Legalisation of drugs: yes or no?

[Shalot]

Some people become develop a psychological habituation to cocaine, but it does not create a physical addiction. Most people who use cocaine can do without with no adverse effects, and, as I mentioned, a substantial percentage of people are not affected by cocaine at all. Is it reasonable to inconvenience the majority for the convenience of a small minority? I don't think so.

I had been reading up on drugs a little while ago and something I read had cocaine in a class of extremely addictive drugs which confused me, because I've known people who have used cocaine and and they didn't get addicted. I've also known people who have used cocaine and have screwed themselves up because they got addicted to it. Maybe it's a quantity issue, or maybe it is has to do with the chemical make-up of the user.

In general, I think that we don't understand addiction well enough. Some people could become addicted to anything. Some people become addicted to food and they become fat and yet they continue to eat a giant bag of potato chips every day. They can't stop eating bad food and their health care costs rise which affects other people and causes insurance premiums to go up. So, we should make Lays Potato chips illegal. And Krispy Kreme. Shut that chain down.

It's kind of hard for me to make an argument one way or the other as far as legalization of drugs goes (I'm American so I use a z) because we don't understand addiction and we don't understand the brain. We know that if you don't engage in pleasurable activities, then you can't become addicted to them, so we've tried to restrict access to certain pleasure-causing substances to rid ourselves of the negative consequences. Maybe that's not the best approach.

I do know that some drugs will mess you up more than others and that's why I would lean toward legalization of marijuana only, and not legalization of all drugs. Marijuana is illegal and so is crystal meth and no informed person would say that marijuana is just as dangerous as meth. But, to the uninformed 13-year-old, pot=illegal and meth=illegal so pot=meth, so I'm going to do meth. I know that's not the best argument one could make, but it happens. And we all know that the war on drugs doesn't work. Legalize marijuana. 4:20. woo hoo.

[PeterL]

I had been reading up on drugs a little while ago and something I read had cocaine in a class of extremely addictive drugs which confused me, because I've known people who have used cocaine and and they didn't get addicted. I've also known people who have used cocaine and have screwed themselves up because they got addicted to it. Maybe it's a quantity issue, or maybe it is has to do with the chemical make-up of the user.

Quantity is not the determining factor. An individual's brain chemistry makes the difference.

In general, I think that we don't understand addiction well enough. Some people could become addicted to anything. Some people become addicted to food and they become fat and yet they continue to eat a giant bag of potato chips every day. They can't stop eating bad food and their health care costs rise which affects other people and causes insurance premiums to go up. So, we should make Lays Potato chips illegal. And Krispy Kreme. Shut that chain down.

Chocolate is also highly addictive to susceptible people.

[AimusSage]

All you need to do is look at drug policy in the netherlands and there is proof right there it works, amongst native Dutch youth, drug use is significantly lower than in surrounding countries. Why? Because they can get it freely. It's not a thrill to get high on smoking weed. Sure a lot of people have tried it, didn't really care for it and just let it go. Some may smoke once in a while and then there is always the group that smokes a lot, but that is a very small group. In Amsterdam by far the largest market share is tourists.

I won't say I agree with a legalization of the so called 'hard drugs' such as cocaine and heroine, but a legalization of marijuana, which doesn't have nearly the same addictive or destructive qualities as nicotine is fine by me.

Changing the illegal status of a product to legal also means taking it out of the black market where there is a total lack of control on quality and standards used. Legal status will allow proper regulation and rules that any producer will have to adhere to, basically decreasing the amount of bad, dangerous drugs on the market that can be excessively damaging to a person's health.

Weed, by and large can easily be come by in nations such as Canada, Sweden, the US, UK and so on. All I had to do in these nations was mention I was dutch and people would offer me weed. This just shows that current policies simply do not work. If a tourist like me can get the stuff within a day of being in a country, one seriously has to question the effectiveness of anti drug enforcement and whether there are no better alternatives available.

Having said that, the first time I ever smoked weed was when I was in Canada, not the Netherlands. I could go to a 'coffee shop' any day I liked and get weed, but I didn't, because I just didn't feel like it. In Canada, I figured I might as well give it a try to see what it was like, and got some weed, it was ok, last time I smoked weed was in Sweden last week. In between I have smoked weed once in the Netherlands, over a period of 5 months.

I consider Alcohol to be far more dangerous to my health, yet the use of this substance is so ingrained in our mindset as being a normal part of society, that it would take a fanatic to consider making it illegal. It's basically a hypocrite's dilemma, how a far more dangerous drug is so accepted, while a mostly harmless one is illegal and considered to be a blight on society.

[Virgil]

{edit}

I'm not getting into the rest of this. I will never support legalization of anything that is inherently harmful to anyone and to society. The alcohol analogy doesn't hold. Alcohol has been part and integral to culture for over ten thousand years. It cannot be stripped out of the culture. If we had to do this over we probably would not have integrated it in. All you have to do is see what drunk drivers have done to society. But it's there now and impossible to undo. To bring in other harmful products into the culture and make them acceptable is working at odds with common sense. We are trying to strip out of the culture cigarettes, we are trying reduce alcohol consumption. To make the list of harmful, detrimental products of socially acceptable substances longer is working counter to the trend of social policy.

{edit}

[Big Al]

{edit}

I'm not getting into the rest of this. I will never support legalization of anything that is inherently harmful to anyone and to society. The alcohol analogy doesn't hold. Alcohol has been part and integral to culture for over ten thousand years. It cannot be stripped out of the culture. If we had to do this over we probably would not have integrated it in. All you have to do is see what drunk drivers have done to society. But it's there now and impossible to undo. To bring in other harmful products into the culture and make them acceptable is working at odds with common sense. We are trying to strip out of the culture cigarettes, we are trying reduce alcohol consumption. To make the list of harmful, detrimental products of socially acceptable substances longer is working counter to the trend of social policy.

You are looking at the issue in very broad strokes of black and white. Not everyone who uses drugs is destroying himself, not every aspect of drugs is inherently bad. Marijuana is used, for example, in treatments of numerous diseases such as glaucoma and cancer, and to alleviate intense pain from a wide range of afflictions. Heroin has also been found to be a successful pain reliever. Many people use illegal drugs as a stress reliever -- as many do legally with alcohol and tobacco -- without hurting others or spiraling into a depraved world of nightmarish addiction (their stories just don't make it into the media). Your point about alcohol doesn't hold water, either, as many drugs currently illegal in the United States and elsewhere have played major roles in different world cultures, such as opium in China.

{edit}

[PeterL]

{edit}

I'm not getting into the rest of this. I will never support legalization of anything that is inherently harmful to anyone and to society.

So you would favor making it a criminal offense to have a baseball bat, or even just the ball itself. Obviously, many kitchen utensils would be illegal under your rule. Yes, this is reducio ad absurbam. You made an absurd assertion. If you were to think about the matter a little, then you would realize that nothing is "inherently harmful to anyone and to society,' so by your reasoning everything should be legal.

[kilted exile]

you would realize that nothing is "inherently harmful to anyone and to society,'

you sure about this?

[Virgil]

So you would favor making it a criminal offense to have a baseball bat, or even just the ball itself. Obviously, many kitchen utensils would be illegal under your rule. Yes, this is reducio ad absurbam. You made an absurd assertion. If you were to think about the matter a little, then you would realize that nothing is "inherently harmful to anyone and to society,' so by your reasoning everything should be legal.

{edit}The fact is that there are thousands of legislation pertaining to what is acceptable and unacceptable pertaining to our food laws. Society has determined that it is unacceptable for the laissez-faire as to what people can injest. You can take it up with the Food and Drug Administration if you don't like it. Take it to the Supreme Court. Society has already determined that certain injestible or intakable products are unacceptable to be sold on the open market. And that certain products need to fit within certain guidelines. That's a reality in every country on the globe.

Next time a cop stops you for some infraction, tell him you also were on the cell phone while driving and weren't wearing a safety belt because you don't think it's right for society to tell you what is best. Let us know what his response is.

[Emil Miller]

Outside of medical necessity, there is no need for anyone to take non prescription drugs except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

[alexar]

outside of medical necessity, there is no need for anyone to take non prescription drugs except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Yeah! Let's hear it for gratuitous self-indulgence. Which is none of the government's business.

[Emil Miller]

Yeah! Let's hear it for gratuitous self-indulgence. Which is none of the government's business.

On that basis you could excuse anything, even murder.

[Michael T]

Outside of medical necessity, there is no need for anyone to take non prescription drugs except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of the conception of children, there is no need for anyone to indulge in sex except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of medical necessity, there is no need for anyone to imbibe alcohol except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of educational necessity, there is no need for anyone to watch TV or visit the cinema except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of educational necessity, there is no need for anyone to log on to Lit-Net except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of bodily exercise necessity, there is no need for anyone to go dancing except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of healthy necessity, there is no need for anyone to eat cake, sweets or snacks except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Argue about breaking the law and health issues…but what’s wrong with a little bit of gratuitous self-indulgence every now and then Brian?

[alexar]

On that basis you could excuse anything, even murder.

But is gratuitous self-indulgence ever in itself the legislators' business?

[Emil Miller]

Outside of the conception of children, there is no need for anyone to indulge in sex except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of medical necessity, there is no need for anyone to imbibe alcohol except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of educational necessity, there is no need for anyone to watch TV or visit the cinema except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of educational necessity, there is no need for anyone to log on to Lit-Net except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of bodily exercise necessity, there is no need for anyone to go dancing except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of healthy necessity, there is no need for anyone to eat cake, sweets or snacks except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Argue about breaking the law and health issues…but what’s wrong with a little bit of gratuitous self-indulgence every now and then Brian?

Nothing, provided it is a natural function of existence or lawfully permitted.

But is gratuitous self-indulgence ever in itself the legislators' business?

That is decided when elections take place.

[alexar]

Nothing, provided it is a natural function of existence or lawfully permitted.

The simple fact that something isn't lawfully permitted doesn't make it wrong does it? I thought we were discussing the right and wrongs of legislation here? If everything that's illegal is wrong, there's no discussion to have.