• 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
Devil505 said:
Rare agreement with you but you are right on!
(& it's time to legalize prostitution & gambling too)

Government has no business trying to operate like a church!...Stay out of victimless moral questions entirely!
Click to expand...

Wtf does prostitution have to do with the church?

Prostitution bans are about stopping human slave trafficking, not enforcing a religion.
 
If some redneck got on the tube and started yelling about how the average citizen has the 2nd amendment right to own stinger missiles, I'd tune them out also. The same with any leftist who insists on a right to abort at any point in pregnancy no mater how far along.
Click to expand...

Ahh man, here we go again.

Imo recreational drug use needs to have a responsible limit, and that responsible limit inherently excludes highly addictive drugs like meth.

A candidate who supports legalizing hard drugs does not share my view on responsible behavior, and so I wouldn't support him.
Click to expand...

Now thats what i want to hear, Weatherman. Anybody on this forum who advocates the legalization of all drugs, have a very quetionable state of mind. Do you know what that would do to society? Do you know what it is already DOING to society? Are you all ignorant to the effects of drugs on lives, and families?

Those who advocate such legalization have serious, serious mental issues, and obviously lack much intelligence and education.
 
Jerry said:
Wtf does prostitution have to do with the church?

Prostitution bans are about stopping human slave trafficking, not enforcing a religion.
Click to expand...

My point is that whenever government tries to legislate morality, it is doomed to failure. Prostitution is something that the church can preach against, not the government. What adult, consenting individuals do in the privacy of the bedroom is none of my (or yours) business. Same is true of drugs, overeating, gambling ..whatever!
 
Jerry said:
Imo recreational drug use needs to have a responsible limit, and that responsible limit inherently excludes highly addictive drugs like meth.
Click to expand...

I'm more concerned with the highly dangerous environment involved in meth production then anything else.
 
kaya'08 said:
Anybody on this forum who advocates the legalization of all drugs, have a very quetionable state of mind.
Click to expand...
Advocating legalization is not the same as advocating drug abuse. No sane person advocates abusing drugs, booze, Twinkies or anything else. The fact is that criminalization of these things does nothing to stop or even slow their abuse.


kaya'08 said:
Do you know what that would do to society? Do you know what it is already DOING to society? Are you all ignorant to the effects of drugs on lives, and families?
Click to expand...

Again, no one is advocating drug abuse or alcoholism. Education is the only way to stop abuse problems, not law enforcement,.
 
Devil505 said:
Again, no one is advocating drug abuse or alcoholism. Education is the only way to stop abuse problems, not law enforcement,.
Click to expand...

I am not going to seriously argue whether or not any drugs should be legalized. I expressed my opinion in the other thread, the position was unpopular(not that that will change my position or stop me arguing in itself), and it's not a strong issue to me. Mostly I don't care much. But...

The above quoted statement sounds good, until examined. If education will work to stop drug abuse problems, then most of the law enforcement needs in that direction would go away with proper education. Further, the fact that people are willing to risk legal jeopardy is a strong indication just how addictive even minor drugs like marijuana is.
 
I've never really understood this discussion.

Didn't like half of all Chinese become addicted to opium when it was legal?

Why would we want a country full of drug addicts?
 
sazerac said:
I've never really understood this discussion.

Didn't like half of all Chinese become addicted to opium when it was legal?

Why would we want a country full of drug addicts?
Click to expand...

At one time, easily half of our country was addicted to tobacco. Now we know better. Same with opium.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Cyanide, to be rid of people who need drugs to get by.
Click to expand...
Most people need something to get by. That's why religion is so popular. Try looking at things objectively, it's an eye opener.
 
sazerac said:
I've never really understood this discussion.

Didn't like half of all Chinese become addicted to opium when it was legal?

Why would we want a country full of drug addicts?
Click to expand...
We already have a country full of addicts. Whether it's television, gambling, nicotine, shopping... Everyone has a vice.
 
jamesrage said:
This is a spin off from the other poll.

Which drugs should be legalized for recreational use?

Marijuana
Cocaine
LSD
Meth
Prescription drugs
Psychedelic mushrooms
Ecstasy
Opium
other
None of the above
Click to expand...

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.
 
EgoffTib said:
We already have a country full of addicts. Whether it's television, gambling, nicotine, shopping... Everyone has a vice.
Click to expand...

If you have ever known someone who was addicted to drugs then you'd understand that its worlds apart from silly mental addictions like shopping or television or even gambling. The difference in degree and effects on the individual are without comparison.
 
scourge99 said:
If you have ever known someone who was addicted to drugs then you'd understand that its worlds apart from silly mental addictions like shopping or television or even gambling. The difference in degree and effects on the individual are without comparison.
Click to expand...
Emotion aside, all of those things are addictions. They are easily comparable. I will certainly agree that drug addiction is far more lethal and important than a shopping addiction, but any one of those things I mentioned could destroy lives.
 
I guess the only good answer is to study other countries that have done it. Here's the first link I found:

Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work? - TIME

This relates to Portugal in says in part:

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

(I view the increase in people seeking treatment as a positive effect)



Any other such links? (pro or con)
 
For those who are pro-drug legalization:

Let's say there is a drug that has a 100% fatality rate. If you take it, you get temendously high, after which you always die. Obviously, since all the users are dead its use cannot be banned. My question is, would you support the legalization of the sale of this drug?

Don't mean to hijack the thread, just curious.
 
Devil505 said:
I guess the only good answer is to study other countries that have done it. Here's the first link I found:

Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work? - TIME

This relates to Portugal in says in part:

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

(I view the increase in people seeking treatment as a positive effect)



Any other such links? (pro or con)
Click to expand...
Whoa, now. Don't post facts, you will upset the Status Quo. ;)
 
Dav said:
For those who are pro-drug legalization:

Let's say there is a drug that has a 100% fatality rate. If you take it, you get temendously high, after which you always die. Obviously, since all the users are dead its use cannot be banned. My question is, would you support the legalization of the sale of this drug?

Don't mean to hijack the thread, just curious.
Click to expand...
Sure. If someone wants to kill him or herself, who am I to tell them that they are not allowed to do so? It's not my body, not my choice.
 
EgoffTib said:
Sure. If someone wants to kill him or herself, who am I to tell them that they are not allowed to do so? It's not my body, not my choice.
Click to expand...

I think the families of those who took the theoretical drug might disagree.
 
Jerry said:
Statements like that are why the Loosertarians never have a viable presidential nominee.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
EgoffTib said:
Emotion aside, all of those things are addictions. They are easily comparable. I will certainly agree that drug addiction is far more lethal and important than a shopping addiction, but any one of those things I mentioned could destroy lives.
Click to expand...
Thought experiment: select 2000 random people. Have 1000 gamble and the other 1000 use meth.

1) How many more people do you think will be addicted to meth that gambling?

2) Out of those addicted, how many more of the meth users lives were significantly negatively affected as compared to the gamblers?
 
Dav said:
I think the families of those who took the theoretical drug might disagree.
Click to expand...
Sure. But how is this any different than a normal suicide? Do you think the families of suicide victims think that they made a good choice? Banning drugs isn't going to stop people from making poor decisions.
 
scourge99 said:
Thought experiment: select 2000 random people. Have 1000 gamble and the other 1000 use meth.

1) How many more people do you think will be addicted to meth that gambling?

2) Out of those addicted, how many more of the meth users lives were significantly negatively affected as compared to the gamblers?
Click to expand...
I said I agreed with you that drug abuse was far more dangerous...
 
EgoffTib said:
Sure. If someone wants to kill him or herself, who am I to tell them that they are not allowed to do so? It's not my body, not my choice.
Click to expand...

Individual liberty can only come about in a stable, healthy society. I'm not saying legalised drugs would do it but say it did create a situation where a quarter or a third of people were hooked on hard drugs then that would massively damaging for society and the small-scale associations that help to make a healthy, stable society like family and community and it would not only endanger social happiness but individual liberty itself by degrading the society and associations it relies upon.
 
Wessexman said:
Individual liberty can only come about in a stable, healthy society. I'm not saying legalised drugs would do it but say it did create a situation where a quarter or a third of people were hooked on hard drugs then that would massively damaging for society and the small-scale associations that help to make a healthy, stable society like family and community and it would not only endanger social happiness but individual liberty itself by degrading the society and associations it relies upon.
Click to expand...
You are assuming that, upon legalization, people will be flocking in droves to shoot heroin or insufflate methamphetamine. If you research Prohibition, you will find that alcohol consumption increased as did alcohol consumption by children. Bartenders during Prohibition, like drug dealers today, obviously did not card when everyone was partaking of alcohol illegally.
 
EgoffTib said:
You are assuming that, upon legalization, people will be flocking in droves to shoot heroin or insufflate methamphetamine. If you research Prohibition, you will find that alcohol consumption increased as did alcohol consumption by children. Bartenders during Prohibition, like drug dealers today, obviously did not card when everyone was partaking of alcohol illegally.
Click to expand...

Actually I wasn't mate, I said this:

Me said:
Individual liberty can only come about in a stable, healthy society.I'm not saying legalised drugs would do it
but say it did create a situation where a quarter or a third of people were hooked on hard drugs then that would massively damaging for society....
Click to expand...

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.

I'm against hard drugs legislation because I don't want them to be developed by corporations and gov'ts mostly and I just don't think it is wise to give the social all clear to such behaviour as meth addictions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom