Legalisation of drugs: yes or no?

[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. 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

[Mariamosis]

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.

[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.

[Mariamosis]

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)

[Mr Endon]

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.

[PeterL]

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.

[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 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?

[PeterL]

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.

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.

---

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.

[Stargazer86]

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.

[Mr Endon]

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.

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.

---

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)

[Desolation]

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.

[Scheherazade]

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.

[*Classic*Charm*]

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?

[Mr Endon]

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.

[*Classic*Charm*]

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.



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

---
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.