• 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
We've already legalized drugs like this. If you drink one gallon of grain alchohol you will die, everytime.

Or eat a handful of Tylenol. OTC pain pills kill twice as many people per year than ecstasy.
 
Last edited:
Or eat a handful of Tylenol. OTC pain pills kill twice as many people per year than ecstasy.

Good point, anyway, these arguments are fruitless. The opposition's entire premise can be summed up in four words...

Drugs are bad, m'kay?
 
1. There is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use. People who assume that the laws are keeping drug use to a minimum, and/or that drug use would skyrocket out of control if legalized, cannot support this myth.

2. Prohibition causes more problems than it solves. No drug has ever been made less harmful as a result of prohibition. Every drug in existence is even more harmful and dangerous under prohibition, both to the user and to society. Many of the problems associated with drug use are caused by prohibition, and many others are made worse by prohibition.
 
Because ecstasy is illegal and thus harder to come by?

That could be argued but the fact that we allow a drug that kills 500-1000 people per year to be sold in bathroom coin dispensers but we give people felonies for possessing a drug that kills 50-80 people per year. The deaths are also prohibition related causes; impurities in product, dehydration because raves charge for water, overheating because raves are done in clandestine locations without A/C etc.

Also ecstasy is not hard to come by, any public HS student can get E by the end of the school day without leaving campus.
 
Last edited:
1. There is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use. People who assume that the laws are keeping drug use to a minimum, and/or that drug use would skyrocket out of control if legalized, cannot support this myth.

2. Prohibition causes more problems than it solves. No drug has ever been made less harmful as a result of prohibition. Every drug in existence is even more harmful and dangerous under prohibition, both to the user and to society. Many of the problems associated with drug use are caused by prohibition, and many others are made worse by prohibition.

Oh I get it, you're waiting for someone to ask you for links....uh huh....
 
That could be argued but the fact that we allow a drug that kills 500-1000 people per year to be sold in bathroom coin dispensers but we give people felonies for possessing a drug that kills 50-80 people per year, mostly for prohibition related causes; impurities, dehydration because raves charge for water, overheating because raves are done in clandestine locations without A/C etc.

Also ecstasy is not hard to come by, any public HS student can get E by the end of the school day without leaving campus.

I didn't say E was hard to come by, I said it was harder to come by, and E's illegal status gives it a stigma which likely repels more people than, say, an espresso would.
 
I didn't say E was hard to come by, I said it was harder to come by, and E's illegal status gives it a stigma which likely repels more people than, say, an espresso would.

Yeah, I understand that that argument can be made. I would like to re-post what I posted in another thread on one of my personal experiences,

The laws don't work, when I was in High school I was openly propositioned to buy weed, shrooms, ecstasy and prescription narcotics. I was anti-drug/pro-drug war at this point in my life but I started to realize how much of an utter failure the policy was if I could get my hands on just about any drug of my choosing by the end of a school day, without even leaving campus.

Then an undercover narq came to my school as an enrolled student. The sting netted 6 students over the time span of a semester and a half.
The sting was described by the school and local police as a great success, the campus is now drug free! No, you just netted 6 people who were dumb enough to sell to a 30 year old "student". I realized that the Drug War is all about budgets and PR and not actually about public safety, big surprise there.

And I still went about my day at school propositioned just as much as usual, the remaining years of HS.

I can guarantee that this is the rule and not the exception for every public school. I have even heard of private schools that could not escape it. The drug war is a false sense of security when in reality anyone with a few bills can purchase drugs regardless of their age.
 
Last edited:
Because ecstasy is illegal and thus harder to come by?

It's only marginally harder to come by. I doubt that a few degrees of separation would account for such a large disparity. Either way, we are both speculating.
 
I can guarantee that this is the rule and not the exception for every public school. I have even heard of private schools that could not escape it. The drug war is a false sense of security when in reality anyone with a few bills can purchase drugs regardless of their age.

I'll go you one further and say that it was available in my middle school.
I could get weed and downers very easily.

Lets not forget that these institutions are government owned and operated.

They can't even control the flow of drugs on their own property.
 
It's only marginally harder to come by. I doubt that a few degrees of separation would account for such a large disparity. Either way, we are both speculating.

I would have and would do a lot more drugs if they weren't illegal. However, in my line of work I'd be fired. Same goes for the the hundreds of thousands in this country in my line of work: government employee and government contractor.
 
I would have and would do a lot more drugs if they weren't illegal.

Not me. Statistical equilibrium is thus maintained.

Curious though, which drugs and why?

However, in my line of work I'd be fired. Same goes for the the hundreds of thousands in this country in my line of work: government employee and government contractor.

If consuming those substances was recognized as a right the government could not fire you for drug-use unless, of course, it interfered with your work.
 
Oh I get it, you're waiting for someone to ask you for links....uh huh....
The burden of proof is on people who think that drug laws actually do have an effect on the rate of drug use. The statement I made that "there is no known correlation" cannot be proven, it can only be disproven. But I can prove that the World Health Organization and the CATO Institute both agree with me that there is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use. Here you go:
World Health Organization said:
“The U.S., which has been driving much of the world’s drug research and drug policy agenda, stands out with higher levels of use of alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis, despite punitive illegal drug policies. … The Netherlands, with a less criminally punitive approach to cannabis use than the US, has experienced lower levels of use, particularly among younger adults. Clearly, by itself, a punitive policy towards possession and use accounts for limited variation in nation level rates of illegal drug use.

The World Health Organization Documents Failure of U.S. Drug Policies

CATO Institute said:
"Some supporters of drug prohibition claim that its benefits are undeniable and self-evident. Their main assumption is that without prohibition drug use would skyrocket, with disastrous results. But there is little evidence for this commonly held belief. In fact, in the few cases where empirical evidence does exist it lends little support to the prediction of soaring drug use. For example, in two places in the Western world where use of small amounts of marijuana is legal--the Netherlands and Alaska--the rate of marijuana consumption is arguably lower than in the continental United States, where marijuana is banned. In 1982, 6.3 percent of American high school seniors smoked marijuana daily, but only 4 percent did so in Alaska. In 1985, 5.5 percent of American high school seniors used marijuana daily, but in the Netherlands the rate was only 0.5 percent.[6] These are hardly controlled comparisons--no such comparisons exist--but the numbers that are available do not bear out the drastic scenario portrayed by supporters of continued prohibition."

Thinking about Drug Legalization | James Ostrowski | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis
When people say there should be harsh penalties for drug use, or that we can't legalize drugs because everyone will start using them, it's based on the false assumption that drug laws actually have an effect on the rate of drug use. They need to prove this association or stop assuming it exists.
 
Last edited:
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.

My point is that the government (We the people) should have no standing in trying to influence an individual's moral behavior through legal prohibition of things. Morality is the province of the church &Y family...not government. Aside from anything else, enforcing such "Prohibitions" are doomed to failure.

If a woman chooses to ruin her life by becoming a prostitute, drug addict or drunk, that is HER decision to make. The state should have no more interest in that decision than if she decides to overeat.
As long as she doesn't interfere with MY rights, it's none of my business.
As far as this is concerned: :"Anti-prostitution law has to do with preventing sex-slave trafficking and the abuse of women through prostitution.".......I would argue that the very act of making prostitution illegal creates the atmosphere for sex-slave trafficking in the first place.
 
Last edited:
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.

I support legalized suicide, so sure. I doubt anyone who wasn't suicidal anyone would bother getting high just to die (especially with no living friends to rave about the drug's potency).
 
My point is that the government (We the people) should have no standing in trying to influence an individual's moral behavior through legal prohibition of things. Morality is the province of the church &Y family...not government. Aside from anything else, enforcing such "Prohibitions" are doomed to failure.

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

If a woman chooses to ruin her life by becoming a prostitute, drug addict or drunk, that is HER decision to make.

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

The state should have no more interest in that decision than if she decides to overeat.

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

As long as she doesn't interfere with MY rights, it's none of my business.

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

As far as this is concerned: :"Anti-prostitution law has to do with preventing sex-slave trafficking and the abuse of women through prostitution.".......I would argue that the very act of making prostitution illegal creates the atmosphere for sex-slave trafficking in the first place.

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.

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.

If you only care about things that you can see directly affect you, fine, I'm not sure why you choose to live in a community then, but that's your choice.
 
Last edited:
When people say there should be harsh penalties for drug use, or that we can't legalize drugs because everyone will start using them, it's based on the false assumption that drug laws actually have an effect on the rate of drug use. They need to prove this association or stop assuming it exists.

It's ironic that you quoted the WHO and UN bodies... when they are the primary culprits behind punitive action of drug use worldwide. You know, when the Canadian government was debating decriminalization of marijuana a few years ago, the UN got involved and told our Prime Minister that Canadian politicians have an obligation to uphold international law.

The UN, at the highest levels, has dictated a blanket drug policy worldwide, based on data coming out of the worst regions... like Columbia, where people are killed by the thousands in drug wars. It disregards individual nations, cultures, and what is appropriate for sovereign governments to decide. Then again, the U.S. provides the most funding to the UN, so I wouldn't be surprised if UN drug policy is a reflection of that.
 
Last edited:
I'll need a moment to let the coffee kick in. Hey, a man's body needs a little time to "recharge" ;)

No problemo...

Enjoy your morning narcotics. It's midnight on this side of planet Earth and I'm going to bed... which means you have about 12 hours to explain yourself before I rip into you.

:cool:
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom