Legalization of drugs

[Temper Tantrum]

1) Nicottine and Alchohol are socially acceptable drugs, and arguably more damaging when abused then many illict narcotics. In one interview a USA Today Journalist asked one of the 'War on drug' politicians if alchohol was invented today would it be legalized? The answer was absolutely not.

2) Most of modern society does not really consider marijuana to be a drug anymore. Many countries have or will be soon decriminalizing it or legalizing it for medical purposes.

3) If the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms guarantees one the right to life shouldn't that guarantee the right what to DO with ones life? Of course I've always understood preventing minors from having access to narcotics, but if your an adult, shouldn't you have the right to do with you body what you wish?

4) Would legalizing narcotics lead to a huge increase in their abuse? Or a decline? Obviously if it became government sanctioned the purity would increase

do YOU think that drugs should be legalized? why or why not? What would be the effects upon society? All drugs or only some?

Just throwing some thoughts out there..

~allie~

 

[Vidman]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Temper Tantrum:
2) Most of modern society does not really consider marijuana to be a drug</font>

By "drug" you mean "really bad"?

 

[deep]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Temper Tantrum:
Just throwing some thoughts out there..

</font>

read : paper due in a few days

j/k

 

[Temper Tantrum]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Vidman:
By "drug" you mean "really bad"?</font>

No, I mean that I'm constantly hearing comments from friends that they "don't do drugs" yet they smoke pot "which doesnt' count"

People don't consider it in the same category as say shrooms of MDMA of cocaine or what have you

~allie~

 

[Subsonic Chronic]

The way I see it, pot is a gateway drug because it is illegal.

In school, when they're teaching us the 5 do's and 1000 do-not-do's of life, all illicit drugs are lumped into the same category.

Alcohol... it's fine. Cigarettes... it's not encouraged but still acceptable.

Marijuana however... hold on son. That's the road to a life of crime and addiction they tell you. Just like Heroin, that stuff'll suck you in and spit you out.
So a kid tries pot, realises that it's not so bad, and realises that he's been lied to by the system. If he's being lied to about pot, who's to say mushrooms so bad? Then comes acid, e, and soon other drugs that are legitamitely dangerous and legitamitely addictive.

The law, and the education system, does not differentiate between soft drugs and hard drugs, despite the very real differences in danger that they pose to kids. So in turn... the kids do not differentiate either.

I definitely believe that drugs should be decriminalized. If for one reason more than anything else, simply because we should be able to whatever we want to our own bodies.

This includes suicide, drugs, and even jumping off a cliff with a parachute on. If you're not hurting anyone else, if you're not infringing on anyone else's rights and liberties, then it should not be illegal.

Pete

 

[seeker]

an interesting point made on another site -- bluelight -- was that most 'kids' aren't following what has been traditionally accepted as 'drug gateways' anymore. given the prevalence of marijuana and ecstasy in today's urban society, kids may have tried smoking pot, and then moved to E, or perhaps just went directly to E.

This is interesting, because part of the notion of this historical 'chain' of drug use is that as you move up the chain, the highs get higher, and the addiction factor higher as well. but with this new phenomena, people are moving what is considered by many "the highest high" and not trying many other drugs.

it's generally accepted that too much of anything is not good for you, especially E, but it's also been shown that E is not physically addicting. so what does this mean for the future? are we going to have a society in 20 years that's filled with legal recreational drugs?

that certainly is a romantic notion -- for those of us who use drugs, anyway

-- but i'm not certain that it's accurate, either. it seems that every generation since drug prohibition has had it's flirtations with drugs -- heroin and pot in the 40's, 'bennies' and pot in the 50's, acid, pot and speed in the 60's, etc etc -- but we're still languishing in a prohibitionist society.

it wouldn't surprise me to find out that most of us grow up with traditional 'parental' notions and keep fairly strong drug laws. here's hoping we won't!

 

[subuser]

I think that drugs should be legalized, but if it is sanctioned by the government - they would have to do it properly. You couldn't sell drugs in stores like you sell liquor. It would have to be sold dirt cheap - and by a doctor of some sort. Crack should be sold for $2.00 a gram. Heroin for less. Take the monetary value out of narcotics, and people might start viewing drugs as dirty. An addict is not going to think that the gram of coke he paid $60 for is "dirty" because it's worth $60. Make that same gram cost $.50 for a gram, and have a doctor sell it to you in a bottle that clearly states how deadly the substance is, and the addict will feel so shitty about doing the drugs that he/she will eventually stop out of pure shame. The more that drugs are outlawed, the more the money blackmarket dealers will make, and with more and more busts, this will increase scarcity, wich will in turn actually increase the price of drugs, which will increase it's value to the addict. Holy ramble on sentence.
Does anyone know what I'm tryig to say?
Makes drugs cheap! Nobody wants anything that is cheap, otherwise we wouldn't need heroin, we could just huff glue all the time.

 

[Guest]

addicts = burden to healthcare
leagalizing narcotics = more addicts
more addicts = more money needed for healthcare
more money needed for healthcare = higher taxes
higher taxes = a lot of pissed off people

sure you could say that if it was decriminalized the government would not be financially responsible for your care when you fuck your body up, but that's not exactly fair. Their are enough people who say that addiction is a disability. If it is, then it sure as hell aint fair for someone with one disability to be treated while someone with a different disability is denied treatment.

did that make sense? I haven't slept yet so I can't really tell... ah well...

 

[subuser]

I'm late for work!!!
I'll have to carry this conversation on later.
PEACE!

 

[Subsonic Chronic]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by subuser:
The more that drugs are outlawed, the more the money blackmarket dealers will make, and with more and more busts, this will increase scarcity, wich will in turn actually increase the price of drugs, which will increase it's value to the addict. Holy ramble on sentence.
Does anyone know what I'm tryig to say?</font>

I do (I think). As it stands right now, the money made from the sale of illegal drugs is subsidizing organized crime. Money from coccaine is used to buy weapons for militias in Central and South America. The cash from drugs in Montreal is used to fund illegal biker gangs.

If drugs are decriminalized, then there's no money going to organized crime.

Pete

 

[roo]

i wish i had cancer so i could get free pot every day.

 

[Quirkz]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ~dazed~:
addicts = burden to healthcare
leagalizing narcotics = more addicts
more addicts = more money needed for healthcare
more money needed for healthcare = higher taxes
higher taxes = a lot of pissed off people

sure you could say that if it was decriminalized the government would not be financially responsible for your care when you fuck your body up, but that's not exactly fair. Their are enough people who say that addiction is a disability. If it is, then it sure as hell aint fair for someone with one disability to be treated while someone with a different disability is denied treatment.

did that make sense? I haven't slept yet so I can't really tell... ah well...</font>

Lesee.. Cost of lawyers, judge, rcmp, prision system (which includes health care and education costs for an inmate), parole officers, halfways houses.

Yea, I can definately see how keeping drugs illegal is saving us money. Especially scince it's only addictive drugs that are illegal.

 

[Cannabus]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by roo:
i wish i had cancer so i could get free pot every day.</font>

joke? i hope so..dude that's so harsh..

 

[Guest]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Quirkz:

Lesee.. Cost of lawyers, judge, rcmp, prision system (which includes health care and education costs for an inmate), parole officers, halfways houses.

Yea, I can definately see how keeping drugs illegal is saving us money. Especially scince it's only addictive drugs that are illegal.</font>

good point, I didn't even think of that.
now to bed I go.

 

[Subsonic Chronic]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Quirkz:

Lesee.. Cost of lawyers, judge, rcmp, prision system (which includes health care and education costs for an inmate), parole officers, halfways houses.
</font>

Good point. It costs hundreds of dollars per person per day to keep people in jail.

All those Sega Dreamcasts start to add up.

Pete

 

[Guest]

maybe if there was a way that the government was able to tax the drugs like they do alcohol and tabacoo, and enforce some regulations regarding age restricions, etc... they might be abke to legalize them with out it completely fucking up society.

taxing them would pay for treatment of addicts or long time users that have fucked their bodies.
money would be saved as a result of drug users not be prosecuted or imprisoned.

but then again decriminalization could lead to a huge increase in crime. Is it possible that tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people would become addicted, spend all their money on drugs, and when they run out resort to crime to pay for their habits?

it's definately a decision I wouldn't want to have to make.

 

[InFa]

I'm sure this thread will busy all day. I think we need to look at the reasons why we 'do' drugs in the first place. I'm not trying to hijack the thread but there is something to be said for battling the problem at the source. And by the source I don't mean the supplier or the grower. I mean us, the user. Why do we need drugs?

Just to stay on topic I would have to say no, I don't think that it should be legalized. I think that the lack of real education, propaganda and flat out greed would lead to a very dangerous situation. I also think that subuser makes a great point. Drugs do have an image attached to them and by taking away or changing that image people will not imitate others as much.

the more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[Quirkz]

They do tax the drug trade in the states, it's called "appropriation". If you are a senile 80 year old woman whose cracked out son sells rocks out of your house, then you loose your house, and it is up to you to prove that you did nothing wrong.

It is the only system that could support the farce of US narcotics enforcement.

Any system that lets cops drive the luxury cars they seize from criminals is going to have serious problems.

 

[Quirkz]

whoops, I mean "forfeiture" (sp).. Coffee not in effect yet..

 

[Guest]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ~dazed~:
maybe if there was a way that the government was able to tax the drugs like they do alcohol and tabacoo, </font>

 

[PosTMOd]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ~dazed~:
addicts = burden to healthcare
leagalizing narcotics = more addicts
more addicts = more money needed for healthcare
more money needed for healthcare = higher taxes
higher taxes = a lot of pissed off people
</font>

In the Netherlands, where drugs are effectively decriminalized, heroin addiction rates are 1/10 of those here... half the number of teens have tried marijauna...

Decriminalization is probably the best answer. Full out legalization would lead to a "thinning of the herd", but that's not very ethical now, is it?

 

[Rosey]

we are adults. as adults we should be free to put whatever we choose into our bodies. if the government feels that a substance which we ingest may lead to an eventual healthcare cost to 'the system' then that substance should be taxed accordingly.

drug 'education' as it stands right now is a total pack of bullshit, as soon as kids start to figure that out they start to dabble.

 

[tea_green]

i don't think it's any coincidence that the countries with the most oppressive drug laws have the highest crime rates and largest populations of addicts. The prison population in the United States reached 2 million in 2000 and the cost of keeping a healthy adult in prison for one year exceeds $20,000 US. (The average per capita income in the US is only $28,546)

the whole fallacy of the "drug war" concept is the supposition that governmental laws could ever 'defeat' natural human curiosity - it's never going to happen, people are always going to be interested in manipulating consciousness and awareness, man has been experimenting with mind-altering substances and rituals since time in memoriam.
Keeping people in the dark about drugs only adds to their mystique and actually heightens their attractiveness to many sectors of society.
When drugs are illegal the government loses the ability to control quality. Black market drugs are not difficult to find, but the consumer, and even the manufacturer (as he does not require any certification whatsoever), really have no way to be certain about the potency or purity of the final product.
Remember what happened during prohibition days - this was a relatively short period of time, but immediately a thriving and undefeatable underground arose. Millions more had to be spent on law enforcement to battle a newly created black market. Gangs obtained power and made cities less safe. People drank unprofesionally-produced 'bootleg' liquor which was dangerous and even potentially poisonous. But they did not stop drinking.

Drug laws are useless.
This is not to say that everyone should be experimenting with drugs. Certainly children should not be trying out acid or speed. But then again children shouldn't be driving cars or running for office. Just because something is not for children doesn't justify taking it away from adults!

 

[redeyes]

my future goal in life is to be High Times Freedom Fighter of Month.

i love weed and weed loves me.

peace

 

[Ditto Much]

1) Nicotine and Alcohol are socially acceptable drugs,

Yes and the US tried unsuccessfully to ban alcohol. In fact there are still dry communities (no alcohol sales) and inner state transportation laws. Simply put many government would love to outright ban them but they can't. You can't just walk into a canadian convience store and buy a 40oz of Vodka (anywhere).

2) Most of modern society does not really consider marijuana to be a drug anymore.

I don't know if its so much considered not a drug as its seen as being so mild that enforcement is pointless. Most countries will tolerate it being smoked but none are publicly willing to allow its cultivation. It might not be an enforced crime to smoke it, but growing and selling is still considered a big no no. Prostitution is also illegal but has become so impossible to enforce that only the street level is even remotely looked at and its considered to be a community protection issue.

3) If the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms guarantees one the right to life shouldn't that guarantee the right what to DO with ones life? Of course I've always understood preventing minors from having access to narcotics, but if your an adult, shouldn't you have the right to do with you body what you wish?

Hey we don't even have the right to end our own lives. Suicide is a crime and euthanasia is illegal in the west with the exception of the Netherlands. Society has to also deem at a certain point that certain behaviors are not at the discretion of the individual. Besides you really do have the freedom to do drugs in your own home. You don't have the freedom to interrupt your neighbors. But the police aren't going to go kicking in your doors because your shooting smack. Rob a grocery store and they'll kick in your door for that. Have loud parties and people stopping by at all hours of the day and night and they'll kick in your doors for that. But realistically if you can buy your drugs in your home and do them in your home your privacy does protect you.

Did the opening of casinos reduce or increase the frequency of gamboling addiction? Does easier access mean an increase in dependence. Its been proven in most cases it doesn't. Driving the drug culture underground has also proven to be somewhat disastrous. The government tries to insure that even tested pharmaceutical narcotics do not enter society uncontrolled. This is common sense they know of the addictive qualities of these substances. What sense would it make to allow drugs with far less control and in many cases stronger abuse factors to enter society.

Amsterdam is probably the most disgusting city in western Europe. Its a tourist trap that the Dutch in many cases find disgusting. Both Sweden and Switzerland have tried taking liberal approaches with heroin. Both have stopped and returned to enforcing their previous laws as they found that they're countries became "tourist" havens for some of the most damaging tourists available. Additionally in the case of the Swiss they experienced an actual increase in addictions.

I'm not saying that a joint should be a chargeable offence. But if someone is selling it to a 14 year old they really should be considered a criminal. Think how many 16 year olds seriously fucked up there lives with crystal meth. The people who sold them these caps of jib are criminals, not just because of the law but they really are underhanded and dirty. Age restrictions on alcohol have proven equally useless in decreasing teenage drinking, using the same restrictions to prevent kids from getting drugs (if legalized) can't be expected to be any more effective.

Promoting safe sex hasn't had even a marginal effect on teenage pregnancy rates over the last two decades. Enforcing smoking laws and encouraging get tough against smoking on school property now has society smoking less then in the last 3 decades.