Should Drugs be Legalised?

Any discussion not related to furry goes in here. Politics, religion, current affairs...this is the place for it.

Should Drugs be Legalised?

Yes
16
67%
No
8
33%
 
Total votes: 24
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Should Drugs be Legalised?

#1

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Drugs are overwhelmingly seen as bad, even though plenty of people use them. However the status of them as illegal has been criticised for being immoral and unscientific resulting in arbitrary legal statuses.

When Professor Nutt did a study on the harm of drugs he found, "Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places." Yet alcohol is legal while the less dangerous drugs of heroin and cocaine are illegal.

The call for possible legalisation of drugs has also been made in the South African medical literature in a piece by J P de V van Niekerk. He points out that the war on drugs has failed and a drug-free society is not going to happen. In addition he says that the war on drugs makes them more valuable. If we legalise drugs we can remove their value to criminals, better monitor them, greatly reduce gang violence and gain revenue through taxation on drugs. Drugs are a multimillion Dollar business but government makes no money through it and loses money. New York spent $75 million dollars last year on fighting marijuana alone.

On a moral front the criminal status of drugs infringes on people's personal liberties. It is not the place of government to place restrictions on private actions that do not harm others. When there are drug related crimes then the government should get involved but they should not prevent private consumption of the drugs.

So I say drugs should be legalised, both because their criminalisation is unscientific and immoral. What are your views on drugs? Do you think they should be legal and why, or why not? And if they should be illegal then which ones? Why aren't alcohol and tobacco illegal (both more dangerous than cannabis).

Further reading:
http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/a ... 6/abstract
http://www.belowthelion.co.za/time-to-d ... l-journal/
http://www.drugpolicy.org/homepage.cfm
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/news/grayling1.htm
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Fluke
Tyrant's Eye
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 12:47 am
Region: Other

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#2

Post by Fluke »

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:Drugs are overwhelmingly seen as bad, even though plenty of people use them. However the status of them as illegal has been criticised for being immoral and unscientific resulting in arbitrary legal statuses.

When Professor Nutt did a study on the harm of drugs he found, "Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places." Yet alcohol is legal while the less dangerous drugs of heroin and cocaine are illegal.
Those stats are a bit skewed because alcohol, which is legal, is the most used drug and the most abused drug. Ergo the chances of it being harmful rise significantly. If we make drugs legal then more people will use them. 'Less dangerous' is very badly used here, cocaine and heroin, and especially tik has a far more permanent affect on the brain than alcohol has.
Rakuen Growlithe wrote: The call for possible legalisation of drugs has also been made in the South African medical literature in a piece by J P de V van Niekerk. He points out that the war on drugs has failed and a drug-free society is not going to happen. In addition he says that the war on drugs makes them more valuable. If we legalise drugs we can remove their value to criminals, better monitor them, greatly reduce gang violence and gain revenue through taxation on drugs. Drugs are a multimillion Dollar business but government makes no money through it and loses money. New York spent $75 million dollars last year on fighting marijuana alone.
Legalizing them will increase the usage and increase gang control of them and increase drug-related gangs. Gangs will always be there to provide you a 'cheaper' solution, no matter what the price is. The lower the price the more it will be used, imagine if someone couldn't afford drugs in the first place, well I guess they wouldn't try them and gangs would be less willing to share out these much more expensive drugs.
Rakuen Growlithe wrote: On a moral front the criminal status of drugs infringes on people's personal liberties. It is not the place of government to place restrictions on private actions that do not harm others. When there are drug related crimes then the government should get involved but they should not prevent private consumption of the drugs.
It will harm others at some point, that is like saying we should stop people from having age-restrictions on movies/games/pornography because it is up to them and it doesn't harm others. This is bad for the person and is very likely to permanently alter their outlook on certain things. The brain needs to develop first. The consumption of drugs will eventually lead to the hurt of others, weather it be through stealing/physical violence or other means, drugs make the mind in less and less control of the body.
Rakuen Growlithe wrote: So I say drugs should be legalised, both because their criminalisation is unscientific and immoral. What are your views on drugs? Do you think they should be legal and why, or why not? And if they should be illegal then which ones? Why aren't alcohol and tobacco illegal (both more dangerous than cannabis).
Basically all my points above and I think that they should stay legalized forever.
Alcohol and tobacco have a lesser short term affect and lesser long term affect than cannabis. Although they are both bad. Drinking the odd beer every few days will not get you addicted to it, same with cigarettes, you can smoke several and still not be addicted. The chances are a lot slimmer than drugs and the person is much wanting a smoke or drink whereas drugs becomes a need.
This is true for the medium/long terms of heavy smokers, but they are still in control.
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#3

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Fluke wrote:Those stats are a bit skewed because alcohol, which is legal, is the most used drug and the most abused drug. Ergo the chances of it being harmful rise significantly. If we make drugs legal then more people will use them. 'Less dangerous' is very badly used here, cocaine and heroin, and especially tik has a far more permanent affect on the brain than alcohol has.
I don't think the prevalence made much of a difference in their scoring. There are some areas where it might have had an effect but all the categories they used where given weightings, so even if they were originally high because of the amount of use it would be brought down in the weightings.

The measure of dangerous there is over 16 categories (9 measuring harm to users and 7 measuring harm to others). When they measure harm to users then alcohol drops to 4th place, though that isn't purely on damage to the brain. Alcohol for example can cause brain damage, foetal alcohol syndrome, lead to car crashes, cirrhosis of the liver and kill through toxicity.
Fluke wrote:Legalizing them will increase the usage and increase gang control of them and increase drug-related gangs. Gangs will always be there to provide you a 'cheaper' solution, no matter what the price is. The lower the price the more it will be used, imagine if someone couldn't afford drugs in the first place, well I guess they wouldn't try them and gangs would be less willing to share out these much more expensive drugs.
That is a common fear but it's one that doesn't really have anything backing it up. When people study the differences in drug usage among countries they find no relation to how strict the countries laws against drugs are. Then there's Portugal as the main example of the benefit of legalising drugs. It's still illegal to sell them but there's no criminal charge for using them.
"By any metric, Portugal's drug-decriminalization scheme has been a resounding success. Drug usage in many categories has decreased in absolute terms, including for key demographic groups, like 15-to-19-year-olds. Where usage rates have increased, the increases have been modest — far less than in most other European Union nations, which continue to use a criminalization approach."
Another point is that most governments only started to really fight drugs in the '60's and it has been after that the drug problem has increased.
Fluke wrote: It will harm others at some point, that is like saying we should stop people from having age-restrictions on movies/games/pornography because it is up to them and it doesn't harm others. This is bad for the person and is very likely to permanently alter their outlook on certain things. The brain needs to develop first. The consumption of drugs will eventually lead to the hurt of others, weather it be through stealing/physical violence or other means, drugs make the mind in less and less control of the body.
Age restrictions are a different sort of rule. Those designed to protect minors who have not fully matured and are not ready to cope with what might be contained in whatever media. They are also the responsibility of their parents and age restrictions usually serve as more of a guideline than an absolute standard (though I'm not sure whether that is how they were intended).

Even if drugs do harm an individual however it doesn't mean that they should not have the choice to use them. People should still have the right to determine their private behaviour. As these studies point out alcohol is also very harmful to people and so are many legal drugs. Some legal drugs (which people do use to get high) are even more dangerous than the illegal varieties.

More references:
http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/200 ... etter.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12476
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Hargan
Posts: 578
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:51 pm
Gender: Male
Species: Foxeh
Region: Gauteng

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#4

Post by Hargan »

My view is purely opinion based.

We are going to try an experiment that I heard about. For the next 5 minutes, do not think about a white polar bear.

...
...
...

Did you think about a white polar bear?

If i said to you, don't take a cookie, and in this example the cookie is your favourite one, and there are a lot of them, sitting on a plate, and you could easily take one without being seen, and no harm would come of you taking one, would you take one?

Now, say to a kid: Don't take drugs. Yet he sees all the rebellious "cool" kids doing it. Who is he going to listen to? (Yes, i know it changes for each child, but just go along with my flow of thinking to humour me please).

The idea is, the more you tell someone NOT to do anything, the higher chance that they ARE going to do it. We've seen it in horror films (don't go into that creepy old mansion), hell, we've prolly even done it ourselves. I know i have. So the more you play into the "don't go for it", the more they will.

My suggestion is this: Legalise them. Let people use them. But, inform them completely of all side effects, all the dangers and all the issues surrounding it. Then let the autonomous beings that humans are decide for themselves whether or not they want to use drugs for themselves.

And as a last note: This is all personal opinion except where has been indicated. You don't like it, I don't mind. But don't expect me to provide facts or anything. And if you dun like it, i'll respect that. So i ask that you at least respect my opinions.

And finally, I know the age laws on alcohol are also to protect the children's developing bodies, as the liver would get damaged more by a 15 year old drinknig than a 20 year old.
Warning: Has been known to speak his mind

Firm believer in Spiral Power
User avatar
Splicer-Fox
Posts: 1956
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:38 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Fox fennec springbok thing
Region: Gauteng
Location: Thailand
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#5

Post by Splicer-Fox »

There is a time and place for these things to be used.
There will always be people that will exploit it for the wrong reasons.

However I do agree that there are some regulations that are a bit paranoid in relation to what they are controlling. (and others that seem insufficient)

Personalty I don't care much for people that get addicted or hurt by their habits.
Lifting regulations would boost our pharmaceutical production and research 10X

and narcotics distribution and indoctrination could form part of a "grater good" plan to fix a few other problems.

I am going to say no for now.
Although I am still kinda undecided.
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#6

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Splicer-Fox wrote: I am going to say no for now.
Although I am still kinda undecided.
Why you saying no? The rest of your post didn't seem to be going the no direction and the reasons most people give for having drug laws don't hold up when tested.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Splicer-Fox
Posts: 1956
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:38 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Fox fennec springbok thing
Region: Gauteng
Location: Thailand
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#7

Post by Splicer-Fox »

If I have no consensus. So I just say no.
I might say yes later on.

I really don't think I know enough to make a honest decision yet.
User avatar
Splicer-Fox
Posts: 1956
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:38 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Fox fennec springbok thing
Region: Gauteng
Location: Thailand
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#8

Post by Splicer-Fox »

I thought about it a bit more and I think I have figured out what gave me such a bad feeling.

I guess it is a question of what country will benefit from legalizing drugs.
Not SA.

I believe that legalizing it here will cause a over demand that will make drugs more expensive to get. (Crushing more lower/mid class lives dependent on it AND stopping people who really need it from getting it).
More people will get addicted than ever before.
We will be importing tones of narcotics with our bad exchange rate.
Small and large businesses alike will become unstable ether because they need more income to purchase narcotics or the staff above/under them will be compromised by the damage/side effect of the drugs).
Crime syndicates will become more abundant and powerful because they can create and sell specific drugs freely.

I predict a economic and social melt down. (but I do not clam to be a expert in thees things).

I can only see highly developed country managing the problems caused by this.
But it seems like Communist country might benefit the most from it.
Since they can nudge the prise and distribution of the products in question to throttle the amount used.

I think that any developed country thinking doing this would have to have new and clever ways of selling narcotics safely.

All I can think of is creating a drug user license policy.
Causing that the people that need the narcotic for recreational use must get a license.
This can Regulate, educate and test to make sure the user is ready.
These licensee can regulate the users intake and use.
Better regulate prices and demand.
Make sure the user and hangers on (like family) can afford the hobby.
His body and mind can handle the dose subscribed.
And force the user to be further educated on the drug in all its aspects.
The vendors of the products will have exactly the same license of any liquor store or bar will need.
Already allowing bars, pubs and alcohol distributes access to a new product.
and allow specializing businesses to be certified in the products they are selling.
effectively regulating distribution and preventing any monopoly or malpractice of this potentially dangerous product.

Hospitals and private practice are authorized to provide to patients at their own discretion.

Economy is benefited thus research is more driven.
And the lifting off bans on some narcotics will open up new potential research.
Economy benefits all of us indirectly.

I have no idea what cultural impact it will have though. Could be good, could be bad OR have no effect at all. (thats a hole study on its own)

With that said my answer is still "no".
There is good benefit to lifting restrictions too specific drugs.
But I don't believe the whole world is ready.
and the country that wants to take advantage of the economic and social advantages must be "very" ready.
And I can only see a few countrys that might pull it off.
Eh... I just think it is more trouble than it is worth.
and a very dangerous gamble to be made.
But I can see those countrys that have strange regulations on specific drugs though.

but still...
NO to drugs.
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#9

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

That's quite a grim picture you paint there. I only have one problem with it, you haven't got anything to support that outcome.

Where you say drugs should be illegal but aren't sure why and then come back later with an explanation seems a lot like you've been told drugs should be illegal and when asked why just take a break until you can come up with some justification.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Splicer-Fox
Posts: 1956
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:38 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Fox fennec springbok thing
Region: Gauteng
Location: Thailand
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#10

Post by Splicer-Fox »

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:That's quite a grim picture you paint there. I only have one problem with it, you haven't got anything to support that outcome.

Where you say drugs should be illegal but aren't sure why and then come back later with an explanation seems a lot like you've been told drugs should be illegal and when asked why just take a break until you can come up with some justification.
Splicer-Fox wrote:I can only see highly developed country managing the problems caused by this.
But it seems like Communist country might benefit the most from it.
Since they can nudge the prise and distribution of the products in question to throttle the amount used.

I think that any developed country thinking doing this would have to have new and clever ways of selling narcotics safely.

All I can think of is creating a drug user license policy.
Causing that the people that need the narcotic for recreational use must get a license.
This can Regulate, educate and test to make sure the user is ready.
These licensee can regulate the users intake and use.
Better regulate prices and demand.
Make sure the user and hangers on (like family) can afford the hobby.
His body and mind can handle the dose subscribed.
And force the user to be further educated on the drug in all its aspects.
The vendors of the products will have exactly the same license of any liquor store or bar will need.
Already allowing bars, pubs and alcohol distributes access to a new product.
and allow specializing businesses to be certified in the products they are selling.
effectively regulating distribution and preventing any monopoly or malpractice of this potentially dangerous product.

Hospitals and private practice are authorized to provide to patients at their own discretion.

Economy is benefited thus research is more driven.
And the lifting off bans on some narcotics will open up new potential research.
Economy benefits all of us indirectly.
Really grim indeed. (you must have missed this part)

I really looked at everything.
and like i said:
Splicer-Fox wrote:I might say yes later on.
But it was leaning toward a no at that point.

I kept a open mind.
And took my time thinking about it and came with very good reasons for Yes as well.

Is there some time limit I am unaware off?
Would you rather just want me to answer and not even give a 2nd thought?
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#11

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Splicer-Fox wrote:I kept a open mind.
And took my time thinking about it and came with very good reasons for Yes as well.

Is there some time limit I am unaware off?
Would you rather just want me to answer and not even give a 2nd thought?
Of course not. I do want you to think about it. It's just that I'm not sure where the scenarios you came up with come from. I'm not aware of anything that suggests they are likely outcomes. So it just seems like you're trying to examples like Portugal and the Netherlands where there are less strict drug controls but lower incidences of drug usage.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Hargan
Posts: 578
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:51 pm
Gender: Male
Species: Foxeh
Region: Gauteng

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#12

Post by Hargan »

You do paint a grim picture Splicer.

Allow me to paint one too:

People who are addicted are thrown out of jobs, whether or not they use the drugs at the workplace or not.
Many are repeatedly harassed by corrupt officials who demand bribes in order to not be taken into prison.
Vicious gangs who have no qualms about killing people who owe them money control the flow of drugs.
Prices are not controlled, meaning that they could charge thousands for a fix.
Quality control is not monitored, meaning they put whatever into those drugs.
People are driven to absolute poverty, forcing them into crime to try and make enough for their next fix.

This is the reality we are faced with. Admittedly, i would prefer to be rid of drugs altogether, but as it stands, we could make the system safer and possibly prevent driving thousands to poverty or crime.

Also, those examples above are taken from everywhere in the world as it stands today. Believe me, if you knew what it really was like, you'd prefer a change over what it is today.

Just ask the thousands of people stuck in foreign prisons overseas for drug trafficking, many of whom had no idea they were doing so after being set up by people they trusted. I'm sure they'd love not to be where they are.
Warning: Has been known to speak his mind

Firm believer in Spiral Power
User avatar
Splicer-Fox
Posts: 1956
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:38 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Fox fennec springbok thing
Region: Gauteng
Location: Thailand
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#13

Post by Splicer-Fox »

Hargan wrote:You do paint a grim picture Splicer.
But I saw the good in it too. I gave 2 outcomes, not all grim.
Rakuen Growlithe wrote: Of course not. I do want you to think about it. It's just that I'm not sure where the scenarios you came up with come from. I'm not aware of anything that suggests they are likely outcomes. So it just seems like you're trying to examples like Portugal and the Netherlands where there are less strict drug controls but lower incidences of drug usage.
So... ether I sucked thees scenarios out of my thumb or based them on actual results from country that do lift restrictions. (witch is it).
What I base the first outcome on is the reality of drugs today.
If dugs cause problems and you double the amount of drugs... You will logically get double the intensify or amount of problems.
So your saying you thought about this and you see no problem letting drugs go free in SA or the world?
Rakuen Growlithe wrote:Where you say drugs should be illegal but aren't sure why and then come back later with an explanation seems a lot like you've been told drugs should be illegal and when asked why just take a break until you can come up with some justification.
So you say I stalled to make time in order to "justify" my answer?
But I "justified" both scenarios. (so what did I just justify?)
Thought up a way for people to safely govern drugs on a free Capitalist market. (But I do not clam to be a expert of those things in any way).
Maybe you were hoping I would say yes?
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#14

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Splicer-Fox wrote:So... ether I sucked thees scenarios out of my thumb or based them on actual results from country that do lift restrictions. (witch is it).
What I base the first outcome on is the reality of drugs today.
If dugs cause problems and you double the amount of drugs... You will logically get double the intensify or amount of problems.
So your saying you thought about this and you see no problem letting drugs go free in SA or the world?
I meant to say ignoring examples. You're not just doubling the amount of drugs, you're not punishing people for using them.
By legalising drugs you aren't going to be helping gangs, you will actually be breaking their control. There's not really a reason for the number of people who use drugs to increase either. Let's take you as an example, you obviously aren't in favour of drugs so you're not going to use them just because you are suddenly allowed to. If drugs are legal you can also remove the secrecy and fear which can cause problems of their own, drug mules as one example.
I'm not just saying toss drugs out there and things will be better but the evidence from countries that have relaxed drug laws supports the idea that less strict controls of drugs will actually improve the situation.
Splicer-Fox wrote: So you say I stalled to make time in order to "justify" my answer?
But I "justified" both scenarios. (so what did I just justify?)
Thought up a way for people to safely govern drugs on a free Capitalist market. (But I do not clam to be a expert of those things in any way).
Maybe you were hoping I would say yes?
I was saying that's a possibility because no new evidence was presented that supports your version of how things would play out.


Incidentally support for legalisation of marijuana is at an all time high in the US. 46% of Americans are in favour of legalisation (http://www.gallup.com/poll/144086/new-h ... juana.aspx) and 73% are in favour of allowing marijuana for medical use (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1548/broad- ... -marijuana).
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Ryall
Spotted Scallywag
Posts: 2760
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:25 pm
Gender: Male
Species: Hyena
Region: Gauteng

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#15

Post by Ryall »

http://www.gargaro.com/drugs.html <== I think that essay provides a fairly strong argument against all the points discussed here as to why we should legalise drugs.
Amongst other things it talks about reducing crime, the moral side of it and the costs to the government.

"In a society of victims and mendicants to the welfare state, drug legalization is suicide. We refuse to hold people morally and financially culpable for their actions, yet drugs should be readily available. That's like giving alcohol and car keys to a rebellious 13 year old. Only a virtuous society can remain free from tyranny and slavery. Drug-legalization is a mockery of liberty no less than socialism is to equality"
Ron M. Lewenberg - The neo-conservative futurist with libertarian tendencies
Rakuen Growlithe wrote: Some legal drugs (which people do use to get high) are even more dangerous than the illegal varieties.
This is true, which is why it is illegal to take these drugs without a proper prescription: the patient must really need the benefits of the drug to use it, and must not use it for the wrong reasons. I also promise you that the majority of criminals who are arrested for drug-related, or drug induced crimes will not test positive for cough medicine and morphine.

[ The thing is drugs can do all of the above (obviously the grievous harm done to foetuses from drug abuse has its own term) on a much more harmful level and more. Off the top of my head, common effects of drug usage include permanent psychosis, seizures, dementia, kidney failure, heart failure and suppression of the immune system. I would have to look up the rest (see http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=26004 for more examples).

One thing that has been neglected in this discussion is the social impact of drugs: they destroy communities.
http://www.eyewitnessnews.co.za/article ... x?id=36391
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 043843.ece
Illegal or not, the social effects of drug usage on communities are drastic. Of course, one could easily find examples where alcoholism poses a major problem in certain communities but then one would have to look at the prevalence of drug usage around the world as opposed to the use of alcohol, and their relative effects. That alcohol 'can also be harmful' is not sufficient grounds to argue that an even more harmful substance such as drugs should be legalised.

I noted that one of the issues discussed in organising zafur meets was drugs: http://forum.zafur.co.za/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=972&hilit . The first rule in that post was ,"1) NO DRUGS- this a point we all feel strong about." Discussion about drug usage, and orgies in showers, ensued. It's clear that even amongst us furs, we find that drug usage is simply not acceptable on a social level, and not only because it's illegal.

So, with the first link reflecting most of my thoughts on the matter, I strongly think that drug usage should not be legalised.
Hahaha! :lol:
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#16

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

I must actually make a clarification because I might have been confusing things a little. Portugal didn't legalise drugs as such but decriminalised them. It's not exactly the same thing. Users are allowed drugs but dealers and manufacturers are still criminally charged.
Ryall wrote:http://www.gargaro.com/drugs.html <== I think that essay provides a fairly strong argument against all the points discussed here as to why we should legalise drugs.
Amongst other things it talks about reducing crime, the moral side of it and the costs to the government.
It's not as convincing as you might think. Not all it's points are bad but it misses the mark a few times and again works from the framework we already have in place instead of considering whether other substances should then be illegal, such as alcohol. It has a problem with it's treatment of drugs and crime where it assumes that drugs cause crime when it could certainly be the other way around. It also shoots itself in the foot with it's last point which pretty much says the drug war is hopeless.

Much the same with Splicer's post it makes a scary scenario but the majority of it is not backed up by anything but speculation.
Ryall wrote:Illegal or not, the social effects of drug usage on communities are drastic. Of course, one could easily find examples where alcoholism poses a major problem in certain communities but then one would have to look at the prevalence of drug usage around the world as opposed to the use of alcohol, and their relative effects. That alcohol 'can also be harmful' is not sufficient grounds to argue that an even more harmful substance such as drugs should be legalised.
So if you want to improve the community you need to find the strategy which is most effective in reducing drug usage. Harsh criminal penalties do not appear to do that. Sending people to jail for using drugs might seem effective but it's also well known that jails are major recruiting grounds for gangs. It's also not just alcohol can be harmful but studies looking at it show that alcohol is more harmful, to the community, than illegal drugs.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Ryall
Spotted Scallywag
Posts: 2760
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:25 pm
Gender: Male
Species: Hyena
Region: Gauteng

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#17

Post by Ryall »

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:It's not as convincing as you might think. Not all it's points are bad but it misses the mark a few times and again works from the framework we already have in place instead of considering whether other substances should then be illegal, such as alcohol. It has a problem with it's treatment of drugs and crime where it assumes that drugs cause crime when it could certainly be the other way around. It also shoots itself in the foot with it's last point which pretty much says the drug war is hopeless.

Much the same with Splicer's post it makes a scary scenario but the majority of it is not backed up by anything but speculation.
It's hardly speculative when it brings up stats like ,
"Data from the National Institute of Justice (U.S. Department of Justice) Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program underscore the crime-drugs link. Of a sample of males arrested in 23 U.S. cities in 1993, the percent testing positive for at least one drug in the DUF survey ranged from 54% in Omaha to 81% in Chicago. Among female arrestees, the percent testing positive for any drug in 20 cities ranged from 42% in San Antonio to 83% in Manhattan. "
And sound logical argument, after all, isn't that what your whole argument about legalising drugs is founded on?
It's also no secret that many drugs cause violent, psychopathic behaviour, and legalising them won't change that. It's not a matter of faulty cause and effect where gangs are violent because of the competitive, illegal nature of drug trafficking hence drugs cause violence; we're talking about people committing violent crimes they would not have committed were they not under the influence of drugs.

And as for its last point, it simply says that the war against drugs is long and difficult (and may even seem hopeless), it is not at all 'pretty much saying' that it is hopeless - just that it's difficult, but quite necessary (I don't agree with its World War 2 analogy but yeah you get the idea).
Rakuen Growlithe wrote: So if you want to improve the community you need to find the strategy which is most effective in reducing drug usage. Harsh criminal penalties do not appear to do that. Sending people to jail for using drugs might seem effective but it's also well known that jails are major recruiting grounds for gangs. It's also not just alcohol can be harmful but studies looking at it show that alcohol is more harmful, to the community, than illegal drugs.
I am glad we agree that reducing drug usage is key to improving communities, however, while our current strategies may need some revising, I don't think that making drugs cheaper and more accessible will reduce drug usage: these factors are partly to blame for why alcohol usage is so widespread.

Perhaps what we really need is to supplement our current drug-busts and police crackdowns on drugs with better education (so people know the full extent to which drugs are harmful ( much rather they drink than do drugs although that's not what we're trying to encourage here)) and an improvement on living standards: poor people need better pastimes than drug abuse to escape their desperate living conditions. Of course that's not to say that wealthier clients aren't a major part of drug users, but you live in the Cape Flats as opposed to some up market suburbs, you're less likely to use drugs.

Anyway, excuse my generic propositions as to solving the drug problem: those are just a side note.
Hahaha! :lol:
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#18

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Ryall wrote:It's hardly speculative when it brings up stats like ,
That part isn't speculation but their scenarios about what would happen are speculation. It's worse than speculation actually because it's not what has happened in other countries. Maybe there are cultural differences and so different places will react differently but Portugal also had fears of being overrun with drugs that turned out to be unfounded.

The other part that they leave out is alcohol. The studies I originally started the thread with were very clear that alcohol is more dangerous than drugs. That means there is a problem with the law in that either drugs should be allowed, which has been successful in places, or alcohol should also be made illegal, which has not been successful, in order to be consistent. That page you linked to made no complaints against alcohol but quick look at the National Institute of Justice webpage shows that alcohol is just as bad as drugs.

"Between 1993 and 2004, victims reported that 43 percent of all nonfatal intimate partner violence involved the presence of alcohol or drugs, another 7 percent involved both alcohol and drugs, and 6 percent involved drugs alone."
"A domestic violence fatality review study in New Mexico documented that alcohol and drugs were present in 65 percent of 46 domestic violence homicides between 1993 and 1996: 43 percent abused alcohol and 22 percent abused drugs."
" Victims and family members reported that 92 percent of assailants used drugs or alcohol during the day of the assault. They also reported that 67 percent had used a combination of cocaine and alcohol, which forms cocaethylene, a substance that produces heightened and prolonged intoxication."
Ryall wrote:And sound logical argument, after all, isn't that what your whole argument about legalising drugs is founded on?
It's also no secret that many drugs cause violent, psychopathic behaviour, and legalising them won't change that. It's not a matter of faulty cause and effect where gangs are violent because of the competitive, illegal nature of drug trafficking hence drugs cause violence; we're talking about people committing violent crimes they would not have committed were they not under the influence of drugs.
Yes, drugs cause all sorts of problems and the current way of dealing with them is not effective. The drug effects won't change if you legalise them but there will be a decrease in gang violence. Gangs are funded through drugs because they control it completely. It's not the only illegal activities they are involved in but it is the main way they function. Will there still be a black market if drugs are available elsewhere? Perhaps but there isn't much of a black market for alcohol.
Ryall wrote: Perhaps what we really need is to supplement our current drug-busts and police crackdowns on drugs with better education (so people know the full extent to which drugs are harmful ( much rather they drink than do drugs although that's not what we're trying to encourage here)) and an improvement on living standards: poor people need better pastimes than drug abuse to escape their desperate living conditions. Of course that's not to say that wealthier clients aren't a major part of drug users, but you live in the Cape Flats as opposed to some up market suburbs, you're less likely to use drugs.
The difference there is that I don't think you should be going after the users. And in some cases they should rather do drugs than alcohol. That said I don't think people do drugs because they think it's a good idea. Education might reduce usage but a lot of drinking and drugs, particularly in poor areas, is to escape the conditions they are in. It's pointless to go after drugs unless you do something about the reasons they take drugs too.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Splicer-Fox
Posts: 1956
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:38 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Fox fennec springbok thing
Region: Gauteng
Location: Thailand
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#19

Post by Splicer-Fox »

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:
I meant to say ignoring examples.
Did I not say there are countrys that can pull it off and benefit?
Rakuen Growlithe wrote: You're not just doubling the amount of drugs, you're not punishing people for using them.
By legalising drugs you aren't going to be helping gangs, you will actually be breaking their control.
O_O... You really don't think that giving full right to produce and sell drugs will in any way help drug syndicates gather more finances and push the produce more and get more people addicted? Explain.
Rakuen Growlithe wrote: There's not really a reason for the number of people who use drugs to increase either.
Lets see... more people will have access to drugs ant thus more likely to get addicted and more people will get pushed into it as it becomes a cheaper fad.
Rakuen Growlithe wrote: Let's take you as an example, you obviously aren't in favour of drugs so you're not going to use them just because you are suddenly allowed to. If drugs are legal you can also remove the secrecy and fear which can cause problems of their own, drug mules as one example.
Indeed I have no interest in drugs, but the last thing I want is more of the problems drugs create in a functional society and economy.
Rakuen Growlithe wrote:
I'm not just saying toss drugs out there and things will be better but the evidence from countries that have relaxed drug laws supports the idea that less strict controls of drugs will actually improve the situation.
Like I said too: Yes legalized drugs can indirectly help our research, economy, society ect.
Will we get to that point here and now.
Hell no.

Finally we agreed on the one thing.
Rakuen Growlithe wrote:I was saying that's a possibility because no new evidence was presented that supports your version of how things would play out.
Huh..?
You have Google and common scene right?
Unless you want do bring forth evidence that I am wrong.
User avatar
Ryall
Spotted Scallywag
Posts: 2760
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:25 pm
Gender: Male
Species: Hyena
Region: Gauteng

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#20

Post by Ryall »

Rakuen Growlithe wrote: That part isn't speculation but their scenarios about what would happen are speculation. It's worse than speculation actually because it's not what has happened in other countries. Maybe there are cultural differences and so different places will react differently but Portugal also had fears of being overrun with drugs that turned out to be unfounded.

The other part that they leave out is alcohol. The studies I originally started the thread with were very clear that alcohol is more dangerous than drugs. That means there is a problem with the law in that either drugs should be allowed, which has been successful in places, or alcohol should also be made illegal, which has not been successful, in order to be consistent. That page you linked to made no complaints against alcohol but quick look at the National Institute of Justice webpage shows that alcohol is just as bad as drugs.

"Between 1993 and 2004, victims reported that 43 percent of all nonfatal intimate partner violence involved the presence of alcohol or drugs, another 7 percent involved both alcohol and drugs, and 6 percent involved drugs alone."
"A domestic violence fatality review study in New Mexico documented that alcohol and drugs were present in 65 percent of 46 domestic violence homicides between 1993 and 1996: 43 percent abused alcohol and 22 percent abused drugs."
" Victims and family members reported that 92 percent of assailants used drugs or alcohol during the day of the assault. They also reported that 67 percent had used a combination of cocaine and alcohol, which forms cocaethylene, a substance that produces heightened and prolonged intoxication."
You're simply speculating that because Portugal relaxed their drug laws and no immediate catastrophe happened, then it can't be too bad if we were to do the same here.
You agreed that it would be better for communities if there was a successful strategy to reduce drug usage. There is no way that 'decriminalising' drug usage is going to reduce drug usage ; if anything, it will increase it, and seeing as producing drugs is still illegal, all the things about gangsterism and trafficking will still apply.
One also needs to consider whether Portugal's methods of controlling drug usage before it was legal were at all effective, because it's likely that they were so poor anyway that they might have been 'legal' all along - for a country which is currently teetering on bankruptcy, it's not an impressive case study.

With regards to alcohol being the most dangerous drug, please define 'dangerous' because it is not the most addictive drug physically or mentally, nor is it the most damaging to its users (again, physically or mentally), nor does it evoke the most aggressive, anti-social behaviour - it's simply the most widely spread, and all those statistics you just posted are indicative of nothing more than this being the case. It would be interesting to see how those stats in South Africa would look if SAB were allowed to mass produce its own brand of cheap, accessible tik.

Also, simply pointing fingers at alcohol and saying ,"but that's allowed!?" is a poor argument. Law, and indeed the universe has never worked in the definite: it has always been shades of grey. Just because Alcohol is legal doesn't mean all drugs should be legal, and visa versa. Alcohol is not dangerously addictive like other street drugs (you can't go into cold-turkey from not having alcohol), and so it is a fairly safe assumption to make that most people will use it responsibly. Of course there will be alcoholics, and alcohol is known to impair our decision making abilities, but as a coping mechanism and social utility, it is far more manageable and less damaging than drugs are.
Rakuen Growlithe wrote:Yes, drugs cause all sorts of problems and the current way of dealing with them is not effective. The drug effects won't change if you legalise them but there will be a decrease in gang violence. Gangs are funded through drugs because they control it completely. It's not the only illegal activities they are involved in but it is the main way they function. Will there still be a black market if drugs are available elsewhere? Perhaps but there isn't much of a black market for alcohol.
That is speculation, but it is sound speculation. Yes there may be less gang related crime if we legalise drugs but that decrease might be offset by the increase in crimes from an increase in drug users; unfortunately we can only speculate here because your case of Portugal only decriminalized drug usage and so as I mentioned above, there would be no effect on the gangs. If anything, gang activity might increase to meet an increase in demand for drugs because there is less pressure on drug users - only time will tell.

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:The difference there is that I don't think you should be going after the users. And in some cases they should rather do drugs than alcohol. That said I don't think people do drugs because they think it's a good idea. Education might reduce usage but a lot of drinking and drugs, particularly in poor areas, is to escape the conditions they are in. It's pointless to go after drugs unless you do something about the reasons they take drugs too.
Well, that's why I said
Ryall wrote:...and an improvement on living standards: poor people need better pastimes than drug abuse to escape their desperate living conditions.
Easier said than done though right? heh
Hahaha! :lol:
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#21

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Splicer-Fox wrote:O_O... You really don't think that giving full right to produce and sell drugs will in any way help drug syndicates gather more finances and push the produce more and get more people addicted? Explain.
Well perhaps what I originally said wasn't very good, the whole legalising vs decriminalising. Though some would be better with one and not the other. Why it wouldn't lead to a huge increase. You know what drugs do and you make your decision on whether or not to use them based on that. The law is a deterrent but we really do what we feel we should do. You don't like drugs and won't use them whether they are legal or not. Some people want what drugs give and don't care whether they are legal or not. Ones in the middle are just curious and they might try more but they aren't likely to suddenly desire drugs. It's extremely easy to get drugs, because they aren't regulated, so if anyone wants to use drugs they already have the opportunity.
Splicer-Fox wrote:Huh..?
You have Google and common scene right?
Unless you want do bring forth evidence that I am wrong.
Minor digression: It's not my responsibility to research your position. If you make a claim it is your responsibility to back it up. Also I can't bring evidence that you are wrong because you can't prove a negative. You can only show support for a positive and the more of that that there is the less likely that the negative is.
Ryall wrote:You agreed that it would be better for communities if there was a successful strategy to reduce drug usage. There is no way that 'decriminalising' drug usage is going to reduce drug usage ; if anything, it will increase it, and seeing as producing drugs is still illegal, all the things about gangsterism and trafficking will still apply.
One also needs to consider whether Portugal's methods of controlling drug usage before it was legal were at all effective, because it's likely that they were so poor anyway that they might have been 'legal' all along - for a country which is currently teetering on bankruptcy, it's not an impressive case study.
I don't know exactly how well enforced their drug laws were before but what they found was that that there was a decrease in drug usage and where there was an increase that increase was smaller than in other countries in which drugs were illegal.
Ryall wrote:With regards to alcohol being the most dangerous drug, please define 'dangerous' because it is not the most addictive drug physically or mentally, nor is it the most damaging to its users (again, physically or mentally), nor does it evoke the most aggressive, anti-social behaviour - it's simply the most widely spread, and all those statistics you just posted are indicative of nothing more than this being the case. It would be interesting to see how those stats in South Africa would look if SAB were allowed to mass produce its own brand of cheap, accessible tik.
Since this keeps coming up here is the graph from the study on the most harmful drugs. It shows all the drugs as ranked by total harm from left to right and the size of each coloured portion is the amount that that factor contributed to the drug's ranking.
Screenshot-1.png
So alcohol for example has less drug-specific mortality than heroin but more than cocaine. And tabaco and alcohol cause the most drug-specific damage. LSD and mushrooms for example show a lot of mental impairment but pretty much no mortality, damage or addictiveness.
Ryall wrote: Also, simply pointing fingers at alcohol and saying ,"but that's allowed!?" is a poor argument. Law, and indeed the universe has never worked in the definite: it has always been shades of grey. Just because Alcohol is legal doesn't mean all drugs should be legal, and visa versa. Alcohol is not dangerously addictive like other street drugs (you can't go into cold-turkey from not having alcohol), and so it is a fairly safe assumption to make that most people will use it responsibly. Of course there will be alcoholics, and alcohol is known to impair our decision making abilities, but as a coping mechanism and social utility, it is far more manageable and less damaging than drugs are.
I'm not saying because it's allowed others should be allowed as an argument. I'm just asking for consistency.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Splicer-Fox
Posts: 1956
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:38 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Fox fennec springbok thing
Region: Gauteng
Location: Thailand
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#22

Post by Splicer-Fox »

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:Well perhaps what I originally said wasn't very good, the whole legalising vs decriminalising. Though some would be better with one and not the other. Why it wouldn't lead to a huge increase.
It would increase becous it will be.
1. Easier for people to get them that otherwise wouldn't know where to look.
2. Fads that support drugs wont be clamped by the law, this in turn will allow them to grow and get new members and support
3. People that sell drugs can now freely push people into buying drugs
4. the resources of the sellers will increase and become cheaper allowing them to go after more client than ever before.
Basically: more people will be able OR be pushed into making the choice.
Rakuen Growlithe wrote:You know what drugs do and you make your decision on whether or not to use them based on that. The law is a deterrent but we really do what we feel we should do. You don't like drugs and won't use them whether they are legal or not. Some people want what drugs give and don't care whether they are legal or not. Ones in the middle are just curious and they might try more but they aren't likely to suddenly desire drugs.
And it is initially your choice to start taking drugs but stopping is a different story.
The less drugs there are the less people that make the choice can find it and mess things up.

And all addictive drugs are still regulated and I am sure that "if they were not": more people will be in the trouble of addiction. And a fact is: people that get addicted have their lives ruined. Make hangers on like family suffer for it. And do very stupid things like car accidents, murder and crime to sport their addiction.

And like I said, I don't care about them or their family but they do ruin things for everybody and that is way I don't want more running around the place than there already is. (pick up a news paper or something so you can see what the law is trying to stop).

You made that Logic up didn't you?
Go pick up a news paper or just ask people (doctors, police, counselors, psychiatrist, ect.) Why narcotic drugs are illegal and what they think will happen if the law simply leaves it alone. (the logic you used was laughable)
Rakuen Growlithe wrote:Minor digression: It's not my responsibility to research your position. If you make a claim it is your responsibility to back it up. Also I can't bring evidence that you are wrong because you can't prove a negative. You can only show support for a positive and the more of that that there is the less likely that the negative is.
ohhh dear. you cant prove me wrong? :P What a nice way to put it.
I know you would fly in my face with evidence if you could.
And since that is the case you cannot denounce my credibility now can you?

You say it is impossible for anyone to show evidence to disprove something? (really now)

Tell me...
Why should i not go and quote a whole bunch of stuff and ask you to prove your statement with evidence it is based on?
How about the one on top there?

Your full of shit Rakuen Growlithe.
Anyone reading can see 4 attempts at your mind game.
You took your time to justify yourself. (1st attempt)
you have no new evidence for the same subject so your wrong. (2nd attempt)
I your logic is not valid because it needs proof but mine does not. (free drugs and crime)
I don't need to prove your wrong you just are. (just now)

I told you it wont work on me.

and I am no longer interested in this topic.
It was a really interesting topic while it lasted but I am not going on further.
No new Ideas were given or information.
all that is happening is people tying to question creditability and common scene.

I am done here.
User avatar
Ryall
Spotted Scallywag
Posts: 2760
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:25 pm
Gender: Male
Species: Hyena
Region: Gauteng

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#23

Post by Ryall »

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:It shows all the drugs as ranked by total harm
The problem there is the word total. In total there are a lot more alcohol users, so of course the total damages would be higher.

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:I'm not saying because it's allowed others should be allowed as an argument. I'm just asking for consistency.
The law doesn't have to be consistent though: discretion is advised. There's reason why alcohol is legal while other drugs are not - it's not completely arbitrary.

The only consistency the law needs, it gets from the constitution, and from judicial president.


EDIT: *looks up at splicer having posted just before myself* Oh my, there's now a queue to argue with Rakuen. :P
Hahaha! :lol:
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#24

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Splicer-Fox wrote:It would increase becous it will be.
1. Easier for people to get them that otherwise wouldn't know where to look.
2. Fads that support drugs wont be clamped by the law, this in turn will allow them to grow and get new members and support
3. People that sell drugs can now freely push people into buying drugs
4. the resources of the sellers will increase and become cheaper allowing them to go after more client than ever before.
Basically: more people will be able OR be pushed into making the choice.
And yet that doesn't happen with any other products, or if it does certainly not to the extent that you seem to think will happen.
Splicer-Fox wrote: You made that Logic up didn't you?
Go pick up a news paper or just ask people (doctors, police, counselors, psychiatrist, ect.) Why narcotic drugs are illegal and what they think will happen if the law simply leaves it alone. (the logic you used was laughable)
We know why they're illegal. I wasn't advocating just ignoring them. Alcohol is not left alone but it is legal. Making drugs illegal is not making less of them. They are around and they are very easy to get. It's not that people will suddenly find them because they can already find them and get them more easily than legal products like alcohol.
Splicer-Fox wrote:ohhh dear. you cant prove me wrong? :P What a nice way to put it.
I know you would fly in my face with evidence if you could.
And since that is the case you cannot denounce my credibility now can you?

You say it is impossible for anyone to show evidence to disprove something? (really now)
How could I possibly prove you wrong? You made a situation where drugs were made legal and the country collapsed. There isn't a situation like that, the closest thing is where drugs were decriminalised and the situation improved. That's as close to proving you wrong as it gets. The only other way to prove you wrong where for drugs to be made legal and see what happens. I can't do that.

I could make the claim that the moon is pulled around the Earth by invisible unicorns. That doesn't mean that that statement has any merit. The only time I can expect someone to take that claim seriously is if I provide evidence of unicorns pulling the moon. You can either agree that unicorns pull the moon or you can post evidence that supports your scenario.
Ryall wrote: The problem there is the word total. In total there are a lot more alcohol users, so of course the total damages would be higher.
The scoring has nothing to do with the number of users.
Ryall wrote:The law doesn't have to be consistent though: discretion is advised. There's reason why alcohol is legal while other drugs are not - it's not completely arbitrary.
It should be consistent. If one drug is banned for being harmful and another drug is also harmful then it should be treated the same way. There is a reason why alcohol is legal and that is that it has been ubiquitous in human culture and seen as socially acceptable. It's not legal because it's harmless.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#25

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Auric Silverwing wrote: Nope.

Guns, cigarettes and alcohol are legal because white men produce them.

Marijuana, Cocaine, etc are illegal because brown men produce them.

It sounds ridiculous, but if the situation were reversed, the UN, EU and USA were hispanic-run, then you'd go to jail for smoking, but weed would be OK.
o.0 Er... That's a bit of weird idea. It's not about who produces them. A lot of drugs, the synthesised ones anyway, were developed in Europe and America. Some of them, like tik, were developed by the military and given to soldiers. If white people wanted to produce those sorts of drugs then they could easily. Smoking was also developed in South America and only brought to Europe later.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Fluke
Tyrant's Eye
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 12:47 am
Region: Other

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#26

Post by Fluke »

Sigh, I really am never in the mood to read the wall of text's

But!

Image
User avatar
Splicer-Fox
Posts: 1956
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:38 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Fox fennec springbok thing
Region: Gauteng
Location: Thailand
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#27

Post by Splicer-Fox »

I see that you can just buy CBD e-liquid now.
The people at Vape-King say they don't even vape it.
They just drip it on their tongues.
User avatar
jacojerb
Posts: 1863
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:04 am
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Gay
Species: bunny/fox
Region: Gauteng
Location: Pretoria east

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#28

Post by jacojerb »

Interesting thread... I kinda skimmed a lot of it, and a big problem I see is how it's all black and white, yes or no.

For starters, the word "drugs", which includes everything from weed to krokodil (or however it's spelled). How is there just a "yes" and "no" vote, when some drugs are more harmful than others

Secondly, legalizing something for recreational use is different from, say, legalizing it for research. With all drugs, they really should start by doing proper research on all the potential benifits and potential ill-effects. Maybe we could even alter the drugs, refine it in such a way to have maximum benifits with minimum ill-effects... I don't know. But really, it should all start with finding out exactly what we're dealing with

If you find some benifits in drugs, perhaps you can sell them as pharmaceuticals. I know, people also abuse legal drugs, but if it needs to be handed out by a registered pharmacists, that does make a huge difference. The way you guys were discussing it, made it sound like heroin will be available in Spar, at the tills, next to the chocolates

Finally, what should we actually legalize for recreational use, and how should we go about it? One could argue that anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies, but when there are substances that are highly addictive that can make a person a harm to themselves and to others, well, that argument sounds pretty weak. So where should you draw the line?

I'm personally a fan of psychedelics (that being LSD and shrooms). As far as we know, it causes no physical ill-effects (apart from some de-hydration, I think)... Please do correct me if I'm wrong. People can still harm themselves while under the influence, and a "bad trip" is something that can scar a person for life, but both of these risks can be limited, in some extent, by having it take place in a safe, friendly environment, and also by making sure the person doesn't take a higher dosage than he can handle. Also, not addicting...

But having these available for anyone to use... Still seems dangerous. You definitely don't want someone who is tripping driving a car, for example, but we already regulate this for alcohol. Also, if anyone were to break any laws while under the influence (as a silly example, let's say stripping in public), they should probably still be responsible for their actions, as with alcohol, but with harder drugs, it'll be easier for people to blame the drug, and not themselves. This could lead to a mess, if the laws aren't clear on the matter. If the law is very strict on the matter, not letting people use drugs as a scapegoat from the law, then I honestly think most people would use it in a responsible manner. Even so, I think making judgements like "should I drive" is a lot easier to do on acid than it is on alcohol...

One more thing I'd like to bring up is that we definitely need to change the way we deal with illegal drug users. A lot of people who use drugs really need help. Instead they get a criminal record... Talk about kicking someone when they're down. Rehab needs to be less like a prison and more like a hospital (well, to be fair, I don't really know what rehab is like, as I've never been to one). In America, it's especially bad. For possession of a small amount of drugs, you go to jail... And what happens next? They say normal people going to jail come out as criminals, which isn't really unreasonable. If your now can't get a job almost anywhere and are forced to spent days, weeks or months with a bunch of criminals.... Well, crime pays more than joblessness does
Mew?
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#29

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

I'm not sure it's really necessary to revive a 7-year-old discussion thread but let me remind everyone of the rules.
you are not permitted to:
  • Self-incriminate. This means you may not admit to having committed any crime, however minor.
  • Accuse somebody of a crime. We suggest you take it to your local police station instead.
  • Coax, coerce, pressurise, or otherwise encourage somebody to commit a crime.
That said, there has been a lot of interesting movement on the subject, particularly the recreational use of marijuana. While there is conflict between federal and state laws in the US, there is a rapidly growing acceptance of its use. There is also the potential that it could be legalised through court action in South Africa as well, though I'm not sure what the status there is.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Animew
Banter kitty
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:45 pm
Species: Animu cat

Re: Should Drugs be Legalised?

#30

Post by Animew »

Rakuen Growlithe wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2011 3:58 pm unscientific
hehehe, oh firedog, i can give you many scientific reasons why drugs should be illegal. UwU/ but i wont, because i totes agree... instead of calling it unscientific to criminalize drugs tho i'd call it just plain illogical. if there is really a need to control the usage of drugs why not make it legal under license? it works for pharmaceutical drugs, why not for narcotic drugs?

what people do to themselves should be up to them, legalizing suicide should be a thing also.
much like suicide, drug's moral dilemma comes not from the harm it does to the person taking the drugs but the harm it does to the people close to the person taking the drugs. UwU/ taking the rout of cold logic i'd say: fuckem, its not their lives so its not their business.
taking the less cold and more moral rout: legalese it yes, but restrict usage to those over the age of 21 and to those with no dependents.

<w< i would totes make a joke about prof "Nutt" being a mad scientist or sexologist but i'm fairly sure i'll find that the joke has already been made in the sprawling expanse of responses that i simply wont read because TLDR.
Duck face? i thought they were all just making fart noises when posing for pictures...
Post Reply