit, and the government would be making a huge profit - and that would generally be much cheaper than it is now illegally, cutting out any illegal sales that might persist. It could be made safer by regulation, without people having to worry if it was laced with PCP or cocaine that might kill them, or pesticides or mold that might sicken them.

Here in the Netherlands, less people smoke weed even though it's legal than smoke it in the US, where it's illegal. If anything, taking away the "ooh I'm doing something baaaad" part of it makes it less attractive for some people... just as I know a lot of people tend to drink less once they're of age and can just buy it themselves.

[wickedblue]

There are certainly cops who won't bother with a small possession of marijuana but believe me, there are cops who definitely will.

Furthermore, our jails are overcrowded as it is and there are people in there who are serving time for possession or distribution of marijuana which is just ridiculous and that's something that decriminalizing it would help with. There's no reason for them to be locked up like they are threats to society; it costs taxpayers money and it costs them their life and family for something that isn't even harmful.

The current cost of the war on drugs in this country is astonishingly large and it has jack-shit to do with the actual threat of drugs and is entirely because of politics.

If you want to discuss why prostitution should be legal, I'm fairly sure there's a thread for that and if not, then one could certainly be started but as far as your statement that legalizing pot makes it a legitimate industry - that's exactly what we're saying it's just that you are framing that as a negative while others think it's a positive.

"I could really care less what they do in Europe. Our ancestors didn't cross an ocean just to be more Europeans. If you want to be a European go to Canada"

I don't even know where to begin. First of all, no one said anything about being European here, the argument was made that there is a society where pot is already legalized and that we can use that as a point of reference in our own framing of the issue. It's data. Also: America is just a baby - a baby that thinks it's better than everyone else because it got so big and powerful so fast but that doesn't mean we have the market cornered on the right way to do things. We certainly could learn a thing or two if we would stop being such a brat of a nation.

[HystericalParoxysm]

I'm not a pothead. I used to be a pothead - a functional one with a job and bills paid, ate healthy, didn't drive under the influence... I knew plenty of other potheads who were similar, holding down steady jobs, raising kids, and just living their lives. They just tended to have a pipe or a joint at the end of a hard day instead of a beer.

I quit a while back, and don't really want to do it again. I have an occasional glass of wine or Bailey's and that's about it. Caffeine is my usual drug of choice nowadays.

This isn't just about the US - marijuana is illegal in MOST of the world. However, the practices of the Netherlands come up because it's one place where small amounts and usage of it are decriminalized. Amsterdam is just one city in the Netherlands - a bit one, to be sure, but it's not just legal in Amsterdam but everywhere here. I live in a fairly small town, and within a 5 minute walk of the station, there are at least 3 places you can go to get it (and twice that for alcohol).

Nobody's saying that because something is okay in the Netherlands it should be the same everywhere - but I AM saying that it is a good example of marijuana easily available and regulated to adults where there is no huge wave of crime or usage of harder drugs, and where the average usage is much less than the US. A specific example of legalized marijuana where there is no real problem to it - there aren't people running amok in the streets committing violent crime.

I compare things to the US but I also compare things to Canada and the Netherlands because those are the places I've lived. Perhaps I have a somewhat unique viewpoint as I have lived in those three places for a significant amount of time as a resident, not just a visitor. I can't say what it's like in Japan or Cuba or South Africa or anywhere else because I've never been to those places or lived there.

Laws don't have to be the same in all places, but it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to lock up SO MANY people for something that is relatively harmless, when it's clear that criminalizing it does not stop people from doing it.

It's not a religion, and as I've said, I don't want to do it anymore. I don't want to do it in Texas anymore either - but I don't see any logical reason that an adult person of sound mind and body shouldn't be able to smoke a joint. It's not going to damage their health much, not going to make them a criminal, not likely to lead to other drug use, and compared to alcohol, it is the safer choice both for them and the people around them. I'm sorry, but... this is a debate. This is my opinion - because people are arguing with you doesn't mean they're radical fanatics or anything (or even users of the drug they're advocating legalization of). Just that they see differently than you - and to be honest, calling it a religion and preaching is kind of insulting and derailing.

Right now, people use it anyway, even though it is illegal and can get you locked up, because they enjoy it and likely don't see any reason why it should be illegal. Pretty much everywhere, it's used, including places like Texas where it can and does get you arrested for small amounts. Law enforcement spends TONS of money per year prosecuting individuals for possession, and locks people up spending even more money to keep them there, taking people out of jobs and homes to put them in prison and into prison culture, and for what? What is the advantage to doing it that way? What does it help? It clearly doesn't stop usage, since people still use it at a much higher rate than a place where it is legal. It doesn't keep it out of the hands of children, since many dealers are fine with selling to children. It doesn't make for a safe product, since there is no way of telling what exactly you're getting.

So why not turn those relatively harmless users back into law abiding citizens by dispensing small amounts at a high tax rate with regulation that it's not sold to anyone under 21, potency and strains can be controlled (don't want it too strong or people using strains that make them paranoid, after all), and you probably aren't going to have any more people using it than before - likely less. The laws and enforcement now are not stopping use of it, so why are waste so much time and resources on something that is not working?

[wickedblue]

Oh my god I knew I should have gone to bed-

First off Wicked; If I hear one more time about how America is a baby or that Americans are somehow unsophisticated, or that America is in some way an inexperienced nation...OY!

You'll do what, exactly? It's a valid point of view. This country is a baby and we have a lot to learn. Look at our current financial collapse, for example. There is a lot going on this country in regards to our politics that didn't have to happen if we weren't such a self-centered nation hell-bent on doing things our way because We Know Best. We don't and it's extremely dangerous to think we do. What good is history if we don't learn from it?

Americans live about as long as anyone else. If you know any 240 year old Frenchmen or Germans let me know.

I didn't say a damn thing about lifespan. Irrelevant point is irrelevant.

And as far as politics go we have nothing as in nothing to learn from Europe.

Oh, really?

(North) America has never produced a tyrant, unlike Europe which churns out a major or minor one every 20 years or so. And as Colin Powell responded to similar condescension at the UN we are the world's oldest democracy so please...save it. We do know a thing or two about bringing wildly disparate peoples together and making a working nation out of the stew: Introduce 3 guys with suntans to Europe and you have cars burning on the street somewhere.

You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?

Why are our practices being contantly compared to those in Europe? Why is it never Japan for example? Why is it that out institutions and mores are constantly compared to those of Europe? In the US carrying pot can, as in can, get you arrested. Same thing in Japan. But because it's ok in Amsterdam all of a sudden we should do what they do in Amsterdam. They do lots of things in Amsterdam that I don't want in my neighborhood, and I'm sure we do lots of things that they don't like in Amsterdam. Great. Let's leave it that way.

Do we, or do we not, have the right to our own nation? Must our laws, mores, and customs constantly be held up to those of some place in Europe? Why are we never measured against any place besides the tiniest little burgs on one of the smallest continents? What works in the netherlands does not and cannot work it the United States ok? What works in Europe doesn't always work in the US and vice-versa.

No one said we don't have a right to our own nation. Again, it's data points. We are not in some vacuum here and there's no US vs. THEM. It doesn't work that way.

And as God is my witness I will say here and now that pot is not a drug it's a religion. I have yet to find a drunk or junkie of any kind who will defend their intoxicant the way potters defend what messes them up. What is it about pot? Potters preach on behalf of their drug in a way that the early Christians would envy. Why is it such a big deal? If you can't have pot in Texas then don't have pot in Texas ok? There's a thing or two I'd like to legalize myself but some or most of you might not go along with it.

Oh, you so silly! Pot is not a religion. I think you're getting a bit emotional. It is a drug and a harmless one at that and we are here discussing if it should be decriminalized. If pot smokers get preachy about it, well it's because it's really fucking annoying that they could potentially be locked up as a criminal for something that is relatively harmless.

At some point we have to all consent to the law as it stands, whether we like every fine point of it or not. You cannot write your law assuming the best in all, you have to assume the worst. You cannot assume a world where responsible people use responsible amounts of whatever and everything turns out just fine. Another source of trouble is just that...another big source of trouble.

No, you don't have to assume the worst in all. There's a thing called personal responsibility and we need to allow consenting adults to make their own choices and not criminalize everything just because someone screamed about it loud enough. And the wonderful thing about this nation of ours is that we are a democracy (in theory, we can leave the debate about how democratic of a nation we truly are for another time) so in theory, the people's voice can and will be heard and if we want to discuss on a message board why we think a law should be changed, well that is our right to do so.

PS- And Wicked, I'm sure you're a very nice person, but I would like to say just one thing, and think about it yourself. I am getting very tired of sending boatloads of young Americans to die for European wisdom, and that includes things as recent as Bosnia and the Middle East. Americans have been dying for the last century or so cleaning up Europe's screw-ups all over the world so please, let's not talk about how wise Europeans are ok?

I didn't say Europeans are perfect. I said we have a lot to learn. Again, your point is irrelevant.

[HystericalParoxysm]

That -is- condescending. I'm a grownup and I don't need protecting from myself and from substances I choose to put in my body that don't do any major harm. I can choose what I want to do - or not, and any consequences of it are mine to deal with. I never became an addict, never committed a crime, never put myself in an unsafe situation. I was around people who smoked pot too, and they all tended to just kick back on the couch too - I'm not sure what they would be protected from, besides the freedom to decide to put something even more harmless than alcohol in their own bodies.

If it were legal, there'd be no reason to go to the "wrong part of town" to buy it. It would be available at a store that you couldn't enter unless you were 21, had to show ID, were on camera the whole time, etc., - like liquor.

Most of the potheads I know wouldn't head to the wrong part of town just because they'd had a joint. More likely, they'd sit on the couch listening to music or watch a movie, because it's a pain in the ass to go out when you're stoned. Navigating is a little difficult because you're distracted, and being in crowds of people is annoying.

I also don't see -any- connection between pot and other crimes (besides those that arise due to its illegality like drug trafficking) - it on its own is not going to cause prostitution to happen. Most potheads are likely just gonna jerk off as it's too much of a pain in the ass to go out and find a prostitute just to get laid. Nor will people turn to prostitution to score some weed - potheads don't act like junkies needing a fix of heroin. They may want it or crave it, but it's more like chocolate in that regard. One doesn't see folks offering blowjobs for candybars either.

Again, making marijuana illegal does not stop usage of it. It creates an illegal trade in it which makes it impossible to control, and wastes resources, time, and money that could be better spent stopping violent crime, increasing education, or working on infrastructure. It cannot be properly regulated so that it doesn't get in the hands of children. People still use it even when it's illegal, would probably use it no more or even less if it -were- legal, and all that making it illegal does is put people in jail for generally relatively minor offenses with a drug that really isn't all that harmful. So how is having it illegal helpful or better at all than a highly-regulated legalized system?

[el_flel]

I could really care less what they do in Europe. Our ancestors didn't cross an ocean just to be more Europeans. If you want to be a European go to Canada ;) I am getting very tired of sending boatloads of young Americans to die for European wisdom, and that includes things as recent as Bosnia and the Middle East. Americans have been dying for the last century or so cleaning up Europe's screw-ups all over the world so please, let's not talk about how wise Europeans are ok?Well... This is a forum with a lot of members from all over the world, not just America. Perhaps if you don't want to be called a 'brat of a nation', as wickedblue puts it, then you shouldn't go around assuming that other countries' systems are irrelevant. I started this debate and I'm English so actually European systems are very much relevant here, especially so because, as already mentioned, there are parts of Europe where some drugs are legal. It's not about comparing countries, as you seem to think, it's about learning from a country who does things differently to your own.

And please don't spout out about 'saving Europe' because you aren't the only country who fights other's battles and this is of no relevance here at all. :rolleyes:

[unalisaa]

First off Wicked; If I hear one more time about how America is a baby or that Americans are somehow unsophisticated, or that America is in some way an inexperienced nation...OY!

Americans live about as long as anyone else. If you know any 240 year old Frenchmen or Germans let me know. And as far as politics go we have nothing as in nothing to learn from Europe. (North) America has never produced a tyrant, unlike Europe which churns out a major or minor one every 20 years or so. And as Colin Powell responded to similar condescension at the UN we are the world's oldest democracy so please...save it. We do know a thing or two about bringing wildly disparate peoples together and making a working nation out of the stew: Introduce 3 guys with suntans to Europe and you have cars burning on the street somewhere.

Do we, or do we not, have the right to our own nation? Must our laws, mores, and customs constantly be held up to those of some place in Europe? Why are we never measured against any place besides the tiniest little burgs on one of the smallest continents? What works in the netherlands does not and cannot work it the United States ok? What works in Europe doesn't always work in the US and vice-versa.

PS- And Wicked, I'm sure you're a very nice person, but I would like to say just one thing, and think about it yourself. I am getting very tired of sending boatloads of young Americans to die for European wisdom, and that includes things as recent as Bosnia and the Middle East. Americans have been dying for the last century or so cleaning up Europe's screw-ups all over the world so please, let's not talk about how wise Europeans are ok?
Seeing as I'm a Dane and thus well-versed in walking the line of looking down upon the USA while figuratively performing sexual favours for it, I'd like to chime in with some ancient words, passed down from generation to generation:
"Q: What's the difference between the US of A and yoghurt?
A: If you leave it alone for 200 years, yoghurt will eventually develop culture."

Thanks folks, I'll be here all week!







Except Saturday, which is my figurative sexual favours day.

[HystericalParoxysm]

unalisaa - Can you put me down for 2:30 on Saturday? Chocolate bar for a blowjob... that's a good deal, right?

[pinketamine]

The problem is, and I think what I'm saying is, that legalizing pot, for example, is opening another Pandora's box, when one Pandora's box is enough already. Pot is unquestionably a gateway drug for some people, just as alchohol is (arguably) a gateway drug for pot. One thing leads to another.

Errr... not necessarily. I don't know why people think this. I don't like alcohol and I like pot. I smoked pot before even trying alcohol. I smoke pot but I have never tried meth.

It sounds like you need to take a much closer look at countries like The Netherlands, et al. All you end up with is junkies getting arrested for different reasons. Instead of getting arrested for posession they get arrested for urinating in public, creating a public distrubance, etc. etc. Yes, as I said taken in moderation sniffing glue would probably be ok but the problem is that we can't always count on everyone to act moderately.
Urinating in the street is much more common in drunk people than in "potheads". As HP said, pot does not change people, you don't smoke a joint and turn in to a totally different person. Alcohol changes the way you act much more than pot does.

I could really care less what they do in Europe. Our ancestors didn't cross an ocean just to be more Europeans. If you want to be a European go to Canada ;)
Well, your ancestors were Europeans.
I don't understand why some Americans think that USA is a super-awesome country and everywhere else is just a piece of shit, that don't even know how to manage themselves and need the US "help" and "protection".

Why are our practices being contantly compared to those in Europe? Why is it never Japan for example? Why is it that out institutions and mores are constantly compared to those of Europe?
Because US culture is much more similar to European culture than to Japanese culture, so comparing the US with an East Asia culture does not really make sense.

I am getting very tired of sending boatloads of young Americans to die for European wisdom, and that includes things as recent as Bosnia and the Middle East. Americans have been dying for the last century or so cleaning up Europe's screw-ups all over the world so please, let's not talk about how wise Europeans are ok?
Most of the time US gets its nose everywhere, even when no one asks for it. Don't be innocent, US is not defending Europe, it is defending their interests in Europe (or anywhere else). Don't act like Europe's big brother, because that's not the way it works. The list of wars involving US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States) is probably longer than any other country in the world in that same period for time, so don't say you are just "cleaning up Europe's screw-ups.

Anyway, as this thread is about drugs being legal or no, I have to say that I personally agree with everything HP has said and, if they ask me, I prefer to legalize weed and make alcohol illegal.
People will use drugs, no matter if they are illegal, so regulation is the best way to control this issue.

[Drakesecaravdis]

It's also addictive, and can cause various other vascular effects like increased risk of stroke.


I don't mean to intrude since I don't have anything to say on the actual debate and this is a reply to an older comment but I never realized how bad caffeine was.
glad I quit the stuff

I realized it was addictive but I hadn't noticed until I planned to quit. whenever I had a withdrawal from caffeinated soda, not only did I get a headache but I was also boring. like I would not laugh at anything...total stiff.



but it doesn't seem like it's that addictive because I believe I was normal within a week of stopping. then again I think it was Dr. Pepper so I guess some sodas are easier to quit than others.

[jay_envy]

The problem is that people get high and go to the wrong part of town, or go to the wrong part of town looking to get high, and that's when trouble happens. Some middle-class kid just wants a joint and before you know it some real predator has had that kid for lunch, because that kid didn't know what he was messing with; he was out of his element.

Unless you live on the border of Mexico or you're a meth-head looking to score, the drug dealers are usually broke college students who sell pot.