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

[DopinDan]

SWIM's opinion on this matter is that the basic golden rule in life is "Thou shalt not violate another persons right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

So basically even if drug Z (pick you favorite evil drug) is harmful to SWIM, as long as SWIM is educated about it, and able to make an educated choice that includes steps to be taken for harm reduction to self, SWIM should be free to make that choice.

SWIM (and all others) should not be permitted to harm others, or push behaviors or substances on others that harm them for personal profit, or any other self serving agenda.

SWIM believes drugs are illegal due to racism. If one looks back on history opium was first made illegal due to racism against Chinese that smoked in Opium dens. They were afraid Chinese men would lure white women in to get them fucked up and have sex.

Marijuana prohibition has some roots in racism against Mexicans, and Cocaine prohibition has roots in racism against blacks. Blacks were given cocaine in the south to help them work harder, until fear of "crazed, coked up Negros" forced legislation against cocaine.

SWIM believes that the biggest pusher of drugs of all is the Black Operations arms of various governments, such as the CIA and MI6. SWIM believes they use drug profits to pay for off the books black operations, and that there is big money in the prohibition industry such as private prisons and equipment for so called anti-narco authorities.

So to sum up my rambling thoughts, SWIM believes that man/woman, has no right to tell another man/woman, what they can do with/to their body.

Prohibition costs humanity much more than it saves us.

[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.

[cannabis-sam]

I posted this really because I want to hear some counter arguments to my own, I like to question my beliefs. Hey it's why I spend so much time watching videos and reading the views of the anti drugs lobby.

Does anybody think the issue of ending prohibition could have any consequences or negative sides to it, is there any reason to prohibit any of the drugs.

[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.

[Herbal Healer 019]

All drugs should be legalized for the purpose of harm reduction. Adulturated drugs pose more risk to the user than the drug itself. Prohibition has created a large portion of drug users that know very little about the drugs they use (how pure the substance they have is, how to safely dose, tolerance, addiction potential, potentially dangerous combinations, bioavailability, etc..), & also has created dangerous (i.e. huffing glue & other dangerous substances) & outright strange (Jenkem ) drug trends that likely would not have existed were it not for drug prohibition.

If we've learned anything about prohibition in general, it's that prohibition does not work & only creates more problems; perfect example: alcohol prohibition & its affect on organized crime/improperly manufactured poisonous alcohol .

[cannabis-sam]

(i.e. huffing glue & other dangerous substances) & outright strange (Jenkem )

you could argue with the extremely addictive drugs it goes by the same logic if we don't prohibit the soft drugs then people will not resort to the hard drugs meth for example.

Not my view just one way it could be argued.

I think hard drugs do need really strict controls and I think people should get the mid ground drugs(cocaine/amphet for example) from a doctor (with a charge) after a full medical check etc to make sure they're not going to do themselves damage

Reputation Comments on this post:

I like the doctors charge/medical check idea

[BLTC]

All drugs should be unequivocally available by prescription. And government shouldn't mix into the relationship between a doctor and her patient. If a specialist psychologist sees SWIM fit and necessary for heroin prescription and in her opinion he will neither endanger anyones' life nor be a burden on society, it doesn't make any sense to criminalize it.

Prescription route works remarkably well. Meth/speed/ice and other amphetamines are readily available by prescription for qualified patients, and we don't see much of that stuff being diverted to the streets.

[cannabis-sam]

It does seem sensible that drugs should go through the doctors, it is the ultimate harm reduction, it reduces addiction potential significantly, habit starts forming the doctor or drugs worker see's this and can stop it before it starts. Some one who is/becomes addicted can get the support and be offered the help available.

I think one way towards ending the drug war is having doctors demand they control the hard drugs market.

I can't believe I'm still posting at 5 am and I'm completely sober. hope what I said makes sense.

[0ctavarium]

If drugs were extremely well controlled, sold in only small doses and education about the drug was required before a sale was made, then yes, legalize everything.

Just picture this, you go to a drug shop, you get carded on entrance to avoid minors. Then when attempting to buy two tabs of acid for the first time, you get a little booklet about LSD (if you don't read it, you deserve a bad trip).

[Jasim]

Originally Posted by 0ctavarium

If drugs were extremely well controlled, sold in only small doses and education about the drug was required before a sale was made, then yes, legalize everything.

Just picture this, you go to a drug shop, you get carded on entrance to avoid minors. Then when attempting to buy two tabs of acid for the first time, you get a little booklet about LSD (if you don't read it, you deserve a bad trip).

That's a great idea. But I would add a few things. Firstly, the drug use should be in a non-public area. And driving under the influence should always be illegal.

Additionally, I believe that drugs that have a much greater potential for addiction should be more tightly controlled and monitored. If addiction patterns occur in a user, then intervention should be swift.

Actually, I'm not sure if I agree that certain highly addictive substances should be decriminalized, e.g. crack cocaine.

[cannabis-sam]

I don't think decriminalizing use is a great idea. If of course you're talking about removing criminal penalties and prosecuting dealers. Nah that won't work. I also don't think further criminalization will work either.

For hard drugs I think prescriptions are the way. Hey we've all learned prohibition aint going to solve any drug problems.

[riaahacker]

I believe this a very complex issue and here's how I feels about it

I'm a libertarian and tend to view the body and functions extending from the body as private property and with my views of private property see that one should be able to do whatever one pleases with his/her private property. From a social perspective this has many consequences. I am a firm believer that psychedelics and entactogens such as mdma and lsd can lead to profound states of consciousness and on a social scale this could lead to drastic changes in the way it is organized. Unfortunately, while people like us view drugs as a tool to reach very beautiful states of being and awareness (or the occasional use of utility) the general public does not view them as such. They tend to view them as dangerous or just in a pure boredom/recreational sense, which for some drugs can be a very dangerous thing. Before drugs become widely available one must change society's views on them. Education on psychedelic introspection and general drug harm reduction should be taught so when drugs such as lsd, mdma, and even methamphetamine become legal, society will use them and view them in a positive and productive way. Another reason drugs should be legal is to take the holds off scientific advancement and medical research on psychoactive chemicals. Not only can we find new ways of using these drugs to help people with physical and mental problems, we can design new and hopefully safer recreational drugs, which will cause less harm than some of the recreational drugs that we have now. The design of new recreational chemicals and deep entactogens and entheogens to enrich the human experience, this will usher in a new era of not only how we think of drugs but a new era of societal organization and relationships.

[Jasim]

We need to know that drugs can be used responsibly. Driving while under the influence of psychoactives should always be illegal. But it doesn't make sense to promote bars in places without public transportation and then to fight drunk driving.

[Jasim]

I work in a criminal drug lab and every day I see cases where people are killed, some of them teenagers, and the driver was intoxicated. I generally try to maintain a non-judgmental attitude on here, but I can't understand how someone could be so blatantly irresponsible as to condone driving under the influence.

Swim will admit that he has driven many times while intoxicated, so maybe even he is a bit of a hypocrite, but he would never condone such behavior. Especially after seeing case after case of deaths and serious injury caused by driving under the influence.

All it takes is once for someone to ruin his/her life and the lives of others.
It's not a matter of one just endangering their own life, but when someone drives under the influence swiy is potentially endangering the lives of others. Driving is a complex task that requires a lot of attention.

Psychoactive drugs reduce reaction time. Just because swiy has never had a close call doesn't mean that swiy is capable of continuing to drive under the influence without consequence. Age deteriorates physical and mental capabilities and can impair the metabolism of drugs. How drugs affect one driving now may not be the same as how they may affect one later.

Irregardless of whether swiy can drive under the influence, suggesting that others have the same capabilities is a seriously flawed logic. Drugs don't effect everyone the same. And with the number of fatalities resulting from driving under the influence each year, it's obvious that not all people are capable of driving safely while intoxicated. Condoning such behavior in others is reckless and irresponsible.

[Spinner]

Originally Posted by Jasim

I work in a criminal drug lab and every day I see cases where people are killed, some of them teenagers, and the driver was intoxicated. I generally try to maintain a non-judgmental attitude on here, but I can't understand how someone could be so blatantly irresponsible as to condone driving under the influence.

Swim will admit that he has driven many times while intoxicated, so maybe even he is a bit of a hypocrite, but he would never condone such behavior. Especially after seeing case after case of deaths and serious injury caused by driving under the influence.

All it takes is once for someone to ruin his/her life and the lives of others.
It's not a matter of one just endangering their own life, but when someone drives under the influence swiy is potentially endangering the lives of others. Driving is a complex task that requires a lot of attention.

Psychoactive drugs reduce reaction time. Just because swiy has never had a close call doesn't mean that swiy is capable of continuing to drive under the influence without consequence. Age deteriorates physical and mental capabilities and can impair the metabolism of drugs. How drugs affect one driving now may not be the same as how they may affect one later.

Irregardless of whether swiy can drive under the influence, suggesting that others have the same capabilities is a seriously flawed logic. Drugs don't effect everyone the same. And with the number of fatalities resulting from driving under the influence each year, it's obvious that not all people are capable of driving safely while intoxicated. Condoning such behavior in others is reckless and irresponsible.

I'm not saying everyone can, but I sure can. Ironically, the worst trouble SWIM has ever been in (due to driving) was not even his fault, and he was completely sober.

[Spinner]

Originally Posted by Jasim

Irregardless of whether swiy can drive under the influence, suggesting that others have the same capabilities is a seriously flawed logic. Drugs don't effect everyone the same. And with the number of fatalities resulting from driving under the influence each year, it's obvious that not all people are capable of driving safely while intoxicated. Condoning such behavior in others is reckless and irresponsible.

Can SWIY prove that the same number of fatalities would not occur otherwise? Can SWIY prove that said fatalities would not have occured if not under the influence of anything? Can SWIM really prove that fate does not exist and it wasn't just their time to die? People who do drugs are more wreckless by nature. SWIM does not condone driving under the influence, but also does not think anyone has the power to claim that any fatality in which victim was under the influence of something is definitely the cause of said fatality.

SWIY should know his/her limits.

Spinner added 8 Minutes and 6 Seconds later...

SWIM continues to believe that people who are stupid or careless die at a faster rate. This is the usual case, and laws protecting the stupid/careless have only resulted in more stupid/careless people.

[Jasim]

Originally Posted by Spinner

Can SWIY prove that the same number of fatalities would not occur otherwise? Can SWIY prove that said fatalities would not have occured if not under the influence of anything? Can SWIM really prove that fate does not exist and it wasn't just their time to die? People who do drugs are more wreckless by nature. SWIM does not condone driving under the influence, but also does not think anyone has the power to claim that any fatality in which victim was under the influence of something is definitely the cause of said fatality.

Wow, seriously.
I never would have thought to question that....

But when we look at all automobile accidents, there are many more where one of the drivers involved was intoxicated than not.

In addition there is a very clear correlation between intoxication and fatal car accidents.

See this 2-page paper I uploaded by John Brick, PhD that was published in Intoxikon International in 1996.
http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/loc...tid=15&id=6516

And there are a lot more papers out there like this one. The statistics are very clear.
There is a definite correlation between intoxicated driving and automobile accidents involving property damage, serious injury, and death.

[ATWA]

I believe that while drugs can harm they still need to be totally legal. Yes there will be deaths and injuries. Perhaps substantial ones. Perhaps a society that is transitionally driven into disorganization. But after things settle down their shall be a brave new world. A world of freedom. Moral imperatives of using drugs shall evolve through the chaos.

[MCCosco420]

ok just to play devil's advocate for one moment, does everyone really think that legalizing these drugs(and im talkin coke, heroine not shrooms and MJ) is going to help anyone? yes, it makes it easier to get and of a higher controlled purity than the stuff you would get on the streets, so im all for making it legal so that people that can use it responsibly get quality stuff. but if the government just decides to allow people to ship drugs into the country, you're going to be introducing these drugs to many people that would never have come across them had they been illegal. so as they become more available more people will use them, and therefore more people will abuse them and many more lives will be ruined, just like alcohol and ciggarettes have done. yes, people should be able to make their own decisions, and they should be able to decide whether to use or not, but do you want someone to shoot up and get behind the wheel while your driving around with your family? we can barely control the problems that these drugs cause now, and people aren't even supposed to have them. imagine what will happen if the government legalizes them all. and as far as enforcing laws of useage, well we have all seen how well thats worked with alcohol. overall though SWIM trusts SWIMs self to do these drugs responsibly would love them to be legal so SWIM could be assured of good quaility with no hassle, but SWIM can think of at least a hundred people out there that SWIM barely trusts with a joint, little own a needle of heroine.

[cannabis-sam]

ok just to play devil's advocate for one moment, does everyone really think that legalizing these drugs(and im talkin coke, heroine not shrooms and MJ) is going to help anyone? yes, it makes it easier to get and of a higher controlled purity than the stuff you would get on the streets, so im all for making it legal so that people that can use it responsibly get quality stuff. but if the government just decides to allow people to ship drugs into the country, you're going to be introducing these drugs to many people that would never have come across them had they been illegal. so as they become more available more people will use them, and therefore more people will abuse them and many more lives will be ruined, just like alcohol and ciggarettes have done. yes, people should be able to make their own decisions, and they should be able to decide whether to use or not, but do you want someone to shoot up and get behind the wheel while your driving around with your family? we can barely control the problems that these drugs cause now, and people aren't even supposed to have them. imagine what will happen if the government legalizes them all. and as far as enforcing laws of useage, well we have all seen how well thats worked with alcohol. overall though SWIM trusts SWIMs self to do these drugs responsibly would love them to be legal so SWIM could be assured of good quaility with no hassle, but SWIM can think of at least a hundred people out there that SWIM barely trusts with a joint, little own a needle of heroine.

I can see your point but weather the people who already use alcohol and tobacco will swap them for the newly available drugs or people who use no psychoactive substance illegal or legal will start taking drugs I don't know.

So you might say that use of drugs if alcohol and tobacco are included with illegal drugs will stay the same and the same people who don't drink or smoke won't take any drugs once legalized. And seeing as alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous (according to the experts) than cannabis, ecstacy, mushrooms etc you would probably see a decrease in alcohol and tobacco use which would probably be a good thing.

Does this make sense?.

[Sven99]

Originally Posted by MCCosco420

ok just to play devil's advocate for one moment, does everyone really think that legalizing these drugs(and im talkin coke, heroine not shrooms and MJ) is going to help anyone? yes, it makes it easier to get and of a higher controlled purity than the stuff you would get on the streets, so im all for making it legal so that people that can use it responsibly get quality stuff. but if the government just decides to allow people to ship drugs into the country, you're going to be introducing these drugs to many people that would never have come across them had they been illegal. so as they become more available more people will use them, and therefore more people will abuse them and many more lives will be ruined, just like alcohol and ciggarettes have done. yes, people should be able to make their own decisions, and they should be able to decide whether to use or not, but do you want someone to shoot up and get behind the wheel while your driving around with your family? we can barely control the problems that these drugs cause now, and people aren't even supposed to have them. imagine what will happen if the government legalizes them all. and as far as enforcing laws of useage, well we have all seen how well thats worked with alcohol. overall though SWIM trusts SWIMs self to do these drugs responsibly would love them to be legal so SWIM could be assured of good quaility with no hassle, but SWIM can think of at least a hundred people out there that SWIM barely trusts with a joint, little own a needle of heroine.

Its a fair comment, and a common one. However, the evidence we have suggests that enforcement has marginal or no effect on scale of use.

For example, tobacco has been legal since it was discovered, but use has dropped significantly in the last few decades due to effective regulations on sales, advertising, warning labels etc.

As another example, the rates of cannabis use in the Netherlands, where it is tolerated, are half that of the US, where prohibition is heavily enforced.

Drugs are more available today than they have ever been, and the vast majority of drug users don't get caught, so it seems unlikely to me that there is a large number of people waiting for an unenforceable law to be repealed before they try drugs. In my personal experience, I dont think I've ever met somebody who didn't use drugs for the reason that they were illegal. It may have been a contributory factor, but they mainly don't because it doesn't appeal to them. I've met afew people that didn't do drugs because they're required to take drug tests, but I dont think thats the same thing.

Lunar Loops: Fair point - i don't think that any drug is safe, and I'm sorry if I came across that way.

Sven99 added 2 Minutes and 1 Seconds later...

Originally Posted by Jacquesy

all drugs should be legal but illegal to use, i think it would keep people from being needlessly arrested for possession but wouldn't infringe to much on people who wanted to experiment in the privacy of there own home. so sort of like sex, do it as much as you want behind closed doors but do it in public and your getting a hefty fine!

Interesting idea, but it would waive the companies or gov't agencies offering the drugs of any responsibility for making sure they were safe. I think it'd be better to accept that people will use drugs and allow them access based on this.

[Jacquesy]

Originally Posted by Sven99

Interesting idea, but it would waive the companies or gov't agencies offering the drugs of any responsibility for making sure they were safe. I think it'd be better to accept that people will use drugs and allow them access based on this.

Drug dealers, cigaret and alcohol companies also wave the hole responsibility thing it's what the "drink responsibly" "smoking kills" is for, well except for the the dealers. you wouldn't get any mind-altering substance if you wanted people to take responsibility for any damage you might choose to do to your self, even caffeinated drinks have warnings. But they could at-least regulate production if the labs that made the drugs didn't have to hide them selves.

[doggy_hat]

Originally Posted by MCCosco420

ok just to play devil's advocate for one moment, does everyone really think that legalizing these drugs(and im talkin coke, heroine not shrooms and MJ) is going to help anyone? yes, it makes it easier to get and of a higher controlled purity than the stuff you would get on the streets, so im all for making it legal so that people that can use it responsibly get quality stuff. but if the government just decides to allow people to ship drugs into the country, you're going to be introducing these drugs to many people that would never have come across them had they been illegal. so as they become more available more people will use them, and therefore more people will abuse them and many more lives will be ruined, just like alcohol and ciggarettes have done. yes, people should be able to make their own decisions, and they should be able to decide whether to use or not, but do you want someone to shoot up and get behind the wheel while your driving around with your family? we can barely control the problems that these drugs cause now, and people aren't even supposed to have them. imagine what will happen if the government legalizes them all. and as far as enforcing laws of useage, well we have all seen how well thats worked with alcohol. overall though SWIM trusts SWIMs self to do these drugs responsibly would love them to be legal so SWIM could be assured of good quaility with no hassle, but SWIM can think of at least a hundred people out there that SWIM barely trusts with a joint, little own a needle of heroine.

To be honest, there probably will be a spike in use if drugs were legalized. Of course if you ask a drug user if drugs being illegal stopped them from using they'll probably say it didn't at all. But what about all the people that drink or smoke, but think they'd turn into a psychotic drug addict if they took a hit of a joint? Of course they're not going to say they don't do drugs because they're bad, and not because they're illegal. But the reason they think they're bad in the first place is because they're illegal. So if they were to know the truth about these drugs, they'd probably be willing to give some of them a try, and use would go up. And with people shooting up before driving, or other dangerous drug induced behaviour, that is a genuine problem. But imagine if all the crime organizations lost their source of funding, if addicts weren't forced into a criminal life style, and if police could focus all their efforts on real problems. I think prohibition makes the police force more inefficient. For a cop, it's a hell of a lot easier to just systematically pull of cars full of teenagers and bust them for pot than to hunt down theives or violent criminals.

It's all just a balance, either you can have the freedom to do drugs, but worry about some reckless idiot nodding off on H behind the wheel of a car. Or let the government tell you how to live your life. I personally value freedom with lack of security over a secure but rigorous and unsatisfying life of heavy regulations.

I think that something like prescription only drugs that are heavily regulated with regular doctor visits should be the way to go, but hopes that that would eventually evolve into a society where you can buy a bottle of OTC ecstasy pills as easily as you can buy a pack of cigarettes nowadays.

[robertone]

It's Swim's opinion that the discussion "should all drugs be legal or just the soft ones" is the totally wrong one. Legallisation is to much politicly loaded and calls out for too many people that all should be allowed. Instead the discussion should be about decriminalise the use and possession of drugs. At the same time every producer and/or treader should be hold accountable for the products they supply to the public. In our times producers of beverages, sweets and junkfood are already hold more more accountable for there products.

But one should not make any illusion, there will allways be a black market for any product. The black marketing of cigarettes and alcohol is a nice example of this. And one should also never forget that there will always some people that want to escape from there own lives and will use whatever they can put there hands on. Preventing these people to pull others down with them, would be, according Swim, the best way to protect the public health.

[Jacquesy]

all drugs should be legal but illegal to use, i think it would keep people from being needlessly arrested for possession but wouldn't infringe to much on people who wanted to experiment in the privacy of there own home. so sort of like sex, do it as much as you want behind closed doors but do it in public and your getting a hefty fine!