Opinions - should all drugs be legal or just the soft ones.

[cannabis-sam]

I'm intrested in the views of DF users opinions on wheather to maintain prohibition for the hard drugs and legalize the soft.

I personally believe all drugs should be legal with varying degrees of control depending on harm.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good question. Made me think.

[Sven99]

All the legalisation arguments that apply to soft drugs (and alcohol) apply just as much to 'hard' drugs, if not more so. The social problems caused by hard drug prohibition are much worse than the problems of soft drug prohibition.

SWIM favours legalisation and regulation across the board, as well as regulations governing the development of new recreational drugs meaning they must go through tests in similar ways to medicines.

Different drugs would require different regulatory models. For instance, it would not necessarily be best to sell heroin over the counter, and it would make no sense to set up clinics for cannabis or ecstacy users.

[Joe-(5-HTP)]

I think all drugs should be legal, but i believe that there should be heavy regulation.

For example, I think that there should be a minimum age requirement of 18 for all drugs.

I also think that if psychedelics are legalised, people should have to obtain a certificate from a psychiatrist which says they have good enough mental health.

Apart from that, i believe everyone should have the right to use drugs legally, especially as that would mean access to non-adulterated substances.

[Junket]

Originally Posted by Joe-(5-HTP)

I think all drugs should be legal, but i believe that there should be heavy regulation.

For example, I think that there should be a minimum age requirement of 18 for all drugs.

I also think that if psychedelics are legalised, people should have to obtain a certificate from a psychiatrist which says they have good enough mental health.

Although I completely understand what you are saying, I think this would work about as good as ciggerate regulation. 15 year old kids doing it to look cool.

There is simply no right or easy answer.

Quality control would be the biggest factor in accident prevention and for 'proper' administration directions

[Felix Guattari]

IMHO, the soft/hard distinction is totally useless, particularly seeing as no one seems to be able to agree as to where the line dividing the two ought to be drawn. LSD is, for some reason, considered a 'hard' drug by many, whereas alcohol and cigs are soft. Of course, ask the right person, and you'll get the precise inverse.

Any discussion of legalization ought also take into account the fact that there are no safe drugs, only safe uses. The legality of alcohol is predicated upon the fact that we have a culture which understand that there is at least a possibility of 'safe use' (whether this is the case or not is another debate).

Most debates over drug law which depend on such artificial categories are apt to fail in the same manner as does the current system of drug regulation - that is, by locating the danger in 'the-drug-itself', i.e., a chemical compound or plant, and not in social practices of consumption which cannot be shifted by a mere change in law.

Just doing my part to make the debate as complicated as possible.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Agree with this, well explained as well

[Sven99]

Originally Posted by Joe-(5-HTP)

I also think that if psychedelics are legalised, people should have to obtain a certificate from a psychiatrist which says they have good enough mental health.

But how then do you enforce this? You can make people have a license to buy psychedelics, but you can't stop them sharing them with their friends. Swim doesn't see a benefit in restricting them in this way, especially as psychological complications are so rare, and especially when you consider that many psychologists actively promoted the use of psychedelics.

Originally Posted by junket

Although I completely understand what you are saying, I think this would work about as good as ciggerate regulation. 15 year old kids doing it to look cool.

Certainly true, but prohibition does absolutely nothing to protect teenagers from drugs. There may be a lot of 15 year olds smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol, but you don't see many selling them - compared to something like 900,000 teenagers selling drugs in the USA (I don't have UK figures - the statistic is from the Transform Blog). And using law enforcement to deal with an educational and public health issue is neither helping users nor deterring use.

[Cathay]

I wouldn't be surprised if marijuana is legalised in my lifetime. As for other drugs, I highly doubt it. A day may come where more people will become more accepting towards psychedelics, but I doubt a majority would want to legalize things like cocaine, heroin, or meth-- and rightfully so. I'm all for the legalization of marijuana, and I don't really care about pgychadellics either way, but in my opinion, those last three I mentioned have destroyed too many lives to be considered safe.

[Coconut]

Yes, all drugs should be legal, no exceptions. End of story.

[Sven99]

Originally Posted by Cathay

I wouldn't be surprised if marijuana is legalised in my lifetime. As for other drugs, I highly doubt it. A day may come where more people will become more accepting towards psychedelics, but I doubt a majority would want to legalize things like cocaine, heroin, or meth-- and rightfully so. I'm all for the legalization of marijuana, and I don't really care about pgychadellics either way, but in my opinion, those last three I mentioned have destroyed too many lives to be considered safe.

The same could be said of alcohol and tobacco - two of the most harmful and addictive drugs available. Alot of the lives destroyed are attributable to prohibition, not to the drug use itself. And while we're at it, throwing people in jail destroys lives. And giving criminals access to drug revenues of 300 billion dollars a year doesn't just destroy lives, it damages entire countries.

It is precisely because drugs are not safe that they must be legalised and regulated.

[aerozeppelin123]

Originally Posted by Felix Guattari

IMHO, the soft/hard distinction is totally useless, particularly seeing as no one seems to be able to agree as to where the line dividing the two ought to be drawn. LSD is, for some reason, considered a 'hard' drug by many, whereas alcohol and cigs are soft. Of course, ask the right person, and you'll get the precise inverse.

Any discussion of legalization ought also take into account the fact that there are no safe drugs, only safe uses. The legality of alcohol is predicated upon the fact that we have a culture which understand that there is at least a possibility of 'safe use' (whether this is the case or not is another debate).

Most debates over drug law which depend on such artificial categories are apt to fail in the same manner as does the current system of drug regulation - that is, by locating the danger in 'the-drug-itself', i.e., a chemical compound or plant, and not in social practices of consumption which cannot be shifted by a mere change in law.

Just doing my part to make the debate as complicated as possible.

Agreed, very few people would consider alcohol a hard drug, yet if you were to look at it objectively without considering cultural factors, it would be more fitting of this label than many illegal drugs - it is physically addictive and has some of the worst withdrawals of any drug. It's also very much possible to overdose and die from it, or to die from long term health problems. None of which are true of say weed or mushrooms. 'Soft' and 'hard' drugs is a silly distinction to make anyway, it is more the pattern of use that matters.

[Felix Guattari]

Of course, at this point, given the claimed intent of prohibitionists, the next option would be to prohibit/regulate behaviours, which is in a sense the aim of existing law. Of course, such would encounter certain constitutional and practical obstacles. The rhetorical way around this is to 'condense' (in the Freudian sense) the behaviour and the drug. This is how prohibition for the purpose of controlling or demonizing a social group has always worked.

It seems to me that the answer would be outright decriminalization of most substances (if not all), coupled with actually accurate and extensive science-based drug education and aggressive harm-reduction policies.

Tertiarily related to the thread, yes, but my 2 cents.

[Cathay]

Originally Posted by Sven99

The same could be said of alcohol and tobacco - two of the most harmful and addictive drugs available. Alot of the lives destroyed are attributable to prohibition, not to the drug use itself. And while we're at it, throwing people in jail destroys lives. And giving criminals access to drug revenues of 300 billion dollars a year doesn't just destroy lives, it damages entire countries.

It is precisely because drugs are not safe that they must be legalised and regulated.

That's definitely true, but I doubt we'll see the day where the US will legalize or decriminalize coke, heroin, and meth.

Just a thought: when the US fed. gov. preaches that marijuana is as dangerous as meth, meth becomes a much more popular drug when people can make it in their house. I wonder how much meth use would decline is MJ alone was legalized/decriminalized.

I saw a documentary all about this and the war on drugs on OnDemand, but I can't remember the name of it. The producer took a personal approach with it and detailed his abuse of prescription drugs. Does anybody know the documentary I'm talking about?

[yaba]

Think cannabis, MDMA and related compounds, LSD, Mushrooms, Cactus, DMT, Opium, Heroine, and probably a few others should be legal.

Methamphetamine, Crack, Coke, Amphetamine and probably a few others should be illegal as they can and do destroy lives, swim been there and seen it over and over again..(so does heroine swim knows but if it was legal, it would be less damage)

Things witch are available now in smart shops and on the Internet, like datura, belladonna and its related plants should be banned ASAP !!
They are really, really dangerous !

For the rest swim thinks most Ethnobotanicals (Natural drugs) are ok and should remain legal.

[Herbal Healer 019]

All drugs should be legal, people should have the right to alter there conciousness with drugs other than alcohol & tobacco (equally as addictive & dangerous as any other drug)

Originally Posted by Cathay

Does anybody know the documentary I'm talking about?

The documentary is called The American Drug War: Last White Hope

[bcubed]

Ideologically, I'm in favor of across-the-board legalization, as it's not the proper purview of the gov't to tell its citizenry what they can/cannot put into their bodies.

Practically, I'm somewhat hesitant for strong stimulants, such as meth, that cause psychoses in quantity. What happens when meth is cheap and readily available 24/7? I'm all in favor of legalized opiates, because most of their societal harm is from lack of access to cheap drugs of consistent quality. (Actually, that's pretty much the consensus view, but methadone is given instead of heroin, as "legal heroin to addicts" is politically unworkable.)

What I'd like to see, immediately: 1. legalized cannabis. 2. therapeutic use of psychadelics 3. moratorium on new drug bans (for recreational prohibition; outlawing a pharm's new drug 'cause of side-effects is different).

How about from a practical standpoint: what's the best route to legaliztion? Much of the changes we've seen recently are on the fronts of 1. cannabis is a special case and doesn't desevre to be punished in the same manner as those other "bad" drugs, and 2. treating drug use as a medical, not criminal, issue. Do you think this strategy is the most effective one, or will we wind up with in a new equilibrium, with two legal recreational drugs (alcohol and cannabis) instead of one? The hope is that people would say, "hey cannabis legalization wasn't so bad, let's try another," but perhaps people would say, "Okay, oaky, we legalized your pot--now STFU about drugs!"

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good point about stimulants presenting a potential problem to across-the-board legalisation.

[entheogensmurf]

Originally Posted by cannabis-sam

I'm intrested in the views of DF users opinions on wheather to maintain prohibition for the hard drugs and legalize the soft.

I personally believe all drugs should be legal with varying degrees of control depending on harm.

At the most base, if I had to say legalize none or all, I would say: ALL LEGAL!

Regardless of my view on drugs such as meth (fcking vile crap - more directed towards people who seek escape from reality and not just fun here and there) -- I believe the illegal status does more harm than good.


It is NOT simple enough to just legalize everything though. I find myself in the realm of aggressive required education towards a full comprehension of each person that chooses or is thinking of using. I feel no qualm in requiring that people be exaustively educated, at least with some drugs.

I do not think people have the right to just use drugs, things that alter their perception and interaction with reality. There must be knowledge before the dosing. They can harm themselves and others, out of pure friggen accident when they are not equipped.

Anyone who has taken a high dose of shrooms will probably agree with me here. Imagine a first timer who is a bit timid, never really did much introspection, has no overall knowledge of psychedelics and specifically shrooms.
Dose them with 5 grams of shrooms and they could very well be traumatized It seems sick and wrong to throw a person into another reality without prep.

Perhaps think of a person sky diving without any training and simply hops out the plane on a whim (with the parachute ).


However, what I would prefer, if it was available:
Make certain drugs legal and see if over the course of a few years that availability to less or non destructive drugs fill the gaps that would normally be filled by the hard stuff.

Examples of what to make legal (just a quick list):
Ketamine
Shrooms (psilocybin)
LSD
Mescaline
Cocoa leaves (not the processed result of cocaine but the natural stim)

I'll even add MDMA --- BUT - the pre and post dosing must be verified to be neuprotective, else no.
I'd love to throw in Ibogaine, however it seems to stress the heart too much and this would be another carefully addressed psychedelic.

[Sven99]

Originally Posted by yaba

Think cannabis, MDMA and related compounds, LSD, Mushrooms, Cactus, DMT, Opium, Heroine, and probably a few others should be legal.

I agree but the illegality of these drugs is less of a problem than your next list, because they don't produce problem users or lead to acquisitive crime.

Methamphetamine, Crack, Coke, Amphetamine and probably a few others should be illegal as they can and do destroy lives, swim been there and seen it over and over again..(so does heroine swim knows but if it was legal, it would be less damage)

All the arguments that apply to heroin regulation apply to any other drug used problematically. Leaving crack and meth unregulated maximises their potential harms. Regulating their supply and use allows us to control and minimise these harms. Prescription means addicts have access to safe controlled doses in decent environments. Prohibition means addicts have to buy their gear from criminal markets and steal to pay the vastly inflated prices.

And I would point that powder cocaine and amphetamine are no more dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, but I doubt you would be in favour of prohibiting those two?

Things witch are available now in smart shops and on the Internet, like datura, belladonna and its related plants should be banned ASAP !!
They are really, really dangerous !

The best way to protect users is to educate them on safer use and regulate the supply - prohibition does not reduce use, just makes it more dangerous.

These are issues relating to drug use under prohibition, but We also have to consider the effects of supply under prohibition, such as mass criminalisation of otherwise law abiding citizens, corruption of legal systems and supply countries, discrimination in enforcement practises (the poor, and people from ethnic minorities are more likely to be targeted by enforcement agencies, and more likely to receive harsher sentences), huge incomes going to criminal organisations, gang related violence, lack of trust in officials and wasted tax money on enforcement.

i am sure we both have the same goals in mind - reducing the levels of problem drug use. But the few studies that have been done on the effects of prohibition on use show that it has at best a marginal effect - whereas with tobacco, the number of users has halved in the past ten years because of effective regulation.

[yaba]

@Sven do agree with what your saying.. I am Dutch and very pro drugs.
It just surprises me that datura, belladonna and other dangerous things can be bought legally in shops, while some harmless things are made illegal.

For example psilocybin mushrooms are harmless while armanita's can be more dangerous. Specially for in experienced users.

I know education is the way forward and that alcohol destroys more lives then any other drug, combined I think ?

And no swim wouldn't like it if they made alcohol and nicotine illegal, swim stopped smoking after 16-17 years on 40a day. But still believes in personal choices.

Swim only said about the meth and heroine because it was a bastard to stop, trust swim on that one !!

[AntiAimer]

All drugs need to be legal like they were in the first place, prohibition has only destroyed lives while corrupting peace officers turning them into cops and advertising more and more substances making them known to the public while leading to there alternatives. (DARE is a major disservice)

Now there are millions apon millions of users compared to the thousands before prohibtion and thousands apon thousands of substances that the public can choose from. The system has ruined more lives then the drugs themselfs, the effects of the drug is irrelevant. The ignorance on the subject because propaganda runs rampant. These crimes against humanity need to stop if we ever want to move forward on the matter, MAN has gotten high since the beginning of time and it's not changing anytime soon.

[Coconut]

I feel as though I must elaborate on my previous post. There are arguments for keeping drugs such as methamphetamine and cocaine under prohibition, as some have already outlined, based on the premise that, when abused, these drugs are particularly dangerous and easily cause psychosis and many other mental problems.

Nobody is saying otherwise, but the question is whether the state should have the right to prohibit these substances. I say no, the state should not have this right. If a person chooses to take methamphetamine and becomes an addict, that is their choice to make. The only people who should be able to interfere are those who the addict and their friends and family invite to help with the situation. If this person eventually becomes psychotic, it was as a result of their constant abuse of methamphetamine, a choice they made when they first took it.

If people want to abuse drugs and develop psychosis, let them. Restricting our liberty in the name of protecting us is a tactic which has been used since the dawn of humanity by despots and totalitarian rulers. It is unacceptable in my opinion.

[yaba]

@Coconut cant agree more !! But cannabis is illegal while datura is legal ?
More likely to get psychosis from datura then from cannabis !
Just cant see the common sense of the goverment.

[Coconut]

Governments do not have to be sensible. Politicians almost always have agendas and their own interests, which are more often than not dissimilar to the interests of the people.

Robert J. Hanlon said "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." This is fair enough, but there is a point where we have to realise that incompetence can only cause so many problems in the world.

Hypothetical situation. If I have five friends and one of them dies by falling off a cliff while out with me, their death can be attributed to either their incompetence or my failure to save them. However, when all five die in mysterious circumstances and only I am left alive, how long can people continue to claim that stupidity is the cause instead of the obvious conclusion that I have murdered them?

[GutterPhenomenon69]

Alcohol, firstly, should be made illegal. its one of the worst substances and also legal. go figure that. y is it that the legal drugs are the worst? pot should be legalized and opiates. swims favs. peaceful drugs

[AquafinaOrbit]

I could almost see a type of licenses to be able to purchase and posses some of these drugs. Much like the medical marijuana licenses of today. For instance, you apply for the license and based on a criminal background check you are granted the licenses. As a requirement to keep said license the card holder would then say have to visit a drug health awareness class every 3 months and failure to do so would result in the card being revoked. Other rules of course would be set also. This is IMO not the best way to do it, but one of the only ways something like this would ever even be considered to pass as it would help stop the arguments that it would turn people into worthless bums.

[ATWA]

ATWA believes that any and all drugs should be legal with no prescription. That goes for recreational, entheogenic and therapeutic. It is an issue of having a free society and ATWA believes that supersedes any potential negatives.