Legalized Drugs..........
Yep I started it. I'm goin home right now and hopefully some of you will express your thoughts and I'll check up on em in a few hours..
This would increase revenue for our government....through taxation
Reduce the amount of uneccesary jail terms
Cou,ld theoretically decrease certain crimes
depends on the drug...pot yes, crank not so much
I am in favor of the legalization and regulation of natural occuring "drugs".
Specifically pot. I could probably be persuaded into accepting 'Shrooms as well.
Chemical drugs are a different matter.
Kilmer, just curious as to why you see a distinction? Its kind of like the argument some make for 'natural' vs. artificial food products. Arsenic is natural, doesn't make it a good dietary addition. Whether the government allowed marijuana sales or THC I don't really see the difference. I am fairly 'libertarian' in my beliefs to a certain extent. My only reservation with de-criminalizing some of the 'lesser' recreational drugs is that I think it would make them more available. I think there are many Americans who might be tempted to use drugs if they could easily acquire them with no risk of getting 'caught' and avoid potential embarassment/hassle that entails. I guess some might argue increased drug use is not a serious societal detriment (anymore than legal alcohol use) but having done a fair amount of experimentation in my youth, I don't buy that, at least not from my experience. I do think reducing the 'criminality' of simple possession laws across the US might make some sense in order to allow courts to address more serious crime.
I would have little issue legalizing most drugs, but it would have to be done in a very specific, very focused way. First, anyone who wants to use drugs -- whatever list we come up with can be discussed later -- has to register themselves as a legal drug user. We should charge for the license to use legal drugs.
Then, that information will be tied to a national database funded by the license charge, to each person's driving record. You will agree, as a legal drug user, that if you are stopped for any traffic violation whatsoever that you will submit to a blood and/or urine test.
This will protect those of us who wouldn't use drugs from the drug driving. It would be a legitimate trade off. The punishment for driving while on a legal drug would be very severe. In addition, you will agree to use legal drugs in such a fashion as to make it impossible for anyone else to be exposed. This means in your home. If a neighbor can smell it, you're doing it the wrong way
Other than that, I don't care what people do. If you take basic safeguards to protect the citizens who will avoid such behavior I have no issue allowing it.
If the ESFP has not developed their Thinking side by giving consideration to rational thought processing, they tend to become over-indulgent, and place more importance on immediate sensation and gratification than on their duties and obligations. They may also avoid looking at long-term consequences of their actions.
In theory, I have no issue with the legalization of drugs...and, hey, it'd create a new class of 'debate' on the net
Like Art, why not those who choose to drink? Or
Kilmer17, what's defined as natural versus man-made (and yes, we have those arguments over food products)
A bad plan well executed may work. A good plan badly executed will always fail.
OPM,
There is a quick breath test you can do for people suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol. That's not the same as for people suspected driving while under the influence of pot or other drugs we might make legal. Those people would have to be willing to sign away their rights NOT to submit to that type of test as a trade for using drugs of that nature legally.
As it is, drunks do have to submit to breath tests, or face a refusal charge. Their choice is to ask for a blood test which takes longer and might let a not too drunk person test below the limit, but cops punish you for making that request
If the ESFP has not developed their Thinking side by giving consideration to rational thought processing, they tend to become over-indulgent, and place more importance on immediate sensation and gratification than on their duties and obligations. They may also avoid looking at long-term consequences of their actions.
See -- I was right! New types of arguments! I wasn't even trying
:high:
A bad plan well executed may work. A good plan badly executed will always fail.
Personally, I can't decide what drugs should be legal and what shouldn't. I mean, there are obvious drugs that should be legal; pot, first and foremost. But there are so many things that contribute to this subject. For instance what do you all think about acid? One gram of acid can land you 5-7 years in prison. To me, that is just insane. And how about prescription drugs? Oxycontin, for instance. Oxycotin, is more addictive, just as potent, and harder to kick than heroin. Yet it is legal with a doctor's O.K. I get frustrated just thinking about it all.
But anyway, I look forward to reading the contributions of the board members on this subject.
:high: Legalize..It's everywhere anyhow, not that bad of a drug, and the govt. could tax it. Just pot tho..
I support legalizing pot, as it's only slightly more addicting than caffeine. Quite honestly, I think we'd be an overall more mellow and understanding society if everybody lit up a doobie now and then.
Whether you admit it or not, pot has obvious psychological benefits minus the risk of physical addiction, whereas both tobacco and alcohol are addictive with no visible benefits.
However, I'm adamantly against legalizing most other drugs. Speaking from personal experience, harder drugs will essentially destroy society.
I used to dabble in all kinds of drugs throughout my late teens and into college. Coke, acid, shrooms, mescaline, ketamine, you name, I did it. Fortunately I was able to avoid serious addiction by spreading out my coke binges.
It was not so much the high, since the comedown sucked so much, but the ritual. I would cut some sugar or corn starch, put it on a CD case, and snort it, just for the drip.
Those days have without a doubt damaged my health beyond what I'll ever know. Depression is my main problem. Thanks to my youthful ignorance, the reward/pleasure center of my brain was effectively destroyed. Now when I see my kids graduate, when I hear a moving song, etc. I get immensely less pleasure than non-users. Ironically, the only way I can get to almost normal pleasure levels is with prozac and zoloft. Up 5 years, down forever.
Anyway, the ONLY stuff I stayed away from was heroin and tobacco. Unfortunately my closest friend didn't. I recall being shocked when I saw him stick a FREAKIN' IV directly into his arm to get a "butt rush" as he called it.
About 6 months after graduation, I let him into my apartment because he was so down and out. He ate all my food without pitching in for anything before he started pawning half my stuff on a weekly basis.
I finally got sick of it and dragged him kicking and screaming to rehab. I haven't spoken with him since, and I'm not sure what's become of him.
My point is, tobacco is obviously physically addictive, but rarely does one become psychologically dependent on the tobacco buzz. Advocates of legalizing hard drugs may argue that nicotine is more addictive than heroin, which is true, but tobacco doesn't relax your body so much that you lose control of your bowels and have your problems disassemble before your very eyes only to have them sneak up behind you and bite you on the as$ until you're grovelling for more.
Drugs that have a profound affect on body chemistry combined with an incredibly enjoyable yet incredibly temporary mental state shouldn't be legal.
If H were sold at the corner market, we'd have thousands of new smackheads. Sort of like the people who claim they can't get up without a cup of coffee, they'd be claiming they can't get to sleep without a good shot of smack. It would not be good for society.
A good scientist can distinguish between what drugs should be legal and which shouldn't with plenty of research and experimentation.
Based on my own experimentation
That's just my opinion, though.
Last edited by OrangeSkin; January-30th-2003 at 10:23 PM.
I have to take exception with myself (this is a thread about drugs right?).
I'm actually disappointed in myself that my gut reaction was yes to some but not to all. You see, I like to consider myself something of a libertarian (not to say it's a universal guiding prinicipal, but it is the political viewpoint I tend to agree with more than any other). Basically, I believe that as long as one's actions do not impinge on anyone else in a direct and immediate manner, people should be left to do as they please, and if you want to smoke crack, if thats how you want to live your life, go for it. Personally I would never touch the stuff, free will, in whatever shrinkwrapped packaging I can find it in, is too important to me to use the stuff. But if I so desired to turn myself into a crackhead, and curl up in a dark corner and live my life in a dull haze, who is anyone to say I can't? So yeah, I think drugs should be legalized.
My one concern would be what sort of message legalization of crack and heroin would send to the more impressionable among us, particularly children and Cowboy fans. But when I look at the vehemence with which the anti-smoking campaign has taken a stranglehold on the national consciousness, I don't worry about it. Along that vein, legalization would remove the counter-culture allure of drugs, since you would have large corporations profiting from drug use and the crusaders could put an evil face on drugs much the same way the anti-smoking crusaders have used the tobacco companies' images against them.
Last edited by Yomar; January-30th-2003 at 11:47 PM.
Drug use isn't a victimless crime. Addicts will fiend for a fix. Legalization = more addicts, which equals a huge spike in drug murders and thefts.
that certainly has to be considered, but those people are murders and thieves and should be punished accordingly, I would even be in favor of making harsher, mandatory sentences for these crimes. But I'm not so sure that legalization would create more addicts, or that it would precipitate an increase in violent crime, it might, but I wouldn't say its a given. I don't know for a fact, but I would guess that more violent crime is attributed to drug dealers than drug addicts.
Last edited by Yomar; January-31st-2003 at 12:14 AM.
Drug crimes aren't committed purely to acquire drugs. They're often committed while under the influence. 33% of all state inmates were reported to have been under the influence when they committed their crimes.
A lot of drugs, especially the hardcore disassociatives like PCP can almost induce a state of psychosis. There are hundreds if not thousands of murders committed by PCPers each year. You don't hear about them because they're considered "routine" drug murders by the media and the police.
I can pretty much guarantee that most of the violent drug crimes while not under the influence are committed by junkies. Most traffickers are careful to avoid murders and other violent crimes. They don't want their business being screwed up by a murder charge. These guys are smart; We've made more strides in the war on terrorism in the past 2 years than we have with the war on drugs in the past 20 years.
Traffickers don't murder anybody unless it's in the name of business. Junkies will kill you for 20 bucks without even blinking.
Last edited by OrangeSkin; January-31st-2003 at 12:57 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
View Profile
View Forum Posts
View Forum Threads
Show All Albums
Visit Homepage
View Friends
Reply With Quote
