• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Proposal for Legalizing all Recreational Drugs

Regarding your support for Oftencold's Rec. Drug Legalization Proposal:

  • I support Oftencold's Rec. Drug Legalization Proposal

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I do not support Oftencold's Rec. Drug Legalization Proposal

    Votes: 13 76.5%

  • Oftencold's Rec. Drug Legalization Proposal is too harsh

    Votes: 5 29.4%

  • Oftencold's Rec. Drug Legalization Proposal in to lenient

    Votes: 3 17.6%

  • I am a drug dealer

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • I am a drug user

    Votes: 3 17.6%
  • Total voters
    17
cheat3 said:
This is pretty much the most retarded plan ive ever heard. for anyone who has been addicted to drugs or has knowen anyone who has, knows that drug addiction is an illness not a crime. The ammount of money wasted on prison places for drug addicts, is astronomical, these are not violent people, they are ill people.
Click to expand...
Why is it considered an "illness" when some reprobate chooses to open his mouth or a vein to insert chemicals purchased from a criminal stranger to alter the functioning of their disused brain? I'd call it a (poor) choice, not a disease.

And I don't want to see them sent to prison either, I wish to see them removed as a burden to society. What could be more fair that top allow them to reap the benefits of their choices?
cheat3 said:
If you legalised recreational drugs, monitereed their purity, and reinserted tax revenues back into rehabilitation centers the country would not only have a far more mature attitute towards drugs but crime levels would plumet.
Click to expand...
Do you not see something akin to prostitution for the Government in this?

Most of these people will die or be severely damaged by their practices regardless of treatment.

As for "mature attitudes," what could be more mature than granting people the freedom to make profound choices, (such as self-inflicting brain death,) with outr interference.
cheat3 said:
In Holland weed is legally sold in shops prevailance of lifetime use of weed is around 17%, in the USA where you can in some states go to prison for possesion prevailance of liftiem use is around 36%.
Click to expand...
That's noice. I suppose. Although the legaltiy of harder drugs in Holland mght juis as well be a reason for the lesser popularity of Cannbis.
 
Last edited:
My reaction is hard to explain, so bear with me...

I am not in favour of legalization at this time for the simple fact that, even among drug users, drugs are seen as "recreational". I believe that safe drug use also requires psychospiritual education. Humanity has used naturally occurring alterants for thousands of years to experience altered reality, and I am against the idea that it's just for fun. I think the fun factor is a modern idea... but I may be wrong.

People still have this view that drugs take you away from "reality" and provide a fun escape, but there is also a mind expanding component to some of them that can have deeper repercussions (whether positive or negative) on the user. For this reason I don't think we should classify a lot of drugs as recreational as it carries an improper meaning. The entire paradigm of thinking on drugs needs to shift.

For instance, doing cocaine and taking magic mushrooms are two totally different experiences. Cocaine is a social drug but mushrooms cause most people to internalize, yet a lot of people take mushrooms at parties and in social settings. There isn't a collective knowledge yet about the deep effects of each drug and proper use. They each carry different psychospiritual characteristics that have been largely ignored in modern times.

It's not enough just to legalize. The world of drug use could easily have its own encyclopedia on purposes, intentions, experiences, and after effects.
 
Last edited:
Oftencold said:
[POLL, is public and multiple choice]

I have come up with a model that I believe would allow me to support general legalization of all recreational drugs, and I'd like to know your opinions on the matter.
These conditions would first have to be met:
​
  1. A constitutional ban on all public funds spent on drug rehabilitation. (Exception: persons who became dependent through medical treatment or through the actions of others)
  2. A constitutional provision that any recreational drug affected individual trespassing on private property for any reason shall have been deemed to have acted in a life threatening manner to legitimate occupants or visitors on said property. (Purpose: to exonerate anyone who uses any form of force, including deadly force to defend against drug affected trespasser.)
  3. Loss of tax-free and non-profit status from any activities of any organization designed to provide drug rehabilitation services.
  4. Complete absolution of responsibility by government at any level fort the quality, purity or efficaciousness of any recreational drug.
  5. Severe penalties, at least comparable to those engendered by alcohol intoxication for any act damaging to life or limb while under the influence of recreational drugs.
Click to expand...

I'd rather society address the holes in people’s lives which they are trying to fill with drugs.
 
Oftencold said:
[POLL, is public and multiple choice]


I have come up with a model that I believe would allow me to support general legalization of all recreational drugs, and I'd like to know your opinions on the matter.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'm all for legalization.


A constitutional ban on all public funds spent on drug rehabilitation. (Exception: persons who became dependent through medical treatment or through the actions of others)​
Click to expand...
Why not attempt to help these people add to the productivity of our nation by taxing recreational drug sales in the amount necessary to run the rehabilitation centers? The addicts themselves will have paid for rehab through their drug use, in a sense.​


A constitutional provision that any recreational drug affected individual trespassing on private property for any reason shall have been deemed to have acted in a life threatening manner to legitimate occupants or visitors on said property. (Purpose: to exonerate anyone who uses any form of force, including deadly force to defend against drug affected trespasser.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous and unnecessary.​

Loss of tax-free and non-profit status from any activities of any organization designed to provide drug rehabilitation services.​
Click to expand...

Why? The investment by society is well worth it, whether or not drugs are legal. Furthermore, you're not going to motivate people to stay off drugs because there is a lack of availability of rehab services, if that is your aim. You will end up with more addicts. Why would you want that?​

Complete absolution of responsibility by government at any level fort the quality, purity or efficaciousness of any recreational drug.​
Click to expand...

What are you trying to accompish? If you are saying not to let people sue the gov't for monetary damages concerning these matters, fine.​

Severe penalties, at least comparable to those engendered by alcohol intoxication for any act damaging to life or limb while under the influence of recreational drugs.​
Click to expand...


Yes. Let the addict have consequences for actually endangering others​
 
What is it exactly that you propose to tax from severe drug abusers to pay for what is probably the futile exercise of "rehabilitating" them. The generally have little left of value by the time they enter rehab the first (probably of many) times.

My reasoning is generally ruthless in this matter, as experience with drug abusers has taught me. I am aware of and applaud the exceptions. However I have seen the futility of rehab in general. I don't believe that public funds can be justified in the realm.

Addressing the problems of, and returning theses people to any semblance of a normal life is somewhat akin to keeping a metal colander afloat.

My argument is simply one of accepting and cutting losses.

If one would help someone in these matters, their best chance of success comes long before dependence.

Again I know that there are exceptions, but I assure you they are rare, and oddly often don't depend on formal rehab programs.
 
Oftencold said:
What is it exactly that you propose to tax from severe drug abusers to pay for what is probably the futile exercise of "rehabilitating" them.
Click to expand...

You don't have to collect taxes from the severe drug abusers to pay for their own rehab-- at least, not when they have already become severe abusers. I recommend taxing the drugs themselves, so that everyone who uses them helps pay for the rehab of people who abuse them, and heavy users pay the most for their own eventual rehab.

It's one of the only forms of sales tax I endorse. And it helps fulfill the government's legitimate role in discouraging people from harmful behavior.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
You don't have to collect taxes from the severe drug abusers to pay for their own rehab-- at least, not when they have already become severe abusers. I recommend taxing the drugs themselves, so that everyone who uses them helps pay for the rehab of people who abuse them, and heavy users pay the most for their own eventual rehab.

It's one of the only forms of sales tax I endorse. And it helps fulfill the government's legitimate role in discouraging people from harmful behavior.
Click to expand...
Government would then have a vested interest in promoting drug use for the revenue. This is the case with tobacco. A sudden cessation of tobacco use would be devastating to government coffers.

By the way, death from tobacco saves the government a great deal of money, since long term geriatric care is more expensive than most acute care for the terminally ill at an earlier age.
 
Oftencold said:
Government would then have a vested interest in promoting drug use for the revenue. This is the case with tobacco. A sudden cessation of tobacco use would be devastating to government coffers.
Click to expand...

Hence the reason that such funds should only be used for rehab-- if fewer people are using drugs, fewer people require rehab and less budget is required. If the money can not be applied in the general fund, the government loses the motivation to undermine its own efforts.
 
Honestly now, do you trust government to spend the money where and how they say that they will? Do you suppose that taxes on tobacco that were slated to go to cancer research really go there in significant amounts?

I am very skeptical of such things.
 
Oftencold said:
Government would then have a vested interest in promoting drug use for the revenue. This is the case with tobacco. A sudden cessation of tobacco use would be devastating to government coffers.
Click to expand...


Do you even know what you are talking about? Excise taxes comprise 3% of the Federal Budget sources, and please note, that is ALL excise taxes. The loss of cigarrette taxes would hardly be noticed, and wouldn't be noticed at all if they were simultaneously repealed will the repeal of tobacco industry subsidies.

Do you just make stuff up and hope you're right?

revenue1_4.GIF


By the way, death from tobacco saves the government a great deal of money, since long term geriatric care is more expensive than most acute care for the terminally ill at an earlier age.
Click to expand...

This is irrelevant to the discussion.
 
I don't use drugs, other than my blood preasure meds, but I would support legalizing marijuana. I am not sure the other drugs need to be legalized. We are spending billions a year on people in prison for drug things.
 
Dezaad said:
Do you even know what you are talking about? Excise taxes comprise 3% of the Federal Budget sources, and please note, that is ALL excise taxes. The loss of cigarrette taxes would hardly be noticed, and wouldn't be noticed at all if they were simultaneously repealed will the repeal of tobacco industry subsidies.


Do you just make stuff up and hope you're right?

revenue1_4.GIF
Click to expand...


No , I don't have to make things up, I have an internal data base slightly more massive than Jupiter. It is known to slightly warp space around it, and may account for the halo effect that some observers have commented upon after being in my presence as light is subtly shifted by the gravitation field of all that information.

There has been some concern expressed that if I continue to amass knowledge at the current rate, spontaneous fusion might occur in a few decades.

The tobacco tax is obviously vastly important top the Federal Government, as all taxes are. (It is an effect similar to that attributed to dragons in fiction, who are said to know if a single coin is misplaced in their gigantic hoards.)

The cause of the moment is funding SCHIP with increased tobacco tax revenues. Soon it may be seen as an heartless insensitivity to children to not smoke, chew or dip.

I have a remedial reading assignment for you below, and I stress that I may quiz you later.
Dezaad said:
This is irrelevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...
Thus the rhetorical device of presenting it as an aside. You see?
 
Last edited:
I did quite a bit of thinking on this over the years and think this would work better, but it is only an opinion.
1) Legalization of marijuana, can be sold legally in stores to anyone over 18, but must have a tax stamp similar to tobacco. Any tax evasion laws pertaining to tobacco shall apply to marijuana. Law enforcement can apply O.W.I. laws to those operating under the influence of marijuana or other intoxicants.
2) Restructuring of drug education in schools focused more on consequences than lecture, consequences shall be deemed as physical, emotional, relationships, and financial.
3) Hard drugs may be used, to an extent, but in settings that are controlled, let addictive medicine specialists administer the drugs in clinics, and usage shall be legal only in clinical settings, entertainment may be provided, and fees shall be charged at the physician's discretion.
4) Certain drugs such as Meth, PCP, and Crack shall remain illegal simply because they can permanently alter the user's personality whether they are using or not in a way that is provably dangerous to the public, this could be the standard for determining legality of any drug and it's category of legal use. LSD is a debateable class, and may be determined by individual states.
 
Legalize, regulate, and tax all drugs. Use the tax revenue to fund rehabilitation efforts and improve infrastructure.
 
Did that really just ask me if I was a drug dealer?
 
The only drug I would be in favor of removing demon horns from is pot.

To be honest, there is nothing about it that is any worse than alcohol. In fact, it is safer than alcohol in pretty much every aspect.

Either way though, it's not a big deal to me. I don't partake in any recreational drugs and rarely drink more than a beer or 2 in 1 sitting.
 
Oftencold said:
No , I don't have to make things up, I have an internal data base slightly more massive than Jupiter. It is known to slightly warp space around it, and may account for the halo effect that some observers have commented upon after being in my presence as light is subtly shifted by the gravitation field of all that information.

There has been some concern expressed that if I continue to amass knowledge at the current rate, spontaneous fusion might occur in a few decades.

The tobacco tax is obviously vastly important top the Federal Government, as all taxes are. (It is an effect similar to that attributed to dragons in fiction, who are said to know if a single coin is misplaced in their gigantic hoards.)

The cause of the moment is funding SCHIP with increased tobacco tax revenues. Soon it may be seen as an heartless insensitivity to children to not smoke, chew or dip.

I have a remedial reading assignment for you below, and I stress that I may quiz you later.
Click to expand...

Oh, puhleez. What are you trying to convince me of, exactly, (now that you've clearly been caught saying something really stupid)? That you didn't argue that an end to the tobacco tax would cause the federal gov't to spiral into a crisis (the dragon's hoard argument)? That what you really meant was that it would cause people to feel like they should smoke in order to fund SCHIP (which is actually more inane than your original assertion)?

Please, say something coherent, don't jump around with attempts to replace statements you can't defend with new statements you can't defend. Stupid on top of stupid doesn't make you look intelligent or even clever. There is really nothing I find more irritating.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I did quite a bit of thinking on this over the years and think this would work better, but it is only an opinion.
1) Legalization of marijuana, can be sold legally in stores to anyone over 18, but must have a tax stamp similar to tobacco. Any tax evasion laws pertaining to tobacco shall apply to marijuana. Law enforcement can apply O.W.I. laws to those operating under the influence of marijuana or other intoxicants.
2) Restructuring of drug education in schools focused more on consequences than lecture, consequences shall be deemed as physical, emotional, relationships, and financial.
3) Hard drugs may be used, to an extent, but in settings that are controlled, let addictive medicine specialists administer the drugs in clinics, and usage shall be legal only in clinical settings, entertainment may be provided, and fees shall be charged at the physician's discretion.
4) Certain drugs such as Meth, PCP, and Crack shall remain illegal simply because they can permanently alter the user's personality whether they are using or not in a way that is provably dangerous to the public, this could be the standard for determining legality of any drug and it's category of legal use. LSD is a debateable class, and may be determined by individual states.
Click to expand...

Your thorough examination really does show here. I have, in the past, been for the legalization of all drugs. However, assertion 4 from your points has made me reconsider. If your assertion is true (as far as "permanently alter the user's personality whether they are using or not in a way that is provably dangerous to the public"), then I may end up changing my mind.

However, let me offer this anecdote: A couple that are very close to me ended up becoming addicted to Meth. The guy was very charming and had a very good job where he was fast working his way up. The gal was an RN. They had a nice middle class house.

Eventually, he lost his job and started to manufacture and sell the drug. He became what most would call a dangerous criminal. There were guns and supposedly some violence, though I do not know the details on this, as I had been dissassociating from them. Even from a distance, the things I was hearing scared me. Well, finally he was arrested and charged with several things, I don't recall what all. He went to prison and his gal was rumored to have taken over the business.

When the police came for her, the neighbors all stood out on their front lawns in their nice cul-de-sac and cheered. However, the police had entered her home without probable cause, without a warrant and without her permission. So, it ended up that no charge they could bring against her would stick.

Fortunately (or unfortunately from another perspective) her daughter's juvenile dilinquency (big suprise there, eh?) made it possible for a judge to require the mother to undergo drug testing, and the judge then ordered inpatient rehab. This was possible under a state law that gives a juvenile judge certain powers over the adult responsible for a dilinquent minor.

Amazingly, the rehab worked. Meanwhile the boyfriend, now in prison, was also involved in "Recovery".

It has now been many years since his release. He is very successful as a high level manager in his career. She has regained her nursing license and another advanced degree in nursing, and is well respected wherever she works. They were both extremely addicted to Meth. If you met them, they would appear to you in every way as if they were always the way they are now. Nearly everyone likes them.

I am telling this story partly in contemplation in considering your claim that Meth causes irreversible damage to the personalities of people which causes those people to be permanently dangerous to society. Are there studies which back this up? Perhaps you have an anecdote which contradicts this one I have told. Or did you mean to say that these people are a danger as long as the addictive behavior is active?
 
Dezaad said:
Your thorough examination really does show here. I have, in the past, been for the legalization of all drugs. However, assertion 4 from your points has made me reconsider. If your assertion is true (as far as "permanently alter the user's personality whether they are using or not in a way that is provably dangerous to the public"), then I may end up changing my mind.

However, let me offer this anecdote: A couple that are very close to me ended up becoming addicted to Meth. The guy was very charming and had a very good job where he was fast working his way up. The gal was an RN. They had a nice middle class house.

Eventually, he lost his job and started to manufacture and sell the drug. He became what most would call a dangerous criminal. There were guns and supposedly some violence, though I do not know the details on this, as I had been dissassociating from them. Even from a distance, the things I was hearing scared me. Well, finally he was arrested and charged with several things, I don't recall what all. He went to prison and his gal was rumored to have taken over the business.

When the police came for her, the neighbors all stood out on their front lawns in their nice cul-de-sac and cheered. However, the police had entered her home without probable cause, without a warrant and without her permission. So, it ended up that no charge they could bring against her would stick.

Fortunately (or unfortunately from another perspective) her daughter's juvenile dilinquency (big suprise there, eh?) made it possible for a judge to require the mother to undergo drug testing, and the judge then ordered inpatient rehab. This was possible under a state law that gives a juvenile judge certain powers over the adult responsible for a dilinquent minor.

Amazingly, the rehab worked. Meanwhile the boyfriend, now in prison, was also involved in "Recovery".

It has now been many years since his release. He is very successful as a high level manager in his career. She has regained her nursing license and another advanced degree in nursing, and is well respected wherever she works. They were both extremely addicted to Meth. If you met them, they would appear to you in every way as if they were always the way they are now. Nearly everyone likes them.

I am telling this story partly in contemplation in considering your claim that Meth causes irreversible damage to the personalities of people which causes those people to be permanently dangerous to society. Are there studies which back this up? Perhaps you have an anecdote which contradicts this one I have told. Or did you mean to say that these people are a danger as long as the addictive behavior is active?
Click to expand...
You might want to st in on some of my annual training about meth. The damage to the cerebral neurons are noted for being sever and irreversible.

I'm also startled that anyone would be allowed to attain a nursing license with a history of Methamphetamine manufacture, but some States have strange laws I suppose.

If this pair were users, they must not have been for very long or used very much.
 
Oftencold said:
You might want to st in on some of my annual training about meth. The damage to the cerebral neurons are noted for being sever and irreversible.

I'm also startled that anyone would be allowed to attain a nursing license with a history of Methamphetamine manufacture, but some States have strange laws I suppose.

If this pair were users, they must not have been for very long or used very much.
Click to expand...

Do you have any materials to back up your assertions? I've already read alot about the effects, and I know that it causes cognitive damage, and that they think that damage is probably permanent. But, the rate of increasing damage for heavy Meth users is not discussed.

For the record, their use of the drug spanned 2+ years and during most of that time (once the addiction had become full blown) they were 'snorting' and smoking it during all of their waking hours.

She has returned to being a productive member of society and is an asset to society in that capacity. Her competent work is well above average. Why wouldn't you want someone to be doing what they do well, to the benefit of all that they come in contact with?
 
Dezaad said:
Do you have any materials to back up your assertions? I've already read alot about the effects, and I know that it causes cognitive damage, and that they think that damage is probably permanent. But, the rate of increasing damage for heavy Meth users is not discussed.

For the record, their use of the drug spanned 2+ years and during most of that time (once the addiction had become full blown) they were 'snorting' and smoking it during all of their waking hours.

She has returned to being a productive member of society and is an asset to society in that capacity. Her competent work is well above average. Why wouldn't you want someone to be doing what they do well, to the benefit of all that they come in contact with?
Click to expand...
Why do you do this? You should know by know that I will probably overwhelm you with sources. Oh well.


0720-sci-METH-ch.jpg


'Methamphetamine abuse is a grave problem that can lead to serious health conditions including brain damage, memory loss, psychotic-like behavior, heart damage, hepatitis, and HIV transmission,' says Dr. Nora D. Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institutes of Health, which funded the study.
Click to expand...
Link

​
This Is Your Brain on Meth: A 'Forest Fire' of Damage
"We expected some brain changes but didn't expect so much tissue to be destroyed."​
Click to expand...

Link

​
Structural Abnormalities in the Brains of Human Subjects Who Use Methamphetamine
Click to expand...
Link
​
 
Oftencold said:
Why do you do this? You should know by know that I will probably overwhelm you with sources. Oh well.


0720-sci-METH-ch.jpg



Link

​
Link

​
Link
​
[/INDENT]
Click to expand...

A common argument is to legalize recreational drugs to ensure safety.

Please tell us about safe meth.
 
It can't be made safe.

Please understand, my thrust is that we are probably going to eventually legalize recreational drugs. I'd like to see the productive memebers society freed of responsibility for the natural selection that will follow. Legalization welded to your responsibility and mine for the users is untenable.

Put succinctly, I want them to crawl away and die quickly rather than slowly at my expense.

Again this assumes that these things will almost inevitably be legalized anyway.
 
Oftencold said:
It can't be made safe.

Please understand, my thrust is that we are probably going to eventually legalize recreational drugs. I'd like to see the productive memebers society freed of responsibility for the natural selection that will follow. Legalization welded to your responsibility and mine for the users is untenable.

Put succinctly, I want them to crawl away and die quickly rather than slowly at my expense.

Again this assumes that these things will almost inevitably be legalized anyway.
Click to expand...

Why do people turn to meth? What are some strong commonalities between meth users?
 
Jerry said:
Why do people turn to meth? What are some strong commonalities between meth users?
Click to expand...
You know, I'm not sure.

Most druggies I've known started with the idea that they were wiser, smarter and luckier than anyone else who had ever lived, and that rules existed strictly to keep them from having a good time.

I attribute much of this to the current culture that assumes that people have a right to happiness -- not to its pursuit, but to its actuality.

Now I have known one or twp people who got involved with illegal drugs not so much for recreation, as to self-medicate.

I also have known a few people who were introduced to drugs by dysfunctional parents, and thereby hooked.

I can work up some sympathy for the last two groups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom