• 118 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for sean12345
#1 Edited by Sean12345 (440 posts) - - Show Bio

So a widely disputed topic is drug decriminalization, that is, should a person be considered a criminal for mere use of a drug? I'm not talking about people who get behind a wheel intoxicated with narcotics or a person who uses drugs with intention to do harm to others. I'm merely talking about drug use for recreational purposes... Oh and I am talking about all of them!! Legalization refers to the commercialization: the buying, selling, and distribution of regulated drugs.

Leave a comment and please be respectful of other people's opinion and counterclaims!

Quick update: I understand that the term "drug" is vague as well as recreational use. This is because coming to an agreeable definition of a "drug" is impossible in this case. If we're to consider a mainstream definition of a mood altering substance, then sugar is by definition a drug the same way crystal meth is. Therefore, what any reasonable person considers a drug, is what I will consider a drug in this case. Furthermore, recreational use refers to the use with the intention of getting high at no one but the users expense. No one gets hurt, as I think we can all agree that using drugs with the intention of hurting or indirectly hurting people is wrong. Possession is illegal because it is so easy to prove, therefore I find that point to be unimportant, especially if drugs we're to be decriminalized.

Avatar image for russellmania77
#2 Edited by russellmania77 (17602 posts) - - Show Bio

Depends on the danger of each individual drug.

Avatar image for mysticmedivh
#3 Posted by MysticMedivh (32250 posts) - - Show Bio

Krokodil sure doesn't need to be legalized.

Avatar image for sean12345
#4 Posted by Sean12345 (440 posts) - - Show Bio

@russellmania77: Well you see that would be an argument that I could make for legalization. By legalizing a "drug" it would involve federal regulation from the FDA. People will know the dosage amount they're getting rather then on the street where a dose could potentially be cocktailed or too pure and be fatal. Portugal recently adopted a policy to the one I'm talking about, and drug related diseases, both transmitted and not, as well as fatalities significantly decreased. There are currently drug clinics which giver people controlled doses of regulated drugs in the United States to ween them off their addiction, so there are therapeutical benefits to this position.

Avatar image for kgb725
#5 Posted by kgb725 (17123 posts) - - Show Bio

Might as well

Avatar image for sean12345
#6 Edited by Sean12345 (440 posts) - - Show Bio

@mysticmedivh: You honestly think Krokodil use would go up if it's legalized? Why not tax and regulate it? These people are going to use these things whether it's legalized or not and just because they use something they shouldn't be treated like criminals. These people need help, not prison, wouldn't therapy be a better solution to fix their addiction?

Avatar image for trickyman86
#7 Posted by Trickyman86 (1288 posts) - - Show Bio

absol-freaking-lutely...how can we be a free country without letting people do what they want with their bodies... I mean yeah there are negative things associated with drugs but banning does nothing other than make the truly bad drug users go underground and get them which causes problems while the ones that can safely do them suffer. The people that do bad on drugs will always find a way to get them so make it legal let the responsible people get regulated drugs and enjoy themselves and put the money into treatment and enforcement for bad users that will cause the problems whether or not you make them legal...besides drugs would allow the government to collect enormous taxes to pay for a lot of things that would help while we have a huge amount of debt in the 10s of trillions

Avatar image for llehdevil
#8 Posted by LlehDevil (7259 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for joe_chill
#9 Posted by Joe_Chill (544 posts) - - Show Bio

sure i don't care either way

Avatar image for blade_r
#10 Posted by Blade_R (6470 posts) - - Show Bio

Idk leave it at natural stuff like weed and shrooms, none of that nonsense people be cookin up in their houses in labs and stuff.

Avatar image for sesquipedalophobe
#11 Posted by sesquipedalophobe (5417 posts) - - Show Bio

Legalize only Krokodil. Junkies don't deserve anything else.

Avatar image for trickyman86
#12 Posted by Trickyman86 (1288 posts) - - Show Bio

Does anyone here actually think weed is dangerous or bad for You?

Avatar image for sean12345
#13 Edited by Sean12345 (440 posts) - - Show Bio

@blade_r: Do you honestly think that legalizing "cooked" drugs would increase use? I think it's safe to say that any reasonable person wouldn't go out of their way to find and use these drugs. Even if they did, they deserve autonomy over their own body, and the tax money would have great future benefits for society. Also what about prescription pills?

Avatar image for sean12345
#14 Posted by Sean12345 (440 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for mandarinestro
#15 Edited by Mandarinestro (7651 posts) - - Show Bio

In the US only, yes.

Avatar image for sean12345
#16 Posted by Sean12345 (440 posts) - - Show Bio

@mandarinestro: Why not everywhere? People deserve to have autonomy over their bodies if they're not hurting anyone. Plus countries like Mexico and Columbia, where drug cartels are rampant and causing corrupt public officials and bankers laundering drug money, would deeply benefit from simple legalization.

Avatar image for mandarinestro
#17 Edited by Mandarinestro (7651 posts) - - Show Bio

@sean12345: Cultural differences. If they legalise in backwards countries like Pakistan or Columbia, people will still use it because the government suffers from corrupt bureaucracy and lacks the power to control its own country.

I'm from Indonesia btw, they ban drugs here. Maybe when Indonesian population is more educated, then we can legalise drugs. For now, in a collectivist society, death penalty on drug dealers is much more effective than legalising it.

Avatar image for trickyman86
#18 Edited by Trickyman86 (1288 posts) - - Show Bio

@mandarinestro: i just don't see the logic there... you would rather kill people giving drugs to people who want it for a number of reasons than just letting them enjoy it?

Avatar image for mandarinestro
#19 Edited by Mandarinestro (7651 posts) - - Show Bio

@trickyman86: Yes. But if I was an American citizen, no.

EDIT: I oppose death penalty actually. But I understand why my government would do so.

Avatar image for sean12345
#20 Edited by Sean12345 (440 posts) - - Show Bio

@mandarinestro: Well obviously the decision is reserved to the country. For example, I'm under the assumption that drug legalization anywhere on the continent of Africa is extremely unlikely, namely due to the encompassing powers of their religious institutions. However, cultural differences do not account for right or wrong acts. I think we can agree that allowing the use of contraception in Africa would cause a dramatic shift in mortality rates amongst countries of children suffering from AIDS, though they are not culturally inclined to allow this. Same thing can be said about any country with drugs. Just because its not in their culture to do so, doesn't make it a wrong act. They make the claim that drugs are bad, therefore they have to support that claim with reasoning.

Avatar image for trickyman86
#21 Posted by Trickyman86 (1288 posts) - - Show Bio

@mandarinestro: i don't understand why it is limited to America. What is wrong with Indonesia that they will not respect free will to the point where they will kill over it?

Avatar image for noone301994
#22 Posted by Noone301994 (22169 posts) - - Show Bio

Not all of them. Weed only.

Avatar image for sean12345
#23 Edited by Sean12345 (440 posts) - - Show Bio

@trickyman86: Those are extreme cases where people we're indoctrinated with religious beliefs that drug use should result in death. The main religion in Indonesia is Islam and its teaching directly affect public policy. Not dissing religion, but it has been the biggest proponent going against autonomy over our personal lives.

Avatar image for sean12345
#24 Posted by Sean12345 (440 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for mandarinestro
#25 Posted by Mandarinestro (7651 posts) - - Show Bio

@trickyman86:

Many Indonesian people are not as educated as Americans to understand health and law. Many of them aren't even literate. Our government's bureaucracy is corrupt and there's little we can do about that right now.

Avatar image for sodamyat
#26 Posted by SodamYat (7907 posts) - - Show Bio

no

Avatar image for mandarinestro
#27 Edited by Mandarinestro (7651 posts) - - Show Bio

@sean12345: I never said it's right or wrong. I'm a pragmatist. I support what needs to be done regardless of ideology or religion.

Avatar image for sean12345
#28 Posted by Sean12345 (440 posts) - - Show Bio

@sean12345: I never said it's right or wrong. I'm a pragmatist. I support what needs to be done regardless of ideology or religion.

Elaborate please. What do you mean by what needs to be done?

Avatar image for noone301994
#29 Posted by Noone301994 (22169 posts) - - Show Bio

@sean12345: Because weed doesn't do anything except kill brain cells. Alcohol does that too and then some. So why not legalize it? The other drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc.) are too addictive.

Avatar image for mandarinestro
#30 Edited by Mandarinestro (7651 posts) - - Show Bio

@sean12345: Indonesia's government is not equipped to regulate drugs if it's legalised. It's not even powerful enough to clean up the mess in its own body. Maybe if 40 years from now we have a more educated, well-earning, population and corruption is diminished, we can consider legalising drugs.

Avatar image for sean12345
#31 Edited by Sean12345 (440 posts) - - Show Bio

@noone301994: Do you think that legalizing drugs would cause a reasonable person to go out and do all of these drugs? The sheer tax benefit alone from decriminalizing non-violent drug offenders is enough to fix our incarceration system and ease the tax burden off of the middle and lower classes! Not to mention the sales tax. Also, regardless of drugs being legalized, people are going to do these drugs on the black market with their drug dealers. They don't know what they're getting, if it's mixed, if it's pure, or if it will even kill them. At least people will have the comfort of knowing that if they get these drugs from a federally regulated dispensary, they're safe from death and transmitted diseases. There are therapeutic reasons for having drugs legalized (see my other posts). Furthermore, a drug screening clinic can be offered at these institutions to ensure people with drug histories are monitored. Oh by the way, nicotine, one of the most addictive drugs next to heroin is legal, it seems our government doesn't care about the addictive properties of drugs. Why should someone be demonized for trying LSD after work if they're not hurting anyone?

Avatar image for trickyman86
#32 Posted by Trickyman86 (1288 posts) - - Show Bio

@noone301994: weed doesn't kill brain cells the only study that said that is proved to have pumped chimps full of weed to the point where the couldn't breath oxygen and that's why they lost brian cells.. from asphyxiation

Avatar image for sean12345
#33 Posted by Sean12345 (440 posts) - - Show Bio

@mandarinestro: I understand that part, but do you agree with the position your government has taken on drug dealers is what I'm more concerned about. You said whatever is needed.. I'm curious if that is something that is needed, and if it is why.

Avatar image for superdrummer
#34 Posted by SuperDrummer (1899 posts) - - Show Bio

@sean12345:

I get where you are coming from. I really do. It is easy to look at prohibition and the overwhelmingly positive results of the recent legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington and say that it is better to legalize everything. However, marijuana went through extensive testing, and was proven to be not as harmful as previously believed. Only now can it be sold at certified locations. ALL drugs should go through this.

There is a certain amount of trust between the purchaser and the pharmacist/doctor that any drug bought will be safe to a certain degree, which includes testing and taking the particularly dangerous ones off the market and replacing ones that become obsolete with safer and more efficient ones. By simply making all drugs prescription drugs you put this into question.

Now, if you legalize all of them for recreational purposes, you not only remove the rigorous testing and relative safety that comes with it, but you take away the buffer of six-eight years of specialized education in this exact field. Suddenly, people can self-diagnose and get their hands on whatever medicine they THINK they need, based on adds that flaunt a drug that has had no actual research put into it, and could potentially be lethal. And lets face it, going to the hospital just too expensive for anyone to not consider self-diagnosis (at least it is here in America).

This would impact everyone, not only recreational drug users, and it would be devastating.

Avatar image for deactivated-097092725
#35 Posted by deactivated-097092725 (10555 posts) - - Show Bio

No, they shouldn't be decriminalised and no, they shouldn't be legalised as per the OP's definition of each.

The dangers of drugs and how it makes some people behave (and the repercussions of that on society) make it a concern. Hallucinations and what have you, inability to care for themselves while under the influence and intense addiction experienced by people in positions of guardianship over vulnerable groups (parents over children and the like) would top the list for me for reasons why I feel this way.

As for drugs which people consider "soft", I can understand the frustration of not having them decriminalised. Having alcohol available legally makes it a hypocritical position to have by many governments, but that's another issue in itself.

Avatar image for mandarinestro
#36 Edited by Mandarinestro (7651 posts) - - Show Bio

@sean12345: Yes because many people don't understand the danger of drugs and my government's health and pharmacy regulation isn't doing very well at its job. How do you expect them to regulate legalised weed when they can't even do the same for antibiotics? Also, Ms-Lola's post.

I do, however, oppose death penalty.

Avatar image for sean12345
#37 Posted by Sean12345 (440 posts) - - Show Bio

@superdrummer: You bring up a good point.. Though I didn't mention it in the OP, there will be extensive testing to promote safe drug use for the recreational user. I agree that each drug will need to be individually analyzed in order to create a safe environment for drug use. This is a hypothetical situation keep in mind, and the thread is strictly adherent to recreational users despite how tempting it is to bring in other parties that would be affected by this...

Now you bring up another point of interest which I feel is necessary to talk about, that is this idea of self-diagnosing. Now this is sort of straying from recreational users and moving on to people with addiction problems, however its a point worth mentioning. The thing is, regardless of a drug being legalized or not does not prevent a person from getting their hands on these drugs. If a person needs heroin that bad, they can find it. The same can be said for plenty of legal substances such as prescription drugs and over the counter medicine, which you seem to be in favor of so long as it's "safe." By giving people the decision to acquire these regulated drugs, you at least give them a drug that isn't potentially fatal from a drug dealer in an alley with the benefit of taxing and decriminalizing it. The advertisement point I'm very skeptical about. After all what is the current advertisement policy on marijuana? What about alcohol advertisement? Do people really feel the need to self-medicate themselves after watching a commercial for beer or vodka? I remain unconvinced.

Again, look at the drug fatality and illness related rates in Portugal after legalizing all drugs. There has been a dramatic decrease, and while it may seem shocking, there are therapeutic uses for these drugs.

Also, we haven't even begun to delve into the problem of self-autonomy. Is it really wrong to use a drug for recreational purposes if you're not harming someone? If it is then why?

Avatar image for sean12345
#38 Posted by Sean12345 (440 posts) - - Show Bio

@ms-lola: Hey appreciate the post but please read the thread carefully. This post is about recreational use only! Yes, drugs do impair judgement and it can be universally agreed that doing so and causing harm is morally wrong. So you say no to each of my reasons. Let's begin with decriminalization then.

You make the claim that drugs should not be decriminalized. I assume then that you hold the position that people who take drugs should be criminalized and given a tarnished reputation for a non-violent crime? Do you assume that drugs are inherently bad as well? Clarify your claim/stance and your reasoning for believing it. Remember, strictly recreational use, no matter how tempting it may seem. Also I'd make the argument that regulating these drugs would require age and health requirements to prevent kids and vulnerable groups from doing it rather then keeping it illegal and having them go and get these narcotics from a drug dealer off the street. It is the responsibility of the parents to teach their kids about these drugs as well regardless if they are legal or not.

Avatar image for deactivated-097092725
#39 Edited by deactivated-097092725 (10555 posts) - - Show Bio

@sean12345 said:

@ms-lola: Hey appreciate the post but please read the thread carefully. This post is about recreational use only! Yes, drugs do impair judgement and it can be universally agreed that doing so and causing harm is morally wrong. So you say no to each of my reasons. Let's begin with decriminalization then.

You make the claim that drugs should not be decriminalized. I assume then that you hold the position that people who take drugs should be criminalized and given a tarnished reputation for a non-violent crime? Do you assume that drugs are inherently bad as well? Clarify your claim/stance and your reasoning for believing it. Remember, strictly recreational use, no matter how tempting it may seem. Also I'd make the argument that regulating these drugs would require age and health requirements to prevent kids and vulnerable groups from doing it rather then keeping it illegal and having them go and get these narcotics from a drug dealer off the street. It is the responsibility of the parents to teach their kids about these drugs as well regardless if they are legal or not.

I understood your thread to be about recreational drug use and I stand by what I said.

Do you mean non violent crime equals victimless crime? I'd need to know that to properly answer your first question. I can say that someone who participates in an activity which they know is illegal, knows they are committing a crime. That makes them a criminal. If that translates into a tarnished reputation, then what does it matter if the crime they committed is seen as "lesser" when compared to other crimes? I throw this back at you for clarification. It's the possession of drugs that is criminal, not being under the influence of it. A police officer can be aware you're high, but you don't get hauled into jail unless you are being civilly disobedient or breaking other laws. Being under the influence of drugs is a mitigating factor when you're brought to court but that can work for or against you. Lots of variables here.

Drugs being bad inherently means what exactly? Do I believe recreational drug use is bad? Well, sure, depending on what the drug is. Many have been shown to be detrimental to a person, starting from the intense addiction several drugs instill in people. If you mean marijuana, I don't find anything wrong with that. I do with LSD and heroin, though.

Why have any narcotic created? Why the need for regulation over drugs that have been proven to be detrimental? I believe society already knows that hard core drugs and their use are bad things. People still do them. Their reasons for doing so is what I think should be focused on since their dependency on drugs is mostly influenced by extenuating circumstances. Also, going with your thinking about regulation and health requirements, what physician would allow a human being to pursue heroin or crack as a recreational outlet? I would envision no one "qualifying" for that and where does that leave the person who wants to get their hands on these drugs, regardless? That in itself will create an under the table industry, an illegal one, where people who don't match the "requirements" mandated by regulations imposed would go shopping.

I'm a little confused about your position because you seem to accept a sort of controlled government dispensing program but aren't specific about which drugs we are talking about here. Recreational drugs to you might mean something different to me as I consider them to be wide ranging, from weed to LSD/heroin. My thoughts on the lower end don't match my thoughts on those to do with the higher.

Avatar image for superdrummer
#40 Posted by SuperDrummer (1899 posts) - - Show Bio

@sean12345:

You bring up a good point.. Though I didn't mention it in the OP, there will be extensive testing to promote safe drug use for the recreational user. I agree that each drug will need to be individually analyzed in order to create a safe environment for drug use. This is a hypothetical situation keep in mind, and the thread is strictly adherent to recreational users despite how tempting it is to bring in other parties that would be affected by this...

Hmm, well this does change a lot. I was approaching this from a real-world perspective, and was mainly concerned with how this would be administered and its most widespread impacts.

The thing is, regardless of a drug being legalized or not does not prevent a person from getting their hands on these drugs. If a person needs heroin that bad, they can find it. The same can be said for plenty of legal substances such as prescription drugs and over the counter medicine, which you seem to be in favor of so long as it's "safe." By giving people the decision to acquire these regulated drugs, you at least give them a drug that isn't potentially fatal from a drug dealer in an alley with the benefit of taxing and decriminalizing it. The advertisement point I'm very skeptical about. After all what is the current advertisement policy on marijuana? What about alcohol advertisement? Do people really feel the need to self-medicate themselves after watching a commercial for beer or vodka? I remain unconvinced.

Well, the above changes some of this. I completely agree that legalizing all of it would increase safety if we can set legal guidelines.

However, from the advertisement point, think more weight loss pill. If a normal person is looking for something that does X, no one is going to no that drug one is safer than drug two but a medical expert (because lets face it, reviews aren't always reliable either). This is less about "hey, that beer commercial says I should drink!" and more about "I'm looking for a steroid, and Dimethyltrienolone and Anavar both say they increase muscle mass."

And for self medication, its more some people say "My ear hurts, lets look at the symptoms... I think I have an infection! Better buy some Antibiotics! Ha! I just saved a but-load of money by skipping out on going to the doctor's office!" Except they aren't always right, and sometimes the misdiagnosis can be lethal, especially when it gets to heart/breathing problems.

However, if we are looking at purely recreational effects, none of that really weighs in this.

Again, look at the drug fatality and illness related rates in Portugal after legalizing all drugs. There has been a dramatic decrease, and while it may seem shocking, there are therapeutic uses for these drugs.

This sounds really interesting. I'm definitely going to have to read into this. There might be a third factor at play, but if this is the case, than my theories would certainly be wrong. I was originally heavily against recreational marijuana, but than my own state approved it and I really had no choice but to accept I was wrong, this could be the same.

Also, we haven't even begun to delve into the problem of self-autonomy. Is it really wrong to use a drug for recreational purposes if you're not harming someone? If it is then why?

I think whenever you are spending money it affects your family, especially if you are spending money on a drug that changes you, but I suppose this does fall into a moral grey area...

Overall, in the hypothetical situation we are discussing, I would agree that this is worth testing and should be tried out on a small scale (state/province scale) and than examined from there.

Avatar image for just_banter
#41 Posted by Just_Banter (12146 posts) - - Show Bio

NO. I don't want Krokodil legalised, like ever.

Avatar image for batwatch
#42 Edited by BatWatch (5487 posts) - - Show Bio

1. Drug regulations should be decided on a local level. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate drugs.

2. All drugs should be legal, but if you commit any crimes while on recreational drugs, you get the book thrown at you. You don't get to claim you had diminished capacity when you took some PCP and beat your friend to death.

3. Welfare benefits should be cut off for anyone using recreational drugs. If you are going to destroy your body and waste your life, society isn't going to pay for you. Personal freedom can only exist where there is personal responsibility.

I've never taken an illegal drug in my life, and I plan to finish my life with the same statement. However, I think the idea that someone else can decide what happens to your body is ridiculous.

There is a reason to legalize drugs which is much more important than recreational drugs, however. Every year, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people die from incurable diseases. Thousands of treatments are in development right now, yet people can't take these treatments because they have not yet been approved for human testing. It's fully possible that the cure for cancer already exists, but it might be several more years before it ever gets to market in which times incalculable numbers of deaths will occur. If you are already dying, why does it matter if a drug isn't fully tested? Can you imagine how many lives could be saved if those with incurable illnesses could take experimental drugs?

There have been medicines pulled from shelves by the FDA because they double your chances of having a heart attack, yet the consequences of going without such medicine is often much worse. I've heard a man speak of the debilitating pain he experiences every moment of the day because they pulled the only medication that works for him off the market because of some minuscule health risk. Why can't individuals decide whether or not they want to take the risk of the medication? Why must the government decide for them?

It's wrong. Shut down the FDA. Put on your big boy underwear and send the nanny state home.

Avatar image for sheenlantern
#43 Posted by SheenLantern (7619 posts) - - Show Bio

Krokodil sure doesn't need to be legalized.

People only use Krokodil because they don't have access to or can't afford heroin.

Avatar image for rd189
#44 Posted by RD189 (3110 posts) - - Show Bio

Legalizing drugs would not completely remove the criminal market. In fact, since the government will likely tax the ever living sh*t out of every drug out there, gangs will offer the product at a reduced price, and you'll have a situation like moonshine, with producers illegal producing an otherwise legal substance.

I'm more in favour of decriminalisation.

Avatar image for darthmanhunter
#45 Posted by DarthManhunter (1495 posts) - - Show Bio

People are going to do drugs weather its legal or not. So I vote legalize and tax, but keep them around the same "street price" so the junkies dont go completely insane and kill even more people for money.

Avatar image for blade_r
#46 Posted by Blade_R (6470 posts) - - Show Bio

@blade_r: Do you honestly think that legalizing "cooked" drugs would increase use? I think it's safe to say that any reasonable person wouldn't go out of their way to find and use these drugs. Even if they did, they deserve autonomy over their own body, and the tax money would have great future benefits for society. Also what about prescription pills?

I have no idea, but id rather someone I care about not have legal access to meth or heroine to do as much as they wanted all the time (Even though I don't think they would) as for prescription pills, im mixed, on it but my opinion also on them doesn't really matter lol in short I like that they can help people that actually need them.

Avatar image for rouflex
#47 Posted by Rouflex (35970 posts) - - Show Bio

Drug is a vague term, depend on the substance.

For instance, i would like Cigarettes to be illegal.

Pilechoix:Numéro 1 Partout sur terre

Avatar image for sean12345
#48 Edited by Sean12345 (440 posts) - - Show Bio

@ms-lola said:

I understood your thread to be about recreational drug use and I stand by what I said.

Do you mean non violent crime equals victimless crime? I'd need to know that to properly answer your first question. I can say that someone who participates in an activity which they know is illegal, knows they are committing a crime. That makes them a criminal. If that translates into a tarnished reputation, then what does it matter if the crime they committed is seen as "lesser" when compared to other crimes? I throw this back at you for clarification. It's the possession of drugs that is criminal, not being under the influence of it. A police officer can be aware you're high, but you don't get hauled into jail unless you are being civilly disobedient or breaking other laws. Being under the influence of drugs is a mitigating factor when you're brought to court but that can work for or against you. Lots of variables here.

Right, I think I should've clarified recreational use a little bit better. I'm referring to use with the intention of getting high. No one would be affected but the person taking the drug alone. Yes, possession of drugs is the key factor at work here. Police officers do not require a burden of proof since possession is so much easier to prove. Therefore I consider that to be unimportant. Nevertheless, possession would fall under decriminalization as well, especially if you consider drug use to be morally wrong. If you hold that claim, I require reasons for you believing so. The whole point of decriminalizing drugs is to make these people not criminals for engaging in activity which is harmless to anyone but themselves. They deserve a right of autonomy over their body don't they? You may consider it a "lesser crime" but the main fact here is that people with simple drug possessions on their criminal records can't get jobs, loans, are hauled to court at the expense of tax payer money, and depending on the drug could face jail time.

Drugs being bad inherently means what exactly? Do I believe recreational drug use is bad? Well, sure, depending on what the drug is. Many have been shown to be detrimental to a person, starting from the intense addiction several drugs instill in people. If you mean marijuana, I don't find anything wrong with that. I do with LSD and heroin, though.

Well you're not taken into consideration that many of most most addictive drugs in the world that are legal like nicotine. Regulating these drugs would at least control the people from going out and doing unimaginable amounts of this stuff that are potentially toxic from drug dealers. It would also get these drug dealers off the streets and drug screenings for drug use history will be able to help these people rather then sending them to prison where they won't get the help they need. I'm not sure if you realize this, but there is a huge epidemic of heroin related deaths on the east coast of the United States for this exact reason. Again stick to recreational drug use. Wouldn't it be better to help people get better rather then treat them like criminals and lock them up where they are surrounded by people who could only exacerbate their addiction?

Why have any narcotic created? Why the need for regulation over drugs that have been proven to be detrimental? I believe society already knows that hard core drugs and their use are bad things. People still do them. Their reasons for doing so is what I think should be focused on since their dependency on drugs is mostly influenced by extenuating circumstances. Also, going with your thinking about regulation and health requirements, what physician would allow a human being to pursue heroin or crack as a recreational outlet? I would envision no one "qualifying" for that and where does that leave the person who wants to get their hands on these drugs, regardless? That in itself will create an under the table industry, an illegal one, where people who don't match the "requirements" mandated by regulations imposed would go shopping.

You answered you're own question. If all drugs we're regulated and taxed, it wouldn't change the amount of people going out and doing these things. If heroin we're to be legal the next day would you do it? Like you said, people still do them, legal or not, and thus it's best to help these people, especially when it's been demonstrated that these people are extremely prone to addiction with these drugs being illegal. The current system and drug war is a complete failure. We haven't even tackled the laundering of drug money or corruption of public officials and all the horrific crimes from the drug cartels. You seem to be thinking of doctors prescribing these drugs as medication when you couldn't be anymore wrong about what I said. If you read previous posts that I've wrote, I said that rehabilitation centers give addicts a controlled amount of certain drugs to slowly wane their addiction and to prevent serious withdrawal. This is a current method being used for long time users.

I'm a little confused about your position because you seem to accept a sort of controlled government dispensing program but aren't specific about which drugs we are talking about here. Recreational drugs to you might mean something different to me as I consider them to be wide ranging, from weed to LSD/heroin. My thoughts on the lower end don't match my thoughts on those to do with the higher.

The very topic of coming to a widely accepted definition of "drugs" is an argument within itself. Which is why I chose to be vague. Sugar by most people's definition is a drug the same way cocaine is for example. I'm talking about anything that any reasonable person would consider to be a drug. Things like: heroin, LSD, cocaine, etc..

Avatar image for sean12345
#49 Posted by Sean12345 (440 posts) - - Show Bio

@superdrummer: Cool, appreciate the feedback! You workout a lot I assume?

Avatar image for thedandyman
#50 Edited by TheDandyMan (5175 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm gonna say no, I know a fair amount of guys (and by guys, I mean under-16 year olds) that would possibly take drugs if it wasn't from them being illegal.