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

[JAMINTHEDAM]

We need an effective policy that punishes people whos personal choices affect others, people need to recognise the negative effects that some drugs have on society. Firstly heroin imo it should remain illegal but doctors should be able to precribe the drug to long term users who have exhausted all rehabilitation options and who otherwise would be forced into crime or prostitution. This in itself would pay dividends to society as it is estimated that problem users commit on average 447 crimes a year costing £45000 each. However

JAMINTHEDAM added 41 Minutes and 39 Seconds later...

it would be an unnaceptable message to send to our children that this potential outcome is ok. Crack cocaine should be illegal full stop, this drug is probably worse than heroin there is no justification for this drug, it has no redeeming factors, it provides a short term high and has had detrememental effects on society. Most users become addicted very quickly and prescribing this drug would not work because of the greedy nature of this drug. Imo cannabis, ecstacy, amphetemines, lsd and mushrooms should be fully legalised with the supply and distibution taxed and regulated. Some of the revenues raised from these taxes should be used to educate the youths using realistic portrayals of drugs. Education has to be accurate, if you give false information about soft drugs making out that they will send you mental when in reality they may trigger some people who are predisposed to mental health issues then as a whole your message becomes a lie and any genuine information about drugs become moot. The rest of the revenue should be used to fund drug rehabilitation hopefully making the cost less to the non drug users. Prohibition itself puts millions of pounds into the coffers of criminals funding lots of gangs we need to restle this power away from the criminals and put it back in our hands. FREE THE WEED

[Lou1024]

No drugs should be legal, hard or soft.

Decriminalized, yes, legalized, no. Allow corporate governance over a drug like Cannabis, and the entire social stigma is reversed. Take caffeine for example. More than 75% of the people swim knows are caffeine addicts and it is socially acceptable to be an addict. These people do not perceive the negative side effects of caffeine, they are a product of a money machine, human robots.

Do the same to Cannabis and stonerism becomes a dear problem. Suddenly there are no negative side effects and everyone smokes. Smoking is not for everyone. The same goes for all other drugs.

[riaahacker]

Originally Posted by Lou1024

No drugs should be legal, hard or soft.

Decriminalized, yes, legalized, no. Allow corporate governance over a drug like Cannabis, and the entire social stigma is reversed. Take caffeine for example. More than 75% of the people swim knows are caffeine addicts and it is socially acceptable to be an addict. These people do not perceive the negative side effects of caffeine, they are a product of a money machine, human robots.

Do the same to Cannabis and stonerism becomes a dear problem. Suddenly there are no negative side effects and everyone smokes. Smoking is not for everyone. The same goes for all other drugs.

Caffeine and the chemicals in cannabis have radically different pharmacological effects. Caffeine is an antagonist to adenosine receptors which are very important for sleep and in the short term causes a reduction in tiredness and in the long term might cause sleep disorders and a reduction in time spent in deep sleep every night. Caffeine's antagonism on adenosine receptors causes their eventual upregulation which when caffeine is stopped causes vasodialtion which causes the headache associated with caffeine withdrawal, lower dopamine and serotonin levels which bring about fatigue and agitation. Cannabis namely THC does not seem to have this effect a bit a mild withdrawal for extremely long term heavy use. THC indirectly effects opioid receptors and is a weak agonist on k-opioid receptors which might bring about some anti-addictive properties as well as accounting for some of the unpleasant effects of high dose thc. THC and caffeine are two totally different chemicals so comparing them for the sake of legalization is absurd.

[Lou1024]

Originally Posted by riaahacker

Caffeine and the chemicals in cannabis have radically different pharmacological effects. Caffeine is an antagonist to adenosine receptors which are very important for sleep and in the short term causes a reduction in tiredness and in the long term might cause sleep disorders and a reduction in time spent in deep sleep every night. Caffeine's antagonism on adenosine receptors causes their eventual upregulation which when caffeine is stopped causes vasodialtion which causes the headache associated with caffeine withdrawal, lower dopamine and serotonin levels which bring about fatigue and agitation. Cannabis namely THC does not seem to have this effect a bit a mild withdrawal for extremely long term heavy use. THC indirectly effects opioid receptors and is a weak agonist on k-opioid receptors which might bring about some anti-addictive properties as well as accounting for some of the unpleasant effects of high dose thc. THC and caffeine are two totally different chemicals so comparing them for the sake of legalization is absurd.

Swiy missed the point. The original point was the alteration of a stigma. Getting addicted to caffeine is not looked down upon. The stigma of addiction has been altered to not include caffeine because of the strive for profit.

[Riverhead]

Originally Posted by Lou1024

Swiy missed the point. The original point was the alteration of a stigma. Getting addicted to caffeine is not looked down upon. The stigma of addiction has been altered to not include caffeine because of the strive for profit.

Was there a point caffeine addiction was looked down upon and then changed when caffeine became legal? Were there at a certain point evil businessmen sitting together plotting to give caffeine to the masses to enslave them so they could make more profit?

[riaahacker]

Originally Posted by Lou1024

Swiy missed the point. The original point was the alteration of a stigma. Getting addicted to caffeine is not looked down upon. The stigma of addiction has been altered to not include caffeine because of the strive for profit.

Sorry if i didn't make my point clear enough. It was even if as many people used cannabis as people use caffeine (which won't happen, look at ciggarettes) the effects will be less dangerous and the effects of addiction will also be less with cannabis than it is with caffeine. We live in a sleep deprived society so stimulants tend to be very welcome in our busy lives.

[Riverhead]

Originally Posted by Lou1024

These people do not perceive the negative side effects of caffeine, they are a product of a money machine, human robots.

Maybe SWIY's friends are just boring nerds who are addicted to money, luxury and social status.

Originally Posted by Lou1024

Do the same to Cannabis and stonerism becomes a dear problem. Suddenly there are no negative side effects and everyone smokes. Smoking is not for everyone. The same goes for all other drugs.

Why isn't everyone smoking cigarettes? It's legal, it's cool, it shows people you don't give a shit... and nicotine is way more addictive than cannabis or many other illegal drugs for that matter.

[rhudson]

Originally Posted by JAMINTHEDAM

We need an effective policy that punishes people whos personal choices affect others, people need to recognise the negative effects that some drugs have on society. Firstly heroin imo it should remain illegal but doctors should be able to precribe the drug to long term users who have exhausted all rehabilitation options and who otherwise would be forced into crime or prostitution. This in itself would pay dividends to society as it is estimated that problem users commit on average 447 crimes a year costing £45000 each. However

JAMINTHEDAM added 41 Minutes and 39 Seconds later...

it would be an unnaceptable message to send to our children that this potential outcome is ok. Crack cocaine should be illegal full stop, this drug is probably worse than heroin there is no justification for this drug, it has no redeeming factors, it provides a short term high and has had detrememental effects on society. Most users become addicted very quickly and prescribing this drug would not work because of the greedy nature of this drug. Imo cannabis, ecstacy, amphetemines, lsd and mushrooms should be fully legalised with the supply and distibution taxed and regulated. Some of the revenues raised from these taxes should be used to educate the youths using realistic portrayals of drugs. Education has to be accurate, if you give false information about soft drugs making out that they will send you mental when in reality they may trigger some people who are predisposed to mental health issues then as a whole your message becomes a lie and any genuine information about drugs become moot. The rest of the revenue should be used to fund drug rehabilitation hopefully making the cost less to the non drug users. Prohibition itself puts millions of pounds into the coffers of criminals funding lots of gangs we need to restle this power away from the criminals and put it back in our hands. FREE THE WEED

All drugs which are not chemical weapons (nerve gas, etc.) should be legalized and restricted no more than alcohol. It is as simple as that. There are many reasons for this, the best of which, in my opinion, is simply that it is a matter of personal liberty. If someone wants to use a substance which will negatively impact the quality of their life it is their prerogative to do so. Banning drug use in order to pre-emptively prevent other crimes is fascist. It is not moral (nor constitutional, here in the US) to criminalize a victimless crime merely because one suspects that it will ultimately lead to other crimes. We already have laws against those other crimes. If drug users steal, convict them of theft. If they kill, convict them of murder. It undermines the very foundation of all our democracies to strike pre-emptively.

The second reason is a practical one: The prohibtion (of any drug) does not work. In fact, the majority of the problems associated with drugs which are used to justify prohibition are actually created by the institution of prohibition itself. Why do drug users steal to fund their habits? Because drugs are absurdly expensive because of prohibition. Why is the distribution of drugs associated with high levels of violent crime? Because prohibition has forced the distribution of drugs outside of legal channels into the black market. The distribution of alcohol was quite violent here in the US during alcohol prohibition, too, and it was an absolute bonanza for the mafia and Al Capone. Prohibtion is the drug trafficker/manufacturer/dealer's best friend. Without it, they could not operate their highly profitable enterprises.

Why do drug users often overdose after misjudging the purity of their drugs? Because prohibtion has forced drug distribution into the hands of greedy, unreliable criminals. Why do drug users often get sent to prison, or get a criminal record, which ruins their lives? Because prohibtion has made a victimless crime illegal. Why do drug users resort to more dangerous routes of administration (e.g. IV)? Because prohibition has made drugs are so expensive it's not economical to use many of them by other means. Why is it easier than ever before for minors to get drugs like marijuana? Because prohibtion has forced the distribution into the hands of people who will enforce no regulations. Why are our prisons full of nonviolent drug offenders? Because prohibition...

You get the picture. And as if that is not a convincing enough argument to legalize everything, let's take a look at how these substances came to be illegal in the first place. Cocaine was made illegal in the United States when "experts" (if you can call them that) testified before congress that “Most of the attacks upon the white women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain." Shortly thereafter the New York Times published an article with the title "Negro Cocaine 'Fiends' Are New Southern Menace:Murder and Insanity Increasing Among Lower-Class Blacks." Opiates were also made illegal by the same bill (the Harrison Narcotics Act).

Similarly marijuana (which was called cannibis in the US before the government popularized the spanish term marijuana in order to demonize the drug as "foreign") was made illegal at the behest of Harry Anslinger, the father of the war on drugs, who, among other things, said:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

Again we see more prohibtion justified by blatant racism. And this is still true today. Not only do we enforce these rediculous laws which were initially created, essentially, because white people were afraid of "drug-crazed niggers," but we STILL have much harsher pentalies for the possession of crack cocaine (a "black" drug) than powder cocaine, when the physiological effects are identical. This is no different than the Jim Crow laws. It is fascist and flagrantly racist.

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, the prohibition of any drug makes a crime out of that which is not a crime. It is a travesty, and moreover there is no drug (not heroin, not meth, not coke, not whatever) that damages society less when it is illegal. Back when Heroin could be bought legally over the counter, there were still heroin addicts but they lived lives as productive as anyone else and they contributed to society just like the rest of their peers. Same goes for amphetamine (Benzedrine). If you cherry pick drugs and say pot should be legal but heroin is so bad that it ought to be banned, you've just missed the point entirely.

[420massacre]

more people die from cigarettes and alcohol then coke, meth,heroin,oxy etc. every year. the problem is, is that most people arent fully informed about these drugs. illegalizing anything wont do a thing, because when they put prohibition on alcohol, what did that do? Gave people more of a demand to have it.

If the goverment provides drugs they could ensure the safety of it not being cut with other substances, increase the potencey, and keep people informed about doseage w/e so they dont end up killing themselves from a OD.

Putting an age limit wont do a thing either. There's an age limit for cigarettes and alcohol and yet i know a bunch of you have gotten when you were younger or you've seen younger people drunk or having a smoke. There will always be a way to get behide everything.

as for legalizing all drugs, it would be nice but i honestly dont think it will happen so soon.

[electroluvah]

First off,
I don't think this discussion is going to get anywhere...although it is interesting to hear various perspectives, the fact of the matter is that everyone has different perspectives of what is "right and wrong".
For some people the "evil" drugs may be heroin and cocaine, but for others those could be the drugs that they view as beneficial to society.
I think that in the United States ( since that is where I live), it should be up to the state governments to regulate drugs, and decide what should be legalized and what should remain prohibited. Having the Federal government in charge of such a thing seems overbearing and controlling. I believe this because I think the choice should be up to the user and not up to the Federal government. However, if the drugs were prohibited in select states, or have stricter regulations in some states that would allow for those who don't necessarily agree with the use of drugs to be in a "safe" environment.
The problem with that is, demographically this would be hard to achieve and it would be rough economically in some aspect, because you would have people moving around so much.
SO really, I think this is an issue that will not be solved anytime within the majority of our life times.There are so many different views and perspectives that you have to consider in this argument.

[cannabis-sam]

Actually I don't think in this case it's societies choice, as a society most would vote for the illegality of drugs, what we need is a realistic science based approach to the issue not an emotional or social decision made by the ill informed public.

[JAMINTHEDAM]

methampetamine is in no way equally dangerous, to use them as an analogy is unfair. Cannabis can in some cases trigger horrific side effects but as a general rule most people consume cannabis without any major side effects. The reverse is true of methampetamine where alot of people who use it suffer one if not all of the major side effects, Cannabis is physchologically addictive meaning that people who are addicted wantthe

JAMINTHEDAM added 24 Minutes and 34 Seconds later...

I would carry on but it keeps posting before i finish. Anyway as i was saying cannabis is physchologically addictive and methamphetamine is physically addictive in long term users. It is unfortunate but drug usage does not only impact on the users themselves, long term hard drug users cost this country millions of pounds in healthcare, policing and theft. So it is not as simple as saying its my choice because every choice you make now will have a consequence, its about risk management and if a drug causes too many negative consequences then it should remain illegal to the general public. However i agree that there needs to much more open ways to deal with addiction as the current sytstem is not working but that does not mean that legalisation of hard drugs would work.

[riaahacker]

Originally Posted by JAMINTHEDAM

methampetamine is in no way equally dangerous, to use them as an analogy is unfair. Cannabis can in some cases trigger horrific side effects but as a general rule most people consume cannabis without any major side effects. The reverse is true of methampetamine where alot of people who use it suffer one if not all of the major side effects, Cannabis is physchologically addictive meaning that people who are addicted wantthe

JAMINTHEDAM added 24 Minutes and 34 Seconds later...

I would carry on but it keeps posting before i finish. Anyway as i was saying cannabis is physchologically addictive and methamphetamine is physically addictive in long term users. It is unfortunate but drug usage does not only impact on the users themselves, long term hard drug users cost this country millions of pounds in healthcare, policing and theft. So it is not as simple as saying its my choice because every choice you make now will have a consequence, its about risk management and if a drug causes too many negative consequences then it should remain illegal to the general public. However i agree that there needs to much more open ways to deal with addiction as the current sytstem is not working but that does not mean that legalisation of hard drugs would work.

That's why most people who talk about legalization also talk about taxing the drugs and building a system of regulation. Alcohol and cigarettes are taxed to offset their "cost to society". Equally hard drugs can also be taxed based on their cost. The money can go into subsidies for clinics where people can get clean fixes or treatment and can go into the healthcare system. The fact that they are illegal also encourages crime because of the way they are distributed and sadly the way our current system looks down on addicts discourages them to get help so they continue to get their next dose. I'm pretty much no one wants to go to the store and see a big sign selling "heroin cakes" (ok maybe some do) but rather a rational system based on the freedom of the individual and a comphrensive system towards the treatment of addiction and drug related costs to society.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good point, well put

[robertone]

The best thing that ever could happen is when all the people would be educated in knowledge and wisedom, and therefor would know where they talk about. The point is that they are not! For that reason the masses can be fooled and are being fooled. The lesson is simple, take several small [isolated] societies that are rided now and then by bandit gangs and they will cry out for the right to bear arms to defend themselfs. Make the mass afraid for criminals in a larger society and they will cry out for a ban on arms. The same with drugs. Who are against will publish dispropotional information to convince the mass that it should be outlawed. Some who are for legalisation do the opposite. No reliable source for the mass. Rules, however, could be simple; no one should be allowed to hurt, disadvange or endanger an other by his action(s) and/or intention(s). Drugs should not be prohibited, but the society should have the right to take action if the use of drugs cause social unexceptable behavior. Prohibition is just a feeding ground for criminality, making shurtain actions shuddenly proffitable.

[Coconut]

Originally Posted by JAMINTHEDAM

methampetamine is in no way equally dangerous, to use them as an analogy is unfair. Cannabis can in some cases trigger horrific side effects but as a general rule most people consume cannabis without any major side effects. The reverse is true of methampetamine where alot of people who use it suffer one if not all of the major side effects, Cannabis is physchologically addictive meaning that people who are addicted wantthe

Do you have any data to prove that many more methamphetamine users suffer major side-effects than Cannabis users? How do you define "major"? In any case, this point is moot because.....

I said that they are equally dangerous to others (i.e. people around users) if abused to extremes by those taking it. Smoking tobacco is probably about as dangerous, whereas alcohol abuse is far more dangerous because it is the only heavily intoxicating drug which most of the zombie public are willing to take.

Originally Posted by JAMINTHEDAM

It is unfortunate but drug usage does not only impact on the users themselves, long term hard drug users cost this country millions of pounds in healthcare, policing and theft.

Yes, as a direct result of prohibition. People are going to have to get used to the fact that drug use has always existed and always will exist.

Originally Posted by JAMINTHEDAM

So it is not as simple as saying its my choice because every choice you make now will have a consequence, its about risk management and if a drug causes too many negative consequences then it should remain illegal to the general public.

The negative consequences you have listed are all a result of prohibition.

Nobody can justify this assertion of authority by one person over another; in fact, I challenge you to do so.

An addiction to a stereotypically "bad" drug such as methamphetamine or heroin should be managed or treated by health-care and medical experts to ensure that the addict is not suffering or in such a state of mind that they may be harming others.

This "risk management" of which you speak is epoused by the state to protect itself, not the people. Allowing people to do as they please, even if it is victimless, is something those in power cannot stand.

[fishyknitboy]

Sorry if this has already been asked but, what defines a "hard" and "soft" drug? Surely this is dependent on all manner of variables and a personal tolerance to a particular substance? Is it addiction potential, potential for serious harm and/or abuse?
Apologies again if this has been asked previously.
Much love to all...xxx

[robertone]

Originally Posted by fishyknitboy

Sorry if this has already been asked but, what defines a "hard" and "soft" drug? Surely this is dependent on all manner of variables and a personal tolerance to a particular substance? Is it addiction potential, potential for serious harm and/or abuse?
Apologies again if this has been asked previously.
Much love to all...xxx

Actually there is no [general aggreed] definition. As far Swim knows the term ''soft-drug(s)'' originated from the Netherlands in 1968 when their drug-law was rewritten. The Dutch health department concluded that hashish and marijunana weren't such a threath to the public health that a legal ban was justified. The problem, however, was, and is, that by international agreement (forced by the U.S. of Amerika) the Dutch government could not legalize hashish and marijuana. As solution they made difference between to sort of drugs; hard and soft. Nowaday the Netherlands have the lowest rate of drug addicts, a fact strongly denied by, ofcourse, the USA and other countries that has hars prosecution on drugs.

robertone added 17 Minutes and 24 Seconds later...

Originally Posted by rhudson

Again we see more prohibtion justified by blatant racism. And this is still true today. Not only do we enforce these rediculous laws which were initially created, essentially, because white people were afraid of "drug-crazed niggers," but we STILL have much harsher pentalies for the possession of crack cocaine (a "black" drug) than powder cocaine, when the physiological effects are identical. This is no different than the Jim Crow laws. It is fascist and flagrantly racist.

Swim is quite agree with rhudson, but do have some remarks on crack cocaine. To Swim's experience crack as a much higher addictive rate and smoking the crack, or free-base, will cause a shorter lasting flash that is different in any perspective then when sniffing it. This shorter lasting together with its high graving potence when under influence, causes the high use of crack cocaine.

Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln

"Prohibition...makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." - Abraham Lincoln, Dec 18, 1840

Swim took this from a signature on this site (didn't check it however).