legalizing soft drugs?

Itza, I only mentioned alchol related deaths because you support illegalization of marijuana based on its negative consequences. So alcholol causes many preventable deaths and I imagine you base enforcement on the deaths that can be averted. I was wondering where you draw the line as death aversion justifying enforcement.

In terms of your own information, if legalization leads to safer and more standardized forms of production, and organic marijuana is not a catalyst to alchol related deaths, wouldn't legalization be a good idea?

Also, despite it being illegal, marijuana is still widely available as well as alcohol, and I don't how see legalization, which makes it harder for minors to obtain substances would somehow lead to a spike in deaths.

More importantly, and this is a point you've totally ignored, I don't accept the prevention of self-inflicted deaths as justification for state control. I shouldn't be thrown in jail for having marijuana on me because someone somewhere somehow, supposedly couldn't vomit out their alchohol. The onus is on the state not the substance to prove its intervention is necessary.

So no, I don't want to tell my local government to make alcohol illegal, I just thinks its inconsistent to make some substances legal based on perceived dangers, especially when the one that is illegal constitutes very little risk and is widely consumed anyway.

The government can make money off legalized marijuana, just like alcohol.
People roll their own tobacco cigarettes all the time, surprise, they also roll their own joints. Nothing happens.

The fact that more people would want legal alcohol over marijuana isn't an argument. 70% of americans thought that Saddam was connected to 9/11 before the U.S invaded, I don't want to be ruled by the opinion of the public. I don't want to be coerced based on something you heard in school.
Secondly, the reason more people would say legal alcohol over pot is based on history and the status quo. Its what people are used to, also alcohol was commodified and made lucrative and thus legitimate before marijuana. If you asked colonial era england if they wanted to abolish slavery they would say no. It took luck and the hard work of a very few advocates to make slavery illegal. What people say they want at any given time is not necessarily justifcation for state control. And no, I'm not saying illegal pot is tantamount to slavery.

Also, thats a choice you've artificially made, why not give the option of making both legal?

Marijuana is hardly a potent hallucinogen, and if it is, why is ridiculous to make it legal? Hallucinogens have been part of human societies since time immemorial. You act as if everybody would be going around high, making everybody loopy, and people dying by the wayside. Again, you just restrict situation not the substance. No smoking in public places, at dangerous jobs, or before driving.

 

hahahah yeah i was gonna ask Itza where he gets his stuff if he considered it a legitimate hallucinogen

 

@ SmoothBore. Marijuana is definitely not as widely available as it would be if it was legal. You can't dispute that. It's easy for minors to get tonnes of alcohol or cigarettes, but it's harder to get marijuana. Firstly there isn't a designated place to go and is usually more of a spur-of-the-moment type thing, and secondly and probably fortunately, due to it being illegal, the price is much higher. If it was legalised, even if the price stayed up, it would be much easier to acquire.

About the prevention of self-inflicted deaths as justification for state control, you're right, the government should really let all these people just kill themselves so that marijuana can be legal. But seriously, the throwing up is obviously not the only reason, it's just another way that people may not have considered before, which is why, apart from being dangerous to begin with, but it could be even more dangerous due to most people being unaware of it.

About people rolling their own tobacco, it's the fact that there's no filter that makes it so dangerous, not the rolling itself.

About more people wanting alcohol, that's completely different to people thinking Saddam was behind September 11. This is something people know they want, Saddam was someone they suspected. They're completely different situations.

About school you're right. Since when do they try and teach you any important life skills in school, eh? Especially from PDHPE teachers. But seriously, they don't teach us all this for the sake of having something to teach or anything, they teach it because it's important.

Marijuana may not be a potent hallucinogen, but it is a hallucinogen. I'm not saying everyone would be going round high, but there would be second hand smoke effects. You can't deny that. About restricting when it's used, like before driving, etc, do you know if there's a way to measure its effects? Like how alcohol has a BAC? If not, it would pose a huge problem with smoke driving. Drink driving is already bad enough and it's relatively easily managed but if there's no system for marijuana, then it's a problem.

 

Actually, there are filters

I feel like this topic is just degenerating into "people who never have and never will" and "people who have"

people aren't really gonna change their opinions the longer we discuss

 

When people are rolling their own tobacco chances are they won't have a filter. In any regard, if they do have filters, they will not be as effective as the commercially made ones which aren't even that effective to begin with.

 

chances are they will, actually
do you know anyone who rolls their own cigarettes man?

 

Your first paragraph. Why can't I dispute it? Do you know how easy it is to get marijuana? I don't personally know any dealer but I could still get high within the day if I were so inclined. This hasn't changed since I was in middle school. In fact more kids smoked than drank then, simply because you don't need an ID. Sure you can get alcohol and cigarettes but its still more of an obstacle once its legalized, not to mention more expensive, probably weaker potency to.

You also ignored the argument about standardized production, or conceded the argument that legalization would in fact prevent supposed marijuana related drinking deaths, according to your facts. And its a pretty weak argument if your saying that because we didn't know about this vomitting thing there can be more terrible effects that we are unaware of, so its ok if I get thrown in jail if I have pot on me. Despite the fact the marijuana smokng is pervasive anyway, and there hasn't been crazy interrelated ways that people die from it.

Your remark about the government 'letting people die' betrays your attitude on responsibility and freedom. Also it comes from the sensational assumption that all these people will die somehow if pot is made legal. As I pointed out previously, standard organic production might even save people's lives, not to mention a reduction in gang-related crime would likely occur.

The government already 'lets' people to die from industrial toxins, automated transit, alcohol, guns, obesity etc. Many if these cause are interpersonal, not just self inflicted. It is the people who let themselves die in substance abuse. Its not the governments responsibility to stop you from killing yourself, its your own, and if you are young, its your parents and family AND yourself.

Also, and again you evaded my question about where to draw the line, if your so concerned about the governments role in stopping whatever deaths they can. Should we make cars illegal, sugar illegal? It would save lives you know.

How is the Saddam scenario completely different? People thought that Saddam was connected to 9/11, they WANTED war based on false assumptions. You and others like you prefer legalized alcohol over marijuana based on false assumptions.

Again, you glossed over my point about people being comfortable about the status quo and how social change comes slowly and initially against popular opinion. What most people want is irrelevant when it comes to the truth of a matter.

Why do you put so much faith in teaching institutions? Just because they say they're sincere about teaching 'life skills' (which is a sneaky way of telling you what life is) it doesn't mean they're right, and it doesn't mean they have all the answers. It certainly doesn't mean that what they say should justify a limitation of freedom and an expansion of coercion. You know schools are simply an instituton of the state right? and that governments by definition have agendas? I'm not saying schools aren't useful or important, but they are not the neutral be all and end all of truth, and the sole instructors of how to live life. Start thinking for yourself.

Second hand smoking effects of marijuana?? Again, if you restrict smoking from public places, which is EASILY enforcable, then it isn't a problem. Marijuana doesn't have all the poisonous additives of cigarettes, its not even cause for a health concern, and unless your'e in an enclosed room full of smoke, it will have very little effect on you. So yes, I can deny that.

I know very little about testing for THC, and I admit without systematicization it poses an interpersonal problem. (Though again if you legalize you can register purchasers and take whatever measures as it relates to driving) I do know that it is possible to test THC, (there was a snowboarder from Canada who has his medal revoked after THC traces being found), but I don't know if it is effective in police situations.

Instead of being adversial, I want to see under what conditions you would consider it ok to legalize marijuana. Would it mean that it would have to be organically grown, and that there would have to be an effective way to test it? Would you legalize it then?

 

marijuana is NOT a hallucinogen. it is just Psychoactive .

maybe for adults it would be easier to obtain alchohol than marijuana but for minors it is easier to obtain marijuana than alchohol because of no age limit (there is a strong stoner subculture amongst minors at school, wheres the alchoholic subculture?).

 

@ Nikzad.

@ SmoothBore. Being about to acquire marijuana does not mean it's widely available. Just because you're able to get some it doesn't mean it's widely available. If it's legalised, availability can only increase, so it will become more widely available. It's indisputable.

If you'd have read what's already been said before replying, you'd have seen I'd already talked about that. Yes, naturally grown marijuana would be used, but that wouldn't stop companies or freelancers from adding or distributing their own hydroponically grown marijuana. Just like how other companies will always be trying to make their product cheaper to produce, like how you may hear of petrol or wine being watered down, the same thing could happen leading to more harmful marijuana entering the system.

Ignorance or people being unaware of the potentially fatal consequences, and not just for the taker, is definitely a legitimate reason to prohibit a substance. Prohibiting the substance means that it's illegal for anyone to have possession of it, regardless of if they're responsible or not. I know this same ignorance applies to alcohol and smoking, cars, etc, I'm not saying it isn't, but the damage is done and prohibiting them would have much greater consequences. Introducing a new type of substance however, is only increasing the damage potential.

Besides, even if the only victims were the ones abusing the substance, it still shouldn't be legalised. There are still marijuana related deaths and potentially fatal effects on innocent bystanders. Just because it'd be them who are dying due to substance abuse, it does not mean it's ok.

About Saddam, people do not prefer alcohol over marijuana over false assumptions. Chances are the vast majority of people have tried both, so they'd know the effects of each. It's just preference, like how I prefer dogs over cats. That's not based on any false assumptions, it's just my preference.

About it slowly being accepted, that's also one of the key issues. It'd slowly be accepted. The majority of people would most likely be against it and whoever legalised it would loose a lot of support, etc, and it would take a long while, at least a few generations, for people to accept it as well as to feel comfortable taking it, so why would anyone legalise it? Even if it would turn out to be a marvellous decision and everything at the moment was in fact based on false assumptions, no-one would have the balls to raise such an issue, yet alone legalise it.

Start thinking for yourself... Haha, that made me laugh. I'm aware whatever they say or teach is not necessarily right, and I've disagreed on several points they've tried to teach us but apart from that nothing can be done and whatever I've disagreed with I've still got to use as though it's a fact as that's what's in the syllabus, but perhaps somewhat surprisingly, telling us that it's actually alright to take marijuana is not really subject to such bias or censorship.

A complete prohibition of smoking marijuana in public would not be too easily enforceable. There're so many restrictions on smoking at the moment and you can clearly see that even they're not enforced. It's not really the health concerns that's the problem with second hand marijuana smoke, more the effect of the marijuana itself. However, although marijuana may not have as many poisonous additives as cigarettes, which I tend to not believe is true, it is still a health concern. Even if there was a substance with absolutely no poisonous additives, burning it and breathing in all the ashes is definitely unhealthy. Any foreign material, especially ash, is harmful to your lungs.

I'm aware that there are tests to determine whether there is any marijuana in your system, but if there is not an effective system like the BAC level system or similar, then it would definitely be a problem as the amount of marijuana taken cannot be measured.

The only situations under which I would legalise it is if it does truly contain less poisonous additives and if all other related drugs had never been introduced in the first place and obviously strictly illegal. There would also have to be an effective system in which the level of the effects of marijuana in someone's body can be measured, much like alcohol's BAC, to determine what levels are safe to drive, etc, at, and to be able to issue breathalyser tests or similar, though obviously nothing to do with blood samples as that opens up yet another kettle of fish. Lastly, the social etiquette would have to be a positive one to ensure that people don't smoke irresponsibly, or start using more dangerous drugs, etc. If all that were true, which it isn't and can't be, and assuming what you say about poisonous additives is true, then I would probably support its legalisation.

@ overmind. Psychoactive does not mean it's a separate classification altogether. A drug can be both psychoactive and hallucinogenic, just as they can be stimulants and depressants, etc.

Apart from there being a definite alcoholic subculture, although there is no age limit on marijuana, it's illegal. This prevents minors acquiring it in a few ways as they're not as likely to just bump into dealers and won't have the money. Basically, them being young, combined with it being illegal, restricts them somewhat. If it was legalised it would be much easier for them to acquire as anyone could get it for them as it would be much more widely available.

 

yes, Itza, I can read, but I was countering your point that not many people who rolled their own cigarettes use filters, not the efficiency of the filters. And for your information, they are made in exactly the same way, so they actually are just as effective as the ones that are made in regular packs of cigs. Which like you said are basically useless in any case.

 

If someone wants to drink liquor, smoke a joint, or shoot up heroin, its none of my, or the state's business. People always say "But if it was legalized, EVERYONE would do it!!!" If meth was legalized, would you do it? i'm guessing your response would be no, as would the response of the vast majority of people. The only reason people think any drug should be illegal is they think that they know what's best for other people.

Unless someone is a fascist , communist or deeply religous (and I mean none of these as an insult) and believes an individuals first duty is to the state, the people, or God, I can see no logic behind having ANY drug illegal.

If someone wants to poison themselves, why should YOU have any say on what goes into their body? It doesn't matter if the majority of people want a drug illegal; rights and freedoms should not be subject to a vote.

Just my $0.02

 

ooh, ooh, someone just made a penny ^_^.

 

@Wither
I think the point is that these drugs do permanent damage to you mentally and physically and even one overdose can kill you. So ultimately it is the state which suffers as it has to stomach pump you or keep you on life support for a few weeks or later down the track when your in your 50s or 60s treat you for various mental conditions.

It is your business...until you are going to die then from an economical point of view it is the states. Everyone is stupid so if we were completly free in our current society everything would collapse.... at least from a capitalists point of view. But then we'd lose all the nice things in life like big tv's and big ships to smuggle drugs into the country...

Alcohol and cigarettes suck (Well Alcohol is really very good but not further down the track) but they'll never be made illegal because they have been legal in our modern society for so long and everyone has gotten used to it and its effects. Adding even more drugs to the concotion even if they are less harmful will lead to more situations where people are tempted to take them and harm their body (and steal our hospital beds).

 

Yeah, just to back up what marinefreak said, it isn't just the drug taker's business, it's everyone's. Drugs don't only effect who is taking them. Perfectly innocent bystanders can be the victims of people who are under the effects or who have overdosed. There're things like drunk or high people who endanger the people around them, overdosers who are taking up resources at hospitals and there could potentially be other things like an increase in robberies and thefts, etc, by people who need more money to buy more addictive drugs.

 

Yea, there is a balance of freedom and protection in society, I suppose we just draw the line at different places, I guess I just think individuals should decide what chemicals go into their bodies. Also I think the tax revenue from the drugs would easily pay for whatever medical treatment individuals need, especially if they were as popular and widespread as you make them out to be. Then add to that amount all the money and time wasted by police enforcing these laws. Although there might be a spike in use for the first decade or so after legalization (due in part to people being more forthcoming and open with their drug use remember) then I think it would become a just kind of a normal thing.

You also have to understand that making something illegal doesn't prevent someone from doing it, otherwise there would be no murder, rape or arson. Users of hard drugs are going to use them regardless of what the law says. I just say tax money would be better spent catching a murderer then some stoner.

No matter how much money is spent on enforcing drug laws, drugs have continued to become more available, cheaper, and more potent. Making them illegal simply doesn't work. With the argument about people taking up resources in hospitals, they already are. One reason for this is because drugs are illegal, so people are getting dirty heroin, MDA being marketed as MDMA, etc. Legalization would more or less eliminate this. Also, legalized drugs could actually improve the quality of healthcare the public receives. MDMA can be used to treat post traumatic stress disorder and Parkinson’s disease. Marijuana also has medicinal properties for AIDS patients or those going through chemotherapy.

Marijuana is extremely easy to obtain all over North America, Smoothbore's case is far from an isolated incident. 85% of high school seniors found it easy to obtain in 2005, despite 7 Billion spent arresting and prosecuting 800 000 marijuana offenders.

Source: http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/05data/pr05t13.pdf

"It has been argued that if the US government legalized marijuana it would save $7.7 billion per year in expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. Also, that marijuana legalization would yield tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if it were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if it were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco."

Source: http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html


Something I remember reading on another forum that I liked was:

"I'd rather have drug money in the hands of farmers, businessmen and corrupt politicians than thugs, gangsters and corrupt politicians."

Been working a double shift

 

It's true that people should be able to choose what chemicals go into their bodies, but that's basically another way of saying that people should be able to choose what drugs effect their lives. Seeing as drugs don't only effect the people who're taking them, then there definitely should be restrictions in place.

I've never said that making something illegal would prohibit people from doing it, but you cannot deny that it would make it harder to get. It may not be hard to get in the first place, but it will be harder than if they're legal.

The money argument doesn't really help at all. There's no telling how much damage legalising such drugs could do, and the costs of the damage could easily exceed the benefits. Not to mention that money isn't the only resource required as hospitals would require much more space, for the increase in patients, and a lot more members of staff to treat them.

 

I am affected everyday by the decisions of others. It’s what happens when you live in a society with other human beings. This would minimize the effect their decisions have on me. If someone's son joins the army and is killed, the family is obviously affected by this, but does this mean we should disband the military and outlaw any sort of groups devoted to national defense? Of course not. Making drugs illegal affects people besides drug users as well, often in a very, very negative way. Please read some of the stories of (arguably) innocent people that were killed by the war on drugs.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html

Think of the people that have had their lives ruined by drugs, not because of the drug itself, but because of the fact that it is illegal. If a kid gets busted with some weed on him, he has very little chance of ever getting scholarships or government grants for tertiary education and his criminal record will make it difficult to find a decent job, which is why many of them turn to selling drugs in the first place.

As I said before, the availability and potency of drugs has increased and prices have dropped despite being illegal. Making it illegal doesn't have any real impact on whether or not someone can get them. I'd go so far as to say marijuana is easier to obtain than alcohol (at least for a minor.) Those who are going to do drugs will do them regardless of their legality.

Expansion for hospital as well as extra staff are paid for by money. Also, I would argue that the number of patients admitted for drug related illnesses would actually decrease, not raise, with legalization because of more consistent quality of the product. (Fewer accidental overdoses.)

It’s really refreshing to have a debate with coherent point and counterpoint, lets keep going

 

Decisions like joining the army are completely different to someone being injured, harassed, abused or whatever by people who are on drugs. Granted, it has a terrible impact on others, but that impact is not a fatal one. The family knows their son is going to war and knows the dangers involved, so as ludicrous as it may sound, the situation is more or less under control, but if someone is killed, beaten beyond recovery, etc, by someone who's completely under the effects of drugs, it's sudden, it's definitely not under control and it's completely unnecessary. As horrible as war is, it's a necessity. Obviously not a necessity as in there always needs to be a war going on, but we can pretty much guarantee that there will always be a war that needs to be fought.

There may be people who have had their lives 'ruined' by drugs, but think of what would have happened to them if they'd have continued. People that young shouldn't be taking drugs anyway. Their systems are weaker so the effects are much stronger and they've got a lot longer for said effects to take place. You obviously wouldn't stick a joint in the mouth of a newborn, so there's obviously a limit at which people should be able to acquire them, so if they're taking them so young that being caught will effect their tertiary education or job application, it's their own fault.

Also, why would someone who needs a scholarship or government grant be buying drugs in the first place? Someone worthy of a scholarship would obviously have the foresight to realise the consequences and someone who needs a government grant shouldn't even be spending money on drugs in the first place.

Besides if you believe that people have the right to take whatever drugs they want, which would completely mess up their lives, how is that any different to having their lives messed up b y being caught? People know the consequences of taking drugs, and people know the consequences of being caught with drugs. If you believe people should be able to choose to risk the consequences of taking them, how is possession of them any different?

I'm not saying that marijuana or anything is hard to get, but it cannot be easier to get than alcohol which is 100% legal and able to be bought anywhere. Just because marijuana is not hard to get, it doesn't mean it's not harder than if it was legal. If it's legalised, then anyone could get it, regardless of their connections or anything.

Hospital expansion may be paid for by money, but there needs to space for it in the first place. What with buying the land and the costs of building an extension or brand new hospital, not to mention the cost of furnishing and medical supplies, it's definitely going to add up to more than what they're getting from the selling of drugs. About extra staff, you can't just buy extra nurses and doctors, etc. They're people. There's a big enough shortage of them at the moment so hiring even more won't work in the slightest.

Quality of drugs has nothing to do with whether people will overdose. Overdose is dependant on the quantity, not quality. Also if it was legalised, a whole lot of people would immediately submit themselves to much more than they should or otherwise would have, which would lead to a sudden spike in drug overdoses and other drug related deaths.

 

Ah, I thought you meant someone's family being affected by their drug use. Then we're back to the balance of freedom and protection. Out of the many people that use drugs, only a few commit violent crimes, and those are usually under the influence of hard drugs, which I still believe would decrease in popularity after legalization. It's similar to saying some people are poor drivers and get others killed, so the solution is to ban cars. People are still responsible for their actions while under the influence of drugs, if someone assaults another person, the police would attempt to arrest them of course, and they could focus more time on catching criminals and crime prevention because they wouldn't be wasting time doing drug raids. Also, as I showed, people are brutally assaulted, framed and murdered by police because drugs are illegal, same situation as people on drugs commiting violent crime, only my way doesn't cost billions of dollars and imprison non-violence offenders.

I agree completely, it is their own fault and they need to accept the consequences of their actions such as possible addiction or medical problems caused by drugs. But why are billions of dollars being spent to make their lives harder, how can you justify that?

Not necessarily. Or maybe they weighed the consquences and decided to use drugs anyway, yes, these people exist.

Again, I agree, but it’s their money, they should be able to spend it on whatever they want.

Can you honestly see no difference here? Really? So someone who has never commited any violent crime whatsoever, but people who smoke the occasional joint or do a little cocaine on the weekends deserve to go to jail for years and have their lives destroyed even though no one but the individuals themselves were harmed? You also seem to have the presumption that you cannot do drugs without becoming a total addict which is simply not true.

Maybe I didn't put enough emphasis on my point that people who do drugs are going to do them anyway, it doesn't matter if they're walking down to the drug store or the their dealers house. Availability would only change for non-users.

Your ignoring the rest of that paragraph, less overdoses = less patients = less money needed to provide same quality of healthcare.

The reason for the vast majority of overdoses is because users got product that was purer than they are use to. More consistency = less overdoses.

So pass a law requiring companies to put on warning labels and instructions. I don't really care if people overdose, if they were using drugs that were that easy to OD on, they're stupid anyway. Natural selection at it's finest.

 

I'm not excluding the fact that families will also be affected, but they're not the only ones who will be. About banning cars, car crashes are seldom caused by someone being a poor driver. There are almost always other factors at play, like alcohol, poor conditions, fatigue and peer pressure. Also, just because a crime is non-violent, it doesn't mean it's any better or less severe than a violent crime. In fact, drug possession and distribution could be considered a violent act, as the people being given or using the drugs are being harmed, as well as the people around them, potentially even fatally, so they'd deserve to be thrown in gaol just as much as the next person.

Their lives are being made harder because they've made the wrong decision. That's the justification. Not only is it illegal, so regardless of how dangerous it is or not they shouldn't be doing it in the first place, but they're damaging themselves and potentially others around them. I'm aware that people are responsible for their actions, even while under the influence of drugs, but those drugs alter and distort their reality and perceptions. Punishing them afterwards is not enough as the damage has already been done.

If they weighed the consequences and decided to take drugs anyway, then how can they deserve to suffer the consequences. It's stupid to for them to have weighed up the consequences, decide to go ahead anyway, and then complain that their life has been messed up by the law. They knew what could happen, knew of the consequences. If they get caught and their lives are ruined, it's their own fault, not the law's.

The money they use to buy drugs may be their own money, but if that then means that they need a government grant or if they were on a government grant to begin with, then it's not their money.

Basically, you said that people are responsible for their own decisions and choices. If you believe that everyone has the right to take any drug they want, but if they mess up their own life it's their own fault, then why do you believe that people who have those drugs should get off scot-free? I'm not assuming that everyone who takes drugs are addicts, but drugs are addictive and there will always be addicts, so if drugs are legalised, you can expect the number of addicts to increase.

People who do drugs may do them anyway, regardless of whether they're legal or not, but that's irrelevant. The availability of drugs will increase if they're legalised. You cannot deny that.

About the overdoses, people won't take a set weight of a drug or anything, they'll take a set effect of it. If the legalised drugs they're taking have been diluted or whatever, they're just going to take more until they get the same level of effects they want. It's like with alcohol. Obviously different beverages have differing levels of alcohol, but just because beer is weaker than vodka, it doesn't mean people won't get dangerously drunk off of beer. Ergo, making the drugs less pure will not reduce the amount of overdoses.

Yeah, because warning labels solve everything(!) But seriously, that would do nothing. Also, you should care about people overdosing because they effects they have on others could potentially have drastic effects on you and your life. It's definitely not natural selection, as it's never just one person taking as much as they see fit. Peer pressure and other factors would also be involved so it's not just whether someone's stupid or not.