my stance on drugs (a response to a question in another thread)

Off-topic
1

Okay, So I’m for the complete and total legalization of drugs… with many caveats.

Let me preface this by first stating that I do not, nor have I ever done any drugs, with the exception of caffeine, which I now abstain from. Not a single drink or toke or snort. Nothing. I would also like to state that I’ve seen the devastating effect of illegal drugs on a close friend, specifically a heroin addiction which came very close to killing the guy on more than one occasion.

I won’t go into a lot of details, but the drug war is costly and ineffective. Please read the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs or look it up anywhere you like.

I believe that people should be responsible enough to decide on their own weather or not to use drugs. Of course when people cant be responsible about it, ie; driving under the influence of anything, becoming unmanageable in a public place, using while children are in their care, etc, the punishments should be harsh and swift.

Children (those under the age of 18) should not be permitted to use drugs,and people selling to kids or providing to kids should also meet with swift punishment. Kids who are caught using should be dealt with appropriatly, probably though some kind of moderated family setting.

This means that drugs can now be taxed and regulated. It means that drug cartels would no longer be profiting, which removes a lot of the violence from the drug world. It frees up a lot of space in our over crowded prisons, and allows police officers to concentrate on real crime (which would be reduced both because there would no longer be drug offenders and because there would no longer be the crime that rides the tails of the drug trade).

Think about it.

2

I concur with all of what you said.
Penn and Teller did a great episode of their show Bullshit about the War on Drugs…basically how it’s not working.

3

I smoke the odd bit of weed and don’t agree. If it were to be legalised then there would be an increase of the higher status drugs, which to me are just beyond a bit of fun (I’m aware people think that of weed too). Weed, unlike most other drugs, is not likely to be addictive unless you smoke it in copious amounts, the tabacco in a joint is more likely to make you addicted to smoking fags, not pot.

Other higher class drugs can cause serious problems, and some are extremely unforgiving when it comes to quiting because the addiction is so agressive.

I don’t think it’d be a wise step at all.

4

You should be able to send your three year old daughter to the grocery store to pick up a gram of heroin.

5

A friend of mine delivered one of the best speeches (finer print after the introduction) I’ve ever read on this topic. I whole-heartedly agree with him, though I have never used illegal drugs of any kind myself and don’t intend to. Alcohol is my drug of choice and I believe it should always be consumed responsibly.

6

Loved that post man. I feel that way almost exactly, if it was set up like that there would be a lot less problems. Sorry when I heard “the drug war is for keeping the poor man down” I generalized you with many other people who say that, but do not have something to back it up. You clearly do, nice job.

7

That is also a point I have though of. There could be many unforeseen problems when legalizing drugs. It could go good or bad depending on out society… Hospitals might be getting more people who o.d. and such… It is not wise to look at an argument from one angle.

8

I heard that in Holland, magic mushrooms are now illegal to sell after two Amerikans died while using them…one of them was trying to drive and crashed, and the other fell out of a window.
Both of those things happen very regularly in the United States under the influence of alcohol, but for some reason we haven’t made that drug illegal…

9

Decriminalization doesn’t mean everyone would run around doing drugs. Society would not just accept drug addicts. However, by legalizing, people can get real help (not poorly funded mandated government counseling) without the worry of getting arrested. Basically AA for druggies. There would still be penalties for being irresponsible with those substances (much like drunk driving is [not heavily enough] penalized)…however, there would be presumption that the substances are inherently irresponsible.

10

You crazy Brits…
I agree with nick on this whole situation.

Chase

11

WHY???

12

Safe fun pisses off old people

I found a powerful hallucinogen growing in my muni field the other day. Where children play. It is called Jimson weed, and is native to Florida. I don’t want to try any. It has a rep as a bad trip, and many people die from taking it every year, mostly kids who are out of pot. It is fairly easy to overdose on, it can cause heart attacks. Because it is dangerous and not much fun, it is of course legal.

There is also a hallucinogenic mushroom that is native to Florida. It’s actually kinda fun IMHO. It is completely non toxic, and bad experiences with it are extremely rare. So of course it is not growing in the field where the children play. Every effort is made to stamp it out and it’s possession is a felony. Not only is the mushroom not addictive, it has a well documented history as an effective treatment for alcoholism. An addiction that kills as many in a month as we will lose in the whole Iraq war.

Sometime ago the mushroom spoke to me and explained everything clearly. Ok, I’m kidding, LOL,:slight_smile: but I was kinda buzzed and it makes a better story. It said the Jimson weed is ok because it follows the rule." You play you pay". You can’t steal a laugh from it without drinking poison. Cigarettes are ok because they will ruin your lungs. The drunk is punished with a hangover and a bad liver, so booze is ok.

The real reason for the drug war is that politicians know that people wish to punish others. They are quite willing to spend vast sums of money to do so.
We are controlled by Christian voters who follow the golden rule. Basically, “everything that is fun must be paid for.” In gold , suffering or blood.

Abortion and contraception are wrong because you must have a child, even if you can’t afford one, to pay for the sex. It is god’s rule.

Needle exchanges and free condoms are wrong. Addicts and gays should get Aids, to pay for having sex or doing drugs.

The internet’s ability to create infinite free “records” meant that the copyrights on music had to be extended to 90 years after the artists death. The idea of free music is disturbing to many. How many dead artists vote ? :roll_eyes:

The core of Christian values is that everyone is born bad. If we allow people to have fun without suffering, this will anger god. The average voter knows that pot is not dangerous. If it made people sick it would be ok, and growing in the field next to the respected Jimson.

So if you think teaching the public that pot smokers are harmless, and don’t need to be imprisoned to save them from themselves is going to change the laws, you are wrong. Or maybe high. The public already knows that pot is safe. They would deny it to a starving cancer patient even if their doctor told them it could save their life. They don’t give a shit about saving life. They just don’t want to piss off their god by voting to break the rule. God is one mean scary dude, and they won’t take the chance of crossing him. :frowning:
Everyone must pay forever! If I believed in the devil, I would think he wrote the bible! LOL :slight_smile:

13

whoooaaaahhhh i clickeduote, and it quoted the wrong person.
I should be yatsey, but it says monkeyman… WHATS GOIN ON!!!

ps. spliffs=nasty and unecessary.

Chase

14

I was almost offended. I’m not that ignorant. :slight_smile:

15

I’m sorry to have to say it, but writing things like that is not making a good case for responsible drug users. If you want the average person to respect what you’re trying to say, you have to address it on their terms–in short: without hippy-speak.

The real reason for the war on drugs is governments’ archaic notion that they can legislate morality. They’re in so deep now that they’re just continuing on the path they’ve chosen to save face.

P.S. Any church I’ve ever been to has been nothing like what you describe. I don’t get why we have to hate on all Christians because of the conservative quacks.

16

Exactly the astigmatism in society will be there for a long time. As we can tell society doesn’t easily change views ingrained into it’s culture everywhere you look. Although in many areas druggies are accepted as “cool” or “gangster” which would pose a problem for this idea of decrimalizing drugs.

I have heard of starting it in certain areas and having it slowly proceed through every where the decimalization this is. I am not shure what to think of this just yet, I haven’t really thought on it to much. What do you guys think?

17

[B]

[QUOTE=monkeyman]
. However, by legalizing, people can get real help (not poorly funded mandated government counseling) without the worry of getting arrested. Basically AA for druggies. QUOTE][/B]

They already have that and from my conversations with people who have gone through the program, (both meth addicts) it seems to be successful.

18

State legislatures have the ability to set certain drug laws and a good example of this is the age limit set on alcohol consumption. However, the states that did not raise their age limit to 21 had federal transportation funds withheld (or at least threatened). The drinking age is now uniform across the country. Change will have to happen on a federal level before states can make this choice, etc., etc.

19

i like the idea and think that there are many different aspects to this. People should be able to do what they want with their live but I get very angry when they endanger others with their stupid ideas. If people thought through what they were doing and lived accordingly life would be great. I think people should be able to do as they wish with their lives, but it crosses the line when it endangers other people.

I like this topic

20

It’s just the way it’s done over here in general…or at least where I live. I’m not saying I don’t blunt it too. But I think that’s irrelevant to the conversation at hand :stuck_out_tongue: