Legalisation of drugs: yes or no?

(Discussion started in http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=44659)

- Is the criminalisation of drugs an obstacle to freedom or a necessary measure?
- Is drug consumption to be compared to alcohol, and its criminalisation to the Prohibition in the beginning of the 20th century? Or maybe to tobacco, which is being increasingly restricted and taxed for being addicting and harmful for others than the consumer?
- Should a distinction be made between so-called light and heavy drugs in relation to an eventual legalisation?

Have your say!

I was a hair away from using a reference to the Nazi's, but stopped myself. :lol:

Haha, and we all know that's the end of a discussion!

So, until someone from the nay side turns up, let me set the ball rolling (as I'm still largely undecided this discussion is particularly interesting to me):

Granted that personal liberties should be respected, but the problem is the precedent it sets: drugs ruin many lives other than the consumers' own. I brought up the tobacco issue because, for me, the problem is not that smokers may get cancer (that's up to them), but the repercussions on the environment and specially passive smoking.

Also, it's just occurred to me: how do you stand on the legalisation of guns (in, say, the US)? Because if you think, like I do, that that market should somehow be restricted, then there's the problem of the black market - just as there is with drugs. I guess that what I'm saying is that I'm having a hard time coming to terms with a legalisation of drugs because coherence would demand me to also legalise guns. Guns make destruction way too easy - but drugs make self-destruction just as easy. Maybe this analogy is unfair, but surely you understand what I'm driving at?

Guns should be legal as well, I think the same sort of logic applies there too. Finland have strict gun policies, and it sure didn't help them. I'm quite ambiguous here though, I despise what people can do with guns, and I haven't really looked in to the statistics and reasons why Americas gun-related violence is so high.

Anyway, on to drugs, and a reply to kelby lake:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

If we had total freedom, there'd be anarchy. Should we allow people's 'freedom' to murder someone they don't like? Some people don't know what to do with freedom

People's mindset- legal=okay. Yes, it might help junkies but what about people experimenting?

You are free to do drugs- it's just that there's a consequence if you do. If you want to risk it, you can.


Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. ~Theodore Roosevelt

---

I don't really get what your point is, should drugs be legal or not? Because you seem to say that: yes you are free to do drugs, but on the same note you seem to advocate the ridiculous nature of the current drug policies which hinders people from doing drugs.

Killing people is never okay, and it's not a liberty because you're taking away other peoples liberty. IE.. their liberty to enjoy the same life as you do.
The analogy is not applicable.
Yes, there should be restrictions, I draw the line at the act of removing other people's liberty (robbery, rape, non-consensual violence etc.)

Guns are an issue I would need to think about. I don't believe that guns should be made completely out of reach for the consumer and I do believe that everyone has a right to protect themselves.... hmmm I may need some time to consider. It is difficult to come to a conclusion since I have never been around guns.

In regards to drugs, I am also on the fence about some of the issues. (I would be doing myself an injustice to pretend that I have all of my opinions sorted)

Concerning whether all drugs should be legalized: I have experimented with different legal and illegal drugs in the past, and have found that nothing can be black and white. A few legal drugs have terrified me enough to convert me, whereas some harsh illegal drugs didn't scare me in the least.

However, I do believe there should be a line drawn somewhere, and further more, anything that occurs naturally in nature should be to the whim of the individual.

(I have some work to do and will get back to this in an hour or two)

Yes, people should live their own lives without government interference. Obviously, that right stops when it interferes with others.

Legal issues are not government interference but the state. Governments come and go; the state remains regardless.

I support legalization, with age restrictions of course, for a number of reasons.

First and foremost is BODILY INTEGRITY. As much as they would like to tell you otherwise, your body and mind are not government possessions. They belong exclusively to you, and as such, you should be able to build or destroy them however you so please. The government is over-stepping their bounds by throwing people in prison for non-violent offenses such as drug use.
Second, the War on Drugs costs billions of dollars a year. Here we are wasting money in a war against our own people, while criminals are swimming in drug profits. We could easily sell and tax the drugs ourselves, and make money on them instead of losing it.
Third, I know this argument won't mean much to a lot of people, but the quality of life for users would dramatically increase. For instance, heroin users have to put up with dealers that are dubious at best and cut the drug with a variety of things such as baby powder and laxatives to make the narcotic look more potent and save money. Legalization would guarantee cheap, good quality product. This would also do a lot to stop the spread of AIDS, as clean needles would be readily available. And since the social stigma would be taken off the habit, the user would have more options financially, and as such wouldn't have to steal to get money for drugs.
Fourth(carrying on from my last point), one major impact of the War on Drugs is that it turns people into permanent second class citizens. Say someone was arrested for possession, most likely a young person, maybe freshly out of high school and just experimenting as many people do. Well, now this person is barred from most decent colleges and employment. With any potential legitimate earning power taken away, what are they going to do? They'll probably end up selling drugs, getting involved with gangs, prostitution, or other such activities. It's the War on Drugs that make the "ghettos" what they are.

America likes to call itself the "Land of the Free." As long as this war continues, it has no right to label itself as such.

As for the issue of secondhand smoke, I might be biased since I'm a smoker. I certainly do not want the people that I love to die (haha certainly not people that I don't care for either) or get hurt from my own choice. I only smoke outside, and from what I can gather, it's about as harmful as car emissions. I've seen differet reports on passive smoking, as of now, it seems as though there are dangers, but only if you live with a smoker who smokes inside, or spend longer strechtes of time inside with smokers.

It's slightly selfish to risk the harms of others, I know. I guess I don't really have a retort to that.

Hampusforev,
When you finish your speech feel free to post it. I am sure that we would all love to read it!

darn it!!!! I had my answers just the way I wanted them and erased it all!!:flare:



I shall return!!

People, thanks for the replies. You've been making great points and I only regret that those opposed to legalisation haven't turned up yet. Therefore I'm going to have to play the devil's advocate.

Just because I'm only quoting the bits which I find problematic that doesn't mean I'm ignoring the good ones (sometimes I have the feeling people do this way too much in forums); the point about personal liberty is well taken and it's a very hard one to knock down!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hampusforev

Guns should be legal as well, I think the same sort of logic applies there too. Finland have strict gun policies, and it sure didn't help them.

---

Are you alluding to some event here? Could you fill me in? And do you support the NRA's views just because of liberty? I think that the 'personal liberty' argument isn't very sound when talking about guns, because it's so easy to interfere with others' liberties with them, mainly that of living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mariamosis

However, I do believe there should be a line drawn somewhere, and further more, anything that occurs naturally in nature should be to the whim of the individual.

---

Well, poison is also natural! This may be a disingenuous argument, but still, I think poison should be somehow restricted/controlled even though it occurs naturally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Yes, people should live their own lives without government interference. Obviously, that right stops when it interferes with others.

---

Sure, but the problem is where to draw that line. Imagine some guys legally acquire drugs and then make others try it as well through peer pressure (you don't really have to imagine, though, it's pretty much a reality without the word "legally"). You see what I mean? Peer pressure can't be punished by law, yet it leads to the interference with others, maybe sometimes even underaged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desolation

Fourth(carrying on from my last point), one major impact of the War on Drugs is that it turns people into permanent second class citizens.

---

Well here you're arguing against stigmatisation, which is different. I may think drugs should be legalised, but simultaneously I may think stigmatisation is one of society's means of self-regulation which inhibits people from being introduced to drugs and from consuming them. Having racist views may be legal (as long as you don't put them to practice), but I think it's great that they are stigmatised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papayahed

darn it!!!! I had my answers just the way I wanted them and erased it all!!:flare:



I shall return!!

---

:lol: we're all waiting!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Endon

Well here you're arguing against stigmatisation, which is different. I may think drugs should be legalised, but simultaneously I may think stigmatisation is one of society's means of self-regulation which inhibits people from being introduced to drugs and from consuming them. Having racist views may be legal (as long as you don't put them to practice), but I think it's great that they are stigmatised.

---

Actually, this is arguing against LEGAL stigma, which is a little bit different. Social stigmas will last as long as the person is using, while this form of legal stigma will continue long after drugs stop being a part of the person's life. That is a big problem.

I see what you mean. However, I don't think you can call it a 'legal' stigma, for the simple reason that there's no law saying that convicted drug users must not be hired (I'll admit that I don't know this for a fact, and though this is an assumption I'd be very surprised to learn it is otherwise).

The thing is, even if it were perfectly legal there would be people prejudiced against drug users, and that's a fact; the social stigma, like you said, is a tough nut to crack, ingrained in our collective mentality as it is. For instance, certain employers are obliged to put "m/f" in their classified ads and interview the applicant regardless of gender, but that doesn't mean that the female applicant will be chosen, even if she has better qualifications.

So what you're referring to is social stigma as well. It is a big problem, and it can only be overcome by sensibilisation campaigns and such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Endon

Well, poison is also natural! This may be a disingenuous argument, but still, I think poison should be somehow restricted/controlled even though it occurs naturally.

---

Perhaps governed within limits, however, not banned. Natural narcotics should be controlled in a similar way in which regulations are put on alcohol, tobacco, Nyquil, porn & etc... (comparatively speaking)

I'm for legalization of certain, more minor drugs (pot) or at least decriminalization. I say, impose a harsh penalty for driving under the influence, or committing any illegal act while under the influence. Tax it, make money off of it instead of losing so much money and filling up already overcrowded jails. It really is no worse than alcohol. Probably even safer than alcohol. Not necissarily as far as long term effects go; that's up for debate. But I've never heard of a violent crime committed because someone was stoned. But I have heard of horrible things happening because people are drunk. At least the DEA finally said they were going to stop raiding our dispensaries.

Even the cops don't think pot is a big deal.

Legalize marijuana.

Now, heroin and things like that...well...let me research a couple of points a bit more and I'll get back to you on that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stargazer86

I'm for legalization of certain, more minor drugs (pot) or at least decriminalization. I say, impose a harsh penalty for driving under the influence, or committing any illegal act while under the influence.

---

I agree with this statement completely, but I must add that the same law imposed on alcohol should be implied. Blowing a .08BAC sets a standard and there should be some standard for lesser drugs such as cannabis as well.

I'm all for penalties for driving under the influence of any substance. But, there's something I'd like to note from nothing more than personal observation.

Most of my friends actually drive substantially better when they're stoned. This is likely because drugs like marijuana make you somewhat paranoid which makes you pay an acute attention to details.

Haha...

I found the same thing and especially on the interstate! However, if overdone things can turn ugly.

I also found taking tests to be a breeze, and I am usually a nervous wreck when anyone is grading me. (also, my odds of passing were higher as long as I used the "power of extreme concentration" on the test and didn't get distracted)

Yes, well, like I've said in the OP, we really should make the distinction between light and heavy drugs. I've been thinking about heroin/cocain/etc more than about pot. I too think pot is in a totally different league and should be legalised. It's much harder to make a case for the heavy-weight ones.

(Desolation and Mariamosis, I can understand that it may appear so, but I think you're rationalising :) Scientifically it's not very sound to suggest that pot sharpens your senses)

But I agree that alcohol is more dangerous than pot. An argument could be made that pot incapacitates people and when done at inappropriate times it may cause child negligence or even prove to be, say, a fire hazard. But by that token so does napping, I guess :) so forget about that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Endon

Sure, but the problem is where to draw that line. Imagine some guys legally acquire drugs and then make others try it as well through peer pressure (you don't really have to imagine, though, it's pretty much a reality without the word "legally"). You see what I mean? Peer pressure can't be punished by law, yet it leads to the interference with others, maybe sometimes even underaged.

---

Those are minor issues or non-issues. If someone advocates the use of something that is legal, then there is no issue. Peer pressure is just that, and while some people succumb to such pressure, others push back. Is peer pressure any worse than advertising? I do not see peer pressure as an issue in the matter of drug use. The matter of someone being underage is even less of an issue. The whole concept of something becoming legal at a certain age is absurd. I favor removing the minimum age restrictions for the purchase of alcohol. I have no problem with eight year olds getting drunk. In fact, I think that it might be a good idea for eight year olds to get well and thoroughly polluted; it would stop many from even drinking to excess again, while others would become alcoholics at an early age. If alcoholism were diagnosed at an early age, then people would have a chance to treat it from an early age.

One thing to consider in this discussion is the history the use of opiates and cocaine before they were made illegal. I am only familiar with such history in the U.S., where, 10 years ago, anyone could walk into a pharmacy and buy opium, laudanum, heroin, or cocaine for reasonable prices. Before the Civil War there was little non-medical use of such things, but during the Civil War many thousands of people became addicted to opium, which was used to relieve the pain of wounds. Over the next fifty years those addicts largely continued to use opium, and there were some recreational users, but the overall consumption of opium slowly decreased (heroin was not invented until the 1880's). Cocaine was used the way that novacaine is now used by dentists, and there were some recreational users, but the use of pure cocaine was rare. Both cocaine and opiates were commonly used in beverages for an extra kick; the coca in CocaCola was cocaine, and an extract of the coca leaf is still used in it. Patent medicines often contained opium. For all of the legal sources addiction and health problems were not all that common a hundred years ago, and the drugs were cheap enough that an addict could work and pay for adequate supplies on a working man's pay. Of course, there were some people who were incapacitated by drugs, and they became ragged beggars. That group was quite small.

The next question is what the reaction of people would be if drugs were legaized again. I believe that a small percentage of people would become helplessly addicted, but that many more people would use those drugs occasionally, the way that Sherlock Holmes did. The social costs would be no more than they are now, because most of the people who would become hopeless addicts already are. Some people would become long-term addicts bout would continue to be assets to society like de Quincey. A larger group would use drugs now and then. There would also be many people who would never touch drugs. The profile of the drug users would be about what it was a hundred years ago.

The idea of deliberately getting 8-year-olds drunk is very entertaining but absolutely indefensible. Maybe you're just pulling my leg, but still let me address this.

I still think that peer pressure is relevant, but maybe you're right, not so legally and thus perhaps a minor issue. But the concept of something becoming legal at a certain age is not absurd at all. It has to do with how permanent damage may be caused when the body is still developing. Also, minimun age is basically the age when the average person's body is fully developed and such person is sensible enough to make potentially life-changing choices.

And addiction isn't easier to treat at an earlier age; if anything, it's easier to become addicted. There are children than become addicted to substances ever since they are in the womb - even when they are negative months old! So according to your logic it would be easier to cure their addictions. It isn't.

---
as for the second post:

I don't see how the history of legal drug using is relevant at all. Just because it was legal then it should be legal now? Just because there was racial segregation for so long does that mean it was somehow 'alright'? (sorry about the cheap resort to racism again, but I think that in this instance it's fair play).

And point well taken (in the second part, I mean) though again I don't see how that works as an argument for legalisation. Do we want the profile of the drug user to be like it was 100 years ago?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Endon

The idea of deliberately getting 8-year-olds drunk is very entertaining but absolutely indefensible. Maybe you're just pulling my leg, but still let me address this.

---

I am completely serious about that. If you don't remember what it was like to be eight and can imagine how you would have reacted to getting drunk, then you wouldn't understand the effect that it would have. I do remember being eight, and I have a good Idea of how I would have reacted to getting seriously drunk, and that reaction would have been a good thing.

Quote:

---

I still think that peer pressure is relevant, but maybe you're right, not so legally and thus perhaps a minor issue. But the concept of something becoming legal at a certain age is not absurd at all. It has to do with how permanent damage may be caused when the body is still developing. Also, minimun age is basically the age when the average person's body is fully developed and such person is sensible enough to make potentially life-changing choices.

And addiction isn't easier to treat at an earlier age; if anything, it's easier to become addicted. There are children than become addicted to substances ever since they are in the womb - even when they are negative months old! So according to your logic it would be easier to cure their addictions. It isn't.

---

I get the impression that you think that children should be coddled and kept from any possible danger. I consider the idea of there being legal minimum ages for buying certain substances is asinine. If people are going to become addicted, then they will. If people will shun certain things then they will shun them. The reactions won't change significantly over a few years.

---

Quote:

---

as for the second post:

I don't see how the history of legal drug using is relevant at all. Just because it was legal then it should be legal now? Just because there was racial segregation for so long does that mean it was somehow 'alright'?

And point well taken (in the second part, I mean) though again I don't see how that works as an argument for legalisation. Do we want the profile of the drug user to be like it was 100 years ago?

---

History is the instruction book for how things work. If people used drugs in certain ways a hundred or a thousand years ago, then they probably will use them in similar ways in two years or two hundred years. Humans have been using intoxicants as long as there have been humans, and other animals use intoxicants. Is it reasonable to expect humans to change so that they will not want to use intoxicants? I would contend that it is reasonable to expect that humans will use intoxicants as long as there will be humans. Whether "we want the profile of the drug user to be like it was 100 years ago" is of no consequence. It is reasonable to expect that the profile will be similar regardless of the desires of anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desolation

I'm all for penalties for driving under the influence of any substance. But, there's something I'd like to note from nothing more than personal observation.

Most of my friends actually drive substantially better when they're stoned. This is likely because drugs like marijuana make you somewhat paranoid which makes you pay an acute attention to details.

---

Having been a major stoner for years (not so much anymore) and having many stoner friends, I can say that this is true in many cases. However, in many other cases it is the opposite. It depends on the person and they type of weed. Too sketchy a thing to allow. I say impose harsher regulations as a compromise and a safety net. Like it's not illegal anymore but there have to be regulations just as there are with alcohol and cigarettes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

I am completely serious about that. If you don't remember what it was like to be eight and can imagine how you would have reacted to getting drunk, then you wouldn't understand the effect that it would have. I do remember being eight, and I have a good Idea of how I would have reacted to getting seriously drunk, and that reaction would have been a good thing.

---

I'm sorry, but no, I don't think you have a good idea of how you would have reacted. Neither do I, of course. But honestly, what kind of judgement do you think an 8-year-old has? You think 8-year-olds learn lessons with ODs? And they have such frail immunitary defenses. And they get addicted so much more easily than an adult. This is indefensible in too many levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

I get the impression that you think that children should be coddled and kept from any possible danger. I consider the idea of there being legal minimum ages for buying certain substances is asinine. If people are going to become addicted, then they will. If people will shun certain things then they will shun them. The reactions won't change significantly over a few years.

---

To not expose children to unnecessarily dangerous situations is not to coddle. Let them experiment all they want when their bodies and minds are minimally developed!

The position defended in the sentence in bold is just impossible to sustain. So kids will always get addicted, might as well give it to them anyway. People will always kill each other, might as well make it easier by handing out guns.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

History is the instruction book for how things work. If people used drugs in certain ways a hundred or a thousand years ago, then they probably will use them in similar ways in two years or two hundred years. Humans have been using intoxicants as long as there have been humans, and other animals use intoxicants. Is it reasonable to expect humans to change so that they will not want to use intoxicants? I would contend that it is reasonable to expect that humans will use intoxicants as long as there will be humans. Whether "we want the profile of the drug user to be like it was 100 years ago" is of no consequence. It is reasonable to expect that the profile will be similar regardless of the desires of anyone.

---

I see your point, and it is relevant for the discussion. Still, I think that's again a rather deterministic view of human nature. We had slavery for many centuries, and we eventually realised it was inadmissible. I'm just pointing out that attitudes may change. For example, there has always been and will always be murder, but we should strive to curb that.

Now the natural reaction is: drug use doesn't even compare to murder or slavery. Of course it doesn't, but I'm just trying to prove by making these analogies that
1) just because there has always been [blank] doesn't mean there will always be;
2) just because there will always be [blank] doesn't mean there should be.

Ultimately, then, all we have to take into account are the drugs themselves. My life philosophy is about life-affirming actions. A relative of mine is a judge and through him I've known just too many lives destroyed by hard drugs, it's very depressing the number of kids and adults who steal, abuse physically and verbally and even kill their parents so as to get money to support the addiction.

In an ideal world I'd legalise all drugs, because ideally people would consume them with moderation. In a world such as we have, it would be very irresponsible to allow all sorts of people to get a hold of that. Think about the children born addicted, what chance do they have?

So, marijuana should be legalised and destigmatised because it doesn't really represent a threat to anyone. As for hard drugs, however, like cocain and heroin, I believe that they should be illegal. (this is my provisional view of it, I can't argue for so long for a side without eventually seeing some truth in it)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stargazer86

Having been a major stoner for years (not so much anymore) and having many stoner friends, I can say that this is true in many cases. However, in many other cases it is the opposite. It depends on the person and they type of weed. Too sketchy a thing to allow. I say impose harsher regulations as a compromise and a safety net. Like it's not illegal anymore but there have to be regulations just as there are with alcohol and cigarettes.

---

I agree. And if you're one of those people that drives brilliantly when you're stoned, then you're not going to get pulled over anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desolation

I agree. And if you're one of those people that drives brilliantly when you're stoned, then you're not going to get pulled over anyways.

---

Let's hope that one does not find out that they are not one of those who drive brilliantly when they are stoned only after causing an accident and killing or hurting others who*are*not*oh*so*major*stoners.

I know the OP wanted to consider harder drugs here, but my issue is with legalizing marijuana. It comes back to the same idea as second-hand Tobacco smoke. Until relatively recently, the public was unaware of the risks to people who ingested Tobacco smoke second-hand. Now smoking in close quarters with others is considered unacceptable and harmful. It's known that parents who smoke in their homes are causing damage to the health of their children.

So what about pot smoke? If smoking pot is legal, it will likely become more common in settings like the home and really, is it fair for a parent to get his/her kids high off their second hand smoke?

I have to agree with Scheherazade. The problem with all the studies I've been reading is that the term of comparison is always alcohol. We know you shouldn't drive drunk, so of course marijuana is presented in a necessarily better light: "Studies of driving behavior have been conducted with typical user-preferred doses, and show that the effects, at least on the alcohol impairment scale, are mild to moderate".

Mild to moderate is still worse than none. You may talk about how some people you know drive pretty well when stoned - that's alright, of course. The problem is the conclusion underlying that: that driving under the influence isn't that bad. Well, it is bad, and I think it's irresponsible to downplay its significance, just as it's irresponsible to downplay the significance of talking on the cell phone while driving.


(Great, I've been reading and writing on this thread for so long that now I've got Afroman's "Because I got high" music stuck in my head. I hope you're happy!)


---
EDIT: ClassicCharm, I'm not sure passive smoking applies for pot? I've never heard of it at any rate; I mean, it's not like it gives cancer. Will have to look that up, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

I get the impression that you think that children should be coddled and kept from any possible danger. I consider the idea of there being legal minimum ages for buying certain substances is asinine. If people are going to become addicted, then they will. If people will shun certain things then they will shun them. The reactions won't change significantly over a few years.

---

8 year old Johnny pounds a mickey of Rye.
His liver explodes because it can't physically process that much alcohol.
He dies.
Whoops. Now he'll know for next time.

:rolleyes:

So does the parent get charged with negligence, or what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Endon

---
EDIT: ClassicCharm, I'm not sure passive smoking applies for pot? I've never heard of it at any rate; I mean, it's not like it gives cancer. Will have to look that up, though.

---

I'm not talking about that kind of damage. As far as I'm aware, there's no scientific evidence of pot being carcinogenic. I'm talking about getting high off second-hand pot smoke, and it's affects on, say, a child trying to do homework.

Well, what do you know:

Quote:

---

What evidence is there about the link between second-hand marijuana smoke and cancer?

In June 2002, a panel of experts brought together by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (an agency of the World Health Organization) determined that second-hand smoke causes cancer. And we know that marijuana and cigarette smoke contain as many as 50 of the same cancer causing substances. For these reasons, experts believe that exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke is at least as harmful as second-hand tobacco smoke.

---

That's certainly news to me. And from what seems to be a reliable source, too: http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wide/How...spx?sc_lang=en

This being the case, I'd stand by Mariamosis's suggestion of restricting marijuana in a similar way as tobacco.

---
EDIT: However, in 2006 it was stated that "it is currently unclear whether long-term smoking of marijuana causes cancer". (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=f...esult&resnum=8). There are always dissonant studies. I've read some studies addressing cancer due to tobacco passive smoke and cancer due to marijuana active smoke, but very little has been written about cancer due to marijuana passive smoke cancer.

Draw your own conclusions; if only for the reasons stated by ClassicCharm, I think marijuana should have the same restrictions as tobacoo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

8 year old Johnny pounds a mickey of Rye.
His liver explodes because it can't physically process that much alcohol.
He dies.
Whoops. Now he'll know for next time.

:rolleyes:

So does the parent get charged with negligence, or what?



I'm not talking about that kind of damage. As far as I'm aware, there's no scientific evidence of pot being carcinogenic. I'm talking about getting high of second-hand pot smoke, and it's affects on, say, I child trying to do homework.

---

Whether or not pot is carcinogenic (and I'm sure, as with anything you light up and inhale, it is), children should not be exposed to it. Not only because of short term affects on homework and things like that, but the addictive qualities (and I don't care what anyone says, regular use does make it habit forming or else people wouldn't be stoners in the first place) and memory loss, munchies, lethargy is not something that should be imposed on a kid.

Good point on the alcohol Classic

Wow, this thread really took off. There's too much for me to consider at the moment (I've got quite a hang-over), but I'll get to reading them all and give my answer. I make no distinction of harder and minor drugs, the fact is that some people HAVE been able to use heroin "responsibly" (IE. using it one time then saying "nah, this is not for me". I don't have the links right now, so feel free to disagree and be skeptical. But there's actually a clinic and university (an established one) in Australia which are doing some great research on how we can decrease the dangers in drugs, but still retain the "pleasure" derived form using, say, opium. This really speaks to my hedonistic philosophy, dump this Christianity imposed view that anything carnal and pleasurable is evil.

Here's an article about scientists plea about reclassification of drugs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5230006.stm

As you can see, alcohol is worse than LSD, ecstasy, morphine, amphetamine and cannabis.

Drug addiction is sort of modern slavery, I think, an anonymous, compelling and concealed subjection by industry and market.
When I look around, I can see Johnny Walker slaves, Philip Morris slaves, Novartis slaves, Nestlé slaves and so on. Weird paradox that people fight for their freedom to be enslaved and they've to be suppressed to stay free.

Powerful stuff, amarna.

hampusforev, the problem with that logic is that of the dangerous precedent it sets. Exactly because only 'some people HAVE been able to use heroin "responsibly"' is it hazardous and irresponsible to allow anyone to have access to the addictive substance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Endon

I'm sorry, but no, I don't think you have a good idea of how you would have reacted. Neither do I, of course. But honestly, what kind of judgement do you think an 8-year-old has? You think 8-year-olds learn lessons with ODs? And they have such frail immunitary defenses. And they get addicted so much more easily than an adult. This is indefensible in too many levels.


To not expose children to unnecessarily dangerous situations is not to coddle. Let them experiment all they want when their bodies and minds are minimally developed!

---

The children of other people are the responsibility of those people. It is not a legitiamte function of governemnt to tell people how to live their lives, as long as they do not harm others. There are many people who think that gevernment should be the Great Nanny and take care of people; those people fail to consider how poorly governments function in tat role.

Quote:

---

The position defended in the sentence in bold is just impossible to sustain. So kids will always get addicted, might as well give it to them anyway. People will always kill each other, might as well make it easier by handing out guns.

---

That is a false analogy written with the hope that you and others would take it as true. A much closer analogy would be that people have always eaten, so it is reasonable to allow them to procure food.

---

Quote:

---

I see your point, and it is relevant for the discussion. Still, I think that's again a rather deterministic view of human nature. We had slavery for many centuries, and we eventually realised it was inadmissible. I'm just pointing out that attitudes may change. For example, there has always been and will always be murder, but we should strive to curb that.

Now the natural reaction is: drug use doesn't even compare to murder or slavery. Of course it doesn't, but I'm just trying to prove by making these analogies that
1) just because there has always been [blank] doesn't mean there will always be;
2) just because there will always be [blank] doesn't mean there should be.

Ultimately, then, all we have to take into account are the drugs themselves. My life philosophy is about life-affirming actions. A relative of mine is a judge and through him I've known just too many lives destroyed by hard drugs, it's very depressing the number of kids and adults who steal, abuse physically and verbally and even kill their parents so as to get money to support the addiction.

---

The comments about slavery are another false analogy, but there is still slavery, and in many cases it is legal. It would be more accurate to say that many, and perhaps most, animals use intoxicants, so it is reasonable to expect that they will continue to use intoxicants. If you wish to make a negative moral judgement about that, that is your business, but I don't think that you have any reason to expect that anyone will agree with you.

Quote:

---

In an ideal world I'd legalise all drugs, because ideally people would consume them with moderation. In a world such as we have, it would be very irresponsible to allow all sorts of people to get a hold of that. Think about the children born addicted, what chance do they have?

So, marijuana should be legalised and destigmatised because it doesn't really represent a threat to anyone. As for hard drugs, however, like cocain and heroin, I believe that they should be illegal. (this is my provisional view of it, I can't argue for so long for a side without eventually seeing some truth in it)

---

It is not my responsibility to live anyone else's life for them, so I do not have the power or right to tell people what to do, as long as their actions do not harm me or someone else. For those reasons, all drugs should be legal. Each individual can decide whether to take any drug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

8 year old Johnny pounds a mickey of Rye.
His liver explodes because it can't physically process that much alcohol.
He dies.
Whoops. Now he'll know for next time.


So does the parent get charged with negligence, or what?

---

Some people do drink themselves to death, and that takes a lot of work. Most people barf their guts out long before they do damage. You have to remember that the minimum age limits for buying alcohol are quite recent. They weren't instituted because kids were dying; they were put in place, because parents wanted someone else to take responsibility for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

The matter of someone being underage is even less of an issue. The whole concept of something becoming legal at a certain age is absurd. I favor removing the minimum age restrictions for the purchase of alcohol. I have no problem with eight year olds getting drunk.

---

I respect your opinion, however, I find this rather absurd. Psychological, cognitive and physical abilities are developed in the first 5 years of life.

Alcohol acts as a depressant on the central nervous system, effects the gastrointestinal tract, esophagus, stomach lining, various areas of the brain, liver, heart, and pancreas amongst many other organs. The effects on a child would be devastating and greatly hinder the life expectancy and/or happiness of the child as an adult.

In Addition: However, I don't think the age restriction of 21 is exactly necessary. (in the US; I have a more european view on this.) I feel that 16 would be a reasonable age, perhaps accompanied by a parental figure. (such as when you go to the theater) I haven't thought this through completely, but I thought I would throw it out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mariamosis

I respect your opinion, however, I find this rather absurd. Psychological, cognitive and physical abilities are developed in the first 5 years of life.

Alcohol acts as a depressant on the central nervous system, effects the gastrointestinal tract, esophagus, stomach lining, various areas of the brain, liver, heart, and pancreas amongst many other organs. The effects on a child would be devastating and greatly hinder the life expectancy and/or happiness of the child as an adult.

---

Opinions vary. I would agree that giving a two year old whiskey would not be a good idea, but a two year old would not drink the stuff, because it would hurt so much. Until the early to mid 1800's it was common for children to drink beer, especially in areas where the water supplies might be tainted. It is not unheard of for children to be weaned onto stout in Ireland; although it may not be as common as it was fifty years ago. I have cousins who were wened to stout, and they get along perfectly well.

Ideas about how much alcohol is too much have changed dramatically in the last couple hundred years. Thomas Jefferson, as one example, used to drink in an evening as much as a heavy drinker these days would drink in a week. His alcohol consumption didn't seem to diminish his intellectual abilities very much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Endon

I don't see how the history of legal drug using is relevant at all. Just because it was legal then it should be legal now? Just because there was racial segregation for so long does that mean it was somehow 'alright'? (sorry about the cheap resort to racism again, but I think that in this instance it's fair play).

---

History is always relevant.

Using history to re-examine racial segregation doesn't mean that it was right. Sometimes history must be weighed to see how things worked and/or didn't work and why. Clearly racial segregation didn't work and was wrong, but we use the perspective of history to judge what should not (hopefully) be tried again. (in this case)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Opinions vary. I would agree that giving a two year old whiskey would not be a good idea, but a two year old would not drink the stuff, because it would hurt so much. Until the early to mid 1800's it was common for children to drink beer, especially in areas where the water supplies might be tainted. It is not unheard of for children to be weaned onto stout in Ireland; although it may not be as common as it was fifty years ago. I have cousins who were wened to stout, and they get along perfectly well.

---

Okay, I see where you are coming from. As a child of 4 and 5 I was allowed to drink beer in very small doses and it didn't effect me. However, my parents would never have let me have free access at the time of my choosing. (in fact I grew up to hate beer... go figure)

However, hard liquor may be a different matter.

So once again we get back to the discrepancy of the parent, which doesn't always indicate very much. Therefore I still think that the age restriction should apply since I don't feel a child of 8 should be able to go to a bar and buy a beer.

Mariamosis, if you had read a later post you'd realise I admitted as much:

Quote:

---

I see your point, and it is relevant for the discussion.

---

What you should understand is that history, in this particular discussion, may be relevant, but doesn't do any work on his argument at all; in fact, I think it undermines it, hence my questioning his bringing it up.

PeterL, you said that 'It would be more accurate to say that many, and perhaps most, animals use intoxicants, so it is reasonable to expect that they will continue to use intoxicants'. So maybe I believe we could do better than giving in to impulses or whatever that is. And my analogies are rather cheap, but relevant, hence, I believe, not false; relevant because I believe that just because we do it doesn't mean we should. So maybe I believe we can better ourselves. Does that make me a moralist? Fine, I have no qualms with that.

Also, the distinction must be made between parents allowing kids to have a sip and actually selling alcohol to kids. No problems with the former, a lot of problems with the latter. You seem to have backtracked on your very interesting and unusual views after your exchange with Mariamosis, and now I can't tell for sure where you stand on this. If you still stand by selling alcohol to 8-year-olds I'm sorry to have misinterpreted the last two posts.