Should Drugs Be Illegal

[GreatClayMonkey]

This is something that came up in the suicide topic. Should drugs such as cocaine, marijuana, speed ect. be illegal? I am not talking about medical drugs but ones people use to get high. Some argue that people should be allowed to ruin their body if they want. I disagree. These laws are put in place to protect people specifically kids. If these drugs were legal then more kids would get addicted because they were pressured into using them and police would have no way of stopping them. As far as alcohol and cigarettes go leave I believe cigarettes should be illegal because they are the only legal product that when used correctly cause harm alcohol if used as intended is fine so I believe it should stay legal.

 

[JonBeBonanza]

Yes drugs should and ARE illegal. But thats not going to stop the thousands, maybe millions of users that utilize drugs for other purposes other than medicinal ones.

 

[Grandeza]

Drugs should definitely stay legal. They harm your body and totally affect your judgment. You damage your body and can hurt others around you. Like you said, kids will start getting addicted and I believe it would hurt our society in general. I also agree cigarettes should be illegal.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

I don't think people can get 'pressured' into addiction. People get addicted to something because they enjoy it.

It is very, very, very, and I stress VERY hard to enforce drug control. I don't think there is a current solution to the problem other than stressing values of responsibility, which isn't going to happen any time soon in the States.

I don't see how legalizing drugs would cause a significant increase in the number of drug users anyway. Many countries that have harsh penalties for drugs, Indonesia for example, are ravaged by drug use. On the contrary in Canada, socially endorses marijuana (arguably legal) in moderation and has a relatively low crime rate.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_2052.html

If any drugs are going to go (that are legal), I'd put alcohol at the top of the list. Alcohol causes way more problems than anything (Ruined families, self destruction, and deaths to name a few), because it's acceptable to be a heavy drinker.

I think people can wreck their bodies if they want; however, if they are responsible for a child, of course they do not have that right.

 

[Koskinator]

I think that if drugs were to be made legal, they would have to be made in such a way that you could use them in a social manner and not get addicted. For example, when making cocaine, just the raw materials needed to make it, nothing added to make people addicts. But the one of the major problems with this, namely marijuana, if it was to become legal, it would be so tightly controlled by the government it wouldn't even be funny.

 

[cF=)]

Alright, there is already a topic about drug taking, so I'll link it before addressing my post to everybody sprouting ridiculous propaganda bull****:

-- http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=120325

I am not talking about medical drugs but ones people use to get high. Some argue that people should be allowed to ruin their body if they want. I disagree. These laws are put in place to protect people specifically kids. If these drugs were legal then more kids would get addicted because they were pressured into using them and police would have no way of stopping them. As far as alcohol and cigarettes go leave I believe cigarettes should be illegal because they are the only legal product that when used correctly cause harm alcohol if used as intended is fine so I believe it should stay legal.

Let's break down some of your point:

- Making a (distinct?) difference between pharmaceutical drugs and street drugs.
- Claiming you (or the government) has the right to retain someone from reaching happiness in his own liberty.
- Repeat stuff you've learn in your DARE class about body damage and addiction.

First of all, you're wrong on all these stances (I kid you not). Corporates create molecules which are alike other currently known drugs. The stuff you will be prescribed at your local clinic for common disorders such as ADD or ADHD are actually similar to cocaine, but in a way that these industries make money on your back while banning other substances.

When using drugs, you are purposefully accepting, in the limits of your own person, to disturb in different ways your neurochemistry. I'm all for banning drugs and driving (like we already do with alcohol), I'm all for kicking someone out of a public place for general disturbance (if you're drunk in a movie theatre or a shopping centre, you affect negatively the ones around you), but when you decide to have fun between friends or in a party, why should you be allowed to drink but not take anything else? I'll address this question again later on.

Everything else you said about body damage and permanent brain problems is utter crap, take an introduction to biology and you should see how drugs actually interact with your neurones. They don't all have the same effects, but you're not tripping because you're loosing brain cells or because your head's bleeding.

Yes drugs should and ARE illegal. But thats not going to stop the thousands, maybe millions of users that utilize drugs for other purposes other than medicinal ones.

Hi, my name is Jon and I'm against drugs for the sole reason I'm against drugs. I'm saddened the entrance essay is not required anymore, because all kinds of bad debaters are brought here and don't seem to understand what a debate his: you should bring arguments to the table.

Drugs should definitely stay legal. They harm your body and totally affect your judgment. You damage your body and can hurt others around you. Like you said, kids will start getting addicted and I believe it would hurt our society in general. I also agree cigarettes should be illegal.

Get a wake up call, people used drugs for centuries and are still using them, have you seen society fall yet? What you said about harming your body is effective propaganda, while 'affect[ing] your judgement' is... not even pejorative.

About addiction, I'd like to make something clearer to all you teenagers repeating information you have no real knowledge about. There is two distinct types of addiction: bodily addictive and psychologically addictive. Drugs are NOT all the same, get that straight in your head. Opiates' alkaloids, caffeine, tobacco are examples of drugs causing physical dependence. The user will experience body signals asking him to consume, such as a bad mood (people waking up in the morning without their coffee), sweating for no reasons, shaking, etc.

On the other hand, drugs that are psychologically addictive won't give you these side effects. However, you may crave or want some more of them, but everything's related to the individual, or your predisposition of getting addicted to something. Drugs included in this category are most psychedelics (weed, mushrooms, lsd, etc.), dissociatives (NO2, DXM, etc.), deliriants (nutmeg, DPH, etc.) and many more I will not write down just for the sake of reducing the lenght of this text.

I think that if drugs were to be made legal, they would have to be made in such a way that you could use them in a social manner and not get addicted. For example, when making cocaine, just the raw materials needed to make it, nothing added to make people addicts. But the one of the major problems with this, namely marijuana, if it was to become legal, it would be so tightly controlled by the government it wouldn't even be funny.

I already described what addiction is without really going into the heart of the subject (because I'm not inclined to teach anybody what are the biological mechanisms underlining it), but I can tell you the 'raw material' as you call it IS what causes addiction.

As for your point on marijuana, it's the opposite that would happen. Since it is an easy drug to grow, the government wouldn't have any way to restrict use under their own products, making it impossible to tax. Why would they legalize it like alcohol if they can't make some bucks on it? The answer is the current situation we're in.

 

[JonBeBonanza]

Hi, my name is Jon and I'm against drugs for the sole reason I'm against drugs. I'm saddened the entrance essay is not required anymore, because all kinds of bad debaters are brought here and don't seem to understand what a debate his: you should bring arguments to the table.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but if i were to have completed the entrance essay before posting that post, would your reply be any different? All i ask is for a bit of time, the whole thing is rather intimidating at the moment.

In terms of arguing:

Some argue that people should be allowed to ruin their body if they want. I disagree.

I disagree as well. Why? Because the people that argue that taking drugs, is an individuals choice have 2 major flaws in their deffence.

1.) Our laws put limits on what we can and can't do with our body and ourselves in general. Can we walk down the street naked? Can we say what we want anywhere we want? The simple answer is NO. If drugs became legalized i would walk around shirtless, after all men can do it. So which is more harmfull - me shooting up with speed or me walking around topless? Cause i'd be pissed the day they say that Charles the crack head can get his fix, while i have to walk around with a shirt in the middle of a hot Texas day.

You damage your body and can hurt others around you.

2.) LSD for example, can produce flashbacks years after the actual drug is ingested. So say some one is taking LSD in the confort of their own home. No one can be harmed right? Well what if all of a sudden he has a flashback while driving? Or operating some sort of heavy machinery? His/Her body can't control when to have the flashback, and because of that they put the lives of other people in danger. Now i'm not saying its our bodies fault, and we should take the drug to the point of evolving into being able to control said flashbacks. But by the legalization of drugs it impares judgement, and places the user and others in danger.


Something to look at..... http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/gen008.htm

Not too sure how credible it is.

 

[cF=)]

If drugs became legalized i would walk around shirtless, after all men can do it. So which is more harmfull - me shooting up with speed or me walking around topless?

And you call this an argument? Do you at least thought 20 seconds on why you couldn't walk around naked in your local mall? Because everybody else has the right to not see your bare chest or genitalia.

Doing harm to yourself has never been illegal, may it be while practising an extreme sport or ingesting chemically shot hamburgers at your local fast food restaurant. The fun thing is, doing drugs for the sake of having fun doesn't cause harm, it's repetitive use or abuse of SOME drugs (stimulants are the worst) that WILL give you symptoms. We allow alcohol to be took by anybody over the age of [insert your country's legal age here], but have you ever thought alcohol could cause permanent brain damage, liver problems, and in some cases, death?

LSD for example, can produce flashbacks years after the actual drug is ingested. So say some one is taking LSD in the confort of their own home. No one can be harmed right? Well what if all of a sudden he has a flashback while driving?

This proves yet again your limited knowledge in drugs. Flashbacks are sudden sensations you will feel that were related to a trip of whatever drug. It's like having sudden memory of something. Did you ever walked in the street and suddenly thought about something unrelated to the current situation? Flashbacks are alike, nothing more.

Not too sure how credible it is.

Me neither, but I've never heard of anybody dying over marijuana use.

 

[GreatClayMonkey]

When using drugs, you are purposefully accepting, in the limits of your own person, to disturb in different ways your neurochemistry. I'm all for banning drugs and driving (like we already do with alcohol), I'm all for kicking someone out of a public place for general disturbance (if you're drunk in a movie theater or a shopping center, you affect negatively the ones around you), but when you decide to have fun between friends or in a party, why should you be allowed to drink but not take anything else? I'll address this question again later on.

Everything else you said about body damage and permanent brain problems is utter crap, take an introduction to biology and you should see how drugs actually interact with your neurones. They don't all have the same effects, but you're not tripping because you're loosing brain cells or because your head's bleeding.

First off alcohol is different from other drugs. When used responsibly it is actually good for you. Also its clear you did not read careful as I never mentioned brain problems. Also I'm against drugs because it harms a person. Is harming yourself really worth a quick jolt of happiness that decreases in pleasure every time. Saying some one is getting happy from their own liberty is a stupid reason especially since I support drug control because it protects people specifically kids. Just because some drugs are hard to control dose not mean we shouldn't try. Also what if some one has say a child to take care of. Getting high wouldn't be the least bit responsible so are we just going to rely on someone to be responsible enough to not to. Our society has proven we can't through other crimes. Also even if you say your just getting high for fun your decision making abilities are immpared so you are more likely of doing something to your self or others. You say you have never heard of someone die from marijuana well my uncle was hit by a car because he was high on marijuana. He lived through but that is an example of how something like getting high can cause serious lasting damage to your self or others.

 

[cF=)]

First off alcohol is different from other drugs.

LOLOLOL give me more o' that. How is alcohol, caffeine, or any of your casually legal drugs different? They act as psychoactive, which is why they are drugs.

Also its clear you did not read careful as I never mentioned brain problems. Also I'm against drugs because it harms a person. Is harming yourself really worth a quick jolt of happiness that decreases in pleasure every time.

As much as it is a contradiction somehow, you never mentionned anything more than your own opinion. Am I teaching you you need sources, or at least some interesting and logical facts to post in a debate? Is it too hard to rely on tangible evidences?

Saying some one is getting happy from their own liberty is a stupid reason especially since I support drug control because it protects people specifically kids.

Stupid reason? Are you nuts?! PLEASE, SOMEBODY, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Don't appeal to my emotions anymore, I'm not even going further in this post. Brings facts or stay out of discussion. Sorry to hear for your uncle, but at least think about this: if that same guy would've been under the influence of alcohol, it wouldn't have made drinking whisky any less legal. I hope you take this in consideration.

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

I don't think any drugs should be legal, and that includes cigarettes and alcohol. Just because some drugs are classified ase "soft" drugs doesn't mean they aren't bad for you.

 

[cF=)]

^ I'll give you advices since you're new here.

1) I already went over the 'drugs are bad' thing. Read the thread before posting in it. If you disagree, follow my second advice...
2) Give me facts! Rare are the cases where giving your opinion is enough, especially in a debate. If you don't have evidences for what you think is the truth, how can I believe a word of what you say?

 

[Taymond]

No. Just because some substances are considered "less" harmful to your body doesn't mean they aren't harmful to your body. You're absolutely right about that. What you're wrong about, though, is the support of arbitrary distinctions between such less harmful substances, and even between related MORE harmful substances.

The government arbitrarily decides which less harmful substances to make legal and which more harmful substances to make legal. Plenty of legal substances are worse for you then a lot of illegal ones. Caffeine and Nicotine are chemically addictive, but they're perfectly tolerable. Cocaine is chemically addictive, too, but it isn't tolerable. These decisions are arbitrary.

You are also wrong in the assumption that people should not be able to choose to ingest harmful substances. The government--ALL governments--already allow the ingestion of hundreds of harmful substances. Clearly, nobody has a problem with ingesting harmful substances. People who do not want to can choose not to, regardless of how legal it is for them to do so. People who do not want to ingest harmful substances will not, regardless of what the laws are. The legalization of certain substances does not affect these people in any way.

People only have a problem with ingesting certain harmful substances. Substances that happen to have a stigma attached to them are seen as evil and harmful when, in fact, there may likely be dozens of legal substances that are even more harmful than the illegal one in question.

I think psychologically addictive drugs should be legal. A person has the right to decide to ingest a harmful substance. The government has already proven that by allowing people to ingest loads of harmful substances, like alcohol, caffeine, or any one of the hundreds of pharmaceutical drugs that harm the body in some way. In addition, it is possible to become psychologically addicted to anything. Psychological addiction is not good, but it is entirely depending on the individual, and is no grounds for ban.

Chemically addictive substances are another issue, however. As have been mentioned, many are legal already. The distinction here is much harder to make, if there is even one to be made at all. A blanket ban would be ridiculous, but allowing all of them seems wrong, as well. Certain substances are TOO harmful, and people who may not understand this, namely children, may use them before they are capable of understanding the risk they are putting themselves in. After that, a chemical addiction could keep them using it far more than they intended, and destroy their bodies far beyond the extent of damage they were willing to do. This, however, is as true of legal chemically addictive substances as it is with illegal ones. Some are more harmful than others, and decisions here are harder to make.


Edit: I would like to add that I agree with cF=) on another point as well, that I forgot. People who advocate the legalization of certain drugs aren't asking for complete anarchy. If an illegal drug was suddenly legalized, there should absolutely be limitations placed on its use. I agree completely with already existing legislature against public intoxication and driving while intoxicated. Similar laws should and would be made for any illegal drugs suddenly made legal.

Restrictions would also likely be placed on the age of consumption. While I might disagree with what that age limit is, I agree that such an age limit should exist. Children who do not yet understand all the consequences of ingesting a substance should not be permitted to hap-hazardly ingest these substances. It is dangerous, and they can cause significant harm to themselves. The reasoning here is no different from age laws concerning driving or drinking. I agree completely with them.

We're talking, however, about personal use, in a personal location. People should no more be able to become voluntarily severely impaired by a drug in a public place than impaired by alcohol. I don't think people should be baked at work or while driving or outside in a manner that affects others, because other people have the right not to be around people using said substances.

 

[SuperBowser]

LOLOLOL give me more o' that. How is alcohol, caffeine, or any of your casually legal drugs different? They act as psychoactive, which is why they are drugs.

well to be fair, studies have shown that moderate drinkers have a better life expectancy than those who abstain and despite the endless pits of money and studies spent on caffeine and its effects, few negative effects have been found

are you for legalization of all recreational drugs? i think each drug needs to be treated as its own case.

my main problem with drugs is that the majority of people who take them don't seem to be aware of the long term effects that occur to their body. hell, i'm not even sure for most and i've probably read more than 95% of the population about them. psychosis/schizophrenia are associated with marijuana (i agree with legalizing this one). then there are drugs like cocaine or heroin, which have a variety of issues. addiction is just one problem. the benefits of legalizing drugs such as these are pretty non existent imho.

living with a state health care system (NHS), why should i support the legalization of drugs that only contribute to the ever rising costs of healthcare when they are clearly (depending on the drug) detrimental to your health?

you may counter with ''well what's the difference between this and obesity?''. there is increasing education on having a healthy diet and lifestyle and protective measures being made so a consumer knows what they are buying. also, food is essential to our life. outlawing excessive amounts of fatty foods doesn't address the underlying problem. poor eating habits have their whole own topic.

having said all this, i would certainly be more open on this issue if people were willing to sign a form stating: i understand X drug increases my chance of a heart attack, bowel cancer, etc., i recognise the risk of addiction and what signs to look for and if i feel a problem arises i will see a doctor. age isn't enough. people should know what they are doing to themselves.

 

[Surri-Sama]

Im going to use something from the "Should woman be aloud to go around topless" and acording to the mass, Woman should have the right to do with thier body as they please, so why not drugies?

because people have tryed to reject them from socity, owell =.=

 

[cF=)]

well to be fair, studies have shown that moderate drinkers have a better life expectancy than those who abstain and despite the endless pits of money and studies spent on caffeine and its effects, few negative effects have been found

I completely disagree with your point. It wasn't until recently that we discovered alcohol had any benefit on an individual's health, and it still was legal way before this discovery. That doesn't mean other drugs have no chance of being legal, since the main criteria is not to see if it benefits to someone or not, but if you have the right to ingest it.

I'll also shed a light on you on the negative effects of caffeine BACKED UP with facts. Maybe your post was oriented at making these drugs harmless, but you provided absolutely nothing to support your point.

Negative effects of caffeine includes:

* Increases anxiety and nervousness at high doses or in sensitive individuals
* Insomnia, decreased ability to sleep
* Caffeine withdrawal can worsen mood
* Caffeine withdrawal causes headaches, flu-like symptoms, feelings of lethargy and reduces motivation
* Increases jaw tension and bruxism

Negative effects of alcohol includes:

* decreased coordination
* nausea, vomiting (vomiting while unconscious can kill)
* reduced impulse control
* emotional volatility (anger, violence, sadness, etc)
* frequent urination (more with beer or wine), diuretic effect
* dizziness and confusion
* blackouts and memory loss at high doses
* coma and death at extreme doses
* brain and liver damage (cirrhosis) with heavy use
* lowered inhibitions and increased confusion can lead to unwanted and negative sexual encounters (date ****)
* hangover, lasting 12-36 hours, from mild to severe after heavy use
* fetus damage in pregnant women at high dose or frequency

-- http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/caffeine/caffeine_effects.shtml
-- http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/alcohol/alcohol_effects.shtml


By posting this, I'm just stressing the fact that no drugs is harmless.

my main problem with drugs is that the majority of people who take them don't seem to be aware of the long term effects that occur to their body.

And you also thought caffeine had no negative side effects! It's your misconception and your poor knowledge of the subject that made you felt to your own trap.

With drugs like marijuana, we know a few long terms effect:

-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
-- http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner07022005.html

... no cancer! How awesome is that?

-- http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20030701/heavy-marijuana-use-doesnt-damage-brain

... and no brain problems after regular and heavy use?! wow!

psychosis/schizophrenia are associated with marijuana (i agree with legalizing this one).

Schizophrenia is actually associated with many psychedelics, but none of them have a direct correlation with this mental problem. They can, however, trigger cases of schizophrenia in drug users who have previous family issues about it.

then there are drugs like cocaine or heroin, which have a variety of issues. addiction is just one problem. the benefits of legalizing drugs such as these are pretty non existent imho.

Benefits?! That is no the issue! It's whether someone has the right or not to take these substances in the limits of his liberty.

living with a state health care system (NHS), why should i support the legalization of drugs that only contribute to the ever rising costs of healthcare when they are clearly (depending on the drug) detrimental to your health?

Have you showed me any studies declaring such things, or did you just pulled it out of your head? Show me that drug use (which is currently done everywhere in the country for your information) higher the cost healthcare, and then we'll have an intelligent discussion. What you're doing is just adding a slippery slope, thinking legalization will create a mass consumption of drugs in the country.

you may counter with ''well what's the difference between this and obesity?''. there is increasing education on having a healthy diet and lifestyle and protective measures being made so a consumer knows what they are buying.

Hey Einstein, isn't it possible to also educate people about which drugs causes more problems than others, and then let them decide? Fast food isn't banned, but you still have a third of the US population who's overweight. Drugs are banned, but their use is still done and we haven't seen society fall into the pits of drugs addiction. Get your facts straight.

having said all this, i would certainly be more open on this issue if people were willing to sign a form stating: i understand X drug increases my chance of a heart attack, bowel cancer, etc., i recognise the risk of addiction and what signs to look for and if i feel a problem arises i will see a doctor. age isn't enough. people should know what they are doing to themselves.

Jesus holy ****ing christ, are you AGAIN repeating that drugs causes major health issues? We are not solely talking about meth or crack, this is an open discussion to ANY drugs! Don't target drugs like they're all the same, because you would be greatly mistaken (and you also don't provide sources).

 

[Taymond]

While I'll respond less harshly, I agree pretty much in full with cF=), SuperBowser.

The issue is not whether or not drugs are harmful to the body. All drugs are harmful to the body, yet the government gets to pick and choose which to allow and disallow based on very skewed and unjustifiable criteria. The issue is whether or not an individual has a right to ingest them.

Certain substances are allowed, others are not, and the reasons behind these decisions are poorly founded and unjustifiable. There's no reason alcohol should be legal and marijuana should not, and the legality of caffeine and nicotine is questionable.

 

[SuperBowser]

To cF=)

ugh, i don't like replying with bunches of quotes like that. I'm gonna stick with block of text.

First of all I said few negative side effects. I didn't say none. If you want to be obtuse about it, too much of anything in the world is bad for you. Even oxygen and water. But the general way caffeine is used in our society makes it pretty much harmless. I am fully aware of the damaging impact on alcohol. Do you not think it's strange that at MODERATE use (not extreme or heavy use which i already stated but you conveniently ignored) seems to correlate with a better life expectancy? It was only meant as a light-hearted paragraph but whatever.

Please don't put ridiculous words in my mouth. you stated more than once i wrote caffeine had no side effects (I didn't!). I guess I could have phrased it better by saying non-important side effects from normal use. I also stated more than once that each drug should be considered separately (I am not opposed to all). I asked you earlier if you wanted to legalize ALL drugs. You haven't answered so for this post I'll assume you mean yes. Sorry if you don't. The random illnesses I mentioned were just that: random (I didn't feel like looking up each drug and its effects). I didn't make that clear, sorry for being lazy. I didn't mean to imply that all drugs are the same (though if you bothered reading earlier...).

I am pretty sure (maybe I remember wrong) that recent evidence has shown cannabis to increase rates of schizophrenia in people who were not at risk before but I'll have to find that source in my notes some other time (i had a lecture on schizophrenia ). I don't have access to them atm.

Okay. Let's talk about crack cocaine. From: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0978/is_n1_v17/ai_10608386/pg_3 and http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/legalisingillicitdrugsresource~against

Some neurological problems: CNS stimulation, decreased cerebral metabolism and cases of seizures, intracerebral hemorrhage, sudden death, psychosis, stroke and cardiac abnormalities (heart attacks in fit, healthy young people) have been reported from cocaine use. Mixing with alcohol is dangerous.

For the neonate: decreased gestational age, low birth weight and increased congenital abnormalities in offspring.

These effects are more pronounced in crack cocaine than normal cocaine. ''A majority of crack users calling a hotline number reported severe depression, paranoia, irritability, and chest congestion after crack use.'' Adverse effects unique to crack are 'crack lung' and neurological symptoms in children whom inhale the smoke. The first study ended with ''There is a need to educate users and potential users about the serious and unpredictable effects of crack.''. What a surprise.

Cocaine has a high rate of addiction - estimated up to 75%. In comparison, alcohol is roughly 10%. This is from various sources if you want to look it up. I'm sure you knew this already, but I hope you will agree that this drug is indeed ''dangerous''.

I feel the public should be protected from products such as this..

Now, from: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths2.htm and http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/legalisingillicitdrugsresource~against again. The first provides evidence that legalizing drugs may well increase its use.

''Dr. Herbert Kleber of Columbia University suggests that legalizing cocaine would increase use five to six fold. (David Corcoran, "Legalizing Drugs: Failures Spur Debate," New York Times, November 27, 1989].

When opium was legal in the U.S. at the turn of the century, the addiction rate was proportionately two to three times what it is now. [Ethan A. Nadelmann, "Should We Legalize Drugs? History Answers," American Heritage, February/March 1993].

Alaska and Oregon, which have the most permissive drug laws, have the highest rates of addiction - double the national average. [Richard Schwartz, "Sabotage and the War on Drugs," Drug Awareness Information Newsletter]. ''

Since the legalisation of cannabis in the Netherlands there has been a 277% increase in use (still above normal after taking into account a general increase of use in other countries).

There was also a significant increase in crime during this period with a 69 per cent increase in the number of robberies, from a study in the British Medical Journal

I know my personal view accounts for little on this point, but I'd like to say that though some of my friends are open to trying drugs out a couple of times, none would seek out to buy anything from a dealer because it is an ''overt'' illegal activity (can't think of a better phrase lol... shady??). They'd only accept it from people they know well. Additionally, if cocaine is legalised it will become more socially acceptable. This can contribute to an increase in use.

There, I used some facts .



To Taymond (and cf=) i suppose)

I'm running out of time, so this bit will be brief.

I don't think the legality of caffeine is questionable at all. It is pretty hard to harm yourself with caffeine unless you are doing it on purpose.

I maintain that in a state health care system I will not support the legalization of a drug like cocaine due to its effects on health. I think the public should be protected from drugs such as these, which have so many different ill effects. This law is not simply about whether you have the right to harm yourself.

It simply isn't responsible to allow cocaine to be freely available. I'd also guess that legalising it could have a knock on effect at increasing use in school kids (i don't know if i can back this up or not, i'll have to check later if you like).



EDIT for CF=):

Here's a link to a study on cannabis and schizophrenia. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7374/1183.

''A longer follow up and reanalysis of this cohort published in this issue (p 1199) confirms the earlier findings and clarifies that cannabis, and not other drugs, is associated with later schizophrenia and that this is not explained by prodromal symptoms.9 In a similar vein, a three year follow up of a Dutch cohort of 4045 people free of psychosis and 59 with a baseline diagnosis of psychotic disorder showed a strong association between use of cannabis and psychosis.10 Length of exposure to use of cannabis predicted the severity of the psychosis, which likewise was not explained by use of other drugs.''

As you can see, you were wrong about the effects of marijuana.

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

2) Give me facts! Rare are the cases where giving your opinion is enough, especially in a debate. If you don't have evidences for what you think is the truth, how can I believe a word of what you say?

I was just about to leave for work when I typed that out, so I didn't put much into it. Here's my opinion about the legality of drugs.

Something I'm confused about here: What kind of drugs are we talking about here? "Soft" drugs like marijuana and mushrooms, or "hard" drugs like heroin and methamphetamine? I'll argue both sides just to be safe.

I don't think any drugs should be legal. With long term use, any and all drugs can have negative health effects. For instance, marijuana has been shown to cause loss of coordination, trouble with problem solving and increased heart rate. It has also been shown to cause delusions and impaired memory. Because it is conventionally smoked, it also has negative heal effects on the lungs, including increased risk of lung infections and obstructed airways. One study showed that marijuana may also impair the immune system. Source

Alcohol, a questionably legal drug, has some very serious long and short term effects on the liver and the brain. Should it be legal? Well, it's much worse for you than marijuana, an illegal drug. It's a double standard to have weed illegal but alcohol not. Due to serious health reasons, I don't think any of them should be legal.

 

[Taymond]

First off, no one (intelligent) is arguing for the complete free use of any drugs. Legislature regarding the control of recreational substances and their use are a good thing. Age limits are a good thing, for lack of a better dividing line. Laws against public abuse of substances are good things. All of these laws would be expected to be applied to any legalized drug in the same way they're applied to alcohol.

While the harm of caffeine itself is not so pronounced, it remains a chemically addictive substance that is legal. A substance which the use of will result in the development of a physical dependence on caffeine. Honestly? How many adults and even young adults consume exorbitant amounts of caffeine in a given day? Is it good to be addicted to anything?

I firmly believe that no legislature should outright ban the consumption of a non-chemically addictive drug. Drugs that can cause psychological addiction are no more likely to do so than sex or work or eating or television or video games. For the government to draw arbitrary lines dictating what non-chemically addictive substances are allowed and which are not is absurd. It's already well established by precedent that the government has no right to prohibit an individual from ingesting a harmful substance. Such a choice is the individual's own. If a drug is not chemically addictive, then there is no reason, from a standpoint of protecting citizens, for an outright ban to be placed on it.

My opinions are less lax regarding chemically addictive drugs, and for many of the same reasons you've mentioned, SuperBowser. Children who do not realize the consequences of their actions would be increasingly likely to experiment with chemically addictive drugs if they were more readily available, and their lives could be ruined before they were competent enough to understand the damage they were doing. I don't advocate the legalization of cocaine or heroine, either.

I'm all for the legalization of marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms, and LSD.


@IWontGetOverTheDam, I do not feel the government has a right to say we cannot willingly ingest certain harmful substances if we are aware of the potential harm and fully willing to accept it. Smoking cigarettes isn't illegal, and it's one of the most self-abusive things you can do. Alcohol, as you mentioned, is not illegal, and a sudden attempt at Prohibition is not the right course of action.

Alcohol should be perfectly legal. Though it has considerable potential for harm, when used in moderation the harmful effects on the body are perfectly acceptable to a majority of people. Likewise regarding marijuana use. We don't ban things based on their potential for harm, because we don't recommend consuming those substances to such a high degree in the first place. Recreational substances are allowed based on their relative harm when used in moderation, and a number of currently illegal drugs are illegal for no reason other than social stigmas.

That isn't right. Laws shouldn't reflect harmful stigmas, they should reflect the genuine rights of an individual.

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

Alcohol, as you mentioned, is not illegal, and a sudden attempt at Prohibition is not the right course of action.

Oh, no, of course not. When prohibition was put into place in the US in 1919, it was repealed just a few years later because of what an epic failure it was. There's no way anyone can every have a drug free society. There never has been one, and there never will be one. I accept that, but I think drugs that can have seriously harmful effects on the human body should be controlled.

 

[WuTangDude]

Well, my stance has already been stressed in this thread, and that is that drugs should remain illegal.

If you guys don't mind though, since this in the spirit of this thread, if some of the softer, more popular drugs (marijuana in particular) was legalized, the government could tax it like they do alchohol and get more money off it, in theory, strengthening (sp?) our economy. Do you guys think that would benefit our economy, or 'cause more trouble then it's worth?

 

[SuperBowser]

hey cF=) are you going to respond? after horribly misrepresenting my opinion and asking for sources (there were none in the first post because it's a waste of time unless someone wants to debate), it's a bit rude to not reply -_-

Taymond, I think you share more similar views on drug policies with me than cF=), as he seems to be for the legalisation of all drugs. Or maybe we all think the same.

It's interesting that you asked if it's good to be addicted to anything. My answer would be does it always matter? If the person enjoys the taste of caffeine (most do), finds it helps them stay alert/get work done, their body is unharmed (you get antioxidants so it can be good) and they continue to function well in society, what is the problem? Personally I think it tastes disgusting and don't understand how people love it so much. The backlash I get from my friends for badmouthing coffee/tea is enough.

Several things need to be accounted for when looking at a drug. The rate of addiction, the severity of withdrawal symptoms, the harm it causes the user and the harm it could cause to society (those addicted may steal to fund their addiction). As a result, I don't think the legality of caffeine is questionable.

 

[cF=)]

Rest in peace, I'm posting right now because I had no time this week to do so with all the exams I had. I'll give it a quick shot since I need to study some more. If I don't answer some of your point, I either agree with you or I just have nothing to add.

I was just about to leave for work when I typed that out, so I didn't put much into it. Here's my opinion about the legality of drugs.

I don't think any drugs should be legal. With long term use, any and all drugs can have negative health effects. For instance, marijuana has been shown to cause loss of coordination, trouble with problem solving and increased heart rate. It has also been shown to cause delusions and impaired memory. Because it is conventionally smoked, it also has negative heal effects on the lungs, including increased risk of lung infections and obstructed airways. One study showed that marijuana may also impair the immune system. Source

The source from which you took your information is biased. It uses "facts" that are spread by the National Institute on Drug Abuse known, since the 30's, for its ludicrous 'reefer madness' propaganda.

(those addicted may steal to fund their addiction).

Gambling is LEGAL, causes addiction, AND does result in stealing when someone looses his money to a game of roulette. douuuuuble............ staaaaaandaaaaaaard.

 

[SuperBowser]

Ah, exams, the bane of everyone's existence. I have an exam every 3 weeks up to the end of June, so I may have bouts of non existence too.

It's interesting you used that website for the effects of marijuana, as I was about to quote it too . Quote from your own source, http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html:

''In one example, a study interviewed 50,000 members of the Swedish Army about their drug consumption and followed up with them later in life. Those who were heavy consumers of cannabis at age 18 were over 600% more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia over the next 15 years than those did not take it. ''

From my own source, you should have continued reading (even the title would tell you otherwise). In the past it was a common belief that marijuana was only a problem in those predisposed to schizophrenia, but recent evidence mentioned in this article, makes it quite clear that this is not the case. I would take you back to my last quote.

A longer follow up and reanalysis of this cohort published in this issue (p 1199) confirms the earlier findings and clarifies that cannabis, and not other drugs, is associated with later schizophrenia and that this is not explained by prodromal symptoms.9 In a similar vein, a three year follow up of a Dutch cohort of 4045 people free of psychosis and 59 with a baseline diagnosis of psychotic disorder showed a strong association between use of cannabis and psychosis.10 Length of exposure to use of cannabis predicted the severity of the psychosis, which likewise was not explained by use of other drugs. Participants who showed psychotic symptoms at baseline and used cannabis had a worse outcome, which also implies an additive effect. In a New Zealand cohort, individuals who had used cannabis three times or more by age 15 or 18 were not more likely to have schizophreniform disorder at age 26 (p 1212), although they showed an increase in "schizophrenia symptoms" (but not schizophrenia).11 The meaning of "schizophrenia symptoms" requires clarification to interpret these results.

Marijuana is not just a risk factor of schizophrenia for those predisposed and I don't see how you won't concede that. My lecturer also stated quite bluntly that marijuana use is associated with increase schizophrenia. I'm more inclined to believe her because she is extremely knowledgeable on the subject, has written her own textbook and continually reads about new studies. I don't think this makes marijuana more dangerous than smoking or alcohol, but I still think it's important we are aware of changing consensus on this matter, so I mentioned this in my first post.

It's interesting you brought up alcohol. I may be wrong on this, but I've been taught that alcohol does not increase the risk for schizophrenia. It can make the symptoms worse and patients often turn to alcohol as a method of dealing with their condition (who wouldn't want to make the voices go away), but that is all.


I'll edit later tonight for the next section.



EDIT: Okay, I've read that Australian study you mentioned below a few days ago but can't find it now. But at the same time I've found far more studies that say the contrary, all of which were more recent or the same year (i think the Australian one was 2003/4).

From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15871146?dopt=Abstract , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16319402?dopt=Abstract and http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/184/2/110

''Early use of cannabis did appear to increase the risk of psychosis. For psychotic symptoms, a dose-related effect of cannabis use was seen, with vulnerable groups including individuals who used cannabis during adolescence, those who had previously experienced psychotic symptoms, and those at high genetic risk of developing schizophrenia. In conclusion, the available evidence supports the hypothesis that cannabis is an independent risk factor, both for psychosis and the development of psychotic symptoms. Addressing cannabis use, particularly in vulnerable populations, is likely to have beneficial effects on psychiatric morbidity.''

and

''and 47.1% of patients received a diagnosis more than a year after seeking treatment for a cannabis-induced psychosis. The patients developed schizophrenia at an earlier age than people in the comparison group (males, 24.6 v. 30.7 years, females, 28.9 v. 33.1 years). CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis-induced psychotic disorders are of great clinical and prognostic importance.''

and

''Compared with non-users, individuals using cannabis at baseline were nearly three times more likely to manifest psychotic symptoms at follow-up. This risk remained significant after statistical adjustment for a range of factors, including ethnic group, marital status, educational level, urbanicity (population density) and discrimination. The authors also found a dose-response relationship with the highest risk (odds ratio=6.8) for the highest level of cannabis use. Further analysis revealed that lifetime history of cannabis use at baseline, as opposed to use of cannabis at follow-up, was a stronger predictor of psychosis 3 years later.''

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2007/07/27/cannabis_new.pdf . This one is a good read and claims that up to 40% of psychosis illnesses can be attributed to cannabis.

There is mounting evidence showing a link between cannabis and psychosis, that is pretty undeniable. However, schizophrenia is a poorly understood disease and I've struggled to find any good statistics on changing incidence of schizophrenia so I can't comment further.

I think I'll make another post for the next section as I've realised this bit is pretty off topic and I am (reluctantly) for the legalisation of this one

 

[cF=)]

I've read further into your website and found two comments interesting enough to be cited here:

Rey & Tennant propose two possible reasons for the well-established link between cannabis use and psychosis when they ask "Does cannabis cause these conditions, or do patients use cannabis to relieve their distress?"

In their paper they mostly cite evidence to support the former, and to oppose the latter. This is indeed the pattern emerging from research in the area, but I would like to point out that a correlation between cannabis use and psychosis does not necessarily imply causation in either direction.

I would like to see research investigating other variables, which may be responsible for the apparent link. The authors do mention studies that have controlled for use of other drugs, but a whole host of social factors including SES (socioeconomic status), and personal factors including personality, trauma, and family seem to have been entirely ignored in this review.

The possible association between cannabis and severe mental illness, such as schizophrenia, goes round in circles. A correspondence in the BMJ (Vol 2 1893, pp. 630, 710, 813-4, 868-9, & 969, variously entitled 'Insanity from the abuse of Indian hemp', 'Indian hemp as a cause of insanity')conducts just the same arguments as outlined by Rey and Tennant (BMJ 2002: 325, 1183-4). The robust 1893 BMJ correspondent Pyramid stated clearly that "the employment of hashish in Egypt has a beneficial effect on the almost vegetarian population". By contrast Dr Thomas Ireland, Government Medical Officer in British Guiana, considered that “the excessive use of Indian hemp […was] a very prolific cause of insanity”.

The fact is that increased usage in the western world has not led to any increase in the incidence of schizophrenia (if anything it is declining), nor shown any geographically located increase. In over 20 years of inner city psychiatry I have never seen a case of ‘cannabis psychosis’, and there is no evidence of a specific or characteristic psychopathology suggesting that this is a diagnostic entity (1). By contrast, schizophrenic patients questioned about cannabis usage by our staff consistently state that they find this drug makes them feel ‘good’ or ‘calmer’, while those feeling uncomfortable, ‘bad’, or even ‘paranoid’ quickly discontinue it, for obvious reasons.

The article you quoted perhaps doesn't answer all questions, making me sit on the fence at the moment. I'm begging to know if these responses were commented though, because I know that in an australian study, they wrote that even after looking at these researches, in no city targeted for his use of marijuana did they saw an increase of mental issues in local clinics. No, I'm not conceding my point yet.

 

[SuperBowser]

(I've written a little extra about marijuana in the above post)

I do think 'yes' because it's a logical stance, but I'm not radical enough in the bottom of my heart to allow methamphetamine and crack. In the case of having an intelligent drug regulation, what would our criteria be? It's impossible to base ourselves off the dangerousness of a drug (because suddenly, alcohol could become illegal). How would we do if we decide to adopt a double standard?

The law on drugs is already a double standard. But it doesn't mean we can't try and improve it. I think it's fair to say alcohol and cigarettes are going nowhere any time soon because of the way they have been embedded into society. I don't think they should be used as a precedent to allow drugs that are even more damaging in though.

Addiction is now a dangerous trait? How do you explain you suddenly forgot to state caffeine as a dangerous substance since it is? How do you explain you haven't pulled your big guns on it since 80% to 90% of the US population uses it daily? (I'm basing myself off some wikipedia's statistics because it's all I have at the moment... but you see what I mean)

I didn't just mean addiction. I meant the high rate of addiction with all the other facts laid out above pointing to cocaine not being a pleasant drug. Still disagree?

Using caffeine again... I'll repeat what I said to Taymond. ''Several things need to be accounted for when looking at a drug. The rate of addiction, the severity of withdrawal symptoms, the harm it causes the user and the harm it could cause to society (those addicted may steal to fund their addiction). As a result, I don't think the legality of caffeine is questionable.'' I'll address your claim of double standards on gambling here as well. I stated a variety of factors to look at. Pointing out half a sentence of what I wrote and claiming double standards is silly. Gambling is also a psychological addiction, which we have not really discussed yet.

I forgot to mention this earlier but you used alcohol use in schizophrenic patients as a double standard. I ask you to show me the evidence that alcohol causes schizophrenia. I don't know if there is any.

You must then remove from an individual all his rights to do extreme sports or any other sports that could potentially lead to an hospitalization. Do you know how many kids were sent to surgery after falling off their skateboard? You're adopting a double standard again.

Aside from the fact that sports is definitively good for you, the risk of life changing injuries is pretty low (and known by the athlete) for most. A broken wrist can be fixed. A heart attack following chronic use of cocaine (because you are now addicted)... not so much. Aside from that some drugs can have a massive impact on the way you function as a whole.

Sorry, but my internet is being a bit of a nuisance atm. I had typed out a lot more, but it's been deleted -_- I'm feeling pretty tired and the router might screw me over again so hopefully I'll find the time later this week.

 

[behemoth]

Superbowser, I'm supposed to be doing a Linux programming assignment, but I've been drawn into this, so I'll make a quick response to two of your above posts, then relate some anecdotal evidence:

First, you mentioned in passing that while Alcohol is too embedded to go anywhere, we shouldn't use that as a gateway to allow more harmful drugs in.

I can't believe that someone as intelligent as you could still hold the belief that all the drugs in question are more harmful than alcohol. I don't have the time to post studies on this (wish I could, assignment, I'll come back and edit), but drinking and driving and domestic abuse as a direct result of alcohol have no parallel as far as extroverted downsides of marijuana usage (for example).

You also mentioned that extreme sports are different than drug usage because of a relevant infrequency of injury and because the athletes know what they are getting into.

Well, the first is conjecture without numbers, and the second is easily countered by saying, "fine, then legalize, but only allow consumption of <insert drug here> after taking a course detailing proper usage and possible ill effects."

Rather than extreme sports, I will ask you why then it is okay for us to ride motorcycles. I have recently begun to ride, and I have heard from every experienced rider I've run into, "it's not if you're going to crash, but when."

This is a very dangerous thing to do, yet it is still legal.

And finally, anecdotal evidence:

I use marijuana recreationally, but only lightly. The reason is that I went through a period for about a year when being high would cause horrific panic attacks. This would seem to corroborate your cited evidence. However, I can say that without a doubt, it was the state of mind I was in which caused the anxiety while high. That, coupled with oversmoking of really high-quality cannabis lead to me quitting smoking for 6 months.

Once I had quit, and gotten things less stressful in my life, I started lightly smoking again, and haven't had an attack since.

I know that is simply anecdotal, but it really gives an example, I think, of the kind of inaccuracies associated with those kind of studies, which don't take in to account extenuating circumstances.

Dammit, really finally, I will present this:

We have been mostly talking about weed, as it is the poster child for legalization. However, I would posit that another which screams for legalization is psilocybin mushrooms.

These truly should require a class concerning usage, because there is an inherent danger in taking strong hallucinogens. However, taken correctly (that is, infrequently and with great respect), they are powerful teachers.

As early as 2002, psychologists began using LSD and psilocybin again (after a stint of illegality stemming from the Nixon era) to treat such things as manic/chronic depression, bi-polar disorder, and other serious mental illnesses.

A study was done of the patients receiving this treatment:

(I won't quote exact numbers because I don't want to lie, I will get them later and edit!)

a very large percent (55-75%) said that it was an incredibly positive experience.
a very large percent (55-75%) said that it ranked in importance to the death of a loved one.

I won't go into the reasons why (because that would be off-topic), but the positive effects of mushrooms are far-reaching indeed, and heavily outweigh those of caffeine, tobacco, or alcohol.

 

[KMB23]

I think that marijuana should be legalized. If a significant increase in users isn't noticed then other drugs should be legalized. People are going to get drugs either way. If the government controls the drugs, then they could control how they are made and make them safer. That way people wouldn't constantly die in meth lab accidents or from getting bad drugs.

 

[TheManaLord]

I'm unsure where you live but drugs are illegal in the United States.

It's a matter of regulation. Alcohol is dangerous. It can kill people, and it is addictive. Nicotine is dangerous. It can kill people, and it is addictive. Both are drugs, both are legal in the United States, and both are regulated.

Regulation is an easy way to make something potentially dangerous legal. Cigarettes and the nicotine within them are a natural stimulant and gives the consumer a feeling of relaxation and calmness. Alcohol in moderation also gives the consumer benefits, some even health benefits (in the case of fine red wine), and more commonly just a buzz of heightened sensations. These substances become dangerous through abuse.

What can be said of other drugs? The results vary, obviously. Some substances should be legalized for similar reasons that alcohol and cigarettes are legal. Marijuana is the best and most classic example. If it were regulated, similar age restrictions could be put on it and amounts could be limited. Inherently this leads to economic stimulation, reduction in crime, and a relieving of the taboo placed on individuals for experiences in relation to the drug (Bill Clinton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, whoever else). Marijuana has benefits to society and the consumers of it. Relaxation, social interaction, sense stimulus, and pain relief are just the tip of the iceberg, and are only the most commonly cited benefits of the drug. With legalization many more realms and possibilities could open up. There are few good reasons why Marijuana should remain completely illegal.

Other drugs like cocaine, amphetamines, heroine, and other similar drugs that can be classified accordingly are inherently terrible substances and should be illegal. Addictive, damaging, sharply decreasing marginal utility, time consuming, mood changing, state altering, permanent physical and mental harm, etc.

The choice is simple, the term "drugs" is too broad, it should be narrowed down to substances and then taken care of accordingly.

 

[Firus]

A lot of people's positions are based on the fact that you should be able to do what you want with your body, as it is your body. I fully agree on that point, but drugs do not fall in line with that. With a lot of drugs you could get out of control and do things that affect other people, you could kill people, so it's not necessarily your decision to make, nor is it just your body.

Yes, if you're just getting high with some friends it shouldn't be a problem, but depending on the drug, you could end up leaving the house and doing stupid things.

If you want a real example of someone who was killed by drugs, take Phil Hartman (famous Actor and Comedian, if you've never heard of him somehow). His wife, Brynn, was addicted to cocaine for a while, and was sober for 10 years. 5 months before she killed him in his sleep, actor and comedian Andy D. (His last name is censored...) reintroduced cocaine to her. It was at least partially due to the properties of cocaine that she shot and killed him. She later killed herself as well, leaving their two small children parentless.

If it's illegal, people are forced to hide it, and although people will still be openly high to some extent, it forces them to be more careful. I think forcing them to be careful like this is a good thing, because if they're hiding it, they won't be going out in public, openly smoking/snorting/etc. drugs.

You should be able to self-destruct if you want, but you should not be able to kill others with it, nor should you be able to use drugs if you have children to take care of. It's irresponsible, and you'll screw up people's lives with it.

 

[The Executive]

There was a wreck about a mile from my high school yesterday. Two guys were in a truck going about 100mph around a tight curve, the vehicle flipped and crashed into the side of a bridge. The passenger died, and the driver lived, but is shattered from the waist down. The guy driving had pot in his system.

So much for the argument that marijuana use doesn't affect other people.

 

[cF=)]

And I've heard lots of headlines about alcoholic behaviours on the road leading into death. Whose to blame, people who use drugs in the wrong situation or the drug itself? Answering the first is just building a double standard following only your own opinion and prejudices.

I play videogames and kill someone. They found out I was a counter-strike player. The correlation (and DIRECT causation!) is established, counter-strike kills and should be banned from all houses. [/sarcasm]

 

[Firus]

And I've heard lots of headlines about alcoholic behaviours on the road leading into death. Whose to blame, people who use drugs in the wrong situation or the drug itself? Answering the first is just building a double standard following only your own opinion and prejudices.

I play videogames and kill someone. They found out I was a counter-strike player. The correlation (and DIRECT causation!) is established, counter-strike kills and should be banned from all houses. [/sarcasm]

I'm not saying there's no problem with alcohol either; frankly, if it were reasonable, it would probably be best to outlaw alcohol as well. If you think I'm nuts to say that, then you shouldn't have brought up alcohol as a counterargument in the first place.

People are stupid. If you legalize something on the assumption that the only people that will kill someone else by use of it if they use it in the wrong situation, you're being ignorant, because more often than not, someone's going to use it in the wrong situation. Alcohol is just one example; if you hear about so many alcohol-related deaths, why would you think it's a good idea to legalize drugs?

Video Games/Movies/etc. are a completely different topic, that's not an accurate metaphor. Video Games aren't drugs, they don't actually directly affect your mind like drugs and alcohol do. Were you playing counter-strike WHILE you were driving? No. Would I blame drugs/alcohol on a death if someone was not drunk/high DURING the accident? No.

 

[The Executive]

And I've heard lots of headlines about alcoholic behaviours on the road leading into death. Whose to blame, people who use drugs in the wrong situation or the drug itself? Answering the first is just building a double standard following only your own opinion and prejudices.

I play videogames and kill someone. They found out I was a counter-strike player. The correlation (and DIRECT causation!) is established, counter-strike kills and should be banned from all houses. [/sarcasm]

Are you sure you didn't mean the second?

Anyway...let's examine the post in question.

There was a wreck about a mile from my high school yesterday. Two guys were in a truck going about 100mph around a tight curve, the vehicle flipped and crashed into the side of a bridge. The passenger died, and the driver lived, but is shattered from the waist down. The guy driving had pot in his system.

So much for the argument that marijuana use doesn't affect other people.

If you want to sit around on your property and alter your state of mind, I can't stop you. The moment you step out into public and your inept state has a negative, potentially fatal effect on other people, that's when I take issue with the problem.

This kid made a really stupid decision and now he's messed up and his friend is dead. Had he not been under the influence of marijuana, he probably would not have been driving like a madman on a state highway at 10:15 am.

There is no legitimate reason to legalize marijuana. None.

Edit: agree w/ Firus.

 

[cF=)]

Are you sure you didn't mean the second?

Got me there. Indeed, I meant the second

If you want to sit around on your property and alter your state of mind, I can't stop you. The moment you step out into public and your inept state has a negative, potentially fatal effect on other people, that's when I take issue with the problem.

We agree then. I'll quote myself from page one and you'll be able to see my initial position:

When using drugs, you are purposefully accepting, in the limits of your own person, to disturb in different ways your neurochemistry. I'm all for banning drugs and driving (like we already do with alcohol)

There is no legitimate reason to legalize marijuana. None.

Yes there are, read the thread and refute what I already posted. I won't repeat myself because you wanted to join the conversation on page 3.

I'm not saying there's no problem with alcohol either; frankly, if it were reasonable, it would probably be best to outlaw alcohol as well. If you think I'm nuts to say that, then you shouldn't have brought up alcohol as a counterargument in the first place.

People are stupid. If you legalize something on the assumption that the only people that will kill someone else by use of it if they use it in the wrong situation, you're being ignorant, because more often than not, someone's going to use it in the wrong situation. Alcohol is just one example; if you hear about so many alcohol-related deaths, why would you think it's a good idea to legalize drugs?

Ban guns then! Ban everything that might turn out wrong because there's a possibility of danger. Do the same for space exploration, someone might get killed in the process. Why not apply this to fast-food as well? And tobacco? And while we're at it, let's give the government all the power he wants to tell us what we have the right or not to do.

I hope you understand I'm being cynical. This just goes to show that if we adopt a reasonable stance on human rights, we should have the power to use drugs in the limit of our liberty.

Video Games/Movies/etc. are a completely different topic, that's not an accurate metaphor. Video Games aren't drugs, they don't actually directly affect your mind like drugs and alcohol do. Were you playing counter-strike WHILE you were driving? No. Would I blame drugs/alcohol on a death if someone was not drunk/high DURING the accident? No.

You're repeating yourself, and I'll have to do so perhaps. Why do you blame drugs in the first place? If you drown yourself because you attached a rock to your leg and tried to swim, will you hold the rock responsible for causing death?! I hope you get what I mean.

 

[Firus]

Ban guns then! Ban everything that might turn out wrong because there's a possibility of danger. Do the same for space exploration, someone might get killed in the process. Why not apply this to fast-food as well? And tobacco? And while we're at it, let's give the government all the power he wants to tell us what we have the right or not to do.

I hope you understand I'm being cynical. This just goes to show that if we adopt a reasonable stance on human rights, we should have the power to use drugs in the limit of our liberty.

But this is exactly what I refuted before; it's not affecting your mind directly. If you shoot someone with a gun, that's because you're most likely stressed, angry, or something like that. Like the saying goes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. The gun doesn't speak to you and say "DO IT! DO IT!", you choose to. With drugs, you're just not in your right mind to make a decision like that.

This applies for the rest of your arguments there as well, only those are even sillier. That goes along the path of suicide, which is your own body; I have no problem with you screwing up your own body, it's when you step outside of your house that I have a problem. Unless you have guards standing outside everyone's house giving them a drug test when they try to leave to make sure they're not high, you can't enforce that.

I realize you're being cynical, but your arguments just don't apply.

I'm not for government having ultimate power; but in the case of drugs, they should not be legalized.

You're repeating yourself, and I'll have to do so perhaps. Why do you blame drugs in the first place? If you drown yourself because you attached a rock to your leg and tried to swim, will you hold the rock responsible for causing death?! I hope you get what I mean.

How am I repeating myself? I don't see how I am, beyond the fact that, in this case, I'm refuting basically the same argument with the same point.

This is the same thing all over again; the rock isn't altering your mind, drugs are. And once again, the rock isn't going to affect other people, which is why I have a problem with drugs being legalized.

You've got to realize that my whole argument is predicated on the fact that you can lose control of what you're doing with drugs/alcohol. If there's something more to this argument that I'm just not seeing, please enlighten me.

 

[cF=)]

Hi propaganda from the 1940's, I'm sure I become a dangerous killing machine when I ingest LSD or take a pill. Do you know I took a biology class and know pretty well how drugs affect your central nervous system? There's nothing like 'instant psychological disorders' that pop out suddenly, complete bull****. Give me proofs or you're left with nothing more than your opinion.

Do you ever saw someone taking 3 or 4 cup of wines in a family meeting and jumping on someone with a chainsaw?

 

[Firus]

Hi propaganda from the 1940's, I'm sure I become a dangerous killing machine when I ingest LSD or take a pill. Do you know I took a biology class and know pretty well how drugs affect your central nervous system? There's nothing like 'instant psychological disorders' that pop out suddenly, complete bull****. Give me proofs or you're left with nothing more than your opinion.

Do you ever saw someone taking 3 or 4 cup of wines in a family meeting and jumping on someone with a chainsaw?

I already gave you proof; but I'll repost it, just in case you missed it.

If you want a real example of someone who was killed by drugs, take Phil Hartman (famous Actor and Comedian, if you've never heard of him somehow). His wife, Brynn, was addicted to cocaine for a while, and was sober for 10 years. 5 months before she killed him in his sleep, actor and comedian Andy D. (His last name is censored...) reintroduced cocaine to her. It was at least partially due to the properties of cocaine that she shot and killed him. She later killed herself as well, leaving their two small children parentless.

I'm not saying psychological disorders pop out suddenly, but they can affect your brain; cocaine, for example, can make you more aggressive, which is at least partially why the above happened.

 

[cF=)]

I already gave you proof; but I'll repost it, just in case you missed it.

And this is what I responded, if you don't remember:

The correlation (and DIRECT causation!) is established

Which basically means that you never showed any link between drug use and increased violence, you just stated an example and blamed drugs because your minimal understanding gave you the right to say nonsensical crap. "It affects the brain, it's dangerous" is just as right as saying "I've eaten aspirins and now I'm feeling enraged".

Give - me - facts, you're in a debate for christ sake.