• 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!

Which drugs should be legalized for recreational use?

Which drugs should be legalized for recreational use?


  • Total voters
    58
I'm not arguing against legalisation per se, just the whole idea and blanket statements that it is their body and they can do what they want so therefore it would be fine if a quarter or third of people had raging heroin addictions.
Right, but your statement is not based on any facts. There's no factual data(feel free to prove me wrong) that indicates anything like this would occur. I can certainly tell you that every person I have asked the "if Meth were legal, would you do it?" question has said "no". Therefore, there's hardly any reason to entertain your hypothetical situation unless you can somehow show me that it has merit.

What you are essentially saying is that if methamphetamine were legal, we COULD have a quarter or third of the population with an addiction to a hard drug. Hell, by that logic we should outlaw all toxic substances. Can't have everyone waking up in the morning and eating chlorine tablets, now can we? But it COULD happen.
 
Right, but your statement is not based on any facts. There's no factual data(feel free to prove me wrong) that indicates anything like this would occur. I can certainly tell you that every person I have asked the "if Meth were legal, would you do it?" question has said "no". Therefore, there's hardly any reason to entertain your hypothetical situation unless you can somehow show me that it has merit.
That was not the point. I was objecting to the attitude not legalisation. Come on, let's not spend ages going on about this.:2razz:

What you are essentially saying is that if methamphetamine were legal, we COULD have a quarter or third of the population with an addiction to a hard drug.:
No I did not say that, I said that the attitude that it is your body and hence it is completely fine to shoot up meth leads to the idea that the said situation would be okay. I did not say it was likely, I was just reiterating a missed point among some more atomistically individualist libertarians that individual liberty and individualism while certainly being very important can only come about and be sustainable through a healthy, stable society and the small-scale associations that must make it up.
 
Last edited:
That was not the point. I was objecting to the attitude not legalisation. Come on, let's not spend ages going on about this.:2razz:

No I did not say that, I said that the attitude that it is your body and hence it is completely fine to shoot up meth leads to the idea that the said situation would be okay. I did not say it was likely, I was just reiterating a missed point among some more atomistically individualist libertarians that individual liberty and individualism while certainly being very important can only come about and we sustainable through a healthy, stable society and the small-scale associations that must make it up.
Well then I apologize for misunderstanding your post.
 
I think it would be pretty hard to determine what we should do all at once with a theoretical situation.

After looking at alcohol prohibition, we should legalize weed and just see what happens.

If all goes well, then we can legalize more, but we should go one step at a time.


Since I am against legalizing everything, that means there is most likely a line somewhere. I don't think we can determine where that line is from our perspective.
 
Last edited:
I think it would be pretty hard to determine what we should do all at once with a theoretical situation.

After looking at alcohol prohibition, we should legalize weed and just see what happens.

If all goes well, then we can legalize more, but we should go one step at a time.
That has always struck me as the best solution. Baby steps. Then detailed analysis can be done over time and we can get some nice statistics to base future decisions off of.
 
I recently had a friend accidentally OD on some very powerful prescription painkiller so I do need for some regulation of these very powerful painkillers.

Actually prescription pain killers have acetaminophen (APAP) as a filler add to them which can be lethal to the liver in large amounts, like say 5 pills. While it is possible to OD on opiates you are going to die several times over due to APAP induced liver failure before the opiates slow your breathing to a halt. (Which is how opiates kill you) APAP is just added as a deterrent against recreational use.
 
Actually prescription pain killers have acetaminophen (APAP) as a filler add to them which can be lethal to the liver in large amounts, like say 5 pills. While it is possible to OD on opiates you are going to die several times over due to APAP induced liver failure before the opiates slow your breathing to a halt. (Which is how opiates kill you) APAP is just added as a deterrent against recreational use.

It can be taken out I believe quite easily though.
 
This redefines "recreational" use.
The use of drugs is a slow suicide, IMO, also, those who use drugs should commit a faster suicide....who needs them ??.... Have these drug users ever thought about their impact on American society, or on their parents ?
I doubt it...they are too self-centered...
And , they can ingest all the psychedelic mushrooms they want...
 
This redefines "recreational" use.
The use of drugs is a slow suicide, IMO, also, those who use drugs should commit a faster suicide....who needs them ??.... Have these drug users ever thought about their impact on American society, or on their parents ?
I doubt it...they are too self-centered...
And , they can ingest all the psychedelic mushrooms they want...
Wow, thanks "Blatant Generalization Guy". :roll:
 
It can be taken out I believe quite easily though.

Yeah, I am quite aware of that, I was just informing the OP that it far more likely that it was the APAP that killed his friend than the opiates. And the APAP is only an ingredient because of prohibition and psychotic drug war strategies.
 
Yeah, I am quite aware of that, I was just informing the OP that it far more likely that it was the APAP that killed his friend than the opiates. And the APAP is only an ingredient because of prohibition and psychotic drug war strategies.

I was just giving offering advise should it ever come in handy.;)
 
I think the families of those who took the theoretical drug might disagree.

The drug war breaks apart families and stigmatizes the addicted as a criminal less likely to seek and follow through with treatment. The alternative is far greater for those with drug problems. Any drug counselor will tell you that you cannot cure an addiction for someone who does not want it for themselves. What is a better environment for breaking an addiction, a jail or prison cell, or around your family and loved ones?
 
Last edited:
The drug war breaks apart families and stigmatizes the addicted as a criminal less likely to seek and follow through with treatment. The alternative is far greater for those with drug problems. Any drug counselor will tell you that you cannot cure an addiction for someone who does not want it for themselves. What is a better environment for breaking an addiction, a jail or prison cell, or around your family and loved ones?

What if we made an exception for it being illegal if the user sought professional help?
 
I was just giving offering advise should it ever come in handy.;)

Cold water extraction, yeah I know about it. Probably a good idea for those who are taking pills for persisting chronic pain over a long period of time, easier on the liver.
 
What if we made an exception for it being illegal if the user sought professional help?

The problem with the Drug War is that if a family does not throw out a drug using family member into the street, they could also face criminal prosecution, such as asset forfeiture.

My opinion is less about freedom as much as I just do not believe the laws work, period. The drug black market is a hydra, cut off one of the heads and two more fill its place. The benefits of actually controlling the drugs through regulation far out weigh the health and social costs. Drug prohibition profits funds gang activity, international crime syndicates, terror groups, dictators, fuels corruption in law enforcement and government, leads to racial disparities in sentencing, prison overcrowding and all this barely scratches the surface of how deep the damage goes. Not to mention how much the drug war costs the tax payer, last time I checked it was 64 billion with a B, per year.
 
Last edited:
All the drugs listed should be legal. I am an adult and I own my own body. What I decide to put into it is my own business and not the governments.

Now with that being said; I don't use any illegal drugs because I chose not to. Not because of the law.

As long as they do not infringe on someone else's rights including the unborn, it should be legal.
 
What about highly addictive drugs such as tobacco?

Tobacco is not nearly as addictive or deadly as hard chemicals like meth, so while I see the merit in your point bringing up tobacco, imo tobacco is not as evil as meth.
 
As much as I agree with the intention of this post, blanket statements that you can put whatever you like in your body that act as if 30% of the population being meth or heroin addicts would be fine and dandy are silly, but the way you put it makes it very ironic; as if that statement is going to win over many of the more diehard, "its their body", libertarians.

Somehow calling them loosertarians doesn't seem likely to win them over imho.

I wasn't trying to win them over, but beat them down.

My comment was meant to rub salt in the wounds of Loosertarians everywhere, to make their failure hurt that much more. Either your politics are weak and need to die, or they need to get their **** together and start doing something productive.

It's my typical reaction to one-liner political views.

While I agree that I am walking a fine line here, my commentary is not meant to be personal.
 
Last edited:
Tobacco is not nearly as addictive or deadly as hard chemicals like meth, so while I see the merit in your point bringing up tobacco, imo tobacco is not as evil as meth.
Which causes more fatalities?

Also, do you have case studies to support the relative estimations of addictiveness?
 
I wasn't trying to win them over, but beat them down.

My comment was meant to rub salt in the wounds of Loosertarians everywhere, to make their failure hurt that much more. Either your politics are weak and need to die, or they need to get their **** together and start doing something productive.

It's my typical reaction to one-liner political views.
Okay, if that was your wish then beat away.

Personally I think there are different kinds of libertarians, even using the American narrow meaning, it is the atomistic individualists that are the problem. There are better sorts, even among the American style so to speak.
 
Last edited:
Which causes more fatalities?

Also, do you have case studies to support the relative estimations of addictiveness?

Wouldn't that be tied directly to the number of users? That is to say, if tobacco is much more used than meth, wouldn't saying that tobacco kills more people be somewhat misleading in this context?
 
Which causes more fatalities?

Also, do you have case studies to support the relative estimations of addictiveness?

No that I'm prepared to give here, no. My opinion is based on my experiences and training with Centro-Civico of NY, a sex-ed group targeting Hispanics and other minorities, where I gave presentations on everything from how to put on a condom to how to clean needles on the street (private ownership of cringes is illegal in NY witch increases sharing needles exponentially).

I also vaguely recall a few of my grade school teachers stating the same, but again that's not something I could source.
 
Okay, if that was your wish then beat away.

Personally I think there are different kinds of libertarians, even using the American narrow meaning, it is the atomistic individualists that are the problem. There are better sorts, even among the American style so to speak.

I wish they would speak out more. Libertarians have a strong voice in Glenn Beck if only they would back away from their radical ideas on drugs and prostitution.
 
Wouldn't that be tied directly to the number of users? That is to say, if tobacco is much more used than meth, wouldn't saying that tobacco kills more people be somewhat misleading in this context?

Also death is only one of the many effects one has to look at.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom