Recreational Drug Use Legalization

[xoxoxoBruce]

There are people that shouldn't be allow to do caffeine. There will always be a few, that will lose self control of rational behavior, on anything legal. Why penalize millions of people to try and protect a handful that really can't be protected in the first place?

[regular.joe]

Handful?

[regular.joe]

Fuck it, legalize em all, open up a park...with a morgue in the back.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

Handful?

Compared to the millions we are supporting in jail, needlessly.... handful.

[lookout123]

Nowhere legalization has been tried, has there been a spike in new addicts.

I don't believe there would be a spike in new addicts. I'm talking about our society where it seems people look for every opportunity to place the blame for their own dumbass decisions on the government. Bought a house you can't afford? the gummint better do something.
Didn't save anything for your future? the gummint should do more.
You're hooked on meth? the gummint should take care of you.

legalize it all for all I care, but when someone steps out of line to their choice to use - then we should be prepared to crush them. if we're in a society where driving after one beer can give you a legal DUI, then what is it after a couple lines?

[Undertoad]

Of all the drugs, maybe only the opiates are worse than alcohol, on affecting your ability to drive. Alcohol affects your motor skills, balance, slows your judgement... it's like a perfect storm of effects on somebody trying to drive. Somebody does a few lines, there's a decent chance they drive *better*.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by lookout123

What exactly is the logical dividing line between hard and soft drugs?

I divided them based on addiction (besides alcohol) and death rates. My list is just based off my research and personal experience so I'm not saying that my list should be concrete.

I would consider acid a soft drug because it is non-addicting and you can not overdose on it. There are obviously pretty big health risks that come with it but with proper education it can be a lot safer so people know how to avoid and take care of bad trips and avoid taking a hit a week or anything insane like that.

Does anyone know of any studies of LSD that goes more in depth than Merc's article, specifically the frying of the brain as Cloud mentioned?


For MDMA (ecstasy), I believe most of the negative effects come from impurities, which would be avoided if legalized, and besides that, the three leading causes of death with ecstasy are Hyponatremia (drinking too much water), Hyperthermia (body overheating), and overdose, all which are preventable (keep in mind this is coming from someone that has never taken it). And for addiction, I haven't seen any hard proof that it is addicting because of the real lack of pure ecstasy. This is obviously a drug that would need to be taken with extreme caution and it really is hard to tell without any definite studies.


For shrooms, it is very similar to lsd.


Aliantha, I personally have not taken either shrooms or lsd but I know many people that have done them responsibly and they were well in control of themselves. I would still say alochol makes people do much stupider things than either shrooms or lsd.


Monster, people convicted of drug charges have a choice to go the frontline to avoid jailtime so I guess they are already exploring the option. But I personally don't like the idea of the state actually training that many antisocial personalities, though it isn't like jail is much better.



For state intervention, what I would like to see is that there is drug education to high school freshman that goes in depth and talks about the realities of drug use and then I will stick with my ideas on regulation and availability. I also think that rehab and hospital treatment should be around the same as it is now.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Monster, people convicted of drug charges have a choice to go the frontline to avoid jailtime so I guess they are already exploring the option.

Cite, please? All I've read about is that people with prior convictions now have the option of joining the military, whereas they didn't before.

[piercehawkeye45]

All I know is that I know someone who got caught with cocaine possession got the choice of joining the army to avoid jail time. I think we are talking about the same thing.

[Aliantha]

PH, I guess your experiences have been much different to mine then.

Speaking as someone who did a bit of a stint back in the bad old days, I can assure you that all drugs cause you to lose a certain amount of 'control'. Different drugs, different behaviours, but all alter your perception of reality in some way. If you're not seeing 'reality' you're not in control IMO.

[monster]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I
Monster, people convicted of drug charges have a choice to go the frontline to avoid jailtime so I guess they are already exploring the option. But I personally don't like the idea of the state actually training that many antisocial personalities, though it isn't like jail is much better.

Who said anything about training them? They can take the places of our expensively trained real soldiers, drawing the fire.... so then the real soldiers can go in, do what they have to and come home again. on two legs, not in a bag.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Cite, please? All I've read about is that people with prior convictions now have the option of joining the military, whereas they didn't before.

Even back in the 50's and 60's, Judges would quite often offer a kid in trouble, a chance to join the military, as a plea bargain to avoid conviction.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Even back in the 50's and 60's, Judges would quite often offer a kid in trouble, a chance to join the military, as a plea bargain to avoid conviction.

Today, the army is professional. A recruit must have a high school degree and cannot have any felony convictions. How is the army reducing standards to maintain their recruitment quotas? Sometimes, those two requirements get ignored.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Even back in the 50's and 60's, Judges would quite often offer a kid in trouble, a chance to join the military, as a plea bargain to avoid conviction.

Ah, that makes more sense, since it's technically a substitute for the conviction (meaning they aren't really "guilty") as opposed to a substitute for the sentencing.

[DanaC]

I haven't followed this thread and haven't read the whole thing, so forgive me if I repeat ideas that someone else has posted.

I believe that prohibition of drugs or alcohol has a negative effect overall. That said I do believe that certain substances ought to be 'controlled', by which I mean only purchasable from those with a licence to sell. My rationale for this is: most of the serious dangers involved in drug use comes from the unreliability of the substance used and the lack of reliable information about its use and possible effects of different dosages and how they may interact with other substances; with the substances legal but in a controlled form, where the dosage and contents are measurable and guaranteed, there would be far fewer fatalities amongst heroine users, for example and certainly 'ecstacy' would be a far safer drug than it currently is given that MDMA seems to have been swapped in many cases with dangerous doses of ketomine and a chemical soup of other ingredients. Take drugs out of the criminal arena and bring them within legal controls, in the same way that alcohol, tobacco and caffeine are, and the levels of danger will reduce. Add a change in attitude towards addiction (look at how cigarette addicts are treated as compared to heroine addicts) and we may see less criminalising of people who are not naturally criminal in tendency.

In addition, the bottom would drop out of the criminal drug market if those drugs were available at a reasonable price (even with high taxation rates seen in alcohol and tobacco, their impact on prices is, I believe much less than the impact of 'black market' economics).

On an idealogical level I do not think that we should legislate what adults are and are not allowed to consume. This is my prime reason for believing that all and any drugs should be legal, but subject to whatever health warnings and controls are necessary in order for those adults to make a reasoned and informed choice on their consumption. I find it slightly strange that societies who have a horror of 'big government' or 'nanny states' also have very strict legislation as to what adults can and cannot choose to consume.


eta

Specifically on cannabis: I have never been able to understand how the state can legislate against the cultivation and use of a herb. Might as well ban nettles, or parsley. Hell ban apples, they can be fermented to produce a mind altering substance.