• 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
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!

Again, anti-prostitution law has NOTHING to do with religion. Not in any way, shape or form.

Anti-prostitution law has to do with preventing sex-slave trafficking and the abuse of women through prostitution.
 
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.

Wrong, nicotine is the most addictive substance in existance.
 
Tobacco is a lot less likely to **** up your head or life, at least until decades later you get diagnosed with lung cancer or something.

I was a heavy drug user most of my life, I could tell you stories about that....

Odd but true story: when I was in the navy, the random urinalysis was great for finding marijuana use, but sucked for drugs such as acid...
 
:lol:

Tobacco is a lot less likely to **** up your head or life, at least until decades later you get diagnosed with lung cancer or something.

My point exactly: decades later.

Here in SD the reservations are riddled with meth addicts. People loose their lives in a matter of days, not years.
 
Again, anti-prostitution law has NOTHING to do with religion. Not in any way, shape or form.

Anti-prostitution law has to do with preventing sex-slave trafficking and the abuse of women through prostitution.

How many prostitutes in Nevada are unconsenting sex-slaves? I think you are confusing black markets with regulated markets. Laws against prostitution have everything to do with enforcing moralist sensibilities but they use the consequences of the black market as a justification for the ban in the first place.
 
I was a heavy drug user most of my life, I could tell you stories about that....

Odd but true story: when I was in the navy, the random urinalysis was great for finding marijuana use, but sucked for drugs such as acid...
It is meth in particular that seems so bad to me. The way I see it even a heroin addiction is far better. Heroin will **** up your life, it has it obvious dangers like overdoses and the perils of addiction but it doesn't seem to **** up your head like meth will and it is a drug that makes people lie around instead of charge about.

I remember watching a show in Australia called The Ice age and they had a head doctor in a casualty ward talking about how he missed the old days when it was mostly heroin overdoses rather than meth ones he'd see.
 
Last edited:
Wrong, nicotine is the most addictive substance in existance.

It can be addictive and not as deadly.

There's also dosage to consider. This is purely anecdotal but I'm sure many can relate in some way: How many people do you know became hopelessly addicted to tobacco after only 1 cigarette? And I don't mean "man I want another drag", I mean "I'll suck dick and sell my children (literally) for my next fix".

Rampant drug addiction, incidentally, is one of the reasons prostitution is illegal. Prostitutes turn to drugs to cope with the abuse from both Johns and pimps, as well as deal with PTSD from their violent life.
 
My point exactly: decades later.
And even though you might die, and that will cause emotional strain to yourself and others but it doesn't stop you living a life for many decades often and it doesn't **** you up the same way.
 
Last edited:
It can be addictive and not as deadly.

There's also dosage to consider. This is purely anecdotal but I'm sure many can relate in some way: How many people do you know became hopelessly addicted to tobacco after only 1 cigarette? And I don't mean "man I want another drag", I mean "I'll suck dick and sell my children (literally) for my next fix".

Rampant drug addiction, incidentally, is one of the reasons prostitution is illegal. Prostitutes turn to drugs to cope with the abuse from both Johns and pimps, as well as deal with PTSD from their violent life.

Not everyone gets addictive to meth the first time either, plus everything the tweakers are doing now to support their habit would be duplicated by tobacco smokers if their drug of choice was outlawed tomorrow and the prices skyrocket.
 
How many prostitutes in Nevada are unconsenting sex-slaves? I think you are confusing black markets with regulated markets. Laws against prostitution have everything to do with enforcing moralist sensibilities but they use the consequences of the black market as a justification for the ban in the first place.

It's unfortunate that the Admin removed the True Debate forum, other wise I could link all the credible data I used in winning a well sourced, detail-oriented True Debate on prostitution where I earned the black ribbon award under my avatar.
 
Not everyone gets addictive to meth the first time either, plus everything the tweakers are doing now to support their habit would be duplicated by tobacco smokers if their drug of choice was outlawed tomorrow and the prices skyrocket.

Another story from my experiences. I tried crack twice. I spent the whole time both times so paranoid about becoming a crack addict I could not enjoy it, and never had a desire to do it after that. Course we don't tend to want to repeat unpleasant experiences.
 
According to the Institute of Medicine, 32% of tobacco users meet the DSM-IV criteria for drug dependence. Compare that to 23% for heroin, 17% for cocaine, 15% for alcohol, and 9% for marijuana.
 
It's unfortunate that the Admin removed the True Debate forum, other wise I could link all the credible data I used in winning a well sourced, detail-oriented True Debate on prostitution where I earned the black ribbon award under my avatar.

So are there unconsenting trafficked sex-slaves working in legally regulated brothels in Nevada?
 
According to the Institute of Medicine, 32% of tobacco users meet the DSM-IV criteria for drug dependence. Compare that to 23% for heroin, 17% for cocaine, 15% for alcohol, and 9% for marijuana.

Please provide links when you present data.
 
So are there unconsenting trafficked sex-slaves working in legally regulated brothels in Nevada?

Yes, and more to the point, most prostitutes do not work in brothels, but on the street.
 
I was going to select cocain and opium as well but opium is mainly produced by afghanistan and I'm not so sure our money wouldn't go to fund our enemies there.

if it was legal to produce here, that would reduce a whole lot of the demand for opium produced in Afghanistan.
 
Not everyone gets addictive to meth the first time either, plus everything the tweakers are doing now to support their habit would be duplicated by tobacco smokers if their drug of choice was outlawed tomorrow and the prices skyrocket.

I'm not talking about "everyone", I'm talking about the typical user per-se.
 
According to the Institute of Medicine, 32% of tobacco users meet the DSM-IV criteria for drug dependence. Compare that to 23% for heroin, 17% for cocaine, 15% for alcohol, and 9% for marijuana.

What is DSM-IV?

Do those numbers represent strictly physical addiction, or psychological addiction as well? I suspect only physical, since for psychological, those numbers are way too low.

By the way, thank god for spell checkers.
 
I voted for all of them.

some of them are pretty harmless as long as they are used responsibly. marijuana, lsd, and psychedelic mushrooms in particular.

cocaine and meth can certainly be quite harmful, but a lot of the harms are caused and/or exacerbated by the war on drugs.

the black market, and the violence associated with it, would evaporate if it had to compete with a legal regulated market.

issues with toxins being introduced to otherwise safe(ish) drugs, issues with drugs being sold as something they aren't, and problems with the variability in potency that leads to overdoses, would disappear if drugs were created in a legal and professional environment.

the price of drugs would go down, so there would be fewer property crimes to pay for drugs.

more addicts would seek treatment on their own if they didn't fear legal repercussions.

law enforcement would have more time to work on violent crimes, and fewer violent criminals would be released from prisons to make room for drug crimes.

and we would no longer be wasting billions of dollars every year on the futile war on drugs.
 
What is DSM-IV?

Do those numbers represent strictly physical addiction, or psychological addiction as well? I suspect only physical, since for psychological, those numbers are way too low.

By the way, thank god for spell checkers.

EDIT- It is DSM-III. See the link for extra info. The numbers represent the percentage of users of the particular substance that exhibit dependence symptoms according to psychiatrist's The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
 
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.

We've already legalized drugs like this. If you drink one gallon of grain alchohol you will die, everytime.
 
Yes, and more to the point, most prostitutes do not work in brothels, but on the street.

If prostitution was legal and regulated a John could go to a brothel where the woman are payed outright, not through a parasitic pimp, they would be screened for legal age and that they are consenting. Condom use would be mandatory, screened for STDs etc. Who would go to the toothless street walkers if they could go to a legal brothel? You are conflating black and white markets.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom