• 118 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for i_am_lightning
#51 Posted by I_Am_Lightning (3496 posts) - - Show Bio

Sure.

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

@thedandyman: Can you name specifically the type of drugs you're talking about? Also, if you know people under the age of 16 who would do these drugs if it was legal, I'd simply state that their parents and school we're not involved in educating them properly.

Avatar image for thedandyman
#53 Posted by TheDandyMan (5175 posts) - - Show Bio

@sean12345: I would assume class B stuff like heroin (I know a few already take cannabis but, while I wouldn't advise it, it's not too bad). And we have had classes about drugs before but these are the kids who are hard to reach in lessons. You could argue that if these drugs were legalised then they could be better educated before they take whatever they want to take but I doubt a personal talk is going to do much with some of them, they'd just want to get stuck in. Obviously, this is a personal experience though.

Avatar image for magnablue
#54 Posted by magnablue (10498 posts) - - Show Bio

It would lead to a lot less arrests

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

@thedandyman: And you're saying the only thing stopping them from taking these drugs is that its illegal, even though they're taking drugs you already would consider to be less harmful that are illegal? Regardless, if you're getting drugs that are legal, you would be required to show identification at dispensaries the same way you're required to buy alcohol, so it's not like they could get their hands on this stuff anyways. This argument seems self-defeating. I guess they could ask someone to buy it for them, but at least it's a regulated form of the drug rather then something they'd get from some drug dealer in a back alley. Also drug screenings would indicate people who have a history of drug use and intent to sell and would most likely prevent them from getting it.

Avatar image for ultragreenboy
#56 Posted by Ultragreenboy (4218 posts) - - Show Bio

Only legalize the drugs that can kill you.

Avatar image for pooty
#57 Posted by pooty (16236 posts) - - Show Bio

@sean12345: I say LEGALIZE ALL DRUGS!!! Why? Because of something Wilson Fisk aka The Kingpin said years ago. He said "by introducing drugs to people it will ruin and kill the weak minded people who succumb to it. Leaving the strong to thrive."

Avatar image for thedandyman
#58 Posted by TheDandyMan (5175 posts) - - Show Bio

@sean12345: With weed, the police seem to turn a blind eye to it or something as I've seen people asking for it on Facebook but the same could not be said for more deadly substances. And I'm not just worried about them now, it'll only be a couple of years before they're 18 and I don't know that they'd be ready to decide rationally whether to take drugs or not by that age either. Perhaps if you the age of buying drugs was put at 21 rather than 18 then I'd consider it.

Avatar image for flashgreatersigneveryone
#59 Edited by FlashGreaterSignEveryone (1671 posts) - - Show Bio

Agreed, In the "land of the free" I think we shouldn't be told what we can and can't put into our bodies at no one else's expense but the user

America folks...

Avatar image for symbioticspider-man
#60 Edited by SymbioticSpider-Man (3595 posts) - - Show Bio

No. Not only will they be a danger to those who want to use them, but people will also start to pressure others to do them. People might also influence children to do it, like in "Cleanin' Out My Closet" when Marshal talks about how he got the habit of taking prescription pills from his own mother.

Avatar image for batwatch
#61 Posted by BatWatch (5487 posts) - - Show Bio

No. Not only will they be a danger to those who want to use them, but people will also start to pressure others to do them. People might also influence children to do it, like in "Cleanin' Out My Closet" when Marshal talks about how he got the habit of taking prescription pills from his own mother.

How is that any different than the current situation?

Something I don't understand from the drug control people is the way they insist we must ban drugs while freely admitting that drug bans do not work. Kids are already pressured to do drugs. Drugs already hurt people. Making them illegal does not change these facts.

I've never taken an illegal drug in my life nor do I know anybody who sells drugs, yet I would give myself a ninety-five percent chance of being able to procure illegal drugs by the end of the night if I put my mind to it.

Avatar image for xnahtebx
#62 Edited by xNahtebx (949 posts) - - Show Bio

I think that on the whole, outside of dealers most people who take drugs aren't really a threat to anyone but themselves. In my experience, at least - which is pretty vast where drugs are concerned.Seems to me they need treatment, compassion, and patience. We're not gonna get anywhere unless we look at the underlying causes. A lot of drug users are either trying to escape something in their lives, self medicating mental health problems, reacting to external factors like social and peer pressure....I don't see how locking people up solves any of this. Its like putting a plaster on a slit throat.

Avatar image for jayc1324
#63 Posted by jayc1324 (26422 posts) - - Show Bio

No. Why make gang activities legal

Avatar image for symbioticspider-man
#64 Posted by SymbioticSpider-Man (3595 posts) - - Show Bio

@batwatch said:
@symbioticspider-man said:

No. Not only will they be a danger to those who want to use them, but people will also start to pressure others to do them. People might also influence children to do it, like in "Cleanin' Out My Closet" when Marshal talks about how he got the habit of taking prescription pills from his own mother.

How is that any different than the current situation?

Something I don't understand from the drug control people is the way they insist we must ban drugs while freely admitting that drug bans do not work. Kids are already pressured to do drugs. Drugs already hurt people. Making them illegal does not change these facts.

I've never taken an illegal drug in my life nor do I know anybody who sells drugs, yet I would give myself a ninety-five percent chance of being able to procure illegal drugs by the end of the night if I put my mind to it.

Terrorism is illegal, yet people still do it. How is that any different than the current situation?

Rape is illegal, yet people still do it. How is that any different than the current situation?

Cyber stealing is illegal, yet people still do it. How is that any different than the current situation?

See where I'm getting at?

Avatar image for sog7dc
#65 Posted by SOG7dc (11368 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes. I don't care what other people put in their bodies. Tax it. And eliminate some violent, druge-related, crime.

Avatar image for muyjingo
#66 Edited by MuyJingo (2862 posts) - - Show Bio

All should be decriminalized, few should be legalized.

Decriminalization doesn't mean easier access. What it means is to stop organized crime from profiting as much, and that people don't go to jail for trying/using/enjoying a substance at their own discretion.

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

@jayc1324 said:

No. Why make gang activities legal

It would have the opposite effect. Gangs, cartels, corrupt bankers, and the DEA profit off of drugs being illegal.. So what's your point?

@sean12345: With weed, the police seem to turn a blind eye to it or something as I've seen people asking for it on Facebook but the same could not be said for more deadly substances. And I'm not just worried about them now, it'll only be a couple of years before they're 18 and I don't know that they'd be ready to decide rationally whether to take drugs or not by that age either. Perhaps if you the age of buying drugs was put at 21 rather than 18 then I'd consider it.

I'm not at all for use of drugs in kids, but if they haven't developed the capacity to make that decision for themselves, then registration for the army, voting, and cigarettes has to be increased to 21. As far as the government is concerned, fighting and dying for you country makes you legally of age to make your own decisions. Try responding to some of my criticisms of your claims.

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

@sean12345: Difference between joining the army and taking drugs is that you're actually doing something with your life. It's not about how long you live but what you do that counts and becoming a "junkie" is something which I think takes more thought than saving innocents from terrorists (war isn't always that simple but you get what I mean). I don't feel as if I know enough about this topic to have a full-on debate though I'm afraid, it's not something I'm particularly interested in.

And just in case I forgot to mention it, I can get with decriminalising drugs but I think we already have done so with many substances in the UK.

Avatar image for batwatch
#69 Posted by BatWatch (5487 posts) - - Show Bio

Terrorism is illegal, yet people still do it. How is that any different than the current situation?

Rape is illegal, yet people still do it. How is that any different than the current situation?

Cyber stealing is illegal, yet people still do it. How is that any different than the current situation?

See where I'm getting at?

I do, and obviously society has to punish people who take away the rights of others as is the case in all your examples. Do you not see a difference in hurting other people and getting high?

Nobody's rights are being violated when someone gets high, so why do we continue to cling to a model for stopping drug use which is easily observed to be a failure?

Avatar image for quinnofthestoneage
#70 Posted by QuinnoftheStoneAge (3663 posts) - - Show Bio

Drugs being illegal doesn't stop people from doing them, however if they are decriminalised then people may be less scared to get help if they have a problem

Avatar image for bruxae
#71 Posted by Bruxae (18147 posts) - - Show Bio

No.

Avatar image for nefarious
#72 Edited by Nefarious (35649 posts) - - Show Bio

Nay. They will be selling drugs to kids walking home alone.

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

@trickyman86said:

@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

Interesting. I didn't know that. So there are no negative consequences from smoking it?

@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?

You definitely make some good arguments and for the most part I agree, but don't you think rates of drug addiction would skyrocket? Yes I do think that normal and reasonable people would be likely to go out and try it if it was legal.

Avatar image for symbioticspider-man
#74 Posted by SymbioticSpider-Man (3595 posts) - - Show Bio

@batwatch said:

@symbioticspider-man said:

Terrorism is illegal, yet people still do it. How is that any different than the current situation?

Rape is illegal, yet people still do it. How is that any different than the current situation?

Cyber stealing is illegal, yet people still do it. How is that any different than the current situation?

See where I'm getting at?

I do, and obviously society has to punish people who take away the rights of others as is the case in all your examples. Do you not see a difference in hurting other people and getting high?

Nobody's rights are being violated when someone gets high, so why do we continue to cling to a model for stopping drug use which is easily observed to be a failure?

Drugs don't just get you high, they're illegal for a reason. And influencing people to do drugs is the same as hurting them. Influentiality is one of the most powerful weapons we have, it's one of the reasons why terrorism is such a big threat. ISIS uses social media to influence people with empty promises, same as with drugs.

Avatar image for fuzzylittlerodent
#75 Posted by FuzzyLittleRodent (2087 posts) - - Show Bio
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for batwatch
#76 Posted by BatWatch (5487 posts) - - Show Bio

@batwatch said:

@symbioticspider-man said:

Terrorism is illegal, yet people still do it. How is that any different than the current situation?

Rape is illegal, yet people still do it. How is that any different than the current situation?

Cyber stealing is illegal, yet people still do it. How is that any different than the current situation?

See where I'm getting at?

I do, and obviously society has to punish people who take away the rights of others as is the case in all your examples. Do you not see a difference in hurting other people and getting high?

Nobody's rights are being violated when someone gets high, so why do we continue to cling to a model for stopping drug use which is easily observed to be a failure?

Drugs don't just get you high, they're illegal for a reason. And influencing people to do drugs is the same as hurting them. Influentiality is one of the most powerful weapons we have, it's one of the reasons why terrorism is such a big threat. ISIS uses social media to influence people with empty promises, same as with drugs.

You just compared influencing someone to take drugs to influencing people to kill in the name of Allah. Do you feel this is an apt comparison?

Influencing someone to take drugs is certainly a bad and hurtful thing, but there is a difference in encouraging someone to do something that hurts them and directly hurting someone.

You seem to be mixing up what is wrong with what should be illegal. Lying, getting drunk, voting for corrupt politicians, smoking cigarettes and cursing are all things generally regarded as bad and harmful, but none of these things deprive people of their rights and are and should remain legal.

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

You definitely make some good arguments and for the most part I agree, but don't you think rates of drug addiction would skyrocket? Yes I do think that normal and reasonable people would be likely to go out and try it if it was legal.

No, why would it? What is stopping people from using heroin now? Places like Portugal have adopted this method and addiction rates have a actually decreased albeit very little. I assume you're a reasonable person, do you honestly think you would go out and do these drugs?

Avatar image for symbioticspider-man
#78 Posted by SymbioticSpider-Man (3595 posts) - - Show Bio

@batwatch said:

@symbioticspider-man said:

@batwatch said:

@symbioticspider-man said:

Terrorism is illegal, yet people still do it. How is that any different than the current situation?

Rape is illegal, yet people still do it. How is that any different than the current situation?

Cyber stealing is illegal, yet people still do it. How is that any different than the current situation?

See where I'm getting at?

I do, and obviously society has to punish people who take away the rights of others as is the case in all your examples. Do you not see a difference in hurting other people and getting high?

Nobody's rights are being violated when someone gets high, so why do we continue to cling to a model for stopping drug use which is easily observed to be a failure?

Drugs don't just get you high, they're illegal for a reason. And influencing people to do drugs is the same as hurting them. Influentiality is one of the most powerful weapons we have, it's one of the reasons why terrorism is such a big threat. ISIS uses social media to influence people with empty promises, same as with drugs.

You just compared influencing someone to take drugs to influencing people to kill in the name of Allah. Do you feel this is an apt comparison?

Influencing someone to take drugs is certainly a bad and hurtful thing, but there is a difference in encouraging someone to do something that hurts them and directly hurting someone.

You seem to be mixing up what is wrong with what should be illegal. Lying, getting drunk, voting for corrupt politicians, smoking cigarettes and cursing are all things generally regarded as bad and harmful, but none of these things deprive people of their rights and are and should remain legal.

I guess I could see that.

Avatar image for noone301994
#79 Edited by Noone301994 (22169 posts) - - Show Bio

@noone301994 said:

You definitely make some good arguments and for the most part I agree, but don't you think rates of drug addiction would skyrocket? Yes I do think that normal and reasonable people would be likely to go out and try it if it was legal.

No, why would it? What is stopping people from using heroin now? Places like Portugal have adopted this method and addiction rates have a actually decreased albeit very little. I assume you're a reasonable person, do you honestly think you would go out and do these drugs?

Most people don't have access to a black market salesman. Neither me, or any of my friends, know where to get heroin lol. No, I wouldn't try them, but if they were legal I bet a lot of people would try them because they have better access to them.

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

@noone301994: I take it you have actively not tried to find it then. If someone intends to use it, they will surely find a way, hard access to drugs is not going to hold someone back from trying to find this stuff. Again Portugal has seen addiction rates decrease, it's actually been shown to be beneficial to their society.

Also, if someone wants to try regulated heroin recreationally without hurting anyone it's their own business. Give me a reason why that is wrong?

Avatar image for regiebravo
#81 Posted by regiebravo (1835 posts) - - Show Bio

Deadly ones? No. Fun ones? Blaze it.

Avatar image for frisky4
#82 Posted by Frisky4 (9216 posts) - - Show Bio

No.

Avatar image for notatreeabush
#83 Posted by NotATreeABush (5004 posts) - - Show Bio

Only bath salts

Avatar image for axelroq
#84 Posted by Axelroq (199 posts) - - Show Bio

If everything is legalized, a large part of the economy would collapse but over time corporations will mitigate these damage while making profits. There will be quality control and large scale distribution, so prices will come down.

There will be a lot of controversy surrounding the death by OD cases, which I'm sure will happen nevertheless if the drugs were legalized or not.

But yeah, the cartels, and warlords would go out of business pretty quick.

Cultural and social norms may shift unpredictably, and a lot of other unpredictable variables to account for. It could turn into a dystopia for all we know.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a5a76120d2ba
#85 Posted by deactivated-5a5a76120d2ba (5989 posts) - - Show Bio

So far every argument I hear for the legalization of drugs boils down to "I love doing it and it should not be illegal."

Avatar image for mfundroid
#86 Posted by Mfundroid (2916 posts) - - Show Bio

No, except for the ones that can kill you... I mean people have to learn their lesson somehow, so why not through death? You decided to be an idiotic moron for voluntarily taking drugs, so go die.

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

@mfundroid: Well I'm sure if you had a child or close family member taking drugs you would think otherwise about your extreme position.

So far every argument I hear for the legalization of drugs boils down to "I love doing it and it should not be illegal."

You haven't read my arguments then.

Avatar image for mfundroid
#88 Posted by Mfundroid (2916 posts) - - Show Bio

@sean12345: I know I would've tried my best but if drugs are legal they'll most probably continue doing them. It has to come from them not me, tough love. Exactly how I am being raised, half the extremism, but same outcome and consequences.

Avatar image for chimeroid
#89 Edited by Chimeroid (9241 posts) - - Show Bio

@sean12345: actually it is a dumb idea... It is like saying you should legalize rat poison in food just so it is less done illegally it is a stupid reasoning and a kids way of thinking "I will stop the illegal activities by making them legal" is really a bad idea.. Look. If you are talking about canabis that has no proven negative effects, then ok. But heroin, cocaine and meth for instance are poisons that just feel good. They should NEVER be legalized. And even if they would try, you couldnt give the FDA approval to something that is poisonous like meth...

And if you pull the alcohol argument on me i will get seriously disappointed because in fact. That shit should be illegal as well.

Avatar image for batwatch
#90 Posted by BatWatch (5487 posts) - - Show Bio

So far every argument I hear for the legalization of drugs boils down to "I love doing it and it should not be illegal."

Then you haven't read my argument. I've never taken an illegal drug in my life. I've never even smoked a cigarette or taken a drink of alcohol. I think, with very few exceptions, people who take illegal drugs are making a horrible mistake, yet I support drug legalization.

The reasons for this are many, but the most basic one is that I believe in freedom of the individual. Taking an illegal drug is certainly self-destructive, but it does not harm other people and therefore is the choice of the individual. If we say the state can take away human choice to prevent them from hurting themselves, where does this line of reasoning lead? Can we stop people from buying soda and other junk foods because sugary foods kill so many people? (much more than drugs by some estimates) Can we force people to exercise? Can we force people to take public transportation because of it's higher safety record? People have the self-evident right to choose their own path even when that path is destructive or dangerous.

More importantly, drug legalization is not just for people who want to party. There are many experimental drugs that might cure cancer or other crippling and deadly diseases which people, even people terminally ill, cannot use because the Food and Drug Administration has not approved. Medications that saves lives or ends debilitating pain have been pulled off the market because of minute risks to health. Why can't individuals decide the risks they will take?

That's not even addressing the practical issues. The federal government has poured 1 trillion dollars combating drugs. Adding in state expenditures, and that sum grows by leaps and bounds. That's money coming from citizens pockets, your pockets. Non-violent people are locked up because of these programs simply because they possessed an illegal substance which has lead to more people being incarcerated in the United States than in any other nation. We've developed special courts just to treat drug abusers which in turn cost the American people even more money. This is the price of stopping drugs...except it hasn't stopped drug use. Knowing nobody who deals drugs, I feel confident that I could still purchase drugs by the end of today if I wanted. The war on drugs has not worked.

Avatar image for jedixman
#91 Posted by JediXMan (42485 posts) - - Show Bio

You want to ruin your life, who am I to stop you? Long as you don't do it in public, I don't care.

If the government regularized it, it would at least lower the amount of drug dealers on the street. If you can get something legally, a lot of people will do that over the illegal (more dangerous) route.

Moderator
Avatar image for eisenfauste
#92 Posted by Eisenfauste (17366 posts) - - Show Bio

Wow look how many stupid arguments there are on this thread,

I can smell the scent of teenagers in this thread......

Avatar image for i_am_lightning
#93 Posted by I_Am_Lightning (3496 posts) - - Show Bio

@eisenfauste: Yeah me too

Eh, why not?

Natural selection and stuff.

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

@sean12345: actually it is a dumb idea... It is like saying you should legalize rat poison in food just so it is less done illegally it is a stupid reasoning and a kids way of thinking "I will stop the illegal activities by making them legal" is really a bad idea.. Look. If you are talking about canabis that has no proven negative effects, then ok. But heroin, cocaine and meth for instance are poisons that just feel good. They should NEVER be legalized. And even if they would try, you couldnt give the FDA approval to something that is poisonous like meth...

And if you pull the alcohol argument on me i will get seriously disappointed because in fact. That shit should be illegal as well.

Do you honestly think reasonable people will go out and try things like heroin, meth, and crack? Even if they do, why is that wrong if they choose to use these narcotics recreationally?

The analogy to rat poison doesn't follow since that is not a drug, even though cigarettes, which do have rat poison in them is regulated. You're tackling 2 different arguments that don't make any sense. You're not for the legalization of drugs because of the reason that certain drugs have no proven benefits? This argument holds no weight to me since the current system causes people to get cocktailed, lethal, and various amounts of drugs from unreliable sources like drug dealers. Also, people are treated like criminals for simple drug use when they're not even hurting anyone but themselves. This puts them in a vulnerable position to go back to drugs and strengthen their addiction instead of getting the help they deserve. Why not regulate these drugs to get drug dealers off the streets, end our ridiculous incarceration rates (we're number 1 in the world), ease the tax burden and pay off our debts, and take away power from drug cartels which have been responsible for crimes against humanity. Drug related illnesses and fatalities will shoot all the way down since people will have an idea for what they're getting as has been shown in the current policy in Portugal.

Any peer reviewed study showing the frequent use of cannabis, especially smoked, shows detrimental effects from the carbon dioxide entering into the body, don't write information if it's not factually based from accredited sources.

Harvard study on marijuana use

Avatar image for nighthunder
#95 Edited by NighThunder (7725 posts) - - Show Bio

No.. Why would you propose something as absurd as this?

Edit;

As usual this man pretty much sums it up for me

@jedixman said:

You want to ruin your life, who am I to stop you? Long as you don't do it in public, I don't care.

If the government regularized it, it would at least lower the amount of drug dealers on the street. If you can get something legally, a lot of people will do that over the illegal (more dangerous) route.

Avatar image for chimeroid
#96 Posted by Chimeroid (9241 posts) - - Show Bio

@chimeroid said:

@sean12345: actually it is a dumb idea... It is like saying you should legalize rat poison in food just so it is less done illegally it is a stupid reasoning and a kids way of thinking "I will stop the illegal activities by making them legal" is really a bad idea.. Look. If you are talking about canabis that has no proven negative effects, then ok. But heroin, cocaine and meth for instance are poisons that just feel good. They should NEVER be legalized. And even if they would try, you couldnt give the FDA approval to something that is poisonous like meth...

And if you pull the alcohol argument on me i will get seriously disappointed because in fact. That shit should be illegal as well.

Do you honestly think reasonable people will go out and try things like heroin, meth, and crack? Even if they do, why is that wrong if they choose to use these narcotics recreationally?

The analogy to rat poison doesn't follow since that is not a drug, even though cigarettes, which do have rat poison in them is regulated. You're tackling 2 different arguments that don't make any sense. You're not for the legalization of drugs because of the reason that certain drugs have no proven benefits? This argument holds no weight to me since the current system causes people to get cocktailed, lethal, and various amounts of drugs from unreliable sources like drug dealers. Also, people are treated like criminals for simple drug use when they're not even hurting anyone but themselves. This puts them in a vulnerable position to go back to drugs and strengthen their addiction instead of getting the help they deserve. Why not regulate these drugs to get drug dealers off the streets, end our ridiculous incarceration rates (we're number 1 in the world), ease the tax burden and pay off our debts, and take away power from drug cartels which have been responsible for crimes against humanity. Drug related illnesses and fatalities will shoot all the way down since people will have an idea for what they're getting as has been shown in the current policy in Portugal.

Any peer reviewed study showing the frequent use of cannabis, especially smoked, shows detrimental effects from the carbon dioxide entering into the body, don't write information if it's not factually based from accredited sources.

Harvard study on marijuana use

Ok.. Now pls. Follow what i am saying. i will put little numbers in front of my points so you can understand

1. Stupid people deserve to live as well. Also, even legal drugs you only get by prescription and by set amount. What condition would you prescribe heroin for?

2. Drugs won't be any cheaper or less addictive, so users will still be inclined to commit crimes to be able to afford drugs, thus nothing would change. Not even the quality of the drug since they would cut it to last longer.

3. One thing would change tho. You wouldnt be stopping the sales anymore. Thus, there will be more casual drug dealers.

4. Killing yourself and others with drugs is your option, but it should not be LEGAL as one. It is not the system that is getting them cocktailed, it is their breaking of the law that is.

5. People on drugs have changed mental state, and are unaccountable for their actions. They are unpredictable and dangerous. Both to themselves and others.

6. Addiction is the same for those that get drugs legally or illegally. Like morphine addicts for instance. You just as easily get hooked.

7. Regulating them would not get them off the streets. It would just make for more casual drug dealers since then possession would be legal and you would have to catch someone while he is selling to arrest him.

8. Now for this point you are just saying, "why is our country not a drug dealer, we can make a lot of money" Here's an idea, just arrest the drug dealers and take away all their money. You have, at your disposal, technology to read what i write on a piece of paper i drop on the floor. You could find the dealers if you actually tried.

9. It would only shoot down the power of cartels that rely on US market. But yes. Because there is no conceivable way for the most powerful country in the world to kill them.

10. Now... US is a place of extremes... You know. You are able to teach people about exactly what drug does what without selling drugs legally to them. They would still overdose. Just like Whitney Houston. She was well informed and 100% used clean stuff, not cocktail.

11. You are completely right. Breathing in CO2 is not a good thing. I know that. I myself am against cannabis as well. But that is the only drug a case can be made for.

Avatar image for heatblaze
#97 Posted by Heatblaze (10399 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't think making drugs legal is a good idea. So many horror stories with drug abuse.....

Avatar image for batwatch
#98 Posted by BatWatch (5487 posts) - - Show Bio

Ok.. Now pls. Follow what i am saying. i will put little numbers in front of my points so you can understand

1. Stupid people deserve to live as well. Also, even legal drugs you only get by prescription and by set amount. What condition would you prescribe heroin for?

2. Drugs won't be any cheaper or less addictive, so users will still be inclined to commit crimes to be able to afford drugs, thus nothing would change. Not even the quality of the drug since they would cut it to last longer.

3. One thing would change tho. You wouldnt be stopping the sales anymore. Thus, there will be more casual drug dealers.

4. Killing yourself and others with drugs is your option, but it should not be LEGAL as one. It is not the system that is getting them cocktailed, it is their breaking of the law that is.

5. People on drugs have changed mental state, and are unaccountable for their actions. They are unpredictable and dangerous. Both to themselves and others.

6. Addiction is the same for those that get drugs legally or illegally. Like morphine addicts for instance. You just as easily get hooked.

7. Regulating them would not get them off the streets. It would just make for more casual drug dealers since then possession would be legal and you would have to catch someone while he is selling to arrest him.

8. Now for this point you are just saying, "why is our country not a drug dealer, we can make a lot of money" Here's an idea, just arrest the drug dealers and take away all their money. You have, at your disposal, technology to read what i write on a piece of paper i drop on the floor. You could find the dealers if you actually tried.

9. It would only shoot down the power of cartels that rely on US market. But yes. Because there is no conceivable way for the most powerful country in the world to kill them.

10. Now... US is a place of extremes... You know. You are able to teach people about exactly what drug does what without selling drugs legally to them. They would still overdose. Just like Whitney Houston. She was well informed and 100% used clean stuff, not cocktail.

11. You are completely right. Breathing in CO2 is not a good thing. I know that. I myself am against cannabis as well. But that is the only drug a case can be made for.

No need to be condescending. You have some good points as does Sean. You can have a more useful and mature discussion if you don't resort to those types of comments.

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

@sean12345:

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.

You are making a lot of assumptions here. If, like you state, the only person affected by taking drugs is the person themselves, then we are not going to agree on that premise. That is just not true. Of course people can be in their own home, get high, and manage to not hurt themselves or others, but it's not guaranteed. Taking the drug, possessing the drug, is a criminal act. If you are charged with possession of a narcotic, then yes, that should be public record as is jail time. You use the word moral for the act of ingesting drugs, I use the word moral in deciding to partake in a criminal activity. I can't be clearer than that.

Arguing about autonomy over one's body can be tricky because claiming you are only hurting yourself isn't an assurance of any sort to the public. I won't be very tolerant towards a person who decides to go "flying" off a higher floored building and they crash into someone, or something, causing injury, death and/or property damage because they believe they are superman/woman while under the influence of a drug. Claiming autonomy while disregarding public expense in saving them, or dealing with the aftermath of a dangerous activity inspired by drug use is wrong. This is why there are issues with drunk driving. This is why there are issues with crimes committed while under the influence of alcohol. Opening it up to drugs of any kind just doesn't make any sense, through a public safety lens.

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?

Nicotine doesn't drive a person to prostitution or a life of crime to support the habit. Same with caffeine. As for sending people who are drug users into jail, I have always been against that. Always. They should be placed in holding facilities where they can be treated for their substance abuse problems, which is the whole point of incarceration in the first place. To reform the inmates. I'd rather the focus be on that, than the assumption legalisation will cure a majority of ills. Also, you appear to support the idea doing drugs (heroin and the like), is something most people shouldn't do. I would agree with that but I am still confused about your stance. Either an adult can do whatever they want with drugs, no matter the "strength" of them, or not, based on autonomy. Most people wouldn't want to be strung out drug addicts, but they started somewhere. Some people also want to remain drug addicts. Like I said, too many variables. Keeping things illegal for drugs which have been proven detrimental in larger society is the best option we have. A better fallout from that is a better safety net for those caught up in it, rather than throwing them in jail as simply criminals. They are ill. They should be treated as ill.

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.

It's not a complete failure. It's a mess, true, but not a failure. As for me thinking you meant doctors could be prescribing drugs, that's what you came across as saying. If your stance is that hardcore drugs should be not produced, and the point is to wean people off them through government support rather than punishment, then we agree on this point.

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..

Ah, but there's the rub. No reasonable person would take up a severe drug addiction and yet, many do. Someone's idea of sugar being a drug to another's idea of cocaine being similar, that is something else altogether different.

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

Ok.. Now pls. Follow what i am saying. i will put little numbers in front of my points so you can understand

Spare me the pretentious attitude... If you can't take a conversation seriously and respect opposition, then I suggest you don't post. I've linked a peer reviewed source to correct an obvious lie you've made. You've also yet to even tackle recreational use as I've mentioned in the OP, or given your position on drug decriminalization. Follow directions and don't slander my position with dumb or belittle my reasonings, especially when you give false information, otherwise I won't respond to someone without any credibility.

1. Stupid people deserve to live as well. Also, even legal drugs you only get by prescription and by set amount. What condition would you prescribe heroin for?

Bingo, that's the whole reason behind legalizing the drug. You can control the amount of drugs in supply while getting these drug dealers off the streets. People are then sent to prison where they are more vulnerable to addiction then they were previously, rather then get the help in therapy they rightly deserve. Heroin has been legal at one point in American history as well, not sure if you're aware. Also, all drugs are given out in rehabilitation clinics to ween long time addicts off of their addiction by slowly preventing cravings and reducing withdrawal symptoms.

2. Drugs won't be any cheaper or less addictive, so users will still be inclined to commit crimes to be able to afford drugs, thus nothing would change. Not even the quality of the drug since they would cut it to last longer.

Wrong. You honestly think these drugs are that expensive? Look up Portugal's current drug commercialization standards and you'll see what I'm talking about. You've made two claims here both with no reasoning to support why they would happen.

3. One thing would change tho. You wouldnt be stopping the sales anymore. Thus, there will be more casual drug dealers.

So that means nothing would change then if sales won't be stopped... Again, this argument only works if your previous point held any merit, which as it's been demonstrated, has the opposite effect.

4. Killing yourself and others with drugs is your option, but it should not be LEGAL as one. It is not the system that is getting them cocktailed, it is their breaking of the law that is.

The fact that it is illegal is what's causing these people to unintentionally die. Drug related illnesses and fatalities have drastically decreased in Portugal. The point of recreational use is not to die but rather get high. If you're talking about suicide by overdose, that's a completely different argument.

5. People on drugs have changed mental state, and are unaccountable for their actions. They are unpredictable and dangerous. Both to themselves and others.

Read the OP

6. Addiction is the same for those that get drugs legally or illegally. Like morphine addicts for instance. You just as easily get hooked.

Not quite, but even if that was the case, why not legalize it so you could tax it, give people a controlled amount, keep people safe, prevent them from going to jail, and reduce crime. You said it yourself, if its the same, why not make money off of it? After all, no remotely reasonable person is going to be doing meth, crack, or heroin obviously.

7. Regulating them would not get them off the streets. It would just make for more casual drug dealers since then possession would be legal and you would have to catch someone while he is selling to arrest him.

This is repeating a previous point. Also, legalization would prevent cops from uselessly going after non-violent drug offenders to people who are actually a detriment to society like murders, rapist, and organized crime lords.

8. Now for this point you are just saying, "why is our country not a drug dealer, we can make a lot of money" Here's an idea, just arrest the drug dealers and take away all their money. You have, at your disposal, technology to read what i write on a piece of paper i drop on the floor. You could find the dealers if you actually tried.

That's what we've been trying to do but as you can see it's cost tax payers lots of money for a useless cause. That's no different then the current drug war system we have right now which has been complete failure.

9. It would only shoot down the power of cartels that rely on US market. But yes. Because there is no conceivable way for the most powerful country in the world to kill them.

You cripple cartels big time if you prevent them from smuggling drugs in the United States. Also, if smart, other countries would follow our example.

10. Now... US is a place of extremes... You know. You are able to teach people about exactly what drug does what without selling drugs legally to them. They would still overdose. Just like Whitney Houston. She was well informed and 100% used clean stuff, not cocktail.

You're saying celebrities are not at risk to do this stuff? Look at Phillip Seymour Hoffman man.. One of my favorite actors btw.

11. You are completely right. Breathing in CO2 is not a good thing. I know that. I myself am against cannabis as well. But that is the only drug a case can be made for.

You've mentioned you're also against alcohol right? Have you seen what prohibition has done to organized crime, the corporate/private business economies, entertainment businesses, and health related issues in the United States? Also, if drugs are inherently bad, give me a reason as to why, and why should people not have the right to put what they want into their body if it doesn't harm anyone?