TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Legalization of Drugs
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Legalization of Drugs

Are you for it? Against it? Should it be regulated? Should it have age restrictions like cigarettes and alcohol? I know a lot of the people here use em, so lets see what you have to say.

I am strongly in favor of the legalization of drugs for the following reasons:

1. Why not have the hundreds of millions of dollars people spend on drugs each year stimulating the national economy instead of funding international militant organizations?

2. People ought to be allowed to choose their own health and lifestyle choices, not have them dictated by some self-righteous authority.

3. It's a common myth that drugs cause crime. However, it's the black market created by the fact that drugs are illegal that cause crime, not the drugs themselves. Thus, legalizing drugs would actually reduce crime (drasically).

4. I don't believe in victimless crimes anyway, and no, victimizing yourself doesn't count.

5. I don't like my tax dollars being spent imprisoning people who aren't a threat to anyone and were simply addicted to a substance when they were too young to really know any better.

6. You can't regulate drugs if they're illegal, and the impurities in unregulated drugs make them all the more dangerous. If drugs were produced by large corporations and monitored by the government, the problem of impurities would be greatly reduced, if not eliminated.

7. The actual health problems caused by most drugs are greatly exaggerated by the propaganda being put out by the media.

8. If drugs were legal, it would help faciliate useful research into how best to mitigate their bad side-effects as well as what constitutes a safe dosage, what drug interactions people should be aware of, ect...

9. For many young children, drugs have a "mystique" which tempts them to try them. Legalizing drugs would be a step towards eliminating this "mystique."

10. Enforcing drug laws costs billions, and I do not see any benefit being produced whatsoever.

Finally, I don't think there should be age restrictions on them, but that's because I don't believe in age discrimination under ANY circumstances. It's inherently wrong, just like racial discrimination or gender discrimination. Besides, if we've learned anything from alcohol and cigarettes it's that age restrictions don't work. Why spend resources fighting a futile battle?

Cheers,

Arbiter

Legalize! It's the only option. But: education is very important!

-illegal = cool. People who reject society often use drugs
-illegal = money. Criminals make tons of cash
-illegal = bad quality. No government control
-illegal = high prices. High prices means crime

Illegal or legal, people will experiment anyhow. So if you legalize you can

a) lower prices and include taxes
b) watch quality
c) have good views about druguse in society
d) educate
e) reduce crime to a minimum

Strong arguments by both of you. But the questions remains: Should there be a difference between "soft" and "hard" drugs?
One the one hand it will be very hard to find an accurate line between those two types, on the other hand supper-addictive, definitely life-threatening drugs like Heroin simply cant be put on the same level as marijuana...At least morally...

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant Strong arguments by both of you. But the questions remains: Should there be a difference between "soft" and "hard" drugs?

No, that's what education is needed for. People will know what they're dealing with and besides, how will we separate "hard" and "soft"?
However, I think there should be an age restriction: +16 (with parents approval) or +18.

I am for legalizing all of the softer drugs (weed etc) but will minimal age restrictions. I mean having a 4 year old smoking would just be bad. As far as the "harder" drugs like heroin and coke, I've never used em, but from what I understand there very addictive and not all that safe, so I'd hesitate to legalize them.

quote:

Originally posted by Maaz No, that's what education is needed for. People will know what they're dealing with and besides, how will we separate "hard" and "soft"?

very simple, drugs like hero�ne and coca�ne are hard-drugs. I guess you can also look at how fast you are addicted to the drug...

quote:

Originally posted by Blik very simple, drugs like hero�ne and coca�ne are hard-drugs. I guess you can also look at how fast you are addicted to the drug...

In that case, alcohol should be on top

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant Strong arguments by both of you. But the questions remains: Should there be a difference between "soft" and "hard" drugs? One the one hand it will be very hard to find an accurate line between those two types, on the other hand supper-addictive, definitely life-threatening drugs like Heroin simply cant be put on the same level as marijuana...At least morally...

As long as education is sufficient to ensure that people understand the risks they undertake by choosing to take "hard" drugs, I have no moral issue with allowing them to make that choice. The individual should be responsible for such decisions, not the government.

quote:

Originally posted by jploveparade In that case, alcohol should be on top

but you can die very easily from coke and hero�ne, especially when you aren't addicted to it. It is a lot more difficult to die from alcohol

quote:

Originally posted by Blik but you can die very easily from coke and hero�ne, especially when you aren't addicted to it. It is a lot more difficult to die from alcohol

That's not what the health ministry says

If the UK laws on drugs were based on the danger and/or the number of deaths attributed to the particular drug then MOST currently illegal drugs would be legal and the two main legal drugs(Nicotine and alcohol) would be illegal. Both of the two main legal drugs are a major addition to the drug deaths in this country. There has to be a major revamp of the drug laws in the UK and across the world. People should have the right to do what they want to there bodies as long as it doesnt affectr others. Alcohol does affect others in numerous ways. Violence, drink driving, etc. Howver numerous illegal substances dont have these dangerous social side effects.

quote:

but you can die very easily from coke and hero�ne, especially when you aren't addicted to it. It is a lot more difficult to die from alcohol

alright, with heroin it can often be a 1:2 ratio of the amount it takes to get high, and the amount that can kill you...but alcohol is right behind with 1:4. alcohol is NOT much safer in this right.

esp when compared to weed with 1:40000.

i was gonna look for some concise facts on the subject but ended up here:drug war facts

interesting|

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I am strongly in favor of the legalization of drugs for the following reasons: 1. Why not have the hundreds of millions of dollars people spend on drugs each year stimulating the national economy instead of funding international militant organizations? 2. People ought to be allowed to choose their own health and lifestyle choices, not have them dictated by some self-righteous authority. 3. It's a common myth that drugs cause crime. However, it's the black market created by the fact that drugs are illegal that cause crime, not the drugs themselves. Thus, legalizing drugs would actually reduce crime (drasically). 4. I don't believe in victimless crimes anyway, and no, victimizing yourself doesn't count. 5. I don't like my tax dollars being spent imprisoning people who aren't a threat to anyone and were simply addicted to a substance when they were too young to really know any better. 6. You can't regulate drugs if they're illegal, and the impurities in unregulated drugs make them all the more dangerous. If drugs were produced by large corporations and monitored by the government, the problem of impurities would be greatly reduced, if not eliminated. 7. The actual health problems caused by most drugs are greatly exaggerated by the propaganda being put out by the media. 8. If drugs were legal, it would help faciliate useful research into how best to mitigate their bad side-effects as well as what constitutes a safe dosage, what drug interactions people should be aware of, ect... 9. For many young children, drugs have a "mystique" which tempts them to try them. Legalizing drugs would be a step towards eliminating this "mystique." 10. Enforcing drug laws costs billions, and I do not see any benefit being produced whatsoever. Finally, I don't think there should be age restrictions on them, but that's because I don't believe in age discrimination under ANY circumstances. It's inherently wrong, just like racial discrimination or gender discrimination. Besides, if we've learned anything from alcohol and cigarettes it's that age restrictions don't work. Why spend resources fighting a futile battle? Cheers, Arbiter

bravo! *bows*

thankyou for saving me time in putting out all the points myself, you have exactly the right idea! but we all knw othat will never happen, everyoen is too up their own arses with their ideals on drugs and not the truth!

I think allot of you miss allot of things out in your arguments. I completely agree with you on allot of espects but there are some points id like to make.
Firstly allot of you compare alocohol misuse. There are plenty of government awerness schemes out there. You think people dont know about being addicted to alcohol, and the misuse of it can result in death etc...
Age restriction on E? U kiddin, kids can die of it easily, aint u heard of recently two chuldren have become the youngest children to take E, both from picking up a E at parties. One child found a E pill on the floor at a club, thought it was candy and ate it. He/she nearly died. Now if E is legalised, this would become more frequent. These kids are 6. They're bodies cant handly it! Age restriction...umm rediculas. There has to be age restriction because the country would be out of control. Society needs to have age restrictions! Plus, like for ur 18th b/d there would be no such things as ur first legal pint AHA!!!
Two biggest killers in the world fags and alcohol. First alcohol..umm been around forever! U can't just illigalise it! Two, cigarettes, well, if they knew before they started producing them, i think they would also make it illigal.
If soft drugs were made legal, that means that harder drugs would be pushed to be legalized as well dont you think? I think they will? Im not too sure about that, but its likely i believe!

Education etc.. about the drug is extremely right.

I just htink you all need to understand is the hurt felt by the parents, family and friends from ppl who have misused E. Iv had a friend who has died from it, which is why i wouldnt use it, i rem his family holding hands in one big long line at church and seeing what a miss he will be. Other memories are not unusual.

Anyway dont flame me too harshly coz there are way more pro-drug uses here than anti-drug uses.

Matt

quote:

Originally posted by TiestoFanMatt I think allot of you miss allot of things out in your arguments. I completely agree with you on allot of espects but there are some points id like to make. Firstly allot of you compare alocohol misuse. There are plenty of government awerness schemes out there. You think people dont know about being addicted to alcohol, and the misuse of it can result in death etc... Age restriction on E? U kiddin, kids can die of it easily, aint u heard of recently two chuldren have become the youngest children to take E, both from picking up a E at parties. One child found a E pill on the floor at a club, thought it was candy and ate it. He/she nearly died. Now if E is legalised, this would become more frequent. These kids are 6. They're bodies cant handly it! Age restriction...umm rediculas. There has to be age restriction because the country would be out of control. Society needs to have age restrictions! Plus, like for ur 18th b/d there would be no such things as ur first legal pint AHA!!!

i actually dont think we are missing much here. its just a case of how rediculous the war on drugs is.

with your E example tho, i think that if a small child is IN a club and that club has pills lying on the floor, it has bigger problems than drugs alone. you also say that E use will increase, which I actually doubt. those that want to do ecstasy WILL and CAN do it now, regardless. if it were legalized or decriminalized(at least) i think there would be an initial surge from curiosity, but again, it would be safer chemically, and secondly, E isnt something that people can do all the time- you build up a resistance to it.

i understand the concern over age restrictions tho. it would be quite difficult to know when/where to set them.

quote:

Two biggest killers in the world fags and alcohol. First alcohol..umm been around forever! U can't just illigalise it!

that argument doesnt work at all. the same could be said about most drugs. theyve changed, but people have always been getting screwed up whether with marijuana or alcohol. you are only pointing out the fact that others have - illegality promotes a black market, and crime.

quote:

Two, cigarettes, well, if they knew before they started producing them, i think they would also make it illigal. If soft drugs were made legal, that means that harder drugs would be pushed to be legalized as well dont you think? I think they will? Im not too sure about that, but its likely i believe! Education etc.. about the drug is extremely right. I just htink you all need to understand is the hurt felt by the parents, family and friends from ppl who have misused E. Iv had a friend who has died from it, which is why i wouldnt use it, i rem his family holding hands in one big long line at church and seeing what a miss he will be. Other memories are not unusual. Anyway dont flame me too harshly coz there are way more pro-drug uses here than anti-drug uses. Matt

and finally, not to be disrespectful, but what did your friend die of? cause if he took a pill of MDMA its likely he died of dehydration. and if he died of some chemical substance, then it was something other than MDMA, PMA for example. the reason most drugs are so dangerous is because the govt doesnt regulate them, so no one really knows what they are getting. late|

quote:

Originally posted by TiestoFanMatt I just htink you all need to understand is the hurt felt by the parents, family and friends from ppl who have misused E. Iv had a friend who has died from it, which is why i wouldnt use it, i rem his family holding hands in one big long line at church and seeing what a miss he will be. Other memories are not unusual.

People feel bad when their relatives die, and I feel for them. But you don't ban drain cleaner because a kid can drink it and die, you don't ban matches because a kid can start a fire and die, and you don't ban tylenol just because a kid can OD and die. By analogy, it doesn't make sense to ban drugs because a kid could misuse them and die.

good arguements.

here in the U.S. where marijuana is federally outlawed, many states are working to legalize it. wouldnt that be nice? i dont think it would ruin it, and i dont think people would abuse pot if it were cheaper, atleast not like cigarettes... besides, wouldnt it be nice to grow pot in your front yard

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter People feel bad when their relatives die, and I feel for them. But you don't ban drain cleaner because a kid can drink it and die, you don't ban matches because a kid can start a fire and die, and you don't ban tylenol just because a kid can OD and die. By analogy, it doesn't make sense to ban drugs because a kid could misuse them and die.

I read your first post and it listed all the reasons why I am for legalizing drugs, and now you came up with the exact same analogy as I would have used to counter TiestoFanMatt's argument. Bravo!

One of your points, however, I do not agree on entirely. It is point number 2:
"People ought to be allowed to choose their own health and lifestyle choices, not have them dictated by some self-righteous authority." This is, in principle, also my view, but you have to consider the economic effects of someone being of bad health. They will put a strain on any healt care system, won't contribute to society etc., and what they do to their own body will thus not be only of their concern.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic This is, in principle, also my view, but you have to consider the economic effects of someone being of bad health. They will put a strain on any healt care system, won't contribute to society etc., and what they do to their own body will thus not be only of their concern.

Yeah, that is a very valid issue that you raise. In general, I'm opposed to public health care for the treatment of health problems resulting from personal negligence or self-inflicted harm. If people want to take such chances, they should be the ones to pay the bill if it goes awry, and if they can't, then they should simply be refused treatment. It's a somewhat harsh system, but it encourages personal responsibility, which is something I think is sadly lacking in societies around the world.

I also must say BRAVO arbiter, you had an excellent first post, i agree with most of it as well.

However, in regards to public healthcare, i think trancaholic has a good point as well.

I sort of agree that if you inflict the damage to yourself, you should not get public healthcare. in theory, that would be a perfect system, everyone would be accountable for their own actions.

but in reality that line grows very blurry. Take marijuana for example, it's not an acute and directly treatable thing. Pot smokers suffer many health problems that are hard to nail down, such as anemia, and weak immune systems that lead to other problems. as well, they are more likely to pick up specific diseases such as lung and throat cancer. And of course, there are also other problems, such as lowered sperm count, loss of memory, etc, but those are mostly temporary. not for women though, damage to the reproductive organs is largely irreversible.

then, finally, you may consider these "sicknesses" you may not, but there is a whole host of mental disorders, including depression, apathy, bi polar syndrome, ADD/ADHD, schizophrenia, which have been linked to use of marijuana. personally, i believe that these "links" are rather weak, but, i thought i'd bring it up anyway.

Then when you throw in the health benefits in marijuana, such as fighting glaucoma, helping with chemotherapy treatments, chronic pain relieft, etc, the line becomes even blurrier.

so the fact is, someone just can't show up at a hospital and say, i'm sick, and someone decides it's because of pot, and get turned away.


Anyway, for what it's worth, i think that pot (and all it's derivatives containing THC) should be legalized. mushrooms as well, but that is a tough subject, there are many kinds of shrooms, i'm specifically talking about the ones commonly eaten around here, psilocybe cubensis. but, some kinds of shrooms are very VERY different.

i think that there should be age restrictions, of at least 16 years of age, for the reason that, no amount of education is going to give many young teens the maturity to handle these drugs without going overboard.

I think harder drugs such as cocaine, heroin, Crystal Meth(especially this one), etc should remain illegal, for the reason that they are simply TOO dangerous and easy to abuse.

there are some other "rave" drugs i'm not sure on yet, i think MDMA is not that bad, and could be used responsibly, and made a lot safer if legal. GHB, ketamine, MDA and some others.. my mind is not made up yet, i've never done any of those!

quote:

nice to grow pot in your front yard

You're legally allowed to grow 4 plants here

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I am strongly in favor of the legalization of drugs for the following reasons: 8. If drugs were legal, it would help faciliate useful research into how best to mitigate their bad side-effects as well as what constitutes a safe dosage, what drug interactions people should be aware of, ect...

Did you read this, before you posted???
Can you say human guinea pig?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter 9. For many young children, drugs have a "mystique" which tempts them to try them. Legalizing drugs would be a step towards eliminating this "mystique."

Yea, that works real good with alcohol and cigarettes.
Never heard of kids doing those before a legal age!

quote:

Originally posted by Tranzlucent Did you read this, before you posted??? Can you say human guinea pig?

What are you suggesting? That researchers would be unable to find voluntary participants in studies or that somehow allowing voluntary researchers to participate would be inhumane? What are you referring to by "this" ?

quote:

Yea, that works real good with alcohol and cigarettes. Never heard of kids doing those before a legal age!

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter ... a step towards ...

Enough said, really, I think.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith I sort of agree that if you inflict the damage to yourself, you should not get public healthcare. in theory, that would be a perfect system, everyone would be accountable for their own actions. but in reality that line grows very blurry. Take marijuana for example, it's not an acute and directly treatable thing. Pot smokers suffer many health problems that are hard to nail down, such as anemia, and weak immune systems that lead to other problems. as well, they are more likely to pick up specific diseases such as lung and throat cancer. And of course, there are also other problems, such as lowered sperm count, loss of memory, etc, but those are mostly temporary. not for women though, damage to the reproductive organs is largely irreversible. so the fact is, someone just can't show up at a hospital and say, i'm sick, and someone decides it's because of pot, and get turned away.

Yeah, I do agree that it's a very complex issue. The issue of what precisely public health care should cover is a very delicate one, because it's difficult to define any standard of evaluation that doesn't rely on individual interpretations.

However, I would say I don't think that the issue of public health standards is directly related to the issue of the legalization of drugs. Admissibly, legalizing drugs could cause an increase in the demand for certain types of medical treatment which could burden the health care system. But there would also likely be a decline in violence related to crimes caused by the black market for drugs, and fewer injuries resulting from such conflicts, especially in large cities, would probably lead to a reduction in the demand for other types of medical treatment. The exact extent to which these effects would offset each other is difficult to project.

Whatever the case may be, I don't think one could reasonably suggest that the effect of legalizing drugs on health care would be so catastrophic as to warrant continuing to ban the substances outright, because the same argument could be made to suggest that cars be outlawed - since their exhaust, especially in places like Los Angeles, over time has caused a plethora of health issues. In fact, one could argue that cars are even worse, since their adverse health effects can just as easily effect someone who has never even owned a car as a person who has contributed to the pollution.

Thanks for your constructive response,

Arbiter

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.