should hard drugs be legal?

Post Reply New Topic

yes abuse but not use, defining the two is trouble.

you could try making all "drugs" illegal but in the end it is impossible,
it would end up making loads of herbal medicine illegal for one, as it stands now anyone who have ever been on an airplane in the US are class A felons, DMT is illegal at any quantity but it exists in your brain and is neccesary for functional sleep.

which is why i am saying that it is not a black and white issue of right vs. wrong, we all do drugs in one form or another and before anyone can deem anything wrong or right we would need some strictly defined criterion.

what about parajumping?
a selfish activity done for the experience, pleasure and adrenaline.
it carries a high risk and the only consequence for 99% of accidents are death.

should it be illegal?

I'm wondering if maybe you haven't dealt with a lot of addicts. Parajumping is not comparable, in my opinion. And, I did not make the argument all drugs should be made illegal, so I'd appreciate it if you'd try not to put words in my mouth.

Yes, drugs in general should be legal as long as the buyer is 18 years of age or older and does not attempt to provide it to anyone under 18 in any way. For "hard" drugs, however, the seller should be required by law to put an advisory statement or warning telling of the drug's potential side effects and the buyer should sign a consent form or waiver stating that they understand the risk they are taking after having read the advisory.

I say do it legalize them all the goverment doesnt care about us just as long as we pay our taxes tax all the hard drugs it will pump a lot of blood into the economy

I agree that these shouldn't even be in the same ballpark. I think society would be in much better shape if they contextualized the top three you mentioned, marijuana which people seem to lose even less control than alcohol and which don't really have a way to contribute to opioids sitting on the brain, and hallucinogens which I really believe that psychotherapists should be able to administer with clients occasionally (though admittedly these sessions would be long), admittedly they need to get good at screening who can handle these things and who can't.

I think we're still just in an odd, sort of barbaric place where we don't know how to manage humanity and because of it we need to be a bit obtuse in locking anything down that's potentially dangerous - ie. we have know valid language of saying that something can be made legal but person A can have it, person B can't, at least without making it something that is only used with a physician present as part of therapy. I'd love to think that the medical community will keep figuring out more here and I'd love to also think that the proper use and time for such things will be better notched out.

Thank of the money we would be saving for the greater good by making hard drugs legal we could end the war on drugs cut back on spending so much money on it to

Unlike repealing prohibition there's good reason to believe that it would never last. The people who'd be bringing familial horror stories to congress along with case workers in the field would be legion. As much as some might want to think otherwise I think this one is built on as faulty of hopes as Dennis Kucinich's idea that if we cut our military to the size of one of the European nation states (which would admittedly save us hundreds of billions per year) would make us weaker and if we were weaker we'd be in less danger for being the big guy on the block. To make that decision to gut our military and hope he's right would have a lot of irreversible consequences - profound ones at that. Legalizing heroin, methamphetamine, and crack/cocaine even temporarily would work in a similar fashion.

Well we could still have a large military and legalize hard drugs the money we save could fund schools ect their would still be laws on what age you would have to be to use them at least

This misses the point though, I'm not talking about interconnectedness between the size of the military and the drug war. Just comparing two different dialogues and why both in my opinion are only glorified by those who don't have an accurate sense of consequences.

Im not afriad of the consequences of my actions

:clap::clap::clap:

No idea what that means in the context of this thread but, if I'm reading it right and if you're implying that this is what the whole argument is about - that everyone's just running from the consequences of their own actions, you have a lot to learn about people.

All im saying is that by making hard drugs legal you take the power out of the criminals hands theirs a reason why prohibition didnt work the criminals like the mob went underground selling hard liquor ect thats one of the reasons why they made alcohol legal.

first of all
soryy if i put words in your mouth but that opinion is there and now its adressed

i have both parajumped and dealt with a few "real addicts"
i dont think they are equal at all, but the consequences towards others are virtually the same, your loved ones lost you to a selfish activity.
the mindset of addiction are present in parajumping as well.
i even consider myself an addict, per definition an addict is a person that feels they need a substance to have a good day, to me that is aplicable for much of the time.
now i wont pretend cannabis is anything like meth or heroin but those two are in the extremes, personally i dont have a problem with them being illegal, i have a problem with how to justify that illegality.

i have a problem with all the justification(or lack thereof) that modern drug laws have.

which is why i think finding the criterion for a "too hard to consume" drug, is the most important part of this debate if you want to make exceptions.

I'm arguing that if marijuana gets legalized, and perhaps even 'stay here for six hours' pubs for mushrooms and the like, people will have enough variety already that the pull toward stuff like meth and heroin will be significantly dropped anyway. Alcohol as it is ends up being, for a small sliver of the population, as bad as heroin but we've made that allowance for alcohol and yet marijuana seems to be held in schedule for..... the people Americans didn't like at the time who smoked it?

I'd love to see the ratio of how much money the cartels make from pressed brick weed, I would have intuitively thought it would be very little but I've heard reports to the contrary. People always say "Oh, legalize one thing and people will just try harder stuff" - if you have enough to keep yourself entertained and its not about playing arm-n-cigarette games with your friends to prove who's harder with substances, I don't see that making much sense outside of that kind of context.

Overall though I believe that if marijuana and other soft to mid-soft drugs are legalized (and if the US, say, grabs ahold of K2 production to insure cleanliness of the product and keep the compounds to JWL-18 ), we'll be in a spot where the cartels will have their incomes significantly weakened. We don't need to legalize meth and heroin to reduce the strength of the criminal organizations out there. Heroin has some truly nasty meathooks out that it puts into people and I think the only people who'd stand to benefit from its legalization are dentists and pharma companies. Meth - it chews holes in people's brains, the only other drug I'm aware of that has that much oxidation power if overdone is E, which people have argued could be kept under strict pharmaceutical use for treatment of things like PTSD.

To arbitrarily just say all or nothing seems like a cop-out of mental processing. We know heroin and methamphetamine reduce people to some truly nasty endeavors for supply. If you want to give them free supply do you also want to support their apartments and spending habits on other things because they can't hold a job? Do you want to reimburse victims families for damages when a meth-head who's got barely anything left commits a random act of violence or kills someone because the elevator doesn't go all the way up anymore and they don't have the apparatus left to regulate their own temperament? These people will be having kids, and - you can count on it - will be having tons of ice babies. What do we do then? Should we tube-tie addicts? Would we be able to sanction that in our society as it exists with the current legal precedents?

I guess making pot legal would be fair enough their are a lot of good things that you can do with hemp

I don't think the libertarian position is 'extreme' I just don't see it as consistent. Libertarians make the argument that they want the government out of their way so that people are free to stick whatever they want in their bodies. Then they cite Portugal, Amsterdam and Switzerland as places where it has worked. Unfortunately they forget that in all these situations it is the taxpayer who gets the bill. I don't think the idea of a libertarian addict really works.... it tends to lead to a burdened taxpayer. I will agree that the libertarian argument has some merit when a viable user pays system for addicts is developed that is not dependent on tax-payers or charity donors.