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

[cra$h]

your making it sounds like being drunk has nothing to do with a crash. Of course the accident could not be the drunk's fault, but what you should look at is the red light ran, drifting into other lanes, missed turns, etc. And it doesn't matter what their tolerance is. In real life, not everyone's responsible enough to know their limits.

[Spinner]

Originally Posted by cra$h

your making it sounds like being drunk has nothing to do with a crash. Of course the accident could not be the drunk's fault, but what you should look at is the red light ran, drifting into other lanes, missed turns, etc. And it doesn't matter what their tolerance is. In real life, not everyone's responsible enough to know their limits.

No, IMO drunk driving doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a crash, and those who do not know their limit should be prosecuted, or at least helped in some way, if they have a problem. Sober people have just as many accidents, if not more, than intoxicated people. (SWIM believes it has to be more, since there are more sober drivers on the road that intoxicated drivers at any given moment.) Even the previously posted "statistics" state that it's 50/50.
IMO, cell phones are far more dangerous. I have yet to be almost killed by anyone who is intoxicated, but I have almost been killed more times than I can count by people who are preoccupied by cell phones or any other things you can think of.

Responsibility is not determined by your level of intoxication. Irresponsible people are irresponsible, regardless.

[cra$h]

there's a mythbusters episode where they compare cell phones to drunk driving. They got to .08, and they were equally dangerous. But take that with a grain of salt. And anyone that's been drunk will admit to hindered motor skills, so alcohol can easily be directly related to a crash. But as far as D.U.I.'s, I understand the preventitive measures, but if you don't do others any harm, it shouldn't be illegal. But cops find people all over the road, so it's not like every road has a DUI check, which if one road had a check it would be bullshit.

[Spinner]

There is such a thing as responsible drug users and drinkers. That's my whole point here.

Spinner added 2 Minutes and 32 Seconds later...

I would absolutely love to take a series of drunk driving tests, and also tests on other substances to prove my point.

[Scag]

all drugs should be legal for me to use

[pinksox]

f you don't do others any harm, it shouldn't be illegal.

So, it shouldn't be illegal for an intoxicated person to drive and maim or kill someone? That doesn't sound very prudent to me. I'm all for keeping people "under the influence" of intoxicating subsubstances out from behind machinary which they could easily kill another with. Whether that be from behind the wheel of a car or out of the seat of a backhoe on a jobsite.

Jasism, I'd like to discuss the other subject matter with you in a bit more depth and will try to make a more details post when I have a bit more time. There's been very interesting research of late showing a strong bioneurological connection to support addiction as a disease process. It's not my area of specialty so it's going to take a bit of research on my behalf first though. I think there's both biological and behavioral aspects...but I do still view it as a disease.

pinksox added 1 Minutes and 44 Seconds later...

So, it shouldn't be illegal for an intoxicated person to drive and maim or kill someone?

That should read, "unless they maim or kill someone" Sorry, not being able to edit your posts in a pain, LOL.

[Spinner]

Originally Posted by pinksox

So, it shouldn't be illegal for an intoxicated person to drive, unless they maim or kill someone.

Should people be locked up before they commit an actual crime? Just driving is not a crime. Can anyone tell who is going to just lose it and start killing people? Should we start discriminating against people who had bad families, because they tend to have problems? Should we lock people up even if it's purely accidental? What ever happened to accidents? Accidents don't seem to exist anymore. Nobody should be locked up, unless they are somehow violating someone else's rights, period!

Man, we already have piss tests. I can't wait to see what happens when they start discriminating based on DNA alone. Someday, you may just have the wrong genes and you're automatically fucked?

Spinner added 2 Minutes and 24 Seconds later...

It is a very slippery slope they've created. Now days, you get arrested for even non-violent crimes and you're already fucked.

[Jasim]

Originally Posted by pinksox

Jasim, I'd like to discuss the other subject matter with you in a bit more depth and will try to make a more details post when I have a bit more time. There's been very interesting research of late showing a strong bioneurological connection to support addiction as a disease process. It's not my area of specialty so it's going to take a bit of research on my behalf first though. I think there's both biological and behavioral aspects...but I do still view it as a disease.

Yeah, I found some additional sources and got some other opinions that is making me rethink what I posted. Drugs can in fact alter the neurochemistry of the brain. There is (still somewhat in development) an all inclusive theory concerning drug addiction that has been termed the Bio-Psycho-Social Theory of Drug Addiction.

I guess my biggest beef with the traditional disease model is that user quote it as a way of taking less responsibility for their actions, which I totally disagree with. I guess swim is biased since he came off of heroin and crack without too much difficulty. Some people aren't as lucky I suppose.

If it makes swiy feel less guilty and better about themselves to think of it as a disease, then go right ahead. It's not hurting anyone. Just don't use it as an excuse for not addressing problematic substance use.

[Junkhead23]

Of course cannabis impairs your judgement. What a silly thing to say. Cannabis makes you more aware of your surroundings and makes you more nervous which when behind a wheel can be a very dangerous thing indeed. Driving slowly is just as dangerous as speeding.

[comrade_christophe]

i think the government has no right to tell you you cant do something to yourself.
it should be regulated and taxed, the taxes pay for the rehabilitaion for those that want to quit, as well as other things to benefit the community.

You cant get people to stop doing something with lies and punishment, it has never worked and will never work. take ciggs for example. there still legal but usages has dropped over 30% because of good infomation regarding the risks of using it. no by making it illegal.

[pinksox]

If it makes swiy feel less guilty and better about themselves to think of it as a disease, then go right ahead. It's not hurting anyone. Just don't use it as an excuse for not addressing problematic substance use.

SWIM doesn't really have any problematic substance use. SWIM only takes opiates for a legit medical condition and they take them pretty much as written. SWIM has occasionally enjoys benzos and pot, but only to a level that's minimally recreational--maybe one a month tops. SWIM has misused substances in the past, many year ago, to the point that they needed help getting off of them however. Because of that experience, SWIM can relate to an addicts perspective all-to-well.

My interest and viewpoint in substance use/abuse comes mainly from a medical providers standpoint and a strong interest in the medical sciences. Neurobiology is a fascinating field that we are only just beginning to really grasp. As a medical provider, I see how many diseases have behavioral, environmental, and genetic components--diabetes and heart disease are probably the two most commonly seen as such by laypersons. I can certainly see where addictions could also have genetic components...just as alcoholism and some psychiatric illnesses have strong genetic and environmental correlations.

I also don't believe putting addiction into the category of "disease" minimizes the seriousness of it's nature in any way. Many diseases have multi-root causes...that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be treated. Of course, when you start treating ALL aspects of the disease process, you have increasingly better outcome for patients.

Anyhow, I don't want to drag this thread too far off-topic, but this probably would make a good topic for a new one...if it doesn't exist already.

[Jasim]

This is getting a little off topic, but I wanted to mention that when I worked in a neurochemistry research lab we worked with rats that were breed to be predisposed alcoholics. There are several breeds of rats that will drink alcohol faster and in greater quantity than other rats. I guess I'm providing evidence against my own stance that addiction isn't a disease, lol. If someone makes a related thread, I will follow there and provide some additional info. Sorry for the tangent, I always seem to be involved in leading threads astray

[MOGGIE]

Originally Posted by Jasim

This is getting a little off topic, but I wanted to mention that when I worked in a neurochemistry research lab we worked with rats that were breed to be predisposed alcoholics. There are several breeds of rats that will drink alcohol faster and in greater quantity than other rats. I guess I'm providing evidence against my own stance that addiction isn't a disease, lol. If someone makes a related thread, I will follow there and provide some additional info. Sorry for the tangent, I always seem to be involved in leading threads astray

Sorry it was my fault for bringing it up in this thread.

[Spinner]

Off topic, for the pretentious idiots who give me a bad rep for stating my opinion:

Every post I make here is MY opinion, unless I state otherwise. Keep that in mind, OK? Some of you are ridiculous, with your negative reps.
And there is no such thing as self incrimination if I'm talking about things in past tense. You can tell any cop you want. I guarantee they're not going to give a shit if I talk about past drug experiences. There is no law against that. People even do it on TV, in books, etc. It's called freedom of speech. You can't even prove that anything I say I've done is true anyway...although, I have no reason to lie. I am not afraid and I am not ashamed of my past.

(The title of this thread specifically states that these are opinions!!!)

[pinksox]

The reason why I differentiated between meds like Valium, codeine, and others is because those preparations have legitimate medical uses...heroin doesn't really have a legit medical purpose...but, OTOH, neither does alcohol; however IMO, heroin is MUCH more addictive and potentially destructive than the others. Personally or professionally, I've never experienced watching someone's life improve with heroin usage. I have seen many lives destroyed by it...and I'm not sure that was due to its illegality. I tend to think it's more due to the fact that their lives tend to start revolving around the drug while the rest of their lives start falling apart.

SWIM has never used vitamin H personally. So, SWIM is not really qualified to attest if it can be used responsibly and without causing damage to its users lives...SWIM can only say it's been their experience that lives get worse, not better with H in it. SWIM will say though that its ridiculous for many meds with legit medical aren't available OTC....SWIM thinks this has much to do with Drug Co. profits, their lobbying and lining the pockets of corrupt pols.

SWIM also thinks its silly for THC to be Scheduled as it currently is when its pretty evident that THC has MULTIPLE valid medical uses. SWIM also believes that THC is no worse, perhaps even safer to use, than is ETOH(alcohol).

SWIM also believes its absurd that many people charged with drug offenses receive harsher sentences than people charged with crimes against persons like rape and murder. SWIM is very glad that GWB is gone and hopes that his martial-law like policies will be reversed in the near future. SWIM thinks that the gov't has taken on a "nanny" role more and more of late and SWIM believes this is wrong and goes against the grain of the fundamental beliefs our country was founded upon.

Please realize that SWIM is speaking from the perspective of a medical provider who understands the grip of addictions and who has seen many young lives ruined or even taken waaay before their time because of some of these drugs. SWIM cares very much for these people and it hurts SWIM deeply every time SWIM sees someone that needs help but can't or won't take a hand held out to them because they're gripped more strongly by an addictive drug.

[youdontknow]

So spinner

Should it be legal for me to fire a gun into a crowded area if i dont hit anyone?

As long as none of my bullets cause anyone harm then it should be fine right?

The possible outcomes of things such as drunk driving dont outweigh the positives of drunk driving.

Because though people may not get hurt every time doesnt mean anything. Its bound to happen, like one of my bullets would be bound to hit someone eventually.

Be an adult about it, call a friend or cab if youve been drinking.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good analogy. Smart attitude about driving under the influence.

[comrade_christophe]

Originally Posted by youdontknow

So spinner

Should it be legal for me to fire a gun into a crowded area if i dont hit anyone?

As long as none of my bullets cause anyone harm then it should be fine right?

you are endangering innocent people so no, same thing as drunk driving. you are increasing the risk of injury or death.

personal consumption is fine but when you step over the line of endangering another person then it becomes illegal.

all mind altering substances should be controlled like alcohol.

and someone said earlier that there was no medical use for H, Coke, LSD, and Meth. Opiates have been used be doctors for centuries. Codine (a close realtive to coke) is used as a local anestetic by doctors, ampethamines have been perscribed for over 50 years (Bennies from the 50's). LSD help cure the found of aloholics anynomous, and also used in therapy. they all have medical uses, as well as recreational uses.

[Jasim]

Originally Posted by comrade_christophe

and someone said earlier that there was no medical use for H, Coke, LSD, and Meth. Opiates have been used be doctors for centuries. Codine (a close realtive to coke) is used as a local anestetic by doctors, ampethamines have been perscribed for over 50 years (Bennies from the 50's). LSD help cure the found of aloholics anynomous, and also used in therapy. they all have medical uses, as well as recreational uses.

Actually, cocaine is used medically, that's why it's only Schedule II in the US. Heroin is used in some areas of Europe as a painkiller.

The thing with drug laws is that they rarely follow scientific evidence. Yes LSD and even MDMA have strong evidence and support for medicinal value, but in the US they are Schedule I and legally cannot be used for any medical purpose. It's not that they have no medicinal value, it's that they have no legally acceptable medicinal value.

[Sunshine-Band]

Please remember that UK law at least does not make possession of any drug other than opium illegal by default, that drugs are not illegal - it is the activities involving them which are controlled - people are controlled, not drugs.

[Scag]

alcohol is considered a hard drug just fyi.

its highly addictive and extremely detrimental to your health.

the irony is astounding.

[RadioHead]

I can't believe some of you are suggesting that all drugs should be legalized, i know you say how when it is legal and controlled there will be less problems with these things, but personally i think some drugs are just evil, and no matter what they will be abused, i can see where you're coming from but i think legalizing really serious drugs will do alot more harm than good.

RadioHead added 0 Minutes and 45 Seconds later...

Although buying PCP from your local pharmacist would be quite a sight.

RadioHead added 4 Minutes and 20 Seconds later...

I forgot to say, i'd be OK with weed and stuff legalized, long as it was controlled (think like how alcohol is, maybe a special permit to buy it after a medical check up)

[riaahacker]

Originally Posted by RadioHead

I can't believe some of you are suggesting that all drugs should be legalized, i know you say how when it is legal and controlled there will be less problems with these things, but personally i think some drugs are just evil, and no matter what they will be abused, i can see where you're coming from but i think legalizing really serious drugs will do alot more harm than good.

RadioHead added 0 Minutes and 45 Seconds later...

Although buying PCP from your local pharmacist would be quite a sight.

RadioHead added 4 Minutes and 20 Seconds later...

I forgot to say, i'd be OK with weed and stuff legalized, long as it was controlled (think like how alcohol is, maybe a special permit to buy it after a medical check up)

I do see what you are saying, some drugs just seem like a very bad idea to legalize and this is how i felt for a while but now i do feel every drug should be legal for the benefits it has to society. I'm assuming(correct me if wrong) that the evil drugs are drugs like heroin, amphetamines, and cocaine. Not everyone on those drugs become a hopeless addict, there are many casual users of every drug just like there are many casual drinkers despite the fact alcohol is extremely addictive. Allowing the drugs to be legal will allow the addicts to get help without fear of criminal prosecution and leave the casual users alone. Drugs themselves are inherently bad and I don't believe recreational use counts as abuse, its just up to the individual to have some self control and take responsibility for their own choices.

[Dickon]

I tend to believe in universal legalisation of all drugs. I certainly do Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and weekends. On Tuesdays and Thursdays I start to think "where does crack cocaine fit in?". Let us create, for a thought experiment, the following hypothetical "substance X"

Substance X is instantly addictive in almost all cases.
When in the throws of addiction to substance X, one becomes so mentally disturbed that one is fairly likely to injure of even kill others.

Should substance X be legalized? I would say not. One property of substance X is that any informed choice to use it would be fundamentally irresponsible, and demonstrate mental aberration. Once used the personality is so irreparably altered that its use alone makes one fit for a section under the mental health act (UK legislation) as one is a danger to others, and not of sound mind.

The trouble with crack and (meth)amphetamine is that, although nothing like as bad as my hypothetical substance X, one use can have profound consequences. My cat has done scary and dangerous things on crack that he'd never had done on opiates. With opiates one maintains a certain awareness of what one is doing. With stimulants, one can become quite psychotic.

The other point against legalization is that legality might mean fewer people with addictions will seek treatment.

Overall, as these substances are available almost everywhere, it would make more sense to have them available medically, at least to anyone who already has a problem. I think the harm reduction benefit of legalization would outweigh the harm caused. This is not a dogmatic position, and I'm open to new evidence. I also think that a society with as little legislation as possible is preferable. I feel, but again can't provide any proof, that people given responsibilities act more responsibly. The idea that we (society) can't make responsible or irresponsible decisions for ourselves is demeaning.

We should clearly have a law about driving when unfit to do so, or operating heavy machinery in an environment where others are at risk. I'd not mention substance use is such a law (extreme tiredness would also constitute unfitness), but would prosecute anyone driving who was unfit to do so because of substance use.

I'd not feel that worried about legalzing opiates. Addiction develops slowly, and in the UK one can buy significant quantities of morphine and codeine over-the-counter anyway, as well as opium poppies. It's easy to become a junkie and stay this side of the law!

I sometimes think of solvents, which my cat tells me are really strong drugs, and are legal. If they were illegal, and somehow "glamorous", I'd not be surprised if we didn't have a bigger problem than we do. Again a guess!

Although my cat has been the victim of alcohol, amphetamines, crack, opiates and benzodiazepine addictions at various times in his life, and has come to the conclusion that using the more serious drugs is an all but entirely negative experience (except perhaps that quitting builds character, etc.), I still mostly (5 days a week) think everything should be legal. I am an optimist about human beings, and think if treated well, given information and support, they will mostly make not-totally-apalling choices!

Dickon

Reputation Comments on this post:

As with all your posts dickon, informative, intelligent and insightful thank you

[cannabis-sam]

You also have to face the simple fact PEOPLE ARE FUCKING STUPID, not everyone, but a lot, think about the population in this country who are stupid enough to read the tabloids. Now if drugs were completely legal imagine all the stupid people, not the educated, intelligent users like all these people's cousin's pet rat's aunties that post on this forum. You'll get dumb people like the ones who go out and drink twenty five pints in a night, taking it too an extreme that's bound to happen in my opinion, especially when drugs are first legalized. People are going to be experimenting alot more with various substances because they are legal, but I think after the first few years people will find their drug of choice may it be alcohol, ecstasy or cannabis and use responsibly.

With all that taken into consideration does it not seem more sensible as I've said before to highly regulate the more dangerous drugs and have looser regulations on soft drugs. (hard drugs prescribed, soft drugs on open sale) so when drugs are legal people are free to experiment with the non/less addictive drugs and keep the HD on prescription to people who already have a problem.

[Coconut]

Originally Posted by cannabis-sam

You also have to face the simple fact PEOPLE ARE FUCKING STUPID, not everyone, but a lot, think about the population in this country who are stupid enough to read the tabloids. Now if drugs were completely legal imagine all the stupid people, not the educated, intelligent users like all these people's cousin's pet rat's aunties that post on this forum. You'll get dumb people like the ones who go out and drink twenty five pints in a night, taking it too an extreme that's bound to happen in my opinion, especially when drugs are first legalized. People are going to be experimenting alot more with various substances because they are legal, but I think after the first few years people will find their drug of choice may it be alcohol, ecstasy or cannabis and use responsibly.

Yes, many people are stupid, but what gives the intelligent any right to decide for those of lesser cognitive ability? Nothing, that's what, and this is essentially government, prohibition, imperialism and slavery summed up in one sentence: humans with superiority complexes imposing their will upon others, who they consider to be inferior, and enforcing this through coercion and violence.

Drugs are a health issue which is not the business of the state or even society, but rather the business of the individual themselves. I don't think anyone here, except maybe the exalted Police Officer, will disagree when I say that government and society have no right to deny one sovereignty over one's own body and mind. If they die from consuming in excess, that's a victory for Darwin and their own fault.

Originally Posted by cannabis-sam

With all that taken into consideration does it not seem more sensible as I've said before to highly regulate the more dangerous drugs and have looser regulations on soft drugs. (hard drugs prescribed, soft drugs on open sale) so when drugs are legal people are free to experiment with the non/less addictive drugs and keep the HD on prescription to people who already have a problem.

"Soft" and "hard" are entirely subjective: cannabis and methamphetamine can be equally dangerous to others if abused to extremes. Danger to the user themselves should be irrelevant and both drugs have incredible therapeutic benefits and horrific side effects if mishandled.

Legalisation of all drugs is likely to lead to much more open treatment for addicts, where they know they can seek help without any fear of prosecution or continue their habit under the watch of medical experts. It is also likely to incubate a new culture of suppliers comprised of chemists and growers who actually have compassion and advocate harm reduction - instead of keeping the "hard" drug trade almost exclusively in the hands of scum cartels - and who will be cautious of supplying their products to users who may be unfit to take the drug.