• 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've used just about everything out there, numerous times. I've been an irresponsible drug user, I've been an addict, I've hit bottom - hard, I've walked away from addition, I've recovered and I've made my way to a responsible user.

The notion that someone cannot responsibly use drugs is inherently flawed and proven wrong on a daily basis by those of use who DO responsibly use drugs.

All drugs should be legal for all the reasons that others have posted here. It's not the government's place to tell me what I can or cannot ingest. Prohibition doesn't make a problem better, it only makes it worse. People should be responsible for their own actions, as opposed to the government being responsible for them. Etc, etc, etc.

Goddamn I love cocaine. Anywho....

tlmorg02 said:
Cyanide, to be rid of people who need drugs to get by.
Click to expand...
I agree that all coffee drinkers' coffee should be laced with cyanide so we can rid ourselves of their nuisance.


kaya'08 said:
Ahh man, here we go again.

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?
Click to expand...

Please enlighten us as to what it would do to society. I'd love to see what your crystal ball says.

Do you know what it is already DOING to society?
Click to expand...
What society? Because they're not legal here. You mean places where some drugs WERE decriminalized and it helped? Well yes then, I DO know what it does to society. It makes it freer and better.

Are you all ignorant to the effects of drugs on lives, and families?
Click to expand...
What kind of drugs? Legal? Illegal? Just casual use, or addicts? Responsible use or irresponsible use? Are you going to enlighten us to the effects of all possible outcomes, or just the drastic extremes that fit into your small worldview on the subject?

Those who advocate such legalization have serious, serious mental issues, and obviously lack much intelligence and education.
Click to expand...
They said the same thing about those pesky anti-prohibitionists w/regard to alcohol too. I don't hold much stock in such blatantly incorrect opinions with no basis in fact.

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...
I've been addicted. I don't see it as much different.

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...
I completely support every person's inherent right to kill themselves any way they wish.


Jerry said:
Yes, and more to the point, most prostitutes do not work in brothels, but on the street.
Click to expand...
BUAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHHAA

*deep breath*

BUAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Okay, now that I've had my daily laugh at the seemingly unending sheer ignorance Jerry has on that subject.... back on topic now.


kaya'08 said:
Was hoping you'd excercise your sense of humour so i wouldnt have to :)

Your lack of knowledge on the effects of drugs in evident in these posts. Alcohol doesnt get you high and is fine in regulated amounts. Class C drugs are fine in regulated amounts, ok. But cocaine? Heroin? I dont think you realize the harm it can do and how quickly one can become attached to it even after first time use.
Click to expand...
How does alcohol NOT get you high? That's what alcohol does, it intoxicates you, makes you stupid, takes away your inhibitions, good judgment, and motor skills. If that's not "high", then what is it?

Have you ever tried cocaine? Yes, some people can become addicted after one use, much the same as alcohol or cigs (as such, irrelevant), but most people do not. You can function perfectly fine while using cocaine too. In fact, I would challenge you to go to DC and pick out which politicians were high on cocaine at any given time. Betcha can't do it. Bet you never have been able to tell while watching them on TV, have ya?

Heroin is a different matter, though. Can't really function properly in public while high on heroin, people are going to know you're high. However, you CAN use it responsibly. Ditto for LSD, ditto for shrooms, ditto for pot.


kaya'08 said:
You dont "regulate" Class A drugs. To take them anyway is irresponsible. To take them responsibly isnt possible.
Click to expand...
Why on earth do you think it's not possible? The presumption is illogical at best. People do it all the time.
 
Rivrrat, you waste your time debating Kaya. He's under the impression that drugs are "bad" and that is that. No amount of poking holes in his feeble attempts at logical arguments will sway him.
 
EgoffTib said:
Rivrrat, you waste your time debating Kaya. He's under the impression that drugs are "bad" and that is that. No amount of poking holes in his feeble attempts at logical arguments will sway him.
Click to expand...

Drugs can be bad for sure, I merely view them as a personal choice.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Still, health consequences are good reasons why drugs shouldn't be used, they're not good reasons why drugs should be illegal.


I'd like to know where Rep. Solomon got his information on the Netherlands. Apparently they came straight from his behind, because the Duch Embassy website schooled him and similar claims not long after this.


[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
The Netherlands is lower than the U.S. in all these categories (crime and drug use), in spite of their drug policies. Clearly, decriminalization in the Netherlands ("allowing" drug use as you call it) has not led to widespread drug use and crime.

Also consider the experience of Portugal:


The following countries have also decriminalized marijuana, yet nobody has produced any reports showing an increased rate of crime or marijuana use:

Italy (1990), Spain (1992), Portugal (2001), Luxembourg (2001), Belgium (2001), and Austria (1998).
Click to expand...
:doh Wow. Comparing three DIFFERENT countries crime rates and drug use rates and PRESUMING that the drug enforcement policy of the countries is the reason or even a strong contributing factor? Perhaps we should make a valid study.. you know... like comparing crime and drug rates OF THE SAME COUNTRY over the years when drugs were illegal and then legal?
 
scourge99 said:
:doh Wow. Comparing three DIFFERENT countries crime rates and drug use rates and PRESUMING that the drug enforcement policy of the countries is the reason or even a strong contributing factor? Perhaps we should make a valid study.. you know... like comparing crime and drug rates OF THE SAME COUNTRY over the years when drugs were illegal and then legal?
Click to expand...

Marijuana Myths

The Facts

In 1976, following the recommendations of two national commissions, the Dutch government revised many aspects of its drug policy. While not legalizing marijuana, it adopted an "expediency principle," which directed police and prosecutors to ignore retail sale to adults as long as the circumstances of the sale do not constitute a public nuisance.

This change in policy was based on several factors, including:

* a principle of tolerance toward alternative lifestyles
* a finding that, compared to other illegal drugs, marijuana poses little risk to users
* a desire to protect marijuana users from the marginalization that accompanies arrest and prosecution
* a belief that separating the retail markets for "soft" and "hard" drugs decreases the likelihood that marijuana users will experiment with cocaine or heroin

Following the policy change, marijuana sales emerged openly in coffee shops, which were required to follow a set of regulations, including a ban on advertising, sale of no more than 5 grams at a time, and a minimum purchase age of 18. The sale of other drugs on the premises is strictly prohibited, and constitutes grounds for immediate closure by the police. Local officials were also authorized to create additional regulations to protect the interests of the community—for example, limiting the number of coffee shops concentrated in any one area. 87

Since liberalization, marijuana use has increased in the Netherlands, although rates remain similar to those in neighboring European countries, and are generally lower than those in the United States.
Click to expand...
From all sources: marijuana.com

cocaine is illegal in the Netherlands, btw.
 
Last edited:
Note: I can't get all these quotes to work right. Whenever I preview, it keeps inserting extra quote tags that muck it all up. =/

scourge99 said:
Since liberalization, marijuana use has increased in the Netherlands
Marijuana Myths
Click to expand...
Excellent post, thank you!

But did marijuana use increase because of the drug policy, or could it have been something else?

Dirk Korf of the Institute of Criminology at the University of Amsterdam finds that surveys of the number of Germans who use cannabis "virtually parallels" the peaks and troughs in Dutch surveys between 1970 and 1990, even though Germany has prohibited cannabis throughout the period.
Click to expand...


Ganja in Jamaica - Articles - The Netherlands' Case

(Columbia University)
[/quote]

Overall drug use in the Netherlands was on the rise when the decriminalization policies went into effect, so it's relevant to consider that fact in the context of any increase in marijuana use immediately afterward.
It has been demonstrated that the more or less free sale of quantities of soft drugs for personal use in the Netherlands has not given rise to levels of use significantly higher than in countries which pursue a highly repressive policy in this regard.

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_35497_EN_Netherlands Drug Policy 1995- English.pdf

([FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport)[/FONT][/FONT]
Click to expand...


Following the rapid increase around 1976, cannabis use declined again, and has now become more or less stabilized.
Click to expand...
The Dutch Cannabis Debate, 1968-1976

(The Dutch Cannabis Debate, Journal of Drug Issues 24)
Click to expand...
Decriminalization is said to increase availability, encourage use, and provide disincentives to quit. Thus, we expected longer careers and fewer quitters in Amsterdam, but our findings did not support these expectations. (snip) With the exception of higher drug use in San Francisco, we found
strong similarities across both cities. We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use.

http://www.mapinc.org/lib/limited.pdf

(American Journal of Public Health)
Click to expand...
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use."[/FONT][/FONT]

Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base

(National Academy of Sciences - Institute of Medicine)
Click to expand...


This study examines whether the decriminalization of marijuana in eleven states has affected serf-reported usage of drugs. Generally, decriminalization is not found to significantly impact drug use. An implication is that the demand for drugs is highly inelastic with respect to incremental changes in the legal sanctions for possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Click to expand...
There is no strong evidence that decriminalization effects either the choice or frequency of use of drugs, either legal (alcohol) or illegal (marijuana and cocaine).

http://www.icjia.state.il.us/GoTo20...N OF MARIJUANA AND THE DEMAND FOR ALCOHOL.doc

(Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority)
[/quote]

The available evidence indicates that the "decriminalization" of marijuana possession had little or no impact on rates of use. Although rates of marijuana use increased in those U.S. states which reduced maximum penalties for possession to a fine, the prevalence of use increased at similar or higher rates in those states which retained more severe penalties. There were also no discernable impacts on the health care systems. On the other hand, the so-called "decriminalization" measures did result in substantial savings in the criminal justice system.

The impact of marijuana decriminalization: an upda...[J Public Health Policy. 1989] - PubMed Result

(National Center for Biotechnology Information)
Click to expand...
The preponderance of the evidence gathered and examined for this study points to the conclusion that decriminalization had virtually no effect either on the marijuana use or on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use among American young people in this age group. The degree of disapproval young people hold for marijuana use, the extent to which they believe such use is harmful, and the degree to which they perceive the drug to be available to them were also unaffected by the law change.

NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

(National Criminal Justice Reference Service)
Click to expand...
Several lines of evidence on the deterrent effects of marijuana laws [3], and on decriminalization experiences in the United States, the Netherlands, and Australia suggest that eliminating (or significantly reducing) criminal penalties for first-time possession of small quantities of marijuana has either no effect or a very small effect on the prevalence of marijuana use.

Major publications from the RAND Drug Policy Research Center's

(University of California, Berkely)
Click to expand...
The available evidence indicates that depenalisation of the possession of small quantities of cannabis does not increase cannabis prevalence. The Dutch experience suggests that commercial promotion and sales may significantly increase cannabis prevalence.

Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes (and follow-up comments)

(The British Journal of Psychiatry)
Click to expand...
Fear of apprehension, fear of being imprisoned, the cost of cannabis or the difficulty in obtaining cannabis do not appear to exert a strong influence on decisions about cannabis consumption, at least amongst the vast majority of 18-29 year olds. Those factors may limit cannabis use among frequent cannabis users but there is no evidence, as yet, to support this conjecture.

Lawlink NSW: B58 - Does prohibition deter cannabis use?

(Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Germany)
Click to expand...
The available data indicate that these decriminalisation measures had little or no impact on rates of use.

http://dassa.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/MONOGRAPH6.pdf

(Drug and Alcohol Services Council, South Australia)
Click to expand...
There is no evidence to date that the CEN system in South Australia has increased levels of regular cannabis use, or rates of experimentation among young adults.

http://www.aodgp.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/332B63EE0E0E0C39CA25703700041DAC/$File/mono37.pdf

(National Drug Strategy Household Surveys, South Austrailia)
Click to expand...
In Australia the evidence is accumulating -- from public attitude surveys coming down on the side of liberalising cannabis laws, from criminal justice system data indicating a vast, expensive and relatively punitive net being cast over youthful cannabis users, and from evidence that liberalisation does not increase cannabis use -- that the total prohibition approach is costly, ineffective as a general deterrent, and does not fit with the National Drug Strategy's goal of harm minimisation.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti48.pdf

(Austrailian Institute of Criminology)
Click to expand...
Clearly, by itself, a punitive policy towards possession and use accounts for limited variation in nation level rates of illegal drug use.

PLoS Medicine: Toward a Global View of Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine Use: Findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys

(Public Library of Science, World Health Organization)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
winston53660 said:
Use caps instead of lower case when you want to quote.
Click to expand...

It doesnt make a difference. He isnt ending the bb code with the / symbol.

Its like this:

[Quote]Hey[/Quote]

(obviously dont underline the quote tag. I only underlined the quote tag so it doesnt execute the quote script im just showing it to you as an example).
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the tips guys, but I've been a software engineer for over 8 years, and I've been quoting people on these forums and others for longer than that. I've written XML parsers in 3 different languages from scratch, so I'm well aware of how to properly nest and close markup tags. :2razz: I'm quite certain there were no syntax errors as I went back and checked the problem quotes about 10 times before finally giving up.
 
Thank you for that post Digit. :)
 
I might have a slightly different take on this issue then most people here. I voted "none", but I also don't believe in criminalizing drug addicts ie those who are truly addicted to meth, heroin etc..

Now, given that, I also don't believe in recreational use of "drugs". I work with many Indigenous Peoples around the world, and most of the plants those "drugs" come from have healing properties and are used in ceremonies.

So, using something that has both a spiritual and healing connotation for recreation, is not something I would do.

That's a totally personal preference and choice. It has nothing to do with the legal system, other then constantly having to argue with the powers that be for the use of our medicines without harassment!

What you and others choose to do is your choice and the use of drugs shouldn't be illegal or they need to make alcohol and tobacco use illegal as well as both are drugs.

We really need to quit making criminals of addicts and allow for the responsible use of limited amounts of some drugs similar to tobacco and alcohol. Prohibition didn't work before and it's not working now.
 
NDNdancer said:
I might have a slightly different take on this issue then most people here. I voted "none", but I also don't believe in criminalizing drug addicts ie those who are truly addicted to meth, heroin etc..

Now, given that, I also don't believe in recreational use of "drugs". I work with many Indigenous Peoples around the world, and most of the plants those "drugs" come from have healing properties and are used in ceremonies.
Click to expand...

Have you worked with Ayahuasca or Ibogaine?
 
EgoffTib said:
Have you worked with Ayahuasca or Ibogaine?
Click to expand...

Actually, we worked with a coalition of Indigenous Peoples to stop the patenting of Ayahuasca by one of the US drug companies. We had a pretty successful international campaign.

What eventually happened, because of Ayahuasca and other plants, we were able to help groups develop legal language that eventually their countries adopted that protected Indigenous plant knowledge from biopiracy as well as patenting.

I've also used it in ceremony, several times.

I've not done much work in Gabon other then within the UN system on some Indigenous issues in common. I'd like to be able to experience their healing with ibogaine root. I've heard that it's a powerful cleanser of both the spirit as well as the body and mind. One day I hope.
 
NDNdancer said:
Actually, we worked with a coalition of Indigenous Peoples to stop the patenting of Ayahuasca by one of the US drug companies. We had a pretty successful international campaign.

What eventually happened, because of Ayahuasca and other plants, we were able to help groups develop legal language that eventually their countries adopted that protected Indigenous plant knowledge from biopiracy as well as patenting.

I've also used it in ceremony, several times.

I've not done much work in Gabon other then within the UN system on some Indigenous issues in common. I'd like to be able to experience their healing with ibogaine root. I've heard that it's a powerful cleanser of both the spirit as well as the body and mind. One day I hope.
Click to expand...
Very impressive. I have explored Ayahusaca on two occasions, both of which were beyond words. Ibogaine has an absurd amount of healing properties, no big surprise the big wigs in the pharmaceutical companies pushed so hard to make it a scheduled drug.
 
EgoffTib said:
Very impressive. I have explored Ayahusaca on two occasions, both of which were beyond words. Ibogaine has an absurd amount of healing properties, no big surprise the big wigs in the pharmaceutical companies pushed so hard to make it a scheduled drug.
Click to expand...

It's been a huge battle in Indian Country here and around the world to protect out traditional medicines from the biopirates. The worst are big pharma.

As a consequence, a very un-intended consequence, the Elders and those who used to share such knowledge are beginning to be protective of it. I totally understand, but we are also in danger of losing that knowledge if it's not taught and passed on to others. It depends on which group I work with, some are really over-protective and others will still readily share that knowledge. With one tribe, the Elders won't let me teach any of the plant knowledge in the public schools. I have this incredible curriculum that I've been working on and refining and adding to since I was 16 and teaching the language in the schools. I can't use it. So, I teach whatever kids come into my sphere of influence. Even the delinquents who come out to chop wood for me get a walk out to the river for a quick short ethnobotany lesson *L*.
 
I agree with the idea of "grow your own".....within reason. No telling what that might entail in the future.
If it involves much more than gardening and distilling, it should be controlled.
But along with grow your own, it should also be consumed at home.
So grow your weed, make your own vodka and white lightning, but if you use it away from point of origin (home), or sell it anywhere, you go to jail.
 
winston53660 said:
If I can grow it in my back yard I think it shou;ld be legal. I have problems with synthesized drugs.
Click to expand...

So you think that LSD should be legal? LSD is a particular bacteria which naturally grows in the wild. A bit of chemistry to harvest the bacteria off of Rye grown in your backyard and bam! LSD!
 
obvious Child said:
So you think that LSD should be legal? LSD is a particular bacteria which naturally grows in the wild. A bit of chemistry to harvest the bacteria off of Rye grown in your backyard and bam! LSD!
Click to expand...
No, LSA is natural. LSA(d-lysergic acid amide) is found in Morning Glory and Hawaiian Baby Woodrose, usually in 20 or 30 µg per gram. It must then be put through a chemical extraction process, thus creating LSD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom