Illegal Drugs. Should they be illegal ?

[|RK|]

One single member of society is "harming" himself. You keep looking over the fact that Cigarettes and Alcohol are more harmful then most illegal substances and they're legal. What prohibition does is criminalizes an act, making the consumers get their fix another way.

And again it's not the governments job to tell me what I can or can't put in my body. It's my money if I want to pump substances into my body that's my own choice. Only when do I start becoming a burden on society should the government step in.

The dangers of people after any drug is still danger. Also, not all drunks are violent, so your point is moot. Many of these illegal drugs cause harm to the body, moreso than alcohol. They hurt people in the way of your fix, they make you angry, forceful... these effects are just as bad as a violent drunk.

Those gangs would be doing those things regardless, with or without drugs so your point is moot.

Just countering your point about how gangs will shrink, which was totally incorrect. Without their drug market running, they'll expand other, more harmful practices.

 

[Aesir]

The dangers of people after any drug is still danger. Also, not all drunks are violent, so your point is moot. Many of these illegal drugs cause harm to the body, moreso than alcohol. They hurt people in the way of your fix, they make you angry, forceful... these effects are just as bad as a violent drunk.

Again you're wrong and you're putting words into my mouth which is a big no no.

I never said all drunks are violent, I said violent alcohol users are a problem. Think before you post next time.

In a study from 2006 Alcohol was ranked number 5 of one of the most harmful drugs, Tabacco number 9. Whats funny is, there are only two drugs you guys have listed that are deemed more harmful. Heroin and Cocaine.

Just countering your point about how gangs will shrink, which was totally incorrect. Without their drug market running, they'll expand other, more harmful practices.

They'll shrink because gangs could potentially become entrepreneurs, instead of selling the stuff illegally they could sell the stuff legally. They can do this all without being labled as criminals and make an honest living.

If they're doing other practices like you said well guess what? You just bust them for that, you act like if we legalize drugs we have to automatically legalize all illegal practices which is a false assumption.

 

[Miggz]

Well here is my opinion on the issue. Let me start of with this. Imagine you walk past a backyard with a sign stuck in the ground. The sign says "Don't walk on the grass." Now wouldn't you, in some shape or form, be tempted to walk on the grass? Now to my point. A lot of people simply do illegal things because of the "thrill" of being spontaneous and rebellious. In there eyes, doing wrong and not getting caught is a game. This one explanation of how doing illegal drug usage is so high.

Now if you were to legalize these illegal drugs, then the thrill of getting caught by "the man" is non nonexistent. Of course not all people do drugs for the same reasons, but I wouldn't be surprised if more drug users leaned more towards the "not getting caught" mindset. Now obviously legalizing these drugs won't make them anymore safer to use. But at least with the thrill of doing wrong gone, it could change some people's motivation to actually do them.

But at the end of the day, humans will continue to use drugs as along as they are existing.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Wrong, Alcohol has very harmful long term effects on the body, not only that you become a danger to others when you're drunk as well. Anyone who's been to a bar or house party will tell you this. Violent alcohol users are quite possibly the worst people to be around.

The demographic shows 4 illegal drugs being more harmful than alcohol and 8 drugs (including alcohol) being more harmful than tobacco, and you want these dangerous drugs on the market?

This doesn't go against my point though. My point was that all drugs and tobacco should be banned, but we can't ban alcohol and tobacco because too many people use them and the law wouldn't work. My point was not that we should ban all illegal drugs because they are worse. It's just that it won't help society to make them legal.

What are you talking about? When you're caught with an illegal substance you have to serve a sentence. Doesn't matter if you were just in the park smoking a joint an enjoying the sunset. If you're caught with it you're going to court and you're going to serve a sentence.

I didn't say people don't have to serve a sentence when caught with drugs. I think you missed my point. My point was that even though (supposedly) most drug users in jail are non-violent, there are still plenty of users that are violent. And if you make these illegal drugs legal, many of those potentially violent people would be back on the streets in no time.

All you have to do is look at why those people are in jail and you have the demographic.

Like I said, many of the users are either under the radar or just haven't been caught yet. Plus the police can't guarantee what the person has done in their past, so they have to assume they were non-violent unless proven guilty. Because of this, there is obviously going to be a certain margin of error in the data (which, if corrected, would close the gap between the amount of violent and non-violent users).

Then why don't you ban alcohol too? Oh wait we tried that before..

I wasn't in favor of banning alcohol. Like I said, it won't be possible for a long time.

Also your correlation lacks evidence.

For now it does. I'll try to find some stats and get back to you on that.

The thing is that kid shouldn't be in jail for doing drugs, if he's becoming a burden on society he should be given help not punished.

The kid is endangering other people by carrying around the drugs. The kid should know not to do that; it's more than being a burden, it's a danger. I would possibly agree that as a first warning (for the first time the kid is caught) that he/she could be given help instead of being put in jail.

But if they continue to use the drug, they clearly are willing to break laws just so they can have the satisfaction of doing some damaging drug, and then they should be punished.

It's not the states job to tell me whats morally or ethically right.

The kid should know what's morally or ethically right. It's common sense, just like spraying graffiti all over the place isn't right. It's unpleasant and could be dangerous to be around somebody who is intoxicated by drugs.

It's the states job to protect my rights and maintain a stable society. Drug usage doesn't effect that

WHAT? Drug usage doesn't effect whether a a society is stable? There are tons of deaths related to drugs every year, and that apparently doesn't effect whether a society is stable? Drugs are one of the most unstable parts of society.

And speaking of rights, isn't it someone's right to feel safe when walking through the streets? I personally would not feel safe walking down a city street where dangerous drugs are available to anyone, and I think a lot of people could relate to that.

Wrong other countries who have tried legalization notice a decrease in child drug usage. As your assumption is already wrong.

How about adult drug usage? Kids aren't the only ones effected by this. And how about drug related deaths? Is there another chart for this, or are we simply supposed to believe this?

You're thinking that once they're legal they'll do it. Which isn't exactly true, kids do drugs because it's illegal, they're told it's bad so they want to do it more.

Look it underage drinking, I remember when I was 18 I was always saying "WEEE ALCOHOL!" Now that I'm 21 and it's no longer illegal for me and it's actually more acceptable that I drink, it's lost it's edge it's cool status is now gone. So my desire to drink is a lot less.

Possibly, but lots of kids would use the drugs when they got older. Adults aren't going to care much about the "cool" status, because many are no longer surrounded by their peers. A lot of them will try the drugs because they are no longer illegal and therefore they feel its not dangerous and there are little/no consequences.

 

[Aesir]

The demographic shows 4 illegal drugs being more harmful than alcohol and 8 drugs (including alcohol) being more harmful than tobacco, and you want these dangerous drugs on the market?

That really depends, I would rather decriminalize those drugs rather then make them illegal, it depends on what the facts would say about their legalization.

This doesn't go against my point though. My point was that all drugs and tobacco should be banned, but we can't ban alcohol and tobacco because too many people use them and the law wouldn't work. My point was not that we should ban all illegal drugs because they are worse. It's just that it won't help society to make them legal.

History, read it sometime. You encourage crime with prohibition.

I didn't say people don't have to serve a sentence when caught with drugs. I think you missed my point. My point was that even though (supposedly) most drug users in jail are non-violent, there are still plenty of users that are violent. And if you make these illegal drugs legal, many of those potentially violent people would be back on the streets in no time.

Really so if I go and punch someone in the face I can't get arrested for it unless I'm doing drugs? What reality do you live in? If someones violent they're going to jail.

Like I said, many of the users are either under the radar or just haven't been caught yet. Plus the police can't guarantee what the person has done in their past, so they have to assume they were non-violent unless proven guilty. Because of this, there is obviously going to be a certain margin of error in the data (which, if corrected, would close the gap between the amount of violent and non-violent users).

Without evidence it's an invalid point, you're dealing with just the abstraction at this point.

I wasn't in favor of banning alcohol. Like I said, it won't be possible for a long time.

Yes lets repeat history instead of learning from it.

The kid is endangering other people by carrying around the drugs. The kid should know not to do that; it's more than being a burden, it's a danger. I would possibly agree that as a first warning (for the first time the kid is caught) that he/she could be given help instead of being put in jail.

How is he a danger? Elaborate.

But if they continue to use the drug, they clearly are willing to break laws just so they can have the satisfaction of doing some damaging drug, and then they should be punished.

Damaging to them selves not others.

The kid should know what's morally or ethically right. It's common sense, just like spraying graffiti all over the place isn't right. It's unpleasant and could be dangerous to be around somebody who is intoxicated by drugs.

Spraying Graffiti effects a buildings value thus he's damaging property. A kid doing drugs isn't damaging anything but himself. Morals and Ethics are in the eye of the beholder.

WHAT? Drug usage doesn't effect whether a a society is stable? There are tons of deaths related to drugs every year, and that apparently doesn't effect whether a society is stable? Drugs are one of the most unstable parts of society.

The top three killers are Tobacco, Physical inactivity and poor diet, and Alcohol.

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

And speaking of rights, isn't it someone's right to feel safe when walking through the streets? I personally would not feel safe walking down a city street where dangerous drugs are available to anyone, and I think a lot of people could relate to that.

Slippery slope argument. What if I feel unsafe walking down a street where I know a gun shop is located? Should the State close down that gun shop because I feel unsafe? No. Also if drugs were sold legally a lot of the shady dealings would be non-existent because theirs no risk to getting caught.

How about adult drug usage? Kids aren't the only ones effected by this. And how about drug related deaths? Is there another chart for this, or are we simply supposed to believe this?

More people die from prescription drugs then they do from illicit drugs.

Possibly, but lots of kids would use the drugs when they got older. Adults aren't going to care much about the "cool" status, because many are no longer surrounded by their peers. A lot of them will try the drugs because they are no longer illegal and therefore they feel its not dangerous and there are little/no consequences.

It's usually the 12 - 25 year old bracket that are doing drugs.

Kind of blows your argument out of the water.

 

[|RK|]

Again you're wrong and you're putting words into my mouth which is a big no no.

I never said all drunks are violent, I said violent alcohol users are a problem. Think before you post next time.

In a study from 2006 Alcohol was ranked number 5 of one of the most harmful drugs, Tabacco number 9. Whats funny is, there are only two drugs you guys have listed that are deemed more harmful. Heroin and Cocaine.

You constantly use alcohol as an example, as well as the dangers of violent drunks. It is quite irrelevant which drugs we use to counter you points, because all of them will be legal. The debate is whether they should remain illegal or not generally. The most dangerous ones are the ones more apparent. If it were which illegal drugs should STAY banned, and which shouldn't, it would be a different story. All drugs are fair game. You yourself are focusing on the legality of alcohol, but alcohol is fine in small increments. These other illegal drugs don't have much of a limit before you start to kill yourself.

 

[Palpi]

@Aesir. It is the governments job to tell you what you can and cannot putin your body? Why do they test drugs through the FDA before releasing them as prescribptions?

If something is generally harmful or can be harmful, it is the governments job to protect the people of their country. That also brings up, then why are ciggarettes and alcohol legal? Prolly, money, but I dunno it is very silly.

 

[Exce L]

Technology is high enough these days to know the risks on the drugs we put in our body. If the risks are high enough to harm someone else if you take the drug then the drug should be illegal, other than that no. People have the right to do whatever they want to their own body, the government in my opinion should not stop that.

 

[Aesir]

You constantly use alcohol as an example, as well as the dangers of violent drunks. It is quite irrelevant which drugs we use to counter you points, because all of them will be legal. The debate is whether they should remain illegal or not generally. The most dangerous ones are the ones more apparent. If it were which illegal drugs should STAY banned, and which shouldn't, it would be a different story. All drugs are fair game. You yourself are focusing on the legality of alcohol, but alcohol is fine in small increments. These other illegal drugs don't have much of a limit before you start to kill yourself.

No I'm not again you're either not reading or just being dishonest at this point. I bring up whatever substance is valid.

I am arguing for legalizing all drugs because prohibition is getting us no where, it's quite obvious that locking people up with drug addictions isn't solving the problem it's only making matters worse.

I've been debating this the whole time for some reason you guys seem to think that if I bring up certain examples more then once I'm only advocating for those examples.

@Aesir. It is the governments job to tell you what you can and cannot putin your body? Why do they test drugs through the FDA before releasing them as prescribptions?

Look up the difference between recreational drugs and prescription drugs before you post again.

If something is generally harmful or can be harmful, it is the governments job to protect the people of their country. That also brings up, then why are ciggarettes and alcohol legal? Prolly, money, but I dunno it is very silly.

They're legal because our country was founded on the idea of positive freedom. The Freedom to do whatever the hell you want, just so long as it doens't infringe on the rights of others.

So no you're wrong, it isn't the Governments job to tell me what I can't put in my body. It can suggest I don't do something and if I become a burden take matters into it's own hands.

 

[Palpi]

No I'm not again you're either not reading or just being dishonest at this point. I bring up whatever substance is valid.

I am arguing for legalizing all drugs because prohibition is getting us no where, it's quite obvious that locking people up with drug addictions isn't solving the problem it's only making matters worse.

I've been debating this the whole time for some reason you guys seem to think that if I bring up certain examples more then once I'm only advocating for those examples.


Look up the difference between recreational drugs and prescription drugs before you post again.



They're legal because our country was founded on the idea of positive freedom. The Freedom to do whatever the hell you want, just so long as it doens't infringe on the rights of others.

So no you're wrong, it isn't the Governments job to tell me what I can't put in my body. It can suggest I don't do something and if I become a burden take matters into it's own hands.

It almost seems like you think this is anarchy. If something has the potential to harm yourself and somebody else, they have the right to say that it is illegal recreational or prescription, though it stops nothing. Nothing would change is weed was legal, or any other drug.

I obviously know the difference between recreational and prescription drugs. It is called an example, not for drugs but for the government actions.

 

[Aesir]

It almost seems like you think this is anarchy.

Learn what Anarchy is first, if I believe the state should interfere when someone becomes a burden on society then I don't believe in Anarchy, as there would be no government to enforce my regulatory decisions.

If something has the potential to harm yourself and somebody else, they have the right to say that it is illegal recreational or prescription, though it stops nothing. Nothing would change is weed was legal, or any other drug.

If I'm in my house doing drugs who else is this harming? No one it's my own body. Also things would change, a rather important thing would change. We wouldn't be spending millions of dollars on a failing drug war, furthermore prisons would empty of non-violent drug offenders. Instead of incarcerating addicts we should be treating them.

I obviously know the difference between recreational and prescription drugs. It is called an example, not for drugs but for the government actions.

It was a bad example that's why I called you out.

 

[KrazyGlue]

History, read it sometime. You encourage crime with prohibition.

I specifically said I wasn't in favor of prohibition.

Really so if I go and punch someone in the face I can't get arrested for it unless I'm doing drugs? What reality do you live in? If someones violent they're going to jail.

What? This has nothing to do with anything I said. Where the heck did you get this from?

Without evidence it's an invalid point, you're dealing with just the abstraction at this point.

My first point was pretty much common knowledge.

My second point (about the margin of error) is based off of fact. The police have to assume someone is nonviolent unless proven guilty. So clearly they will miss some people.

Yes lets repeat history instead of learning from it.

Again, you are arguing the same thing as my point; I don't know what you are trying to accomplish by using sarcasm. You could just say "I agree"

How is he a danger? Elaborate.


Damaging to them selves not others.


Spraying Graffiti effects a buildings value thus he's damaging property. A kid doing drugs isn't damaging anything but himself.

If he is intoxicated he is susceptible to doing things he wouldn't normally do, including DUI. And for smoking drugs, such as pot, there's second hand smoke that is almost as bad as doing the actual drug. While the kid will not necessarily do any of these things (although he might), there are many people who will and therefore they have the potential to be dangerous.

The top three killers are Tobacco, Physical inactivity and poor diet, and Alcohol.

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

Ok.... this has nothing to do with the point you quoted. Drugs make society unstable; I don't even know how you could begin to argue against that. And these stats are old anyway.

Slippery slope argument. What if I feel unsafe walking down a street where I know a gun shop is located? Should the State close down that gun shop because I feel unsafe? No.

Good point.

Also if drugs were sold legally a lot of the shady dealings would be non-existent because theirs no risk to getting caught.

Yes, and they would be replaced by intoxicated, brain damaged people who will often do anything to get more of the drug they're hooked on.

More people die from prescription drugs then they do from illicit drugs.

Like last time, you didn't back up your point with evidence.

And even if your point is true, that doesn't compare death rates from before the legalizing of the drugs and after.

It's usually the 12 - 25 year old bracket that are doing drugs.

Kind of blows your argument out of the water.

Not really. That still leaves hundreds of thousand or millions of users above 25 that use drugs. And plus, adults age 25 are out of college, so your data doesn't really fit anyway. Not only that, 37%* of people don't go straight to college anyway, so that means some 18-22 year olds on the street as well. And then there are the people that drop out of high school. So this is a pretty large group of people we are looking at here that don't do drugs just to be "cool".

*http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2002-06-05-education-census.htm
____________________________

EDIT: Ok, all of this debate has stemmed off of one main thing, which I never felt was really never answered. Whether or not this unbanning of drugs would cause a lot of deaths or only a little, I still fail to see what the benefit of legalizing the drugs would be, and how it could possibly outweigh the consequences. The only argument that I've seen related to why we should legalize the drugs is that it is within someone's rights.

In that case, I would say it isn't within someone's rights because other people can be endangered by second hand smoke and by the user of the drug because they will be intoxicated and probably brain damaged. So they are doing damage to others. In addition, many of these drugs, such as roofies, are used almost exclusively to harm others.

I know the argument will come up that we should ban alcohol and tobacco as well for the same reasons, which , yes, would be a good thing if possible. But we can all agree that banning these will not work, so therefore this argument is moot.

We should try to keep the illegal drugs illegal because we're trying to prevent as much damage to the people as possible, without the people (as a whole) becoming angry. The best way to do this is to keep these drugs banned, and only allow alcohol and tobacco since there is no safe way to get rid of them.

 

[Palpi]

I will take your advice KrazyGlue and say "I agree" to your last finishing statement.

 

[|RK|]

Actually, you've mentioned Alcohol and Tobacco more than any other legal substances and were the only substances that were legal you brought up in the chart, so you do consistently use them as an example. I would like you to reread your previous posts.

 

[Palpi]

The government shouldn't have to wait for someone to become a "Burden on society" to intervene. It is illegal because it is potentially harmful, whether you specifically will ever harm someone or not. It is the governments job to protect us, that is why all illegal drugs need to stay illegal.

 

[w!zard]

The government shouldn't have to wait for someone to become a "Burden on society" to intervene. It is illegal because it is potentially harmful, whether you specifically will ever harm someone or not. It is the governments job to protect us, that is why all illegal drugs need to stay illegal.

alcohol is much more potentially harmful than many illegal drugs, especially weed. do you think alcohol and tobacco should be illegal?

the government's job is to protect us from other people. it shouldn't be to protect us from ourselves. that is just abusing their power

 

[|RK|]

The only two drugs you give us as more dangerous than illegal drugs are Alcohol and Tobacco. The thing is that with them, the danger is within excess intake of the substance/drink. The chart shows potential danger. In this sense, alcohol and tobacco can be curbed to a healthier amount. Illegal substances, such as crack, weed, marijuana and the like can begin causing trouble at the slightest whiff. As for tobacco, the substances that contain it (cigarettes, etc.) are being limited more and more due to high risk.

 

[w!zard]

ANY drug can be curbed to a "healthier amount." weed (which btw is the same thing as marijuana) is drastically weaker than alcohol anyways. many drugs can be dangerous to other people when used recreationally, but there are currently illegal drugs that are only harmful to the user. those should be legalized.

take what you learned in school about the dangers of drugs with a grain of those giant salts they use on margaritas. they exaggerate.

 

[|RK|]

Why? So that we can kill more of our population? It is not an abuse of power. The government even has the right to curb religious practices if they cause ANY harm. Why do you think people caught in attempted suicide are given counseling? We don't want people to kill themselves. What they think is pain may be happiness about to emerge. We want them to see that. Crack Cocaine can start killing you with a single whiff. Cigarettes can be quit after a minor amount. However, drugs that boost your happiness? After that, the world seems like hell and you need them to survive. Not all drugs can be reduced to a safer amount. Well, not as safe an amount as alcohol.

(My, I must brush up on my alternate terms. Thanks for pointing that out.)

 

[w!zard]

The government doesn't WANT people to kill themselves, but they should not have the power to prevent someone from hurting only himself. that's why suicide isn't illegal, nor is cutting yourself. the discussion should be centered only around the safety of those around the drug user.

i can think of two illegal drugs off the top of my head that are safer than alcohol under that premise: weed and ecstasy

 

[|RK|]

How WOULD suicide be illegal, honestly? Technically speaking, however, suicide can be SEEN as illegal. Assisted suicide gets the person assisting arrested, unless they happen to be a licensed doctor and with the proper reasons. Assistance in a crime gets you arrested, no? The government should have the power to prevent people from killing themselves. They may not see the sunshine through the rainstorm.

Drugs like weed and ecstasy can be potentially more dangerous though. For example, I mostly hear about ecstasy in **** cases. Also, the possession of these drugs could harm another person. I mean, there are so much people you hear about on the news giving their children/young relatives illegal drugs. The children barely have any will. The things that smoking weed can do to the people around you, the things that these drugs could be used for... things such as alcohol and tobacco are a different story, considering that their intake is far safer, under certain limitations.

Another thing, ecstasy can quickly cause unconsciousness, whereas with alcohol, you know that you're drunk and can prevent ****/non-consented sex FAR easier than when you are completely immobile.

 

[rhan]

Technology is high enough these days to know the risks on the drugs we put in our body. If the risks are high enough to harm someone else if you take the drug then the drug should be illegal, other than that no. People have the right to do whatever they want to their own body, the government in my opinion should not stop that.

This is basically what I was gonna say until I read the thread.

Illegal drugs shouldn't be illegal to an extent. People have the right to do whatever with their body. But what they do after the consumption is unacceptable if it harms others. There should be strict laws to where they use and what they can't do while under the influence. Of course this post contridics itself because people who take these sorts of drugs won't remember the laws and will probably ignore them and do what they want.

Either way people will do what they want and put themselves and others at risk. Welcome to the human race.

 

[w!zard]

How WOULD suicide be illegal, honestly? Technically speaking, however, suicide can be SEEN as illegal. Assisted suicide gets the person assisting arrested, unless they happen to be a licensed doctor and with the proper reasons. Assistance in a crime gets you arrested, no? The government should have the power to prevent people from killing themselves. They may not see the sunshine through the rainstorm.

it's illegal because it's difficult to show that the person wanted the other person to help.

you haven't addressed the part about cutting/punching yourself though

Drugs like weed and ecstasy can be potentially more dangerous though. For example, I mostly hear about ecstasy in **** cases. Also, the possession of these drugs could harm another person. I mean, there are so much people you hear about on the news giving their children/young relatives illegal drugs. The children barely have any will. The things that smoking weed can do to the people around you, the things that these drugs could be used for... things such as alcohol and tobacco are a different story, considering that their intake is far safer, under certain limitations.

you have a very limited and biased knowledge about illegal drugs. weed is far less dangerous than alcohol even to the user; and ecstasy can be dangerous to the user if not used carefully, but it rarely has a negative effect on others. the guys who **** while doing it are messed up to start with.

the rest of the quote about the children is off-topic

Another thing, ecstasy can quickly cause unconsciousness, whereas with alcohol, you know that you're drunk and can prevent ****/non-consented sex FAR easier than when you are completely immobile.

more misinformation about ecstasy

 

[|RK|]

Okay, fine. Maybe illegal drugs shouldn't be illegal for their harm to a person (although I highly support it) but for their harm to other people. As you said, "Welcome to the human race." Do we REALLY trust people to NOT do evil with these drugs? I believe that they should remain illegal for that problem alone. As stated, there are already legal drugs just as if not more dangerous, and most things these days can kill you. We don't need more things we can't trust our people with. As it is now, shifting the balance, whether it be banning guns or unbanning illegal drugs, they will cause a major shift for the worse. Illegal drugs should STAY illegal.

 

[|RK|]

Cutting and punching yourself isn't nearly as drastic as inducing death.

Smoking anything is dangerous due to second-hand smoke. I mentioned weed due to the topic. As well as weed's greater effects than tobacco. The quote about the children is not off-topic, as it is what people do with the drugs. The topic is should illegal drugs be illegal. Not necessarily based on what it does to the user alone. As such, I was talking about the guys who trick girls into drinking the ecstasy.

Well, school videos aren't as informative as I thought, so I'll use this instead:

MDMA can also be dangerous to overall health and, on rare occasions, lethal. MDMA can have many of the same physical effects as other stimulants such as cocaine and amphetamines. These include increases in heart rate and blood pressure, which present risks of particular concern for people with circulatory problems or heart disease; and other symptoms such as muscle tension, involuntary teeth clenching, nausea, blurred vision, faintness, and chills or sweating.

In high doses, MDMA can interfere with the body’s ability to regulate temperature. On rare but unpredictable occasions, this can lead to a sharp increase in body temperature (hyperthermia), which can result in liver, kidney, and cardiovascular system failure, and death. MDMA can interfere with its own metabolism (breakdown within the body); therefore, potentially harmful levels can be reached by repeated MDMA administration within short periods of time.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/InfoFacts/ecstasy.html

That's why it's more dangerous than alcohol. That is, in tricking someone to drink it. Alcohol, you get a hangover, and maybe your body is screwed up. But the symptoms of ecstasy?

 

[w!zard]

it seems as if you've run out of real reasons to believe in what you're defending . the statement "illegal drugs should stay illegal" isn't a very persuasive statement anyways. just because something is illegal doesn't mean there is a very good reason for it to be.

almost any legal substance can be used illegally in some way. should sleeping pills be banned because they can be slipped into someone's drink? if not, why should xtc be banned for it?

 

[|RK|]

I've already stated my reasons. My reasons being that we don't need more people dead. I mean, if my education about these drugs in school is bad, how many people are gonna go out and research? The malevolent human spirit already twists things. Why give it more material?

 

[w!zard]

then why not ban rock-climbing or daredeveling?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Ok, all of this debate has stemmed off of one main thing, which I never felt was really never answered. Whether or not this unbanning of drugs would cause a lot of deaths or only a little, I still fail to see what the benefit of legalizing the drugs would be, and how it could possibly outweigh the consequences. The only argument that I've seen related to why we should legalize the drugs is that it is within someone's rights.

In that case, I would say it isn't within someone's rights because other people can be endangered by second hand smoke and by the user of the drug because they will be intoxicated and probably brain damaged. So they are doing damage to others. In addition, many of these drugs, such as roofies, are used almost exclusively to harm others.

I know the argument will come up that we should ban alcohol and tobacco as well for the same reasons, which , yes, would be a good thing if possible. But we can all agree that banning these will not work, so therefore this argument is moot.

We should try to keep the illegal drugs illegal because we're trying to prevent as much damage to the people as possible, without the people (as a whole) becoming angry. The best way to do this is to keep these drugs banned, and only allow alcohol and tobacco since there is no safe way to get rid of them.

W!zard, I was just wondering what your response is to this argument I posted. You've mentioned a lot of things that Aesir already brought up; you're merely repeating them. You should probably go back and read some of the earlier posts.

A sum up of my opinion:

1. First of all, there are some illegal substances that are more harmful than alcohol and tobacco

2. Illegal drugs should be banned because they are dangerous not only to the user, but also to those around them. Why? Second hand smoke, DUI, intoxication/addiction leading to bad decisions, etc.

3. Marijuana is not the only illegal drug we're discussing here. Look at the marijuana thread if you want to discuss that alone.

4. Yes, alcohol and tobacco are very harmful, but we obviously can't ban them. Just like the prohibition amendment, the law would fail. Too many people use them for there to be a law against it. However, since illegal drugs have been illegal for a long time, people aren't angry about them and we should prevent as much damage as possible.

 

[w!zard]

you're trying to look at more practicality than ideality. i'm arguing that according to the ideals this country was founded on, there are currently drugs that are illegal that shouldn't be. but if your position is to increase overall happiness, you would need to consider other aspects of legalizing drugs such as economics, its effect on gangs, etc.

 

[KrazyGlue]

you're trying to look at more practicality than ideality. i'm arguing that according to the ideals this country was founded on, there are currently drugs that are illegal that shouldn't be. but if your position is to increase overall happiness, you would need to consider other aspects of legalizing drugs such as economics, its effect on gangs, etc.

I'm not focusing on happiness; it's just that there's no realistic way to successfully ban alcohol and tobacco. I'm mainly arguing that there's no reason to legalize illegal drugs.

 

[w!zard]

that's not how our system of justice works. things have to have a good reason to be banned. and everything is allowed until it's banned, not the other way around.

 

[KrazyGlue]

that's not how our system of justice works. things have to have a good reason to be banned. and everything is allowed until it's banned, not the other way around.

I stated why I think they should be banned, so how about you say why you think it shouldn't be?

That's generally how debate works...

 

[w!zard]

i already mentioned that we're under different premises. until you disagree with my statement that according to the ideals the country was founded on, some illegal drugs should be legalized, i don't see how we can have a debate.

 

[KrazyGlue]

i already mentioned that we're under different premises. until you disagree with my statement that according to the ideals the country was founded on, some illegal drugs should be legalized, i don't see how we can have a debate.

I did disagree with your statement. Your statement was that there has to be a good reason to keep the drugs banned.

I gave these reasons:

"In that case, I would say it isn't within someone's rights (to use these drugs) because other people can be endangered by second hand smoke and by the user of the drug because they will be intoxicated and probably brain damaged. So they are doing damage to others. In addition, many of these drugs, such as roofies, are used almost exclusively to harm others."

Basically, they're dangerous to others. And that's the reason that warrants a ban.

 

[w!zard]

when you talk about the harm of drugs, you have to be reasonable. not every potential harm should be considered, or nothing would be legal.

second hand smoke shouldn't be a problem since there are regulations for that. drugs that do not significantly negatively affect judgment should be allowed too. going by this criteria, at least tobacco, weed, alcohol, and xtc should be legal.

also if you think alcohol should be legal, then anything less dangerous that that should be too.

 

[|RK|]

Don't ban rock-climbing and such, because, as I stated, don't give people more things to kill themselves with, they already have enough. Illegal drugs are already illegal. You can't ban them at this point.

 

[w!zard]

i have no idea what you're saying

 

[Prince Of Fire]

I put this as blunt and as quick as I possibly can.

One of my best friends that I grew up with died of a Heroin OD and my brother was a Heroin user as well. It simply does not matter if it is made legal, or not. The fact of the matter is is that it is unhealthy for your body, it changes the way you think and act, and it tears families apart.

I'm currently 21 years old and my brother is now 26 years old and is living at home. He was living in San Antonio, Texas with his girlfriend and they were pretty close to tieing the knot I think. I knew for a while that my brother smoked pot and was into that but I never suspected him to ever make that leap to injecting himself with needles. To this day the thought that he did that makes me cringe. He used to call the rest of my family and I up each and every month to ask us for money so that him and Hollie (his ex GF) could pay for the visits to the vet that they made with their dog. In reality though, he was using our money and lied to his own brother so he could shoot up.

To wrap this up her parents found the needles and my brother was stripped of everything. He left San Antonio with a single suitcase and was forced by his ex GF's family to leave immediately and to never show his face again. They blamed my brother for influencing her into doing it....but in fact, she was a recovering addict already so that's pretty much a crock of BS.

But back to the topic at hand: It doesn't matter if it is legalized or not because either way, it will negatively affect our society. We might as well start handing out semi-automatics to random people too because all people should be allowed to protect themselves, right?

 

[|RK|]

i have no idea what you're saying

We don't need to unban illegal drugs. We already have too much ways to kill ourselves and each other.