"Drugs are the curse of the land and turn women into prostitutes"

[A_Wanderer]

I think that legalising drugs like cocaine, heroin, and crystal meth would lead to an increase, not a reduction, in the number of people using them, and I consider an increase in the consumption of cocaine, heroin and crystal meth to be, inter alia, a very bad thing.

If that increase was matched by standard dosages, purity and regulatory regimes that increase may not neccessarily be a bad thing; people are always going to use drugs - they are going to excercise the right to control their minds.

But it is good to know that the pressure will be put where it's needed; the proles shouldn't be able to get their hands on drugs, those with enough money to not be victims though are a whole different thing.

 

[Harry Vest]

The U.S. policy on marijuana stinks to high heaven - no pun intended. The pharmacuticals make billions and some poor slob gets busted with a couple of joints and gets sent to prison. It's dispicable.

 

[u2fan628]

Drugs (yes, all of them) should be legalised. There would still be addiction problems, but you aren't going to be able to ever completely stop that -- there are people who will get addicted no matter how tough the drug laws are. What legalising drugs does do is bring them out into the open where the people with problems (and that isn't everyone who uses drugs) can get help, and it also keeps the thugs out of the supply chain. A great deal of the problems societies face from drugs is caused not by the drugs themselves, but by the illegality of the drugs.

You are correct!Drugs should be legalized!Enforcing these laws do nothing,except create revenue for the gov't.Tax payers pay and pay.Why not try it.It would be no different than alcohol.

 

[u2fan628]

It would be funny to see the commercials for them.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

As my father (a doctor) has always said, he'd rather me smoke a joint and scoff a pizza on a Friday night than knock back a bottle of booze and a bunch of cigarettes.

I think the problem is less tax and more if you legalize anything you are essentially handing over government to your opposition. Imagine the field day of fear generated if someone tried it. Imagine if a Democrat candidate right now said they thought even just decriminalising (very different to legalizing) marijuana was not a bad idea. They'd be buried in an instant. No-one will do it.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

It would be funny to see the commercials for them.

"Coke Zero? No! Coke HERO!!"

 

[verte76]

Drugs (yes, all of them) should be legalised. There would still be addiction problems, but you aren't going to be able to ever completely stop that -- there are people who will get addicted no matter how tough the drug laws are. What legalising drugs does do is bring them out into the open where the people with problems (and that isn't everyone who uses drugs) can get help, and it also keeps the thugs out of the supply chain. A great deal of the problems societies face from drugs is caused not by the drugs themselves, but by the illegality of the drugs.

I agree. Great post.

 

[Justin24]

Problem with this is what about the people who will mix it with other drugs to create a more dangerous drug?

People will get addicted even with small doses. The grave diggers are sure going to be busy. hmmm maybe I should find a job with them if this happens.

 

[BVS]

Problem with this is what about the people who will mix it with other drugs to create a more dangerous drug?

People will get addicted even with small doses. The grave diggers are sure going to be busy. hmmm maybe I should find a job with them if this happens.

You can mix wine and xanax right now and it be pretty dangerous.

And I have no clue what you are talking about with the grave diggers.

Try and think of something that will be a danger that isn't or can't occur at the present.

 

[Justin24]

What I meant on the grave diggers is that they will be busier than usual since many want all drugs legalized. Think about it. What if a child accidently took it? Used it for murder to OD someone? Or mixing drugs? Yup the grave diggers will surly be busy because of this.

 

[randhail]

If drugs are legalized do you think there would be a huge surge in use? Granted some people may get hooked, but most people will not become cokeheads if things get legalized. Sadly, the grave diggers won't see a rise in business.

 

[Justin24]

If drugs are legalized do you think there would be a huge surge in use? Granted some people may get hooked, but most people will not become cokeheads if things get legalized. Sadly, the grave diggers won't see a rise in business.

True we'll have a bunch of drug king pins claiming racism and how the white man took their product. And we will have FYMders saying it's true.

 

[indra]

Sadly, the grave diggers won't see a rise in business.

Sadly? Aren't you a sweetheart?

 

[randhail]

Sadly? Aren't you a sweetheart?

I didn't mean that this was a bad thing - meant for there to be some sarcasm. My bad.

 

[BVS]

What I meant on the grave diggers is that they will be busier than usual since many want all drugs legalized. Think about it. What if a child accidently took it? Used it for murder to OD someone? Or mixing drugs? Yup the grave diggers will surly be busy because of this.

What if a child accidently takes oxycotin or drinks too much alcohol? What if they used a gun for murder?

Nope the grave diggers will have the same steady jobs they have today.

 

[BVS]

True we'll have a bunch of drug king pins claiming racism and how the white man took their product. And we will have FYMders saying it's true.

edited...it wasn't worth a response

 

[AEON]

As my father (a doctor) has always said, he'd rather me smoke a joint and scoff a pizza on a Friday night

Really?

 

[BVS]

Yeah a little education would show you that a natural plant is much healthier than booze and cigarettes anyday of the week.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

What I meant on the grave diggers is that they will be busier than usual since many want all drugs legalized. Think about it. What if a child accidently took it? Used it for murder to OD someone? Or mixing drugs? Yup the grave diggers will surly be busy because of this.

But that would be balanced Justin. A massive % of drug deaths today occur from simply not getting what you think you are buying. A 20yr old girl here in Sydney died a fortnight ago after taking, apparently, two ecstacy pills over a decent period of time. This, if it is all you have, should not kill someone. Not even close. Problem is, as it turns out, what she bought as 'ecstacy' was not ecstacy at all. This makes up a huge % of drug emergencies and even deaths. These are not the addicted heroin junkies, this is not effecting the well connected regular drug user, this is striking down the kid who takes a pill a couple of times a year and is absolutely no curse on society. Regulated legalised drugs would knock these emergencies and deaths out completely. Most 'saturday night emergency room' drug issues are directly related to this problem, and nothing else.

I think you would find an increase in use, a slight increase in addiction, but a big drop in deaths/emergencies and a huge, mammoth, incredible drop in crime.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Really?

Really. Of course he'd prefer I have a cup of tea, watch a DVD and go to bed early, but you will be hard pressed to find a doctor who thinks a regular pot smoker is worse off than a regular drinker/cigarette smoker. There are obviously loads of health problems associated with pot - physical and mental - but they come nowhere near those associated with the physical, mental and social problems that come with regular drinking and cigarette smoking.

 

[indra]

I didn't mean that this was a bad thing - meant for there to be some sarcasm. My bad.

No problem. It seemed odd given the rest of your post. I shouldn't have jumped on it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But that would be balanced Justin. A massive % of drug deaths today occur from simply not getting what you think you are buying. A 20yr old girl here in Sydney died a fortnight ago after taking, apparently, two ecstacy pills over a decent period of time. This, if it is all you have, should not kill someone. Not even close. Problem is, as it turns out, what she bought as 'ecstacy' was not ecstacy at all. This makes up a huge % of drug emergencies and even deaths. These are not the addicted heroin junkies, this is not effecting the well connected regular drug user, this is striking down the kid who takes a pill a couple of times a year and is absolutely no curse on society. Regulated legalised drugs would knock these emergencies and deaths out completely. Most 'saturday night emergency room' drug issues are directly related to this problem, and nothing else.

I think you would find an increase in use, a slight increase in addiction, but a big drop in deaths/emergencies and a huge, mammoth, incredible drop in crime.

Quite right, if a legal supplier was selling adulterated products they would be open to punishment through legal avenues. People are always going to use drugs, pursuing an authoritarian campaign of zero tolerance masked in the language of social justice won't change that.

 

[U2Bama]

I will say that the pro-legalization crowd makes some good arguments that are worthy of consideration.

Drugs (yes, all of them) should be legalised. There would still be addiction problems, but you aren't going to be able to ever completely stop that -- there are people who will get addicted no matter how tough the drug laws are. What legalising drugs does do is bring them out into the open where the people with problems (and that isn't everyone who uses drugs) can get help, and it also keeps the thugs out of the supply chain. A great deal of the problems societies face from drugs is caused not by the drugs themselves, but by the illegality of the drugs.

If we are admitting that the drugs can and/or do lead to problems for some people, then who should this burden be on in the legalized drug world? Should all of society, including those who do not use the drugs nor support their use in society, bear this burden in their taxes? I think that tax money would be much better spent on paying public educators and improving the quality of education in Lowndes County, Alabama rather than subsidizing a safety net recovery program for for more people who choose to get their thrills via dangerous chemicals.

What about the additional dangers created by the behavior of additional persons who are "under the influence" of drugs/chemicals which they can readily and legally purchase in their neighborhood stores? There will undoubtedly be some people who do not do drugs while they are illegal but would choose to experiment if they were legalized. This would mean more people on the roads, in our communities, who could negatively be affected by their new hobbies and pose dangers to other members of their community.

I realize these legalized drugs would be "more controlled" in their production and distribution, but those weaker versions may not be enough for addictive users who want more, more, more.

I enjoy a Tecate with my meal at a Mexican restaurant; but a few shots of Jaegermeister would be more fun if I were up for an adventurous evening. Which is more dangerous to me and people whom I may encounter? Obviously, a few shots of Jaeger. I was at a lake party once where jetskis were present. A guy said, "We ought to get smashed and drive these things around the lake all day." He and everyone else were sober when he said that, but you do see the risk that he would have posed to people all over the lake if he were under the influence of alcohol (or any other drug for that matter) and piloting any type of watercraft.

As it is today with currently illegal drugs being illegal, even in my low-crime community we have problems with burglaries commited by meth addicts. Just two weeks ago, a string of burglaries were commited in peoples' private homes by two twenty-something women; eight of these burglaries occured in my neighborhood alone. The two women would go to the front doors of houses, knock, and if no one answered,they would break into the homes and take things that did not belong to them. What would/should have happened if they encountered a frightened resident and someone, be it the intruder or the resident, had gotten hurt? The two women were caught and are believed to be addicts. Do we really want to introduce more people to meth, opiates, cocaine, etc. so that they run the risk of posing such dangers to themselves and society, including innocent people?

Regulated legalised drugs would knock these emergencies and deaths out completely. Most 'saturday night emergency room' drug issues are directly related to this problem, and nothing else.

I think you would find an increase in use, a slight increase in addiction, but a big drop in deaths/emergencies and a huge, mammoth, incredible drop in crime.

Even today, many "Saturday night emergency room" situations, as well as those occuring on Tuesday morning, Wednesday afternoon, or whenever, are brought about by alcohol, which is legal, albeit controlled. Who's to say that introducing legalized chemicals and drugs to the buying public won't increase these situations? And with many of these situations arising from the use of chemical drugs, not pot or alcohol, I would suspect that the medical risks would be further complicated as well, especially when it comes to emergency rooms that have not historically faced these issues.

I don't mean to offend any of you and I am not trying to be authoritarian by denying any of you your rights to get your kicks, but I do see the legalization of many of these drugs, particularly meth, cocaine and opiates, as bringing increased danger to broader segments of society. Meth does not bring any positive value to people or to society.

~U2Alabama

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Not adding anything productive to the discussion here...but I wanted to pop in and say a big howdy to U2Bama. It's been ages since I've seen you post in here! I hope this isn't just a one-off and that you'll be sticking around.

 

[U2Bama]

Hello, Sula! I am a habitually infrequent poster these days but do occasionally read this forum just to get a glimpse of the political goings-on of the U2 fanbase.
I had read where you and Sul are in the US now; I hope y'all are doing well and that he is enjoying it here. Thanks for saying howdy.

~U2Alabama

 

[u2fan628]

If Drugs were legal I believe there will be less violence,no more drug deals on street corners.No more gang wars on the streets because of drugs.less prostitution,an increase in drug safety,prisons will be less crowded..
People who do drugs now are the same people who would do drugs if they were legal,and if someone decides to do drugs because it was legal at least it would be more safe to do so.
The idea that kids would be more likley to accidentaly swallow drugs is false.Kids are more likely to swallow house cleaners.
I'm not saying i'm for drug use..lets justmake it safer.

 

[AEON]

Really. Of course he'd prefer I have a cup of tea, watch a DVD and go to bed early, but you will be hard pressed to find a doctor who thinks a regular pot smoker is worse off than a regular drinker/cigarette smoker. There are obviously loads of health problems associated with pot - physical and mental - but they come nowhere near those associated with the physical, mental and social problems that come with regular drinking and cigarette smoking.

From my understanding, which is limited about this, pot smoking is worse than tobacco because 1) there's no filter and 2) the tar created by pot is more carcinogenetic.

And regarding alcohol – there have been many medical reports about the benefits to a healthy person of moderate drinking, especially red wine. I’ve never seen any such reports about pot (except possible benefits for those already suffering from ailments like cancer and glaucoma.)

 

[Ormus]

If we are admitting that the drugs can and/or do lead to problems for some people, then who should this burden be on in the legalized drug world? Should all of society, including those who do not use the drugs nor support their use in society, bear this burden in their taxes? I think that tax money would be much better spent on paying public educators and improving the quality of education in Lowndes County, Alabama rather than subsidizing a safety net recovery program for for more people who choose to get their thrills via dangerous chemicals.

What about the additional dangers created by the behavior of additional persons who are "under the influence" of drugs/chemicals which they can readily and legally purchase in their neighborhood stores? There will undoubtedly be some people who do not do drugs while they are illegal but would choose to experiment if they were legalized. This would mean more people on the roads, in our communities, who could negatively be affected by their new hobbies and pose dangers to other members of their community.

I realize these legalized drugs would be "more controlled" in their production and distribution, but those weaker versions may not be enough for addictive users who want more, more, more.

I enjoy a Tecate with my meal at a Mexican restaurant; but a few shots of Jaegermeister would be more fun if I were up for an adventurous evening. Which is more dangerous to me and people whom I may encounter? Obviously, a few shots of Jaeger. I was at a lake party once where jetskis were present. A guy said, "We ought to get smashed and drive these things around the lake all day." He and everyone else were sober when he said that, but you do see the risk that he would have posed to people all over the lake if he were under the influence of alcohol (or any other drug for that matter) and piloting any type of watercraft.

As it is today with currently illegal drugs being illegal, even in my low-crime community we have problems with burglaries commited by meth addicts. Just two weeks ago, a string of burglaries were commited in peoples' private homes by two twenty-something women; eight of these burglaries occured in my neighborhood alone. The two women would go to the front doors of houses, knock, and if no one answered,they would break into the homes and take things that did not belong to them. What would/should have happened if they encountered a frightened resident and someone, be it the intruder or the resident, had gotten hurt? The two women were caught and are believed to be addicts. Do we really want to introduce more people to meth, opiates, cocaine, etc. so that they run the risk of posing such dangers to themselves and society, including innocent people?

That's pretty much where I stand myself. I don't support drug legalization either.

 

[BVS]

From my understanding, which is limited about this, pot smoking is worse than tobacco because 1) there's no filter and 2) the tar created by pot is more carcinogenetic.

And regarding alcohol – there have been many medical reports about the benefits to a healthy person of moderate drinking, especially red wine. I’ve never seen any such reports about pot (except possible benefits for those already suffering from ailments like cancer and glaucoma.)

This is pretty far from the truth.

It depends on how you smoke it, if there is a filter or not. And yes there is tar, but who smokes a pack of joints a day? Very few. Who smokes a pack a day of cigs? Quite a few. So that argument doesn't hold much weight. Plus pot doesn't have all the chemicals that a cig does. It's the chemicals that will kill you...

And yes alcohol can have benefits, but what drug out there has the worse addiction problem? Alcohol!!!

And this comes from someone who did inhale in college and hasn't touched it in years, don't really care for the stuff. But I educate myself on the facts.

 

[BVS]

If we are admitting that the drugs can and/or do lead to problems for some people, then who should this burden be on in the legalized drug world? Should all of society, including those who do not use the drugs nor support their use in society, bear this burden in their taxes? I think that tax money would be much better spent on paying public educators and improving the quality of education in Lowndes County, Alabama rather than subsidizing a safety net recovery program for for more people who choose to get their thrills via dangerous chemicals.

You don't think you pay for it now? You are paying for a first time offenders stay in prison right now...