Legalisation of hardcore drugs.

[Dre89]

In this thread, I am arguing that is wrong to have illegalised drugs. I'm arguing this on the grounds that such illegalisation deprvies drug uses of a right to freedom, a right which isn't harming anyone else against their own will.

That being said, is it right to keep drugs illegal?

 

[Deleted member]

Things like crystal meth are illegal to protect people from using it. why? because these drugs are so addictive and destructive that they destroy lives.

A lot of drugs should be legalized though, since they are a lot less harmless.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

In this thread, I am arguing that is wrong to have illegalised drugs.

So you want the population dead.

a right to freedom,

So murdering a person is anti-freedom?

A right which isn't harming anyone else against their own will.

They try it once, then they're adddicted against their will.

Ever heard the saying "First one's free, then they're hooked for life"?

 

[Dre89]

They're addicted against their will, but they take the drug through their will.

But who are you to take away that right from them? They're not harming anyone else.

 

[Deleted member]

But who are you to take away that right from them? They're not harming anyone else.

actually they very often do. stealing to get money for drugs to name one.

 

[Reaver197]

I advocate the legalization of drugs, not due to notion of any rights or freedoms, but because keeping drugs illegal has demonstrably led to exacerbation of issues with drugs, while also empowering and funding other illegal activities or groups. Plus, it's a huge money drain and is causing overcrowding issues in America's prisons. Breaking an addiction to drugs that have been declared illegal is also much harder to do since you, essentially, can't ever admit to anyone that you're even taking the drug in the first place.

Portugal is a fine example of the benefits of legalizing drug use. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8129545.stm

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

The legalization of drugs would give a county a terrible "face".

Would you want to go on vacation were marijuana is legal?

 

[Reaver197]

Your statement and question do not follow. What are you trying to say and ask?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Sorry, typo.

Fixed it.

 

[Crimson King]

The legalization of drugs would give a county a terrible "face".

Would you want to go on vacation were marijuana is legal?

Yeah! Amsterdam has no tourist revenue at all!

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Yeah! Amsterdam has no tourist revenue at all!

Any place in Europe will get tourists.

What about opium?

 

[Reaver197]

That's not even an argument, especially when you deal with the facts that a country actually becomes safer with drug legalization.

Clearly, Portugal and Denmark aren't suffering too bad because of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings

I fail to see how personal feelings about "where in the world would I want to vacation" has any serious impact or leverage in this discussion.

 

[Crimson King]

Opium is used today in medicines like oxycodone (deriative of opium) and hydrocodone (same). Opium abuse is far rarer than a few centuries ago, and heroin addicts (also a deriative) are basically incapable of a violent crime.

Shooting the question at you: why wouldn't you vacation in country where weed is legal? The drug killed less ever than tobacco and alcohol did this year alone.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

And here comes my horrible argument:

How would you feel if drugs that could take over & ruin your life are legal?

why wouldn't you vacation in country where weed is legal?

That's different. Dre was talking about any & all drugs being legal.

 

[Crimson King]

The legalization of drugs would give a county a terrible "face".

Would you want to go on vacation were marijuana is legal?

You specifically said marijuana.

I wouldn't care because I don't do drugs to answer your newer question.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

You specifically said marijuana.

I was using marijuana as an example.

 

[Crimson King]

Exactly, which is why the last sentence of your post before mine was completely nullified.

I wouldn't care because there are far worse things that are legal, like gambling, alcohol, tobacco, fast food, and high fructose corn syrup.

Drugs are a personal decision; they are not something forced on you.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I agree that drugs should be made legal, because most of the problems associated with drugs come from their prohibition, not the drugs themselves.

At the very least, drug addiction in the United States needs to be treated as a health issue, not a criminal one.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

...

...

...Gah. You win this one. *sulks in emo corner*

 

[Dre89]

If we legalize drugs, if our lived one becomes an addict, at what point can we step in? Isn't stepping in taking away their right?

 

[Jam Stunna]

Whenever you want. We take away each other's "rights" all the time, so one more instance isn't a big deal.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Dextromethorphan (DXM) is a chemical present in over-the-counter cough medicine like Robitussin and can lead to distortion and dissociation due to its ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Dust remover contains difluoroethane that is primarily abused by kids so they can feel lightheaded. Theoretically speaking, you would have to pull off so many common household commodities from the shelves in order to completely shut down the supply of drugs to be abused by individuals. Even under these conditions, they would probably find something else to quickly replace as a new alternative.

I wouldn't care because there are far worse things that are legal, like gambling, alcohol, tobacco, fast food, and high fructose corn syrup.

Hey hey hey. That's the All American College Experience right there. Red Bull, Soda, and artificial sugar to keep you up late at night, McDonalds when you don't have time to cook, nicotine to take off the edge, alcohol to celebrate or take off the edge, and gambling as recreational time spender.

 

[Crimson King]

If we legalize drugs, if our lived one becomes an addict, at what point can we step in? Isn't stepping in taking away their right?

Not really. They have every right to continue to harm their bodies if they want, but if they are a parent, and it is affecting their kids' lives, then family members can ask them to stop and get help. Making it illegal all together is the problem. It makes them taking drugs a nefarious act, and that causes them to do it in dangerous ways (excess or bad batches).

 

[Dre89]

I think what everyone has agreed on so far is that the legalisation of drugs would make drug use safer, and lower crime rate.

But I think that's assuming the safe use of drugs. If we legalise drugs, would it be wrong for supplies to use marketing to advocate heavy abuse?

If users are aware of the consequences, is there an issue with advocating such abuse?

 

[Crimson King]

Same happens with cigarettes. You cannot legally advertise cigarettes (or actual consumption of alcohol) on television. At all. Yet they both spend PLENTY on marketing to attract tons of new customers daily. If a narcotic company rose, they'd market it somehow.

 

[Dre89]

Same happens with cigarettes. You cannot legally advertise cigarettes (or actual consumption of alcohol) on television. At all. Yet they both spend PLENTY on marketing to attract tons of new customers daily. If a narcotic company rose, they'd market it somehow.

I actually don't agree with the legalisation of drugs, I'm just being the devil's advocate just for a bit of an experiment.

Ok, but why shouldn't such advertising be allowed?

Isn't it contradictory? If you're banning advertising, then you're saying doing those things is bad, yet at the same time people, people still have the right to do bad things?

If they are perfectly entitled to do such things, why can't they be encouraged?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The legalization of drugs would give a county a terrible "face".

Would you want to go on vacation were marijuana is legal?

YES. I WOULD. I REALLY, REALLY WOULD. Weed is ****ing AWESOME.

I feel that our illegalization of drugs is a part of a larger scheme of things where so many places are becoming nanny states where the government has to take care of every little citizen like children to make sure they do this, don't do that, don't huff that glue, don't ruin your lives...

The more laws, the less personal freedom exists. Certain laws are necessary though, as no human should have the personal freedom to infringe on the personal freedom of others-it leads to an anarchic system where the strong rule over the weak (and, generally, can be seen as a "**** move").

However, the moment you're not infringing on someone's personal freedom, then a law against this action is breaking the golden rule outlined above–the government is infringing on your personal freedom to do something that infringes on no-one else's personal freedom.

Can you argue against the tenant of the main "golden rule" of lawmaking (personal freedom ends only when someone else's starts)?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Ok, but why shouldn't such advertising be allowed?

Isn't it contradictory? If you're banning advertising, then you're saying doing those things is bad, yet at the same time people, people still have the right to do bad things?

If they are perfectly entitled to do such things, why can't they be encouraged?

Because, recreational drug use is something us as a society want to remove. However, doing so isn't possible, and making it illegal would cause more harm than good.

So, we don't want recreational drug use, but at the same time we want to keep levels of it as low as possible. It makes sense to ban advertising, to keep levels of recreational drug use low. While at the same time keeping it legal, to minimise the levels of harm done to those who do such drugs.

It may seem contradictory, but it makes sense. We want the best outcome for society.

 

[Crimson King]

I actually don't agree with the legalisation of drugs, I'm just being the devil's advocate just for a bit of an experiment.

Ok, but why shouldn't such advertising be allowed?

Isn't it contradictory? If you're banning advertising, then you're saying doing those things is bad, yet at the same time people, people still have the right to do bad things?

If they are perfectly entitled to do such things, why can't they be encouraged?

Yeah, I am for unbanning advertisements because it's blaming the wrong person: the person who smokes is to blame, not the marketing people.

 

[Firus]

I actually don't agree with the legalisation of drugs, I'm just being the devil's advocate just for a bit of an experiment.

Ok, but why shouldn't such advertising be allowed?

Isn't it contradictory? If you're banning advertising, then you're saying doing those things is bad, yet at the same time people, people still have the right to do bad things?

If they are perfectly entitled to do such things, why can't they be encouraged?

I agree with Crimson King that such advertising should be allowed. There are plenty of people gullible enough to fall for all sorts of advertising, and frankly, that's their fault -- the reason they've banned advertising of tobacco and alcohol is those are more harmful than the $20 you'll lose on some supposedly amazing device. I understand that, but I really don't see any reason it's the government's job to stop people from doing stupid things -- that's their own job.

Same goes for the legalization of the drugs in the first place. Do I plan on doing drugs? No, but if someone wants to do drugs with their own body, I don't see why the government should tell them they can't.

 

[Sucumbio]

strung out people are not productive people, though... productive people go to work and pay taxes. strung out people kill and steal to get their next fix. i'm speaking strictly about hard core drugs, such as crack and meth. coke is the white rich man's poison, it doesn't really apply, but major street drugs and stove-top crank, yeah... gets a lot of people screwed up and hardly any of them can hold down a 40 hr/wk job.

then you have your pill abusers. taking umpteen loritabs (sp), costly, leads to theft (stealing out your grandma's medicine cabinet) ...

crime anyway is the end result of this choice in legislation, at least that's been the argument against. and it's not as if it couldn't work, other countries have legal what we do not. it's american's that fail. they always seem to screw up a good thing.

 

[KrazyGlue]

But who are you to take away that right from them? They're not harming anyone else.

I was going to read through all the posts, but I only got this far, because I need to respond to this.

Consider roofies, used almost solely for date *****. Consider ecstasy, which makes it much easier for you to become strongly sexually attracted to others. Consider parents who partake in chainsmoking around their kids, causing them to suffer from various disorders due to second hand smoke, such as lung cancer. Consider pregnant mothers who consistently binge on hard liquor, causing their child to become deformed or defected. Drugs can sure as hell harm other people.

 

[Crimson King]

I was going to read through all the posts, but I only got this far, because I need to respond to this.

Consider roofies, used almost solely for date *****. Consider ecstasy, which makes it much easier for you to become strongly sexually attracted to others. Consider parents who partake in chainsmoking around their kids, causing them to suffer from various disorders due to second hand smoke, such as lung cancer. Consider pregnant mothers who consistently binge on hard liquor, causing their child to become deformed or defected. Drugs can sure as hell harm other people.

MDMA (ecstacy) is actually being used for treatment now: http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/a...treat-mental-illness-researchers-say/19598434

On rohypnol:

The drug is often cited as a date **** drug because of its high potency, strong effects and the ability to cause strong amnesia during its duration of action. However, after investigations into its apparent use as a date **** drug by Michael Robertson from the San Diego Medical Examiner's office and Dr. Mahmoud El Sohly of El Sohly Laboratories, the results pointed out that flunitrazepam was only used in around 1% of reported date ***** according to Robertson and 0.33% according to urine lab tests done by El Sohly

It's mostly not used medically, but it can serve, according again to wiki as a source of amneisa medicine (for procedures like colonoscopy and the like.

The other two are impossible to ever stop because it shows a lack of responsibility on one person that is in direct control of other people who cannot leave. Binge drinking and chain smoking are products of addictive personalities. No matter WHAT they use, if it gives them pleasure, they'll use it to excess.

 

[KrazyGlue]

MDMA (ecstacy) is actually being used for treatment now: http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/a...treat-mental-illness-researchers-say/19598434

On rohypnol:


It's mostly not used medically, but it can serve, according again to wiki as a source of amneisa medicine (for procedures like colonoscopy and the like.

There are already effective anesthetics that have far less severe side effects, so I still don't see the argument for flunitrazepam.

As to ecstasy, I was mainly arguing against recreational use. There may be some merits to its use (as well as some other psychedelic drugs) in a controlled medical environment (not at home). Still, there needs to be more research put into how effective it actually is before using it on the masses. And though I'm not too familiar with ecstasy, I'm guessing the medical effects can be achieved by only using some of the components of ecstacy, and that some of it is purely unnecessary to medical use.

The other two are impossible to ever stop because it shows a lack of responsibility on one person that is in direct control of other people who cannot leave. Binge drinking and chain smoking are products of addictive personalities. No matter WHAT they use, if it gives them pleasure, they'll use it to excess.

The last two examples were simply to show that drugs can be abused to harm others, which Dre was denying.

 

[Crimson King]

Actually, the drugs they use for surgery that cause amnesia are derivatives. Rohypnol clearly has its dangers, but the same can be said about any drug.

As for brushing off my explanation, harming others comes from irresponsibility of the user. Chainsmokers can easily go outside, while binge drinkers can wait until they are not directly supplying alcohol to a fetus. The same things go with speeding while you have a child in the car; on your own you are endangering other lives indirectly, but with a child in the car, they are directly effected by your speeding. The fact is irresponsibility is to blame, not the drug.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

strung out people are not productive people, though... productive people go to work and pay taxes. strung out people kill and steal to get their next fix. i'm speaking strictly about hard core drugs, such as crack and meth. coke is the white rich man's poison, it doesn't really apply, but major street drugs and stove-top crank, yeah... gets a lot of people screwed up and hardly any of them can hold down a 40 hr/wk job.

then you have your pill abusers. taking umpteen loritabs (sp), costly, leads to theft (stealing out your grandma's medicine cabinet) ...

crime anyway is the end result of this choice in legislation, at least that's been the argument against. and it's not as if it couldn't work, other countries have legal what we do not. it's american's that fail. they always seem to screw up a good thing.

But on the other hand, you're going to have these unproductive, strung-out people no matter what. Why only end these particular "drugs" that cause that behavior? Should we end welfare due to the abuses of it? Should we forbit WoW and other addictive non-drug behaviors? Cap internet usage (I know that I have a fairly strong addiction to the internet; I suffer withdrawl symptoms pretty hard when I don't have access to it, and I know I'm not alone)? Why should we only prevent the use of these drugs?

I know a whole bunch of very, very productive people who smoke weed regularly. My father and his entire group of friends are middle-class americans, most of them with their own small construction businesses or very solid, stable jobs, and they all smoke weed. They are very well-adjusted humans.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Actually, the drugs they use for surgery that cause amnesia are derivatives. Rohypnol clearly has its dangers, but the same can be said about any drug.

I'm just wondering if there's a less dangerous alternative. Just because it can be used doesn't mean it's the most effective or least dangerous. I honestly don't know what drugs they already use though.

What of crack cocaine then? I don't know of any uses for that.

As for brushing off my explanation, harming others comes from irresponsibility of the user. Chainsmokers can easily go outside, while binge drinkers can wait until they are not directly supplying alcohol to a fetus. The same things go with speeding while you have a child in the car; on your own you are endangering other lives indirectly, but with a child in the car, they are directly effected by your speeding. The fact is irresponsibility is to blame, not the drug.

No, I wasn't brushing off your explanation. While I agree with you that it's the irresponsibility of the user that causes these things, my point was to show that drug use can result in harm to other people.

 

[Crimson King]

Crack is just a freebase version of cocaine. Some believe that since coke is so expensive, the government created the far cheaper crack to get black communities addicted. Essentially, since one costs a lot, another was produced.

 

[Overload]

If these drugs are made legal and regulated, they would probably be safer. Most dealers couldn't care less about the age of their customer, as long as they make a sale. If these drugs were legalized and regulated, it is safe to assume children wouldn't be permitted to purchase them. Also, there wouldn't be any worry about these drugs being laced. Due to the extremely addictive nature of some drugs, I don't think ALL currently illegal drugs should be regulated and available for purchase, but the people who choose to use these drugs should not be labeled as criminals and locked up.

 

[Sucumbio]

Buying heroine supports terrorism.