Are we jaded?

[Chaote]

In threads that deal with legalization and helth risks and all that and when we say "it should be legal" "its not dangerous" etc etc are we just jaded? Is this all just a pipe dream and that these really are dangerous? just a thought ive been mulling over.

[PenguinPhreak]

Of course drugs have associated risks, but most are negligible. If you
have done the research you know what the (credible) research says about
them. And with most drugs the research all shows minimal risks and
often advantages. Just remember that facts are facts, if the credible
evidence points towards your conclusions, you are most likely right.
And while anecodtal evidence isn't incredibly reliable its not entirely
invalid. Look at the members of our board, and drug users elsewhere.
Lots of them have used a cornucopia of mind altering substances and are
still intellegent and alive.

[Goa Trip]

Even if they are dangerous they should be legal. Why should the government care if somone wants to do harm to their OWN body?

[dr.gonzo]

Legalisation would be greatly beneficial for many reasons, such as greatly reducing the prison population, taking money out of the druglords hands, and creating more pure and safe drugs. Certainly there would have to be restrictions, and there would still be a black market for whatever has NOT been legalised, but legalizing some drugs would be a huge step in the right direction.


Sure, drugs can be harmful, but nowhere near as harmful as the drug war.

[quinone]

'Even if they are dangerous they should be legal. Why should the government care if somone wants to do harm to their OWN body?'



Because that harm precipitates itself on others. Eg. people
stealing for their next hit, driving under the influence of drugs,
and/or using drugs as an excuse for commiting other crimes.



I do agree SOME drugs should be legalized, but most should not
be. Better care, services and resources should be available to
those that are addicted to a drug, this would reduce crime, disease,
etc. but saying every drug should be legalized is most definitely the
epiphany of being jaded .

[Loser]

Originally Posted by quinone

'Even if they are dangerous they should be legal. Why
should the government care if somone wants to do harm to their OWN
body?'



Because that harm precipitates itself on others. Eg. people
stealing for their next hit, driving under the influence of drugs,
and/or using drugs as an excuse for commiting other crimes.



I do agree SOME drugs should be legalized, but most should not
be. Better care, services and resources should be available to
those that are addicted to a drug, this would reduce crime, disease,
etc. but saying every drug should be legalized is most definitely the
epiphany of being jaded .

good words... but this war on drugs wont end until we've lost are
freedom... or another way it to losen up and make drugs better and
safer... help the problem dont discard it...

[sands of time]

By prohibiting the use of drugs, the risks involved are greatly increased. Take for example heroin. On it's own, it can cause many problems, but prohibition greatly increases these risks... Street heroin can contain all sorts of impurities and such that could do serious harm to the user. Also, without knowing the strength of the heroin, a user would be at a higher risk of overdose. Lack of access to clean needles results in some users using dirty needles. This, of course, can lead to the spread of diseases.

What would we do without the help of our government?!

[Goa Trip]

Originally Posted by quinone

'Even if they are dangerous they should be legal. Why should the government care if somone wants to do harm to their OWN body?'

Because that harm precipitates itself on others. Eg. people stealing for their next hit, driving under the influence of drugs, and/or using drugs as an excuse for commiting other crimes.

I do agree SOME drugs should be legalized, but most should not be. Better care, services and resources should be available to those that are addicted to a drug, this would reduce crime, disease, etc. but saying every drug should be legalized is most definitely the epiphany of being jaded .

Drugs do not always lead to crime. WhenI say they should be legalized i dont mean they should be allowed to run rampant. I would still go for it to be illegal to drive under the infulence and other such things. If somone wants to get high in their own house they shouldbe able to do so. Take a look at Asterdam, most drugs are legal there and it has a very low crime rate. Besides, the tax dollars that are spent on the "War on Drugs" could go towards better things.Edited by: Goa Trip

[Nature Boy]

Cars will always kill more people than drugs, so why not ban them?

Fat-cat bastards with their self-centered priorities will forever be a burden for the drug-using population.

[quinone]

"Drugs do not always lead to crime. WhenI say they should be
legalized i dont mean they should be allowed to run rampant. I would
still go for it to be illegal to drive under the infulence and other
such things. If somone wants to get high in their own house they
shouldbe able to do so. Take a look at Asterdam, most drugs are legal
there and it has a very low crime rate. Besides, the tax dollars that
are spent on the "War on Drugs" could go towards better things."



Agreed, but they still DO lead to crime (it may not be ALWAYS, but it
is still very present, my buddy just got jumped by 2 junkies last week
.. so call me biased). Most drugs are NOT legal in Amsterdam,
INCLUDING Marijuanna (yes its ILLEGAL in Amsterdam, but the authorities
just dont enfoce the laws). Anyways, making a drug
completely LEGAL sanctions its use, and leaves the government wide open
if problems occur. What should happen IMHO is that law
enforcement should be trained to the PROS and cons of drugs, the
mindset of drug users, and most of all TOLERANCE. Vancouver has
adopted the ideal 'beginnings of a truly revolutionary system' with
their four pillar strategy (harm reduction, prevention, treatment,
enforcement:

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/fourpillars/



Its not PERFECT, but it is a definite step in the right
direction. I wholeheartedly agree with all of you stating that
the government should invest some of the drug war money on resources
dedicated to clean needle distribution and education ... but it would
be more then a pipedream for us to hope for all drugs to be completely
legalized, so it seems to me that it would be more helpful to discuss
and put services in place that are more tolerant to drug use and
preserving the value of life (even of the druggies ).



If it werent for stupid kids abusing drugs and hurting themselves
without educating themselves then it might be that the rest of the
RESPONSIBLE ADULT drug-using population wouldnt have it so bad, but
unfortunately thats just the way it is.



Either way, thats just my opinion, I figure we cant have it all, so why
not try and take what we can ... at any rate, chaote asked
if people here were jaded for believing that every drug should be
legalized, and honestly to think that EVERY drug should be legalized is
IMHO very jaded *shrug*

</span>

[Chaote]

Hypothetically lets say all/most drugs were legalized, what precautions/ precursors would be instituted for use and distribution?; A psyciatric evaluation for LSD users? Age Limits? Amount limits etc etc

[quinone]

One would have to do signifigant scientifically sanctioned clinical
trials before that could be answered. In the 1950s the US
government embraced such trials (presumably to help them design
chemical warfare agents) and people like Dr. Shulgin were monumental in
the study of entheogens and other psychodelics, but no real trials
relating to dosage, long term health effects of sustained controlled
use have been studied for most of the common street drugs (and if any
have been conducted, they were too limited in scope to apply to a
definitive ruling).



The real tragedy is that the government/society makes conclusions about
the effects of drugs based on those that use them wrecklessly and more
specifically those that commit crimes to support their habit (which we
all know isn't representative of the entire drug community).

[unico_walker]

For more than 99.9% of the history of civilization drugs were legal,
all of them. There didn't seem to be many problems, even things like
opium were thought of as mostly harmless maybe habit forming but thats
the fault of the user, just like a drunk.

As you can see everything is perception, think about if you saw your
friend sloppy drunk, you might laugh at it. Now say you see him sloppy
intoxicated on xanax, now you think he has a problem and might need
help.



Everything is perception, things are only a problem if you're conditioned to look at them that way.

[quinone]

I couldn't agree more,



With the advent of modern organic chem though there are SOME drugs that
can become addictive after one use (eg. meth) and so IMHO this drug in
paticular has no place being legal.



At any rate you are ENTIRELY correct, and governments use their
citizens no matter what system they claim to adhere to (democracy,
dictatorship, communism, socialism .. etc. etc.) the sad truth is we
still need a governing body or we'd be a bunch of bumblind idiots
drinking cleaning products cuz no one bothered to put the DO NOT INGEST
label on them .



I think this quote sums it up pretty well:



"The highest measure of democracy is neither the 'extent of freedom' nor
the 'extent of equality', but rather the highest measure of
participation."


A. d. Benoist



</span>we've all become so
diluted that we dont think for ourselves anymore, and so the government
is swimming in its own freedom to do what it wants with little
opposition.</span>

[antigenesis]

Get this: a psychoactive drugs licence. You could take a test for
competency, drug knowledge, and safety habits, then maybe a
psycological exam, and if you pass you gain legal access to any number
of drugs. There could also be differnet classes, like a test for
opiates, one for cocaine & amphetamines, for psychedelics etc.



Anybdoy else think this could lead to a stable system?

[thegod1]

It would be good... but would never happen.

[cactus]

IMO drugs should be decriminalised but not legalised. i couldnt imagine how life would be if every dickhead in this country had access to hardcore drugs, its bad enough as it is.


If there were some form of means testing or you had to sit for a drug license or personality stability test it may work and life would be great. youd get clean drugs everytime andi believe OD and deaths wouldnt be as common in a totally regulated system. (there have been PMA pillsfloating around here lately). But i could still see people abusing psychedelics and losing the plot totally.

[Pinkavvy]

drugs crimes are cuased not by the drugs, but by the underground culture drugs users are forced to be involved in.

If drugs were easier to get, commercialized, and cheaper, people wouldn't need to depend on the local thud in the alley or whatever. people wouldn't have to risk getting it into the country. people wouldn't have to get rid of security risks. people wouldn't need to rob their grandma and neighbor for their next rock, etc. organized crime, specifically gangs, would lose power and dissolve just as happened after prohibition ended. paranoia wouldn't cause violence.

sure you could say people will still be dependant and may steal to support their habbit, but that is with ANY recreational addiction ... ie gambling. most thefts within families are from GAMBLING not drugs.

I say legalize most drugs but regulate them like alcohol, tobacco, and gambling. not only would this drive cost down, but also quality up. it's one of the great things about capitalism when allowed to flourish, quality improves. people would know what they are getting for sure, the purity, and for a better price. regulate it so kids aren't getting hooked beyong their age of consent just like alcohol or tobacco, and of course you're not allowed to drive on it. also no public intoxication in most cities, just like alcohol. Tax it, and put the tax money towards so many things such as education, and also of course rehab and research. Also the billions being wasted trying to lock up the nonviolent potheads can go to things like education, roads, rehab, research, etc.

"People have the right to influence their body's the way they see fit, grandma, so like it or not the prohibation days are limited."

Edited by: pinkavvy

[Loser]

instead of spending money in a non profitable prohibition way.. the
government could tax or even sell themselves to make the money... but
no way a major country will submit.. but if smaller countries do it and
succeed... they will see... but being a bigger country the risk and
amount of change is too high to make such a big change without
testing... we see this as going good... but until it happens we dont
really know if it will go good... something unforseen could go wrong
and ruin things... never know... but im totally for stopping
prohibition and making things better for all

[unico_walker]

What you're missing is on paper at least every country that wants to be
a member of the UN has to have laws against certain drugs(LSD, MJ,
coke, heroin, MDMA etc) of course just like the Netherlands they can
just not enforce them, but the fact is they have to have them.

[Loser]

Originally Posted by unico_walker

What you're missing is on paper at least every country that wants to be
a member of the UN has to have laws against certain drugs(LSD, MJ,
coke, heroin, MDMA etc) of course just like the Netherlands they can
just not enforce them, but the fact is they have to have them.

i see... so i guess that this change would either part us from the UN
or pretty much the whole world has to agree with it and change their
laws and the UN requirements...



so in other words not in this lifetime..

[unico_walker]

And the truely fucked thing is that a lot of countries didn't and still
don't give a shit about drug laws, but they have learned how wonderful
they are for harassing "insert undesireable class here" and profitable
by following the lead of the US.



You'll understand when packets of coke keep showing up in protestors
houses, but an old guy can sit within view of a police station smoking
a giant spliff without fear.