Which drugs should be legalized for recreational use?

Goldwaters said:

As a former SA Counselor, and a clean and sober American...I say legalize and regulate everything. It won't increase or decrease usage and abuse, but it will reduce the harmfull effects of "bad" dope and poison meth. Along with reducing our dependance on foreign drugs.

Click to expand...

It's time America assert it's independence and drill for domestic narcotics :2wave:

Goldwaters said:

As a former SA Counselor, and a clean and sober American...I say legalize and regulate everything. It won't increase or decrease usage and abuse, but it will reduce the harmfull effects of "bad" dope and poison meth. Along with reducing our dependance on foreign drugs.

Click to expand...

That's just not true. Of course is these drugs were legalized they would be much more popular and used much more. If you use hardcore drugs, law will eventually reprimand you. The assurance that there is no law against using such substances would increase use. That is just basic logic.

I have always had a reservation for serious drugs, legalizing anything like cocaine or heroine is foolish talk and will never be reality. Marijuana is a possibility and one that I support... Keep in mind that if it was legalized, billions of dollars of education about it would be necessary. People also need to understand what they are putting into their body...

In the U.S. (due to lack of capability to enforce the law and the fact what is thus needed is public healthcare aproaches) id leaglise it all.

In my country, new zealand, I would only legalise those drugs which did not have severe chemically adictive properties (coke and H especially), because I think we are able to effectively neutralise supply of these substances.

So id be looking to legalise weed, acid, shrooms, ecky and the likes.

Main problem is I dont want retard flooding my country on holidays just looking to get ****ed up. As nice as money is, I dont want to live in a narco tourism hotspot.

Tubub said:

That's just not true. Of course is these drugs were legalized they would be much more popular and used much more. If you use hardcore drugs, law will eventually reprimand you. The assurance that there is no law against using such substances would increase use. That is just basic logic.

Click to expand...

Consider the risks users of such drugs are already taking when engaging in behaviours that are not illegal. I do not believe jail provides a disinsentive that other risks of using junky drugs do not. Can you think of many people who would use heroin just ebcause it was legal?

I think the fundamental question that has to be asked for legalizing drugs is what the costs are for having it legal or illegal. Fact is, illegal substances provide the majority of funding for organized crime.

One doesn't have to a fan of marijuana to figure out that its considerably less dangerous than funding drug gangs so powerful that they can destabilize the entire country of Mexico. Look at prohibition in the 20's and how quickly is created criminal empires from what used to be a legal substance.

Marijuana is no more mind altering than alcohol, and impossible to overdose on. More people get murdered because marijuana is illegal in a year than have died from Marijuana usage in all of history. Is a stoner worse than well-funded criminal organizations who consider murder a part of doing business?

Hard drugs have the same problems, although its less clear cut considering the added danger of the substances. Ideally the substance would decriminalized enough so that criminals don't make and distribute it, but be illegal enough to prohibit use. Perhaps they could be bought in the pharmacy, but it still illegal to use without a doctors approval.

Redress said:

Can you tell mewhat you base the bolded part on? I would be especially interested in the answer due to your knowledge of the subject as a SA councilor. It seems wrong, based on my experiences as a user.

Click to expand...

First I'd like to identify the two different types of users, recreational, 90% of population...and addicts, 10% of the population. I'm guessing recreational users will continue to use and remain in touch with the environmental cues that tell them to sober up and go home. Things like "spent too much money", "head hurts", "geeze I woke up with strangers and one was a guy" Addicts will not. Addicts will continue to loose family friends and lives on regulated drugs. It's all theoretical at this point because we have no instance of all these drugs being legalized.

Now bear in mind...my expertise as an SA counselor only extends to addicts. Just how the users amongst the other 90% of the population will respond to legalization is a guess for me. I want to be clear. I'm intersted to hear your experience as a user, and how you think legalization would affect things.

My main reason to legalize is that drugs are made dangerous because they are illegal and thus not subject to proper controls are other consequences of current drug policies. Not to mention organized crime and violent foreign cartels. I think drug usage is sometimes one of society's ills that won't be solved by criminalization, my example is the Volstead Act.

scourge99 said:

Any drug that isn't physically addicting should be legalized.

Physically addicting drugs should require a prescription. Addiction is a very serious disease and drug addiction should be treated as such. All one need do is look at what happened in China or any other country racked by addictive drug use to understand the effects.

One of our government's job is to protect us. They protect us from violence, fraud, and even infectious diseases. Likewise, the government must take measures to protect its citizens from addiction. This doesn't mean a ban, it simply means it must be controlled and regulated. The history and consequences of addiction speaks for itself as a compelling reason for restricting some personal liberty. The laissez-faire approach to drugs is as naïve and impractical to society as an anarchist's ideals are to government and law. Regulation and oversight is the key, not prohibition or carte blanche discretion.

Click to expand...

Our government's job is to protect our liberties. Not to protect us from making stupid decisions. Its this sort of logic that leads to bans on trans fats, the proposed soda tax, seat belt laws and all other sorts of intrusive regulations that are supposedly for our own good.

As to the possibility of an epidemic of drug addicts, here's some info to chew on:

Clinical Addiction Rates of Casual Users
Tobbaco 32%
Cocaine 23%
Heroin 17%
Alcohol 15%
Marijuana 9%

One of our legalized drugs is at the top of the list. Next on the list, cocaine, is closer to alcohol than it is the highly addictive tobbaco. Anyway, those are the addiction rates of casual users or experimenters. Since only a fraction of the population is going to ever be casual users, I'd say those rates won't lead to the end of civilization as we know it. Afterall tobbacco and alcohol haven't lead to our destruction.

Info found here on page 21 of 61: http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2005/RAND_OP121.pdf

Tubub said:

That's just not true. Of course is these drugs were legalized they would be much more popular and used much more. If you use hardcore drugs, law will eventually reprimand you. The assurance that there is no law against using such substances would increase use. That is just basic logic.

Click to expand...

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.

Goldwaters said:

First I'd like to identify the two different types of users, recreational, 90% of population...and addicts, 10% of the population. I'm guessing recreational users will continue to use and remain in touch with the environmental cues that tell them to sober up and go home. Things like "spent too much money", "head hurts", "geeze I woke up with strangers and one was a guy" Addicts will not. Addicts will continue to loose family friends and lives on regulated drugs. It's all theoretical at this point because we have no instance of all these drugs being legalized.

Now bear in mind...my expertise as an SA counselor only extends to addicts. Just how the users amongst the other 90% of the population will respond to legalization is a guess for me. I want to be clear. I'm intersted to hear your experience as a user, and how you think legalization would affect things.

My main reason to legalize is that drugs are made dangerous because they are illegal and thus not subject to proper controls are other consequences of current drug policies. Not to mention organized crime and violent foreign cartels. I think drug usage is sometimes one of society's ills that won't be solved by criminalization, my example is the Volstead Act.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your answer. I am going to have to disagree with one of your premises. Addiction is not a binary thing, on or off. There are levels of addiction, and I believe that far more than 10 % of users have some level of addiction. As an example, lets look at marijuana use. It is normally referred to as either nonaddictive, or very minorly addictive. And yet, you see people engaging in self destructive behavior with some frequency among those who use it. Every place I have ever worked, there where people who would come to work fairly obviously high, who cover it just well enough to not get fired, and people who on lunch breaks go out and get high. This is obviously self destructive behavior.

Any activity that is pleasant can lead to a level of addiction. I play MMO's, and addiction was a real problem among people I knew(myself included). The personal costs of these low level addictions can be staggering. By legalizing drugs, people are going to be more prone to try them, as the risk involved is no longer there, as well as a reduced social stigma. I believe this will increase the number of people with low level drug addiction, with potentially large negative effects.

Note that most of the above is supposition based on experience(ie, educated guesswork), and is not necessarily a strong argument for prohibition. I do think it is things like this that should be considered in any move to end prohibition though. As I said in the other thread on roughly this topic, if drugs where made legal today, I would not be overly concerned...I have done my time on them, done enough damage, and am not going back, so the change would not drastically effect me.

Redress said:

Thank you for your answer. I am going to have to disagree with one of your premises. Addiction is not a binary thing, on or off. There are levels of addiction, and I believe that far more than 10 % of users have some level of addiction. As an example, lets look at marijuana use. It is normally referred to as either nonaddictive, or very minorly addictive. And yet, you see people engaging in self destructive behavior with some frequency among those who use it. Every place I have ever worked, there where people who would come to work fairly obviously high, who cover it just well enough to not get fired, and people who on lunch breaks go out and get high. This is obviously self destructive behavior.

Click to expand...

The yardstick with which we guage the severity of someone's addiction is phrased in the following question...Has your life become unmanagable because of drug or alchohol use? By unmanagable we mean, financial problems, health problems, alienating your family, job difficulties, or legal troubles because of your drug usage.

Would you allow yourself to fall into those troubles because of drugs Redress? The only thing that mattered to me as an SA Counselor is have they or haven't they.

Redress said:

Note that most of the above is supposition based on experience(ie, educated guesswork), and is not necessarily a strong argument for prohibition. I do think it is things like this that should be considered in any move to end prohibition though. As I said in the other thread on roughly this topic, if drugs where made legal today, I would not be overly concerned...I have done my time on them, done enough damage, and am not going back, so the change would not drastically effect me.

Click to expand...

Be thankful to have that descretion. It is what addicts lack. And thats kind of my point. Non addicts will not be changed drastically by legalization, and addicts continue to suffer from the disease of addiction. It has always been hard for non addicts to envision someone who has irresistable compulsions that lead to personal self destruction.

Goldwaters said:

The yardstick with which we guage the severity of someone's addiction is phrased in the following question...Has your life become unmanagable because of drug or alchohol use? By unmanagable we mean, financial problems, health problems, alienating your family, job difficulties, or legal troubles because of your drug usage.

Click to expand...

That is the "official" yardstick. I use a different one. To me you are an addict when you are willing to engage in self destructive behavior to do whatever it is. I smoke. It's self destructive. It does not make my life unmanageable, but I am still an addict. We should have done this part first by the way. It helps to define terms so we are talking about the same thing, or at lesat understanding what the other is talking about.

Would you allow yourself to fall into those troubles because of drugs Redress? The only thing that mattered to me as an SA Counselor is have they or haven't they.

Click to expand...

I did. I ruined more than one good relationship, estranged myself from my family and friends, almost to the breaking point. Thankfully I was able to reconcile with some. I gave up a college education and early jobs. I risked my navy career(well, my navy hitch of 6 years), which would have carried lifelong penaties. I spent much money that I would have otherwise had. I put my life at risk at times. Only by pure luck or the grace of god I lucked into not spending time in a prison.

Be thankful to have that descretion. It is what addicts lack. And thats kind of my point. Non addicts will not be changed drastically by legalization, and addicts continue to suffer from the disease of addiction. It has always been hard for non addicts to envision someone who has irresistable compulsions that lead to personal self destruction.

Click to expand...

I think of addiction kinda like cancer. If you where once an addict, you will always be an addict, just hopefully you can get it into remission. I am an addict to this day, and some days it takes a major effort of will to stay in remission. At some point, I thought on the words of Nancy Reagan, and her "just say no" campaign, and that mantra somehow gives me the strength to get through so far.

My point in saying that addiction has levels is that self-destructive behavior does not entail sure destruction. Losing your job to drug or alcohol addiction is destruction, but risking your job is self destructive as well. Easier, safer access to drugs increases the likelihood that people will try, and end up becoming that low level addict, that has not yet destructed, but is acting in a self destructive manner.

Redress said:

I think of addiction kinda like cancer. If you where once an addict, you will always be an addict, just hopefully you can get it into remission. I am an addict to this day, and some days it takes a major effort of will to stay in remission. At some point, I thought on the words of Nancy Reagan, and her "just say no" campaign, and that mantra somehow gives me the strength to get through so far.

My point in saying that addiction has levels is that self-destructive behavior does not entail sure destruction. Losing your job to drug or alcohol addiction is destruction, but risking your job is self destructive as well. Easier, safer access to drugs increases the likelihood that people will try, and end up becoming that low level addict, that has not yet destructed, but is acting in a self destructive manner.

Click to expand...

You have a lot to be thankful for then. The word we use for remission is recovery. I must mention...if you were an addict...and you quit the self destructive behavior, and did it without rehab or AA/NA, you are 1/1000. The relapse rates for addicts even with rahab and recovery is 90%.

But you have me thinking about something that has always bugged me. the ongoing theory is that the brain of an addict is deficient in it's ability to make decisions based on it's consideration of the consequences of it's pleasure seeking. And from that, I always wondered why the relapse rate of addicts in recovery wasn't 100%. So there has to be some element of personal choice in using and recovery. If I were to have voiced this thought anywhere near an AA/NA meeting or the rehab clinic I'd be gagged and run off. Thank God for the annonymity of the interwebs. So there, I agree that there may be degrees in the ability to resist irresistable compulsions. However...I still do not think legalization and regulation of drugs will push higher functioning addicts over the edge. That sort of thing happens when it happens for other reasons.

Ikari said:

Legalize it all, let people deal with the consequences of their actions.

Click to expand...

Tempting.....very tempting..
But the druggies have a negative effect on society and their family, if they still have one...

Goldwaters said:

You have a lot to be thankful for then. The word we use for remission is recovery. I must mention...if you were an addict...and you quit the self destructive behavior, and did it without rehab or AA/NA, you are 1/1000. The relapse rates for addicts even with rahab and recovery is 90%.

Click to expand...

You know, I was happier being ignorant of that statistic.

But you have me thinking about something that has always bugged me. the ongoing theory is that the brain of an addict is deficient in it's ability to make decisions based on it's consideration of the consequences of it's pleasure seeking. And from that, I always wondered why the relapse rate of addicts in recovery wasn't 100%. So there has to be some element of personal choice in using and recovery. If I were to have voiced this thought anywhere near an AA/NA meeting or the rehab clinic I'd be gagged and run off. Thank God for the annonymity of the interwebs. So there, I agree that there may be degrees in the ability to resist irresistable compulsions. However...I still do not think legalization and regulation of drugs will push higher functioning addicts over the edge. That sort of thing happens when it happens for other reasons.

Click to expand...

I am sorry, but the idea that the brain of an addict is deficient is bull! We make a considered choice to take the pleasure with the risk. The pleasure is the important part. That theory had to come from either some one who has never been an addict, and feels bad for them, or from an addict looking to excuse his behavior. Jesus, that pisses me off. It's not bad enough I am an addict, now I am mentally deficient too...

Now, when you are actually under the influence, you are mentally deficient, which is a whole other thing. Being high, or tripping, or drunk, makes you far too likely to make unconsidered decisions, or at least illogical. Just being an addict does not make you illogical, only directed in a certain way, which sounds like it contradicts the above paragraph, but really doesn't.

Ikari said:

Legalize it all, let people deal with the consequences of their actions.

Click to expand...

Just as a drugy would have to deal with their addiction, you will have to deal with the consequences of legalizing it. Crime is a major source of income and your children are the new customers, are you ready for that?

Redress said:

I am sorry, but the idea that the brain of an addict is deficient is bull! We make a considered choice to take the pleasure with the risk. The pleasure is the important part. That theory had to come from either some one who has never been an addict, and feels bad for them, or from an addict looking to excuse his behavior. Jesus, that pisses me off. It's not bad enough I am an addict, now I am mentally deficient too...

Click to expand...

What you are talking about is a principle addicts are advised to avoid in recovery called "self will". The notion being that it was self will that got you to the rehab hospital. You know...it is awefully presumptuous of me to say you're an addict. You may just have been a hard partier.

Redress said:

Now, when you are actually under the influence, you are mentally deficient, which is a whole other thing. Being high, or tripping, or drunk, makes you far too likely to make unconsidered decisions, or at least illogical. Just being an addict does not make you illogical, only directed in a certain way, which sounds like it contradicts the above paragraph, but really doesn't.

Click to expand...

So...does that mean you believe that legalization of drugs might result in increased usage and more cases of addiction among drug users? Cuz I still don't.

Goldwaters said:

What you are talking about is a principle addicts are advised to avoid in recovery called "self will". The notion being that it was self will that got you to the rehab hospital. You know...it is awefully presumptuous of me to say you're an addict. You may just have been a hard partier.

Click to expand...

No, I was a drunk, and a stoner, and an addict. I hate weasel words.

So...does that mean you believe that legalization of drugs might result in increased usage and more cases of addiction among drug users? Cuz I still don't.

Click to expand...

What I guess I am saying(to get back away from self examination and depressing over that 90 % number) is that if low level addiction can cause self destructive behavior(it can), and if increased access would lead to more casual usage(I believe it would), that increased casual usage would lead to more low level addiction, and more self destructive behavior.

Think of it this way. Alcohol is legal. Most people drink at least on occasion. Those who drink do, far too frequently while drunk, make the decision to drive. The vast majority of the time, the do not get caught...self destructive behavior without the actual destruction that your definition of addiction seems to require. If we legalize drugs, they will become more like currently legal drugs, and so I believe that usage will go up,and low level addiction will go up, with an attendant increase in self destructive behavior.

The problem with the rehab system as it is, and as you explained it a bit, is that people don't get to rehab till they actually destruct. The pain inherent in that destruction is not a nice thing.

Jerry said:

So is dopamine

Click to expand...

As is Dimethyltryptamine, the most powerful hallucinogen in existence. It is in every plant and animal, yet is Schedule I in the States.

earthworm said:

Tempting.....very tempting..
But the druggies have a negative effect on society and their family, if they still have one...

Click to expand...

So do alcoholics... :doh

Tubub said:

Of course is these drugs were legalized they would be much more popular and used much more. If you use hardcore drugs, law will eventually reprimand you. The assurance that there is no law against using such substances would increase use. That is just basic logic.

Click to expand...

The world's foremost experts on the subject have been unable to find any correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use. If you have proof of such a correlation then please share it. And please explain why the number of tobacco smokers has been steadily declining for 30 years, even though didn't implement tobacco prohibition to accomplish that.

Tubub said:

have always had a reservation for serious drugs, legalizing anything like cocaine or heroine is foolish talk and will never be reality.

Click to expand...

No, what's foolish is believing that prohibition actually makes the situation better in some way. What's foolish is believing that drug laws actually have some effect on the rate of drug use in spite of the fact that the world's leading experts can't find such a correlation. All the health hazards associated with drug use are good reasons why they should not be used. None of them are good reasons why they should be illegal. None.

Tubub said:

Marijuana is a possibility and one that I support... Keep in mind that if it was legalized, billions of dollars of education about it would be necessary. People also need to understand what they are putting into their body...

Click to expand...

Absolutely, it would be irresponsible not to continue having drug education programs.

rathi said:

Hard drugs have the same problems, although its less clear cut considering the added danger of the substances. Ideally the substance would decriminalized enough so that criminals don't make and distribute it, but be illegal enough to prohibit use.

Click to expand...

Prohibition doesn't make it safer, it makes it more dangerous.

rathi said:

Perhaps they could be bought in the pharmacy, but it still illegal to use without a doctors approval.

Click to expand...

Illegal without a prescription is why most dealers are happy to sell valium, percocet, etc. Problem not solved.

Redress said:

As an example, lets look at marijuana use. It is normally referred to as either nonaddictive, or very minorly addictive. And yet, you see people engaging in self destructive behavior with some frequency among those who use it.

Click to expand...

Do you assume that smoking marijuana is what made them that way? Or is it possibly the other way around?

Redress said:

Every place I have ever worked, there where people who would come to work fairly obviously high, who cover it just well enough to not get fired, and people who on lunch breaks go out and get high. This is obviously self destructive behavior.

Click to expand...

And that's obviously very irresponsible use of marijuana.

Redress said:

By legalizing drugs, people are going to be more prone to try them, as the risk involved is no longer there, as well as a reduced social stigma. I believe this will increase the number of people with low level drug addiction, with potentially large negative effects.

Note that most of the above is supposition based on experience(ie, educated guesswork)

Click to expand...

There is no evidence any of that would happen. Other countries who have decriminalized drugs didn't see the rapid increase in drug use or social acceptance of drugs that is always predicted by prohibitionists. It didn't take prohibition to turn our social attitudes around regarding tobacco. It took honest education and preseverance. Laws don't define social norms, it's the other way around.

earthworm said:

But the druggies have a negative effect on society and their family, if they still have one...

Click to expand...

That's true, but making the problem worse through prohibition is the wrong answer. Drug addiction is a medical problem, not a criminal problem, so the criminal justice system is the wrong tool for the job.

Jerry said:

Just as a drugy would have to deal with their addiction, you will have to deal with the consequences of legalizing it. Crime is a major source of income and your children are the new customers, are you ready for that?

Click to expand...

When you remove prohibition from the equation, most of the criminal problems associated with drugs disappear. That's because prohibition has caused most of them.

Redress said:

What I guess I am saying ... is that if low level addiction can cause self destructive behavior(it can), and if increased access would lead to more casual usage(I believe it would), that increased casual usage would lead to more low level addiction, and more self destructive behavior.

Click to expand...

That's perfectly logical but your 2nd premise hasn't been proven. Even the world's foremost experts can't find any data to support the myth that drug use will increase if legalized.

Redress said:

Think of it this way. Alcohol is legal. Most people drink at least on occasion.

Click to expand...

Alcohol use is common because it's socially acceptable, not because of the law.

EgoffTib said:

So do alcoholics... :doh

Click to expand...

Your comparing hardcore drugs to Alcohol which is pretty stoopid. They need to stay off the market, full stop. At least responsible adults can have a few bears and call it a night. Drugs harm the body well beyond what you can concieve at first glance, they are far more addictive and destructive, and cannot be degraded in an argument to the point where people say "if Alcohol is legal why not drugs?" because such a comment dont not serve to improve your point because there is no relevance between the two.

Binary_Digit said:

That's perfectly logical but your 2nd premise hasn't been proven. Even the world's foremost experts can't find any data to support the myth that drug use will increase if legalized.

Click to expand...

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.

Alcohol use is common because it's socially acceptable, not because of the law.

Click to expand...

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

kaya'08 said:

Your comparing hardcore drugs to Alcohol which is pretty stoopid.

Click to expand...

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

They need to stay off the market, full stop. At least responsible adults can have a few bears and call it a night. Drugs harm the body well beyond what you can concieve at first glance, they are far more addictive and destructive, and cannot be degraded in an argument to the point where people say "if Alcohol is legal why not drugs?" because such a comment dont not serve to improve your point because there is no relevance between the two.

Click to expand...

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.

kaya'08 said:

Fantastic logic! Legalize Cocaine, Heroin, Meth! The fall of society begins with celtic lord!

Click to expand...

During the past 50 to 100 years, it has been demonstrated repeatedly that having these dangerous drugs illegal does not work, in an effective and economical manner, not any more than it worked during the prohibition days....
Education, a good education is the thing that does work.....
But, there will always be that insane fool who insists on drinking surfuric acid or 55 gallons of water......both acts which are legal....

kaya'08 said:

Your comparing hardcore drugs to Alcohol which is pretty stoopid. They need to stay off the market, full stop. At least responsible adults can have a few bears and call it a night. Drugs harm the body well beyond what you can concieve at first glance, they are far more addictive and destructive, and cannot be degraded in an argument to the point where people say "if Alcohol is legal why not drugs?" because such a comment dont not serve to improve your point because there is no relevance between the two.

Click to expand...

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