Drugs.

[Aught3]

People are basically irresponsible and drugs make them even more so. Illegal drugs should remain illegal so that drug-users find it more difficult to harm themselves and society as a whole.


/troll

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

The problem with banning drugs is IT BLATANTLY DOES NOT WORK. Drug use has not been curtailed by bans, and all they do is waste police time and resources. Legalisation would save police resources and earn tax money.

Also as I mentioned, the illegality combined with the huge profitability make for well armed drugs cartels who are willing to conduct open warfare with governments, catching thousands in the crossfire every year. They wouldn't last long with their main source of income removed.

 

[Prolescum]

The problem with banning drugs is IT BLATANTLY DOES NOT WORK. Drug use has not been curtailed by bans, and all they do is waste police time and resources. Legalisation would save police resources and earn tax money.

Also as I mentioned, the illegality combined with the huge profitability make for well armed drugs cartels who are willing to conduct open warfare with governments, catching thousands in the crossfire every year. They wouldn't last long with their main source of income removed.

Just this.

 

[Aught3]

The problem with banning drugs is IT BLATANTLY DOES NOT WORK. Drug use has not been curtailed by bans, and all they do is waste police time and resources.

I just quickly looked up some statistics for New Zealand, the use of licit alcohol is around 85% (of those old enough to drink it) whereas the use of illicit cannabis is much lower, around 20%. Further, NZ actually has a big problem with cannabis, most other developed countries have usage rates below 10% but even in NZ the rate of illegal drug use is much lower than the rate of use for legal drugs. If you mean that banning drug does not completely eliminate their use, that's true. But would you say that banning something like fraud BLATANTLY DOES NOT WORK because people still commit fraud? We might not be able to eliminate it but reducing the prevalence is the real goal.

Legalisation would save police resources and earn tax money.

But it would also have a significant social and health cost due to increased usage. The taxes on alcohol come nowhere near paying for the problems caused by its use and over-use. Police resources still have to be used checking for drunk-drivers, controlling public intoxication, and shutting down black-market producers. I agree that money would be saved and earned but there would also be a cost that I'm not sure would be balanced in the long run.

Also as I mentioned, the illegality combined with the huge profitability make for well armed drugs cartels who are willing to conduct open warfare with governments, catching thousands in the crossfire every year. They wouldn't last long with their main source of income removed.

This is one of the better arguments I think. Although even if drug were suddenly legalised they still have plenty of markets to move into: illegal gambling, gun-running, child prostitution, murder for hire, etc. Does the same argument of legalisation to remove income work for these activities? Additionally, there is already such a problem with drunk-driving I hate to think how many people would start drugged-driving if legalisation where to occur. I would also expect violent crimes such as assaults, child abuse, and domestic violence to increase 'catching thousands in the crossfire every year'.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think druggies are losers. I don't really care if they want to smoke weed, but being stupid enough to do so when it is illegal makes you a loser. You're also a loser if you think that legalizing drugs is the most valuable use of your time with everything else going wrong in the world. You're a complete loser if you're the sort of idiot who claims that your drug of choice has no negative side effects.

I'm cool with some forms of "decriminalizing" marijuana, because being a loser stoner shouldn't be enough to get you tossed in jail for long stretches of time.

 

[Lallapalalable]

...but the smokers reacted in a way that i found completely over the top to what was a non-issue

Yeah, but there's always the mob mentality. However, that doesnt excuse their behavior (I personally would never attend a protest, more for the fact that I get really paranoid when Im high in public, and I have super easy access already so legalization isnt my top interest).

/troll

Troll? Im actually interested in other people's views on this, as my crowd is mostly stoners.

 

[Aught3]

Troll? Im actually interested in other people's views on this, as my crowd is mostly stoners.

Busted! While I have more faith in people than my first post would suggest I'd really only be willing to entertain decriminalisation of marijuana while keeping other illicit drugs illegal. I support everything I've said thus far, but my first post was overly provocative hence the need for the warning.

 

[Lallapalalable]

Ah. 'Kay then.

And for clarification, I dont want to see all drugs legalized. Heroin, plus others, seems to be better off keeping the police busy.

 

[Lurking_Logic]

Yeah, but there's always the mob mentality. However, that doesnt excuse their behavior (I personally would never attend a protest, more for the fact that I get really paranoid when Im high in public, and I have super easy access already so legalization isnt my top interest).

there is the mob mentality
But deliberately breaking the laws and even their own unofficial ones (Like not selling to school kids which was later confirmed) for me is not something I support

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

The problem with banning drugs is IT BLATANTLY DOES NOT WORK. Drug use has not been curtailed by bans, and all they do is waste police time and resources. Legalisation would save police resources and earn tax money.

Also as I mentioned, the illegality combined with the huge profitability make for well armed drugs cartels who are willing to conduct open warfare with governments, catching thousands in the crossfire every year. They wouldn't last long with their main source of income removed.

Don't need to say more. Your Funny Uncle has done it already.

 

[Laurens]

My main argument for the legalization of marijuana would come from a comparison with a drug that is legal. This drug of course being Alcohol. Alcohol when consumed irresponsibly can lead one into many harmful states, how many deaths are caused by people getting too drunk and falling over barriers into rivers (or worse actually thinking its a good idea to dive in), or other such accidents, or by drunk drivers, or in acts of inebriated violence and rage?

These risks are not present in someone who consumes marijuana. No matter how much you smoke, you won't lose control over your motor functions at least not to the vast extent to which alcohol can. I do think that if marijuana was legalized there should be the same laws against driving whilst high as there are for alcohol, however I would be inclined to think that someone under the influence of marijuana would not drive as recklessly as someone under the influence of alcohol, for the exact reasons that alcohol affects the motor functions far more than marijuana. Marijuana as far as I have observed does not make one inclined to behave violently either.

This is not to say that marijuana does not have risks, but the risks are not as destructive to society as the risks posed by alcohol. In fact the proper legalization of it would reduce the criminal activity associated with the traffic of marijuana etc.

Whether or not you partake in the substance, I feel that from simply observing the harm done by alcohol, compared to the harm done by marijuana is a decent argument for its legalization.

Not to mention the medicinal benefits, which whether true or not deserve to be properly researched - which is difficult when the drug is illegal.

Its just a plant, some people like to dry the buds out and inhale the smoke off them cause it makes them feel good, in the same way that some people like to grind up coffee beans and drink them with hot water. What kind of harm does marijuana do to society to warrant it being illegal? The fact that it is illegal means that criminal gangs are earning millions, which could be stopped if legalization was carried out properly.

To me the prohibition of marijuana is nonsensical.

 

[Laurens]

Also http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2008/12/carl-sagans-thoughts-about-marijuana.html is worth a read

 

[MRaverz]

The way I see it, the government has a responsibility to protect it's citizens because it has the power to do so. Legalising cannabis would be an irresponsible act because it is known to cause harm. To justify this, I would add that smoking and cheap alcohol should also be illegal.

That said, there is some evidence to suggest a medicinal side to cannabis. This should certainly be taken into account, noting on many medicines having harmful side effects. In this case, cannabis should continue to be considered as a possible medicine and safer alternatives should continue to be researched.


However, to return to my core point. It is completely irresponsible for a government to allow the distribution of a substance which is known to cause harm if that substance is only being used recreationally. Sure, there will still be cases where the drug is used - but the message which would be sent around is that this is an activity which is being restricted to save people from their own ignorance.

 

[Doc.]

Here's a question, if a drug is to be legalized and then taxed, wouldn't that imply that this drug would be much more expensive and wouldn't this in turn, leave more space for illegal drug distribution and more tolerant attitude towards this?

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Here's a question, if a drug is to be legalized and then taxed, wouldn't that imply that this drug would be much more expensive and wouldn't this in turn, leave more space for illegal drug distribution and more tolerant attitude towards this?

Well that really depends. There is not much trouble in the west with illegal alcohol. If you do it smart enough, you shouldn't have a problem. If you were to talk to those producing the plants needed for many drugs, and give them a better deal, you would make it harder for those farmers to sell there crops illegally. Also, with synthetic drugs, scaling up usually means a huge decrease in production costs so that won't be to much of a problem either.

 

[DepricatedZero]

On the topic of drug reform, the biggest indicator, for me, that it's necessary - is who is opposing it: the fucking dealers.

Drugs are only a parasite because we make them one. Seriously. For proof we need look no further than prohibition. While some may still say that alcohol is a cancer on society, fuck them they need to learn to hold their liquor. Entire crime syndicates rose around the trafficking and distribution of alcohol during the 20s and early 30s. There was a thriving underground culture around alcohol, too. One word: speakeasy.

That culture, these syndicates, exist today - around the trafficking of illegal drugs now. Of course, it's so lucrative for these gangs that they don't want it to change. I know of several spots around me that are functionally similar to speakeasies - I can go, buy and smoke up, and leave. It's a matter of not drawing attention.

Despite the ease of homegrowing, it wouldn't be an epidemic that kept business unprofitable for companies who legitimately sold such drugs - no more than homebrewing hurts beer sales. And lets face it, it's easier to homebrew beer than it is to grow some pot in your closet. It wouldn't encourage more illegal distribution - the only thing encouraging illegal distribution is the high profitability. Lets face it, you wouldn't pay $100 for a pack of cigarettes(when you can buy them for $4 at BP), and from my experience over 10 years ago you'd be lucky to roll a pack from $100 of grass.

Now I'm primarily talking about marijuana of course. I'm not sure where I stand on legalizing other drugs, but for the most part I say if someone wants to fuck themselves up let em.

 

[Lallapalalable]

Legalising cannabis would be an irresponsible act because it is known to cause harm.

How does it cause harm, exactly? I dont beleive there is any recorded case of cannabis causing death, but I could see an argument based on addiction (no substantial claims regarding cannabis for physical addiction, such as with heroin). However, you should also consider video game, internet and masturbation addictions. Should they be illegalized as well?

I do understand social harm, but most of that is based, one way or another, on the illegality.

Drugs are only a parasite because we make them one. Seriously. For proof we need look no further than prohibition. While some may still say that alcohol is a cancer on society, fuck them they need to learn to hold their liquor. Entire crime syndicates rose around the trafficking and distribution of alcohol during the 20s and early 30s. There was a thriving underground culture around alcohol, too. One word: speakeasy.

That culture, these syndicates, exist today - around the trafficking of illegal drugs now. Of course, it's so lucrative for these gangs that they don't want it to change. I know of several spots around me that are functionally similar to speakeasies - I can go, buy and smoke up, and leave. It's a matter of not drawing attention.

Despite the ease of homegrowing, it wouldn't be an epidemic that kept business unprofitable for companies who legitimately sold such drugs - no more than homebrewing hurts beer sales. And lets face it, it's easier to homebrew beer than it is to grow some pot in your closet. It wouldn't encourage more illegal distribution - the only thing encouraging illegal distribution is the high profitability. Lets face it, you wouldn't pay $100 for a pack of cigarettes(when you can buy them for $4 at BP), and from my experience over 10 years ago you'd be lucky to roll a pack from $100 of grass.

[/quote]
This. I would expect a legalization to lower prices drastically, as the product would be allowed to be grown in far larger quantities with the loss of the risks. Wasnt the market price on a glass of scotch like 30 dollars during prohibition (not sure if thats todays money or twenties money), and afterwards you could buy bottles for that much? I believe the same would apply here, you could spend ten bucks a gram now, but after legalization you could get an ounce for the same.

 

[MRaverz]

Legalising cannabis would be an irresponsible act because it is known to cause harm.

How does it cause harm, exactly? I dont beleive there is any recorded case of cannabis causing death, but I could see an argument based on addiction (no substantial claims regarding cannabis for physical addiction, such as with heroin). However, you should also consider video game, internet and masturbation addictions. Should they be illegalized as well?

I do understand social harm, but most of that is based, one way or another, on the illegality.

Cannabis use can cause short-term memory loss, severe anxiety, increased risk of depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. It can also reduce reflexes, attention and motor skills - hence why you shouldn't 'drug and drive'.

There are also forms of fungi and bacteria which can be consumed along with the cannabis, some of which produce toxins and carcinogens.


Sure, it won't kill you directly (not going into issues regarding death by drug driving etc.) - but it could certainly make your life a living hell. And let's be honest, a situation such as severe depression, anxiety etc. is a situation in which you would rather be dead.

As such, knowing this - the government would be letting it's citizens down if it was not prohibiting the use of such a substance from people who don't realise what it can actually do to people.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Cannabis use can cause short-term memory loss, severe anxiety, increased risk of depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. It can also reduce reflexes, attention and motor skills - hence why you shouldn't 'drug and drive'.

There are also forms of fungi and bacteria which can be consumed along with the cannabis, some of which produce toxins and carcinogens.


Sure, it won't kill you directly (not going into issues regarding death by drug driving etc.) - but it could certainly make your life a living hell. And let's be honest, a situation such as severe depression, anxiety etc. is a situation in which you would rather be dead.

How is this worse than tobacco or alcohol?

As such, knowing this - the government would be letting it's citizens down if it was not prohibiting the use of such a substance from people who don't realise what it can actually do to people.

The government's function should be to protect people from each other not themselves. That includes not protecting people from their own stupidity - and, yes, it's stupidity and not just ignorance, if they don't know that cigarettes or whiskey are health hazards. The warning labels alone should be sufficient, but there are adverts out too. Put some warning labels on a pack of joints and call it a day.

 

[MRaverz]

Cannabis use can cause short-term memory loss, severe anxiety, increased risk of depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. It can also reduce reflexes, attention and motor skills - hence why you shouldn't 'drug and drive'.

There are also forms of fungi and bacteria which can be consumed along with the cannabis, some of which produce toxins and carcinogens.


Sure, it won't kill you directly (not going into issues regarding death by drug driving etc.) - but it could certainly make your life a living hell. And let's be honest, a situation such as severe depression, anxiety etc. is a situation in which you would rather be dead.

How is this worse than tobacco or alcohol?

As such, knowing this - the government would be letting it's citizens down if it was not prohibiting the use of such a substance from people who don't realise what it can actually do to people.

The government's function should be to protect people from each other not themselves. That includes not protecting people from their own stupidity - and, yes, it's stupidity and not just ignorance, if they don't know that cigarettes or whiskey are health hazards. The warning labels alone should be sufficient, but there are adverts out too. Put some warning labels on a pack of joints and call it a day.

Regarding tobacco and alcohol, I've already said that these should also be prohibited.

Regarding government's role, I find your view lacking - either you feel the government has a role of protection or not. In my view, you can't justify stopping at harm between citizens.

And finally regarding stupidity or ignorance. You speak from the position of someone who knows the health risks and don't seem to appreciate that others lack this information simply because they have never had access to it or because their peers outright deny the health risk. (For example "My granddad smoked all his life and it never did him any harm") It would be irresponsible for a governing body, who were aware of this, to turn their back on these people or simply hand out a few soon-to-be-thrown-away leaflets.