Which drugs should be legalized for recreational use?

Redress · May 19, 2009

Goldwaters said:
Merhaba, nasilsin.

I don't think the progession of the disease of addiction is any different from alchoholics to drug users....however, what I think you're seeing is the social structure that is in place to tell a drinker when they've had enough, as opposed to drug dealers who want to push as much product as they can anytime of the day or night. An example is the bartender who has to stop serving at 2:00am. And in the states you'll raise eyebrows if you're drinking before 5:00pm on a weekday. Some states don't allow alchohol purchases on Sunday. The same type of social structure may materialize for drug use if legalized

That is a good point, but I do want to comment on one thing peripheral to what you are saying.

I hate the idea of addiction as disease. It reeks of excuse. For me to recover, I had to accept that I had to change things, and not all of them directly related to my addiction. I guess the idea is that to recover, I had to make internal changes in myself, which had to come from me. Diseases are cured from without.

kaya'08 · May 19, 2009

If you are going to insult me, please at least spell properly.

I spelt that wrong deliberately, because my intent wasnt to insult i was just playing around which is why i spelt it so it could be pronounced differently to give the impression of light humour.

People can have a few beers and I can smoke a bowl or two and call it a night. I can also, and have, dropped acid in public places. I didn't try to kill people, operate a motor vehicle, think that other individuals faces were melting or any nonsense that the propaganda machine would like you to believe. Try educating yourself on this topic and then come back.

I dont think im the one who needs educating. Your comparing acid to addictive drugs? Haha.

Tubub · May 19, 2009

Goldwaters said:
I can see why it seems that way, but in my experiencce, people who abuse hard core drugs don't always respond to or practice logic for one. I'd like to offer you the notion that in the world of drug usage, only responsible recreational users use logic. A responsible person would not increase thier drug usage to dangerous levels simply because they can. An addict will destroy thier lives most of the time either way...we call that a doom curve.

I'm talking about people who become hardcore or recreational users from being neither. You need laws keeping drugs like heroine and amphetamines illegal... Those substances are too harmful to ever legalize.

The weirdest thing about all of this is that I have met people who support full drug legalization but are against gun permits and the right to bear arms. So... a person has the right to put harmful substances into his body but not to protect himself? The main arguement against guns is the fact that kids get a hold of them and don't handle them properly or are pointing it at a friend when...

so how can you say a drug like heroin would be OK to be legalized when its result is that kids are going to be more prone to its abuse and if they have broken homes.

I'm just bringing that up... Anyway, I understand the freedom part in theory but in practice it is not so simple.

kaya'08 · May 19, 2009

Goldwaters said:
Merhaba, nasilsin.

Your the second person to write to me in Turkish today and i dont even understand what you lot are saying.:doh
Im familiar with this one though and wow, you spelt all that right. How did you learn that?

I don't think the progession of the disease of addiction is any different from alchoholics to drug users....however, what I think you're seeing is the social structure that is in place to tell a drinker when they've had enough, as opposed to drug dealers who want to push as much product as they can anytime of the day or night. An example is the bartender who has to stop serving at 2:00am. And in the states you'll raise eyebrows if you're drinking before 5:00pm on a weekday. Some states don't allow alchohol purchases on Sunday. The same type of social structure may materialize for drug use if legalized

Okay, fair enough. Thankyou for explaining.

First Thought · May 19, 2009

kaya'08 said:
I spelt that wrong deliberately, because my intent wasnt to insult i was just playing around which is why i spelt it so it could be pronounced differently to give the impression of light humour.

Use emoticons.

I dont think im the one who needs educating. Your comparing acid to addictive drugs? Haha.

When did I compare acid to addictive drugs? I was using that as an illustration to show that some of these Scheduled substances are not as big of a danger as you suggested. Where's the danger in Psilocybin? DMT? Mescaline? LSD?

You also failed to address my argument involving the comparison of having a few drinks to smoking a bowl.

kaya'08 · May 19, 2009

Use emoticons.

Was hoping you'd excercise your sense of humour so i wouldnt have to

When did I compare acid to addictive drugs? I was using that as an illustration to show that some of these Scheduled substances are not as big of a danger as you suggested. Where's the danger in Psilocybin? DMT? Mescaline? LSD?

You also failed to address my argument involving the comparison of having a few drinks to smoking a bowl.

Your lack of knowledge on the effects of drugs in evident in these posts. Alcohol doesnt get you high and is fine in regulated amounts. Class C drugs are fine in regulated amounts, ok. But cocaine? Heroin? I dont think you realize the harm it can do and how quickly one can become attached to it even after first time use.

First Thought · May 19, 2009

kaya'08 said:
Your lack of knowledge on the effects of drugs in evident in these posts.

Unsubstantiated opinion.

Alcohol doesnt get you high and is fine in regulated amounts.

It intoxicates and affects the part of the brain that makes judgement calls. But hey, that's no problem, right?

Class C drugs are fine in regulated amounts, ok. But cocaine? Heroin? I dont think you realize the harm it can do and how quickly one can become attached to it even after first time use.

Again, you are making assumptions. You can "think" that I don't understand something, but you have yet to prove it.

Goldwaters · May 19, 2009

Tubub said:
so how can you say a drug like heroin would be OK to be legalized when its result is that kids are going to be more prone to its abuse and if they have broken homes.

I don't think any drugs are "okay". But what I recognize is that heroin users will not be denied. So much so they kill themselves painfully because thier addictions cause them to buy bad dope, get abscesses, up to and including OD's and so on. And broken homes sometimes influence kids to take drugs but that won't be any different if it's legal or not.

People think of all the ills drug and alchohol use cause, but what they fail to consider is do they really know if things will get worse if they're legalized before they start saying they will.

kaya'08 · May 19, 2009

It intoxicates and affects the part of the brain that makes judgement calls. But hey, that's no problem, right?

So that justified legalizing drugs which is much worse then alcohol? Your contradicting yourself. As i said anyway, responsible amounts are fine.

Again, you are making assumptions. You can "think" that I don't understand something, but you have yet to prove it.

Try it for yourself, then.

Goldwaters · May 19, 2009

kaya'08 said:
Your the second person to write to me in Turkish today and i dont even understand what you lot are saying.:doh
Im familiar with this one though and wow, you spelt all that right. How did you learn that?

I lived on Sedef in Nurtepe Kagithane (Istanbul) between 2000-2004. And I said "Hello", are you fine? I absolutely loved Turkey and wish I was still there

Binary_Digit · May 19, 2009

Redress said:
Only going to reply to two of these, the first one will cover several.

I made it clear, and you quoted that part of what I said, that I was expressing my opinion only, based on my experiences.

I know. And my point was that your experiences are atypical.

Redress said:
My premise is that if drugs are made legal, they will as a direct consequence of that act, become more socially acceptable.

If that were guaranteed to happen then I'd agree with you. But since there is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use, it's a fallacy to assume drug use would increase after legalization. If that did happen, other countries who have legalized drugs would have experienced it, but they didn't. What the prohibitionists predicted was a myth.

Redress said:
Alcohol and marijuana are pretty similar in a lot of ways. One is almost entirely socially accepted, one less so. I believe that this is because one is legal, the other not.

I believe it has almost nothing to do with legal status. Which is the same position of the world's foremost experts on the subject.

kaya'08 said:
Drugs harm the body well beyond what you can concieve at first glance, they are far more addictive and destructive

Good reasons why drugs should not be used. Not good reasons why they should be illegal.

Redress said:
I hate the idea of addiction as disease. It reeks of excuse. For me to recover, I had to accept that I had to change things, and not all of them directly related to my addiction. I guess the idea is that to recover, I had to make internal changes in myself, which had to come from me. Diseases are cured from without.

I had the same impression when I first heard the notion that addiction is a disease. But it's widely regarded as a disease by medical experts.

NIDA - Drug Abuse and Addiction: One of America's Most Challenging Public Health Problems

Tubub said:
You need laws keeping drugs like heroine and amphetamines illegal... Those substances are too harmful to ever legalize.

Can you please explain why you think prohibition is doing anything at all to address the hazards of those drugs? Bear in mind, drug laws have no known correlation to the rate of drug use. I keep repeating that because 90% of these prohibitionist arguments are based on the assumption that the laws are keeping the number of users low and that legalization would lead to more drug use. These assumptions are myths, they are not supported by any facts or evidence.

kaya'08 · May 19, 2009

Good reasons why drugs should not be used. Not good reasons why they should be illegal.

Because putting them on the market for legal access by anyone will result in the drug being used (by **** loads of people too).

First Thought · May 19, 2009

kaya'08 said:
So that justified legalizing drugs which is much worse then alcohol? Your contradicting yourself. As i said anyway, responsible amounts are fine.

My point is that alcohol causes traffic accidents, death upon too much consumption, abuse and neglect. Yet it remains legal. So your argument that substances are illegal because they are dangerous is a joke.

Try it for yourself, then.

Try what? Making assumptions? I'll pass.

First Thought · May 19, 2009

kaya'08 said:
Because putting them on the market for legal access by anyone will result in the drug being used (by **** loads of people too).

Straw man. No one has suggested that they would be "legal" for "everyone". It would be regulated. Nice try, though. :sinking:

Binary_Digit · May 19, 2009

kaya'08 said:
Because putting them on the market for legal access by anyone will result in the drug being used (by **** loads of people too).

Well if you're so sure about that then you should have no problem finding something that supports it. Other countries (Netherlands, England) have decriminalized drugs. Several U.S. states have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana. The world's foremost experts have examined all the available data. Please, if that's so sure to happen, some credible expert somewhere must agree with your analysis right? So please share your evidence.

kaya'08 · May 19, 2009

Quick note: i dont see how legalizing drugs will combat the war on drugs. Who brings in the mainstream profits for the sellers? The junkies, the crackheads, the ones who cant live a day without it. If they can only get it off the government legally in regulated amounts, then still, whats going to stop them from turning to the sellers? They dont want to buy drugs from the authorities in regulated amounts. They want to buy as much as they can so they can pop some pills for the next few weeks without having to worry about getting more supplies. You might take the odd buck or two away from the sellers, but will it defeat the war on drugs? Not even close. Dont forget the government will still be following the same stupid policies even if it where all legalized, because the government then has to make sure its the only one selling (so it can do so in regulated amounts). Like "legalizing" these substances will save tax payers money :roll:
Please.

EDIT: Not to mention these sellers are constantly finding ways to get there hands on the strongest cocaine and Heroin they can get.

kaya'08 · May 19, 2009

My point is that alcohol causes traffic accidents, death upon too much consumption, abuse and neglect. Yet it remains legal. So your argument that substances are illegal because they are dangerous is a joke.

Which is why drink driving is illegal, and you have to consume ALOT to die from alcohol. Otherwise its effects on the body is minor, when compared to drugs. Like all things taken in excess, of course its harmful. But when seen from a rational perspective, you wouldnt even be able to class Alcohol as class C because its not even close to being harmful enough and therefore it is legal. You cant throw people in prison for eating too much food, can you? How much consumption will cause death on cocaine anyway?

Straw man. No one has suggested that they would be "legal" for "everyone". It would be regulated. Nice try, though

You dont "regulate" Class A drugs. To take them anyway is irresponsible. To take them responsibly isnt possible.

Well if you're so sure about that then you should have no problem finding something that supports it. Other countries (Netherlands, England) have decriminalized drugs.

BS. Weed has gone up to a Class B in England. Where do you get this crap from?

The world's foremost experts have examined all the available data. Please, if that's so sure to happen, some credible expert somewhere must agree with your analysis right? So please share your evidence.

I have to proove to you drugs are harmful?

Redress · May 19, 2009

Binary_Digit said:
I had the same impression when I first heard the notion that addiction is a disease. But it's widely regarded as a disease by medical experts.

NIDA - Drug Abuse and Addiction: One of America's Most Challenging Public Health Problems

Not going to bother responding to most of it, not because I don't want the debate, but that we don't have much to debate really. I am aware of the things you cite, and disagree, but can offer nothing but my personal experiences, and we both know that anecdotal evidence is weak at best. Doesn't mean I don't believe it, but I can't prove it, if you follow, so to argue it would be just going around in circles and neither of us making any progress. I won't waste your time nor mine.

I will respond to this bit though. Again, this is strictly opinion, so take it for what it is worth. Yes, I know that drug and alcohol addiction is considered a disease by medical experts. I don't even really disagree, I just don't like the characterization. For me to recover to the point I am at, I had to fix myself. If I had thought of my problems as a disease, I am not sure I could have. Differing people though will respond to different things. Disease does work for some, but not for others. My distaste for the term stems from how the disease notion affected me, and from my belief that to overcome addiction we have to choose to overcome addiction, internally and personally. I don't think labeling addiction a disease is overall helpful in that regard.

Goldwaters · May 19, 2009

Redress said:
That is a good point, but I do want to comment on one thing peripheral to what you are saying.

I hate the idea of addiction as disease. It reeks of excuse. For me to recover, I had to accept that I had to change things, and not all of them directly related to my addiction. I guess the idea is that to recover, I had to make internal changes in myself, which had to come from me. Diseases are cured from without.

Diseases are where normal functioning is impaired by something symptomatic, disorders are where normal functioning is disturbed. Addict behavior is cured both without and within. At the severity level addicts exhibit by the time they've reached rehab, they almost always need to make the effort you did, and commit to almost daily reinforcement AA/NA to avoid relapse.

I've treated hundreds of people who've told me exactly what you're saying. Your ability to make the internal changes neccessary to quit is what most addicts lack in degrees that vary enough to pave the way to relapse. How much and what you use is only one component of addict behavior. Another component is what it's going to take for you to quit. An addict needs consistant reinforcement for the rest of thier lives.

I need to be clear that I am not diagnosing you. I am not even comfortable with telling you that based on what you say...that I don't think you're an addict...I'm just sharing my experiences. So please...I don't want to sound grandios...but whatever you do...DO NOT be affected by anything we've talked about today.

Redress · May 19, 2009

Goldwater, I understand what you are saying. From a technical standpoint you are absolutely correct. I am mostly I think saying that addiction is not a one size fits all thing. For me, and I suspect some others, the notion of disease is detrimental.

An addict needs consistant reinforcement for the rest of thier lives.

My persona reinforcement is Nancy Reagan, got I love that woman in a way. "Just say no" is the first thing I say every day. The above quote is true on a lot of levels, some that I cannot even come close to articulating.

Ethereal · May 19, 2009

Which is why drink driving is illegal, and you have to consume ALOT to die from alcohol.

It depends on what you mean by A LOT. I can buy enough alcohol to kill myself two times over for less than twenty dollars.

Otherwise its effects on the body is minor, when compared to drugs.

Alcohol is a drug, you little idiot.

Like all things taken in excess, of course its harmful.

Then we should outlaw "excessive" alcohol consumption.

Binary_Digit · May 19, 2009

kaya'08 said:
Quick note: i dont see how legalizing drugs will combat the war on drugs.

It's never going to be possible to "win" the war on drugs. It's not something we can achieve, it's only something we can move toward. So the goal of the war on drugs should be harm reduction. It's a war on drugs, not a war on drug users. Drugs cause harm to users and to society. Prohibition increases, rather than decreases, the harm caused by drugs. Legalization is not the perfect solution where everything will be like puppies and kittens, but it would remove the harmful effects caused by prohibition. Education and deglamorization should follow, and that is very important to keeping drug use as a social taboo instead of it becoming accepted.

kaya'08 said:
Who brings in the mainstream profits for the sellers? The junkies, the crackheads, the ones who cant live a day without it. If they can only get it off the government legally in regulated amounts, then still, whats going to stop them from turning to the sellers?

(snip)

They dont want to buy drugs from the authorities in regulated amounts. They want to buy as much as they can so they can pop some pills for the next few weeks without having to worry about getting more supplies.

1. If they can't get what they need from authorized distributors then that's still prohibition for all intents and purposes.

2. Sure a few people might still go to the streets, even if they can get all they need from an authorized source, but they would probably be few and far between. The closest thing we have to compare to is alcohol. How many people do you think would rather buy cheap moonshine out of some guy's bathtub, instead of just going to the liquor store? Even if they're alcoholic and the liquor store is more expensive?

kaya'08 said:
You might take the odd buck or two away from the sellers, but will it defeat the war on drugs? Not even close. Dont forget the government will still be following the same stupid policies even if it where all legalized, because the government then has to make sure its the only one selling (so it can do so in regulated amounts). Like "legalizing" these substances will save tax payers money :roll:
Please.

(snip)

EDIT: Not to mention these sellers are constantly finding ways to get there hands on the strongest cocaine and Heroin they can get.

Wait a minute... you leave some prohibitionist policies in place and then accuse legalization of the very problems caused by those prohibitionist policies? That's not fair... Of course, if you leave certain remnants of prohibition in place, then the problems associated with said prohibition will still linger around. Imagine that! :2razz: The government shouldn't be selling drugs, it should be regulating them. Drugs should be legal and available in liquor stores.

kaya'08 said:
Which is why drink driving is illegal, and you have to consume ALOT to die from alcohol. Otherwise its effects on the body is minor, when compared to drugs. Like all things taken in excess, of course its harmful. But when seen from a rational perspective, you wouldnt even be able to class Alcohol as class C because its not even close to being harmful enough and therefore it is legal. You cant throw people in prison for eating too much food, can you? How much consumption will cause death on cocaine anyway?

You dont "regulate" Class A drugs. To take them anyway is irresponsible. To take them responsibly isnt possible.

No matter how many times I hear the argument, "drug X is bad for your health, therefore drug X should be illegal", it still doesn't make one iota of sense to me.

kaya'08 said:
BS. Weed has gone up to a Class B in England. Where do you get this crap from?

Prime Minister Tony Blair's government moved Wednesday to relax its laws on marijuana, stopping short of legalization but guaranteeing most users will get off with just a warning while police focus their enforcement efforts on harder drugs.

www.newser.com/archive-us-news/1P2-1453086/england-relaxes-marijuana-penalties.html

Britain, which has one of the highest rates of cannabis use in Europe, said today that it was relaxing its laws on marijuana smoking, keeping the practice theoretically illegal but making private use in discreet amounts no longer subject to arrest.

Britain to Stop Arresting Most Private Users of Marijuana

This was in the summer of 2002, have they changed something since then?

kaya'08 said:
I have to proove to you drugs are harmful?

No, prove that drug use will increase if legalized. Most of your views on this subject seem to be making that assumption, so I'm curious if you can show it to be true.

kaya'08 · May 19, 2009

It depends on what you mean by A LOT. I can buy enough alcohol to kill myself two times over for less than twenty dollars.

Well do me a favour and try it. Then ill believe you.

Alcohol is a drug, you little idiot.

My bad, when compared to other illegal drugs.

Then we should outlaw "excessive" alcohol consumption.

I know, your point?

It's never going to be possible to "win" the war on drugs. It's not something we can achieve, it's only something we can move toward. So the goal of the war on drugs should be harm reduction.

So making drugs availible to the public is harm reduction?

2. Sure a few people might still go to the streets, even if they can get all they need from an authorized source, but they would probably be few and far between. The closest thing we have to compare to is alcohol. How many people do you think would rather buy cheap moonshine out of some guy's bathtub, instead of just going to the liquor store? Even if they're alcoholic and the liquor store is more expensive?

I can bet you the sellers will undercut the selling price of legal fees at every turn. The government will probably end up taxing the drugs. There is no winning, same amount of tax payers money going down the drain, same old crap. The policies for the war on drugs need to be reformed. By legalizing, they have won the war.

Drugs should be legal and available in liquor stores.

So if its that easy, how would a government regulate that? And your advocating cocaine be availible in liquor stores?

No matter how many times I hear the argument, "drug X is bad for your health, therefore drug X should be illegal", it still doesn't make one iota of sense to me.

Making cocaine illegal doesnt make sense to you?

This was in the summer of 2002, have they changed something since then?

Ah right, i remember this. Sorry i forgot about this, it was a long time ago. The results of relaxation of these laws showed they where having negative impacts on British society so they tightened them a few years later and upgraded the drug to class B. Imagine legalization?

No, prove that drug use will increase if legalized. Most of your views on this subject seem to be making that assumption, so I'm curious if you can show it to be true.

Im using my common sense. Common sense dictates it will be used more, just like chocolate will be consumed more if it was being sold at cheaper rates. People will be more enticed to try it. And those who are already taking dont have to be hesistant and get it from shady sources when you can nip into your liquor store. In any case, you too cannot prove otherwise.

Thoreau · May 19, 2009

Jerry said:
Anti-prostitution law has nothing to do with subjective morality either.

Keep telling yourself that, does not make it so.

I'm not sure what part of "slavery" you didn't understand.

Slavery? Does that make me a slave because I voluntarily do labor for another and receive a wage? I did not take you as a wage slavery kind of guy.

There is no such global markit forcing people to over eat under threat of death.

Until your daughter, wife or mother is kidnapped....

Good reason why prostitution should be legal and above ground SO THAT THIS S*** does not happen. You are conflating black and white markets.

Many nations thought the same thing, then legalized it "so it can be regulated and controlled for the worker's saftey", and found that they couldn't control it at all.

Evidence? Nevada and the Netherlands still are regulating it hiccup free. They even have sex-worker unions in the Netherlands.

Sweden is the best example of legalizing prostitution with the best of intentions, coping with the reality of what prostitution is and what it does to women and society, and how to clean up the mess.

Source, please.

Thoreau · May 19, 2009

kaya'08 said:
Ah right, i remember this. Sorry i forgot about this, it was a long time ago. The results of relaxation of these laws showed they where having negative impacts on British society so they tightened them a few years later and upgraded the drug to class B. Imagine legalization?

Wrong, the British PM ignored his own scientific review board NOT to upgrade the scheduling because the lower scheduling resulted in REDUCED use. The police in England say that they are not going to change how they operate and continue giving warnings instead of hard time.

Which drugs should be legalized for recreational use?

Which drugs should be legalized for recreational use?

Marijuana

Cocaine

LSD

Meth

Prescription drugs

Psychedelic mushrooms

Ecstasy

Opium

other

None of the above

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Active member

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Member

Member