Should Drugs Be Illegal

[Firus]

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

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.

I don't have a "minimal understanding" nor am I saying "nonsensical crap".

You say you have a great understanding of this, yet you're saying that drugs will not affect the brain in a dangerous way. How about instead of telling me to give facts, why don't you give facts to support your concept that drugs do not affect the brain at all? Because this is the first I've heard of drugs not affecting you in a dangerous way at all.

I am not making up the fact that drugs had a part in the murder of Phil Hartman; it is not necessarily established for sure, but Brynn Hartman was high when she shot him, and if you search around a little bit, you will find that the cocaine is widely considered at least part of the reason that what happened happened. True, it's probably a bad example since it isn't factually proven, but it's pretty hard to factually prove that every drug/alcohol-related incident was caused by drugs/alcohol.

But by that reasoning, we can't PROVE that crashes involving people who are drunk are caused by the fact that they are drunk, so you shouldn't be able to be arrested with a DUI charge, right?

Cocaine use to a certain extent can cause you to be irritable, restless, and paranoid. I'm not just making this up. If you're all of those three things, don't you think that you could end up doing something drastic? Even if you don't necessarily kill someone, you could send them to the hospital or do permanent damage to them in some way. Heck, you don't even need to leave your house to harm someone, necessarily. You could harm someone living with you.

Plus, with some drugs, you can have hallucinations. If you hallucinate and think that someone is a giant monster, isn't it possible you'll attack them because all you see is a monster?

Drugs that don't affect you, that couldn't cause you to get into a car crash or do something else hazardous to someone's life, those I wouldn't have a problem with. But most of the illegal drugs I've heard of can do just that.

I'm not making this up, these are facts. Unless, of course, everyone giving facts on illegal drugs is out to get us.

 

[cF=)]

I don't have a "minimal understanding" nor am I saying "nonsensical crap".

QQ

You say you have a great understanding of this, yet you're saying that drugs will not affect the brain in a dangerous way. How about instead of telling me to give facts, why don't you give facts to support your concept that drugs do not affect the brain at all?

Rest assured my dear, I did so in the rest of thread. Give yourself some time to read all my previous posts and the discussion that's been going on since the beginning of this topic.

True, it's probably a bad example since it isn't factually proven, but it's pretty hard to factually prove that every drug/alcohol-related incident was caused by drugs/alcohol.

And thus why your argument doesn't make sense.

But by that reasoning, we can't PROVE that crashes involving people who are drunk are caused by the fact that they are drunk, so you shouldn't be able to be arrested with a DUI charge, right?

Incorrect reasoning, there is a known chart which we base ourselves on to know what amount of alcohol is acceptable before impairing too much your judgement and driving skills. With marijuana, I'm not saying there is no reducing in your motor or psychological skills behind the wheel, I'm saying it's not a good reason to ban a certain drug because someone was dumb enough to use it and then drive on public roads. Marijuana's not responsible, it's the driver's irresponsibility that killed.

I'll use a known sentence to summarize what I mean: guns don't kill people, I do.

Cocaine use to a certain extent can cause you to be irritable, restless, and paranoid.

Let's take a clearer look at the effects of cocaine:

PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS:
Varies with dose and the tolerance of the user. Increases alertness, wakefulness, elevates the mood, mild to high degree of euphoria, increases athletic performance, decreases fatigue, clearer thinking, increases concentration, increases energy, increased irritability, insomnia, restlessness. With high doses may exhibit a pattern of psychosis with confused and disorganized behavior, irritability, fear, paranoia, hallucinations, may become extremely antisocial and aggressive.

PHYSICAL EFFECTS:
Increases heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature, and sweating. Increases speed of respiration, dilates the pupils, decreased sleep and appetite. Can decrease seizure threshold and is associated with seizures, strokes, and heart attacks in susceptible individuals.

--

Now that we have facts, how can we interpret it? Is a woman in her week any more irritable then a user who craves cocaine? Is it really linked in any way to a potentially dangerous behaviour, or can we say the death of Phil Hartman was the result of more variables then just a drug? If it made the headlines, it's probably because the it gave good press to the government's propaganda.

I know cocaine users, I know speed users, and the only bell irritability rings to me is someone who might get upset more easily. That doesn't support the hypothesis that cocaine (in this case) was the reason someone died. Like the band despised icon says, the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of 10,000 is statistics.

Plus, with some drugs, you can have hallucinations. If you hallucinate and think that someone is a giant monster, isn't it possible you'll attack them because all you see is a monster?

Never used drugs, didn't you? Hallucinations don't work that way, and users who normally seek extreme hallucinations (DMT) will do the trip laying down on a couch or a bed.

Drugs that don't affect you, that couldn't cause you to get into a car crash or do something else hazardous to someone's life, those I wouldn't have a problem with. But most of the illegal drugs I've heard of can do just that.

And this is why we already have measures to counter and punish people who use drugs in public without the agreement of people around them! Guess why you loose your permit if you're caught drunk driving. If you smoke weed in a weed cafe, it's all cool, but I never implied that it's respectable to smoke/snort/eat and drive.

 

[Firus]

QQ

...What?

Rest assured my dear, I did so in the rest of thread. Give yourself some time to read all my previous posts and the discussion that's been going on since the beginning of this topic.

First of all, don't call me "my dear". Don't treat the rest of us like we're inferior to you.

As for your "facts", you have nothing to back them up. No proof. The really controversial things like drugs not affecting your judgment or not causing anything but pleasure for yourself...that, you haven't backed up.

And thus why your argument doesn't make sense.

Incorrect reasoning, there is a known chart which we base ourselves on to know what amount of alcohol is acceptable before impairing too much your judgement and driving skills. With marijuana, I'm not saying there is no reducing in your motor or psychological skills behind the wheel, I'm saying it's not a good reason to ban a certain drug because someone was dumb enough to use it and then drive on public roads. Marijuana's not responsible, it's the driver's irresponsibility that killed.

True, you can prove what your Blood Alcohol level is and there's nothing to prove how high you are.

But as I've stated before, people are stupid. If you assume that everyone's going to be responsible, that's naive and going to cause a lot of deaths.

Let's take a clearer look at the effects of cocaine:

PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS:
Varies with dose and the tolerance of the user. Increases alertness, wakefulness, elevates the mood, mild to high degree of euphoria, increases athletic performance, decreases fatigue, clearer thinking, increases concentration, increases energy, increased irritability, insomnia, restlessness. With high doses[/QUOTE]

As you may ALSO know, cocaine makes it harder to feel pleasure...so you gradually take more and more, which ends up getting to said high doses.

may exhibit a pattern of psychosis with confused and disorganized behavior, irritability, fear, paranoia, hallucinations, may become extremely antisocial and aggressive.

PHYSICAL EFFECTS:
Increases heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature, and sweating. Increases speed of respiration, dilates the pupils, decreased sleep and appetite. Can decrease seizure threshold and is associated with seizures, strokes, and heart attacks in susceptible individuals.

--

Now that we have facts, how can we interpret it? Is a woman in her week any more irritable then a user who craves cocaine? Is it really linked in any way to a potentially dangerous behaviour, or can we say the death of Phil Hartman was the result of more variables then just a drug? If it made the headlines, it's probably because the it gave good press to the government's propaganda.

I'm a little offended by your first comparison...
It made the headlines because Phil Hartman was famous...you really sound uber paranoid. I do not like the government, but I don't think that they're out to get us by stopping us from taking drugs with no reason. Seriously, why would they want to stop us from taking drugs if there's nothing wrong with them?

I know cocaine users, I know speed users, and the only bell irritability rings to me is someone who might get upset more easily. That doesn't support the hypothesis that cocaine (in this case) was the reason someone died. Like the band despised icon says, the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of 10,000 is statistics.

Okay, pause. You know drug users? Does this mean that all of the irrational things you're saying and not backing up are being said because you're getting this from personal experience? Somehow, I find your personal experience (and basically opinion) not a very good defense of your argument...

Brynn Hartman was already messed up, she was on some drugs. The reason I said part of it is because I think it's possible that the cocaine made her aggressive and irritable enough that she shot him. So I'm not saying it is THE reason, but I'm saying it played a part.

Never used drugs, didn't you? Hallucinations don't work that way, and users who normally seek extreme hallucinations (DMT) will do the trip laying down on a couch or a bed.

And this is why we already have measures to counter and punish people who use drugs in public without the agreement of people around them! Guess why you loose your permit if you're caught drunk driving. If you smoke weed in a weed cafe, it's all cool, but I never implied that it's respectable to smoke/snort/eat and drive.

No, I'm sorry; is it a BAD thing that I haven't taken illegal drugs?

Again, personal experience...maybe the people you know do, but that doesn't mean everyone does/will. Once you've done it for a while, you may think that you have control and then you don't do it on the couch.

Yes, you have said that you are not for drunk/high driving. But there are still the other effects of the drugs which you seem to think are non-existent.
No offense, but your arguments for "this drug doesn't affect you unless you're driving" sound like someone who does drugs themselves and is in denial of the fact that they don't have total control over themselves while they take them.

 

[cF=)]

First of all, don't call me "my dear".

Oh, you just made a terrible mistake... it's British accent time!

The really controversial things like drugs not affecting your judgment or not causing anything but pleasure for yourself...that, you haven't backed up.

Wh..What?! Alright, quit with the strawman, where have I said drugs don't impair your judgement? You'd have to be able to prove that this was, somehow, my position my dear.

As for the pleasure thing, you do know that recreational drugs induce activity in your reward system which higher the concentration of serotonin level and even sometimes dopamine level. Each drug changes things in his way, but we can classify them following certain chemistry criteria. So how could you deny they induce pleasure my dear?

But as I've stated before, people are stupid. If you assume that everyone's going to be responsible, that's naive and going to cause a lot of deaths.

My poor dear, people are using drugs as of now, so you'd have to prove to me that people with no initial problem with develop a criminal tendency. Drugs with high risks of addiction are allowed, as of now, because pharmaceutical companies keep the monopoly under their legal drugs. Stimulant in prescription look alike amphetamines, Adderall is a replica of cocaine, but all this money better come back to corporates. Why this double standard?

I'd like to know what made you think that drugs (oh but don't touch tobacco, acetaminophen, alcohol...) kill. This is outrageously dumb.

As you may ALSO know, cocaine makes it harder to feel pleasure...so you gradually take more and more, which ends up getting to said high doses.

And irresponsibility's to blame? How about you don't take more and more and more and keep some money in your pocket. Drugs like crack are indeed something I wouldn't make legal because it's extremely addictive and completely brain blowing, but why can't we teach people and put warnings on drugs like we do with tobacco? That doesn't mean I defend opiates and amphetamines, but psychedelics don't deal with anything else than emotional dependence. Craving chocolate's an example of this.

It made the headlines because Phil Hartman was famous...you really sound uber paranoid.

I'll get back to you with an ad hominem: you sound like a soccer mom.

I do not like the government, but I don't think that they're out to get us by stopping us from taking drugs with no reason. Seriously, why would they want to stop us from taking drugs if there's nothing wrong with them?

This is where history and bad politics strike!

-- http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

Other drugs like amphetamines and stimulants have no reason to be allowed by the government because, unlike alcohol, they couldn't make any profit out of it. Meanwhile, corporates are allowed to sell molecules that look similar in certain way to illegal drugs, but their industry is a political friend.

Somehow, I find your personal experience (and basically opinion) not a very good defense of your argument...

Personally, I think you're just pulling a strawman to say 'I don't know what could refute this and prefer avoid bringing something intelligent'.

Brynn Hartman was already messed up, she was on some drugs.

Again, lies that the drug made her kill her husband in a rush of anger.

The reason I said part of it is because I think it's possible that the cocaine made her aggressive and irritable enough that she shot him. So I'm not saying it is THE reason, but I'm saying it played a part.

And it's perfectly possible it holds no correlation. Burden of proof anyone?

No, I'm sorry; is it a BAD thing that I haven't taken illegal drugs?

My dear, it's far from being bad. I don't point finger at virgins when I see them.

Once you've done it for a while, you may think that you have control and then you don't do it on the couch.

You still blame drugs instead of blaming idiocy, and you never backed up what you said with anything past your opinion. If you're an alcoholic and think it's perfectly fine to drive and drink, you're the problem, not alcohol.

Yes, you have said that you are not for drunk/high driving. But there are still the other effects of the drugs which you seem to think are non-existent.

Enlighten me, wise one.

No offense, but your arguments for "this drug doesn't affect you unless you're driving" sound like someone who does drugs themselves and is in denial of the fact that they don't have total control over themselves while they take them.

At the opposite of that, I seek to change my senses and alter consciousness when I take drugs. That's pretty much the goal and fun of it. I see it completely similar to friends buying a 12 pack and drinking it while doing something else.

 

[Firus]

Oh, you just made a terrible mistake... it's British accent time!

Oh dear God...

Wh..What?! Alright, quit with the strawman, where have I said drugs don't impair your judgement? You'd have to be able to prove that this was, somehow, my position my dear.

As for the pleasure thing, you do know that recreational drugs induce activity in your reward system which higher the concentration of serotonin level and even sometimes dopamine level. Each drug changes things in his way, but we can classify them following certain chemistry criteria. So how could you deny they induce pleasure my dear?

I didn't DENY that they give you pleasure, I said that you said that they give you ONLY pleasure. In other words, that you said that they don't affect other people.

As for your position on it not affecting the brain, maybe I interpreted this wrong, but...

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".

...okay, the way you're saying my dear, it just sounds patronizing, and I do not appreciate that. That's why I told you not to call me that.

My poor dear, people are using drugs as of now, so you'd have to prove to me that people with no initial problem with develop a criminal tendency. Drugs with high risks of addiction are allowed, as of now, because pharmaceutical companies keep the monopoly under their legal drugs. Stimulant in prescription look alike amphetamines, Adderall is a replica of cocaine, but all this money better come back to corporates. Why this double standard?

I'd like to know what made you think that drugs (oh but don't touch tobacco, acetaminophen, alcohol...) kill. This is outrageously dumb.

I'm not talking about criminally stupid, I'm talking about the sort of idiots that drive drunk now. They're not necessarily criminals, they just are stupid enough to think that they can drive fine drunk.

With prescription drugs being the same as the illegal ones, there's a reason, it is not a double standard; they are perscription drugs. You need a doctor's perscription to get it. That's why there's your so-called double standard.

And irresponsibility's to blame? How about you don't take more and more and more and keep some money in your pocket. Drugs like crack are indeed something I wouldn't make legal because it's extremely addictive and completely brain blowing, but why can't we teach people and put warnings on drugs like we do with tobacco? That doesn't mean I defend opiates and amphetamines, but psychedelics don't deal with anything else than emotional dependence. Craving chocolate's an example of this.

They are addictive, and if you're addicted, you're going to take more and more.

Actually, you bring up a good point; if you're not for making crack legal, then which drugs exactly are you for legalizing? That would probably help to know.

If drugs were made legal, we could very well put warnings. In fact, if they were to be legalized, I would definitely want that.

I'll get back to you with an ad hominem: you sound like a soccer mom.

I'm not even female...how do I sound like a soccer mom?

This is where history and bad politics strike!

-- http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

Other drugs like amphetamines and stimulants have no reason to be allowed by the government because, unlike alcohol, they couldn't make any profit out of it. Meanwhile, corporates are allowed to sell molecules that look similar in certain way to illegal drugs, but their industry is a political friend.

Wow, that is stupid. Well, I did always know the government is greedy for money...they take about half of your paycheck for taxes.

Personally, I think you're just pulling a strawman to say 'I don't know what could refute this and prefer avoid bringing something intelligent'.

Actually, I didn't mean to avoid the argument...I just wrote that and sort of forgot to reply to that. But anyways...

Again, lies that the drug made her kill her husband in a rush of anger.

Oops, misworded that...I meant to say, she was already messed up (depressed or something I believe), but was also taking drugs...my bad.

In any case, let's drop the Phil Hartman story from the argument, I clearly can't prove anything about it being related to the cocaine (although I still believe that it had something to do with it), and as such, it doesn't belong in this debate.

My dear, it's far from being bad. I don't point finger at virgins when I see them.

True, but it souded like you were surprised or something that I hadn't...I don't know, it's hard to tell emotions through the internet.

You still blame drugs instead of blaming idiocy, and you never backed up what you said with anything past your opinion. If you're an alcoholic and think it's perfectly fine to drive and drink, you're the problem, not alcohol.

I'm not blaming drugs; I'm saying that people will use drugs, and they're idiots. Which I suppose isn't a valid argument against drugs.

Enlighten me, wise one.

What I've been saying all along; that people can get irritated and kill...which sort of goes along with the Phil Hartman argument in that I really can't prove it...in fact, that incident was really the only backup for that argument I had.

Basically, I suppose the only instance in which you can cause harm to others would be being high while driving.

 

[Deleted member]

Oh, you just made a terrible mistake... it's British accent time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LI6jusMi8A

 

[cF=)]

...okay, the way you're saying my dear, it just sounds patronizing, and I do not appreciate that. That's why I told you not to call me that.

IT lasted long enough for a cheap laugh... it's over now

I'm not talking about criminally stupid, I'm talking about the sort of idiots that drive drunk now. They're not necessarily criminals, they just are stupid enough to think that they can drive fine drunk.

We already have laws in place to punish people in these cases, and I don't think prohibition's the right way to avoid high driving.

With prescription drugs being the same as the illegal ones, there's a reason, it is not a double standard; they are perscription drugs. You need a doctor's perscription to get it. That's why there's your so-called double standard.

As you saw with the link I joined to my last post, the double standard actually originate from a money making desire, and this is what I denounce.

Actually, you bring up a good point; if you're not for making crack legal, then which drugs exactly are you for legalizing? That would probably help to know.

Well, anything having a phenylalanine or an amphetamine structure, and of course psychedelics. I'm not really for or against OTC cough suppressants with dextromethorphan (yes, this is legal as of now), but I stand against legalizing crack and freebase cocaine. Finally, I'm on the fence about heroin, because although it's addictive (opiate), legalizing it might increase it's purity and avoid cases of lethal injection.

If drugs were made legal, we could very well put warnings. In fact, if they were to be legalized, I would definitely want that.

Of course, we should follow the model we use for tobacco and alcohol: warnings, teaching and 18 (or 21) years old to consume and buy.

In any case, let's drop the Phil Hartman story from the argument, I clearly can't prove anything about it being related to the cocaine (although I still believe that it had something to do with it), and as such, it doesn't belong in this debate.

It might have worsen her case, but it just shows it's dangerous to hide depression and emotions through drug taking.

Basically, I suppose the only instance in which you can cause harm to others would be being high while driving.

I'm wholeheartedly against drunk/high driving.

 

[Surri-Sama]

What I don’t understand about illegal drugs is, they obviously have harmful affects on the person who does them but a much lesser affect on those around them, when compared to Alcohol or even Tobacco. I’m thinking we should ether legalize the weaker drugs, Marijuana, Acid, and a few others I know little about...ex Salvia (which they are actually trying to put a public ban on in Montreal) or making drinking and smoking a criminal offence…. but then again that would make our law system a little more logical, Bush…I mean God knows that wont happen.

 

[The Executive]

Bush…I mean God knows that wont happen.

That was unwarranted. I'm sure everyone here can differentiate between the President of the United States and God, and I have not once in my life seen anyone who did otherwise. Let's try and stay on-topic, OK?

 

[cF=)]

making drinking and smoking a criminal offence…. but then again that would make our law system a little more logical

Wait, how is it logical to apply a ban on alcohol when drinking's a personal choice?

 

[blazedaces]

Wait, how is it logical to apply a ban on alcohol when drinking's a personal choice?

Isn't almost anything a "personal choice"? Someone could make the "personal choice" to **** someone. We still ban it. This argument isn't valid.

-blazed

 

[cF=)]

Isn't almost anything a "personal choice"? Someone could make the "personal choice" to **** someone. We still ban it. This argument isn't valid.

-blazed

I'll rephrase in a valid manner: a choice that affects someone but no one else.
I sometimes misuse words because they don't have the same connotation in french... oh well.

EDIT: I'd + rep DeL for the link if I could

 

[Firus]

We already have laws in place to punish people in these cases, and I don't think prohibition's the right way to avoid high driving.

You're right; if we have drugs illegalized, by that argument, alcohol should too. I'm just saying that there will be people who drive high because they think they'll be totally fine.

As you saw with the link I joined to my last post, the double standard actually originate from a money making desire, and this is what I denounce.

Yeah, that's true...greed like that really sickens me.

Well, anything having a phenylalanine or an amphetamine structure, and of course psychedelics. I'm not really for or against OTC cough suppressants with dextromethorphan (yes, this is legal as of now), but I stand against legalizing crack and freebase cocaine. Finally, I'm on the fence about heroin, because although it's addictive (opiate), legalizing it might increase it's purity and avoid cases of lethal injection.

Um...well, I'm not going to pretend I understand what all of those things are...but if you're talking about lower-grade drugs, I'd be more lenient on those. I'd definitely be for illegalizing cocaine/crack, some of the drugs that don't have a big side-effect wouldn't be as big of a problem, though.

Of course, we should follow the model we use for tobacco and alcohol: warnings, teaching and 18 (or 21) years old to consume and buy.

Yep.

It might have worsen her case, but it just shows it's dangerous to hide depression and emotions through drug taking.

Yeah, taking Zoloft, drinking, and taking cocaine doesn't seem like a smart idea...

I'm wholeheartedly against drunk/high driving.

So we agree on that.

Most of the reason I wouldn't really legalize drugs is because it would cause a lot of people to start taking them and be careless with them since they're legal now, and I can't think of a good reason to legalize them other than to screw the government up. Which is actually a pretty good motivation , but not necessarily a reason to legalize it.

 

[blazedaces]

I'll rephrase in a valid manner: a choice that personally affect someone (as in, no one else)

Why don't we take the word "choice" out of the picture here? Sorry I'm being nitpicky, but I think the word "choice" and "action" are nearly synonymous in this discussion. Let's make it a question about rights instead of a question about choice.

You usually have a right to do an action that affects you and not anyone else (I'm agreeing with you). But like I said, usually is the key word here. Why? Because it's not always very clear cut what affects you and only you. For example, suicide. I'm not saying you have the right or not to commit suicide, but you have to admit it's not a clear cut black/white situation.

-blazed

 

[cF=)]

Absolutely, there is a lot of grey areas especially in drug debates. Whether I want to see drugs legalize or not tend to be the main point of the thread, hence why I did not talked about measures and details I would like to see surrounding such situations. Examples from my province:

- No alcohol selling past 11pm in stores, 3am in bars.
- It is illegal to sell alcohol to someone who looks and acts in a completely drunk manner.
- You can only drink alcohol in the streets if the bottle's covered by a brown paper bag (or anything else)
- The legal age to buy is 18 years old
etc.

If a law regarding drugs' legalty was passed, we surely won't be able to consume and buy anywhere. In a sense, I hope it answers what you said about rights we have that are, in some way, limited... or maybe I just got your point wrong.

Most of the reason I wouldn't really legalize drugs is because it would cause a lot of people to start taking them and be careless with them since they're legal now

That's a slippery slope. Where did you provided, in your post, any proof explaining this position? How do you know that the situation you describes will happen if we decided to legalize drugs?

 

[Firus]

That's a slippery slope. Where did you provided, in your post, any proof explaining this position? How do you know that the situation you describes will happen if we decided to legalize drugs?

I don't know what will happen; none of us do. And "a lot" was the wrong wording.

More people will probably be taking drugs if they are legalized. I'm sure there are more than a few who have maybe thought of trying drugs, but either weren't able to lay their hands on some because everything has to be underground, or those who wouldn't take them because they're illegal. These people will probably start taking drugs.

Those who already take drugs are probably very secretive about it and careful about it because it's illegal. Once it becomes legal, they'll feel more secure and some may become careless about it. Not all, but some.
My point is that making it legal can have downsides, and I ask you again: is there any good reason to legalize them other than to screw the government up?

 

[cF=)]

These people will probably start taking drugs.

And how is that bad? I don't know how old you are, but people who turn 18 or 21 will in fact buy a beer, a porn magazine or go to a casino because they have the right to. Could we agree this is unrelated?

Those who already take drugs are probably very secretive about it and careful about it because it's illegal. Once it becomes legal, they'll feel more secure and some may become careless about it.

Driving drunk is illegal, yet some do it. Nothing will change the fact that careless people are careless, this is not an argument against legalization.

My point is that making it legal can have downsides

Please tell me which downsides you have pointed that were coherent?

and I ask you again: is there any good reason to legalize them other than to screw the government up?

Be careful, you're asking me to answer a false choice. If drugs are legalized, it would remove the social stigma surrounding drug use and would avoid pot smokers or drug carriers to be arrested, fined, and even put in jail for no reason.

 

[ScottSadistic]

kinda funny but...i am a smoker as well as many others in the united states. it should be illegal but...if we outlawed tobacco...there would be riots everywhere. Marijuana should be legal if cigs r tho. i mean seriously...u never hear about weed killin ppl...tobacco on the other hand...u hear about tobacco killin thousands, if not millions every yer. so why not legalize marijuana? ill tell you why...b/c the government cannot control it. u cant tax something growing in your backyard.

and for the rocord, i dont smoke weed.