Drugs - Open for Discussion

http://www.aic.gov.au/research/drugs/stats/druguse.html
from JoeUser Forums
This site is filled with a lot of very smart individuals, and this is a topic that concerns me greatly and a subject of many a debate.

If anyone has read the book ‘High Society’ by Ben Elton, you will be familiar with these ideas. I would like to open this topic for discussion, and hopefully get some educated opinions on the matter.

As we are from all around the world, I expect the opinions will vary greatly, but I would like to see the discussion none the less.

The topic is drugs, and the legalisation of certain substances.

We all know that drugs have an adverse effect on the human body. For a small amount of pleasure, your brain/body will definitely be paying for it in the long run – essentially, this is why drugs are illegal.

We also all know that Alcohol/Tobacco has a rather adverse effect on our bodies, but these substances are legal, so we divulge and binge as much as we see fit – governments around the globe make a lot of money of this, and essentially, this is why these substances are still legal.

The question I ask is this – Why don’t we legalise class A drugs and regulate the use?

My argument for this would be that the money people use to purchase drugs certainly goes to the wrong kind of people at the moment – people who practice prostitution, slave labour and racketeering in general. Drugs have the capacity to generate ridiculous amounts of cash, simply because of the supply and demand – a lot of people want them, only a few people, who have to take a lot of risks, have them – so they can sell them for ridiculous amounts of money to contribute to their own personal wealth.

If the government were to regulate the use, they could be the beneficiaries of these stock piles of cash. Imagine what cocaine or marijuana revenue could do for the public health/education/welfare system? Not only do you prevent these exorbitant amounts of cash getting into the wrong hands, I would say you would put a severe dent in racketeering in general. These are all hypothetical, because we have never seen this in working order. The same people, who sneak the illegal immigrants across the border, are generally the same who sneak the drugs across the border.

I definitely see issues with the regulation of the drugs though – who is to say some 10 year old kid wouldn’t get his hands on a bit of cocaine, and who knows what could happen then. With the money raised, you would hope a fair amount of it would be issued to the education of the negative side effects of drugs to the youth; hopefully this would be a sufficient deterrent.

Whether the authorities like to admit it or not, I can get any drug I want… and I dare say it would be the same for you that live in the cities. People are always going to take drugs… it’s a pro-choice thing. I would like to think that if drugs became readily available, we would still see the same numbers of people abusing them. I don’t think mainstream society would all of the sudden quip ‘yes – its legal to purchase and consume drugs now, I think I might give it a try’ People just aren’t that naïve. They know that the drugs are bad for them, and they should stay away.

In Australia, it is estimated that Alcohol Abuse costs $8billion annually. It is estimated that Australians consume roughly 8 litres per capita (France is 10 litres per capita, but even their children drink wine!), as a Nation of 20 Million that is an awful lot. Alcohol use is also a major cause of drug- or alcohol-related deaths in Australia. In 1998, around 2,000 deaths among persons aged 0-64 years were attributable to the use of alcohol, accounting for 28% of all drug- or alcohol-related deaths in this age group. Tobacco use is the major cause of drug or alcohol-related deaths in Australia. In 1998, around 19,000 deaths were attributable to the use of tobacco, accounting for 80% of all drug-or alcohol-related deaths. It is also concluded that in the 20-29 age group demographic, 40% have used an illicit substance in the last 12 months. Illicit drug use is estimated to have accounted for almost 2% of drug-alcohol related deaths. That’s a pretty strong argument.

I believe there has to be a middle ground somewhere – even if you don’t legalise all class A drugs, the argument in my opinion is a rather strong one, and there has to be room for a compromise somewhere.

I am rather interested to hear your perspectives on this issue – some of you are 18 from Minnesota, and some of you are 32 from London, I would like to know a global view, and educate myself better on this issue.

Thanks

(as a side note – yes, I have taken drugs, and honestly, I believe I am responsible enough to choose what I do to my own body, and yes, I would like to see them legalised and regulated to a degree, so its easier to get them, and when I do purchase them, I know the money is going to our government rather than financing racketeering.)

6,804 views 21 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Awfully altruistic of you to give want to give to Government so. Here in U.S.A. I haven't studied the history of cocaine, but know it was sold by travelling salesmen as far back as horse-drawn carts. Sigmund Freud drove himself crazy right in front of the world by its' abuse, as a major advocate and arguing it was a wonder drug. The text, "Doctor Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde" is also about cocaine addiction, so there are those who have pointed out its deleterious effects as long.
Today, the abuse has ruined many a career and social life in Hollywood - as well as anywhere America - and does indeed cause much property crime and death. I really don't see how such a drug 'of choice' should ever be condoned by our Government. The liability of it would cost us billions and be similar to knowing cigarettes have carcinogens, then selling them. We've seen hundreds of billions paid on such claims here, and it would not be wise fiscally or for health care to legalize cocaine, in my opinion.
Weed is different, and anyone who reads the history of its use will have to agree. In all the thousands of years of its use there is no one ovderdose anywhere by it. It may well have carcinogens that could lead to civil claims though. In my opinion it would make many a young person, and old politician re-think going to war if they took ten minutes to smoke some before deciding. I'm sure the confectioners would not mind if it were legalized. In the States where it has been de-criminalized (that is made a civil offense akin to a parking ticket, having no victim as in other crimes) there seems no consequence of negative value at all. It is a weed that grows wild by just throwing it on the ground in the U.S.A.. The history of the film, created at behest of Randolph Hearst titled, 'Reefer Madness' was main cause of its outlawry, and we know how he and others profited in wood pulp sales from this fraudulent mis-representation of the plant. The effect on Kentusky economy alone was significant. This is something government could clearly legalize or de-criminalize without any effect, save the loss of some productive labor at SOME jobs (not all) and definitely generate a few bucks in taxes on its use and transport interstate.
If they want to get criminals in the drug trade, they should go after the pharmaceutical companies who deliberately and knowingly sell the same drugs to each country based upon the per capita considerations, allowing Americans to pay many times more than a Mexican or Canadian for the identical drug. Far be it from the way things are really done here though, the Feds are attempting to outlaw Americans from accessing these drugs from Canada for lower prices, in an effort to force us to pay more to the Pharmaceutical Companies.
Likewise we recently had the drug known as 'Ephedra' ordered outlawed by our Federal Government, which is precedent setting and a dangerous precedent at that. Without any hearing, appeal, or other notice it just, on its own, without tort or scientific process to detemine its value, they just outlawed it. Little do people realize it is a natural occuring product and the only benefit in its outlawry is the pharmaceutical Companies once again.
Here in the U.S.A., the pharmaceutical Companies are just criminally out of control with their price fixing and government forced use. The rate of autism is at about 10% I read (an incredible number) because of known mercury and other toxins deliberately put into our children's vaccines, which are forced on them to even go to school. It's a crime against humanity and they should be strung up like the SS scientists should have been after WWII in my opinion. I've put up several articles and blogs on this for parents and people in general to try to inform them, hoping to save just one life by it.
The history of medicines is as corrupt and criminal as the history of 'organized' religion, and preys upon the peoples' lack of understanding, actually consciously trying to hold them in ignorance so as to profit at their life expense. I could go on and on about it, but I'd be off-topic and so will spare everyone this rant for now.
My point is that one must review the pharmaceutical companies and the control of government in any consideration of legalization. Why shouldn't you or I be able to make money off sales of marijuana if it is legalized? If we want privatization, then I would say that is privatization in its purest form. This is not what they mean by the term though. What they mean, is to allow their campaign contributors and friends to have exclusive control over sales when the politicians say it and 'privatization' is how they pull off the scam.
This subject has many other facets to cover that I won't go into here and now, such as the cost to society of imprisoning drug addicts - and for prolonged sentences property criminals don't get as well. There are certain facts economically, the Americans are not made aware of under the present system and laws. if you put a kid in a McDonalds type job, he generates $6.00 an hour for economy tax-base. If you put the same kid in a prison for three years for a joint of marijuana, there is a job of $30,000.00 plus for a guard - and other costs to tax-payers- to keep him imprisoned. Then put him of parole for years after release and you can have him paying fines as an indentured servant (qua, slave) for even more years, paying parole officers and others for this dis-service to the Country.
So, for my two cents, I say legalize marijuana? Yes. Legalize cocaine? No. Letting Government be sole seller? Think long and hard about it.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
because of known mercury and other toxins deliberately put into our children's vaccines


Cite source.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I say, if you can predict the effect of the substance, as in alcohol, you can set legal standards for it. If not, you can't. The problem with marijuana is you can effect other people by using it. I have felt woozy at concerts before without using anything personally. If you drink alcohol, you only effect your own body. If you use it within legal guidelines, i.e. not driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level, you are only risking your own body. I may be wrong, but few substances can be regulated that way. Can they make a prediction like, "If a person weighing X lbs taking Y grams of cocaine will be okay." ? If not, they can't legalize it.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Cocaine was legal in the United States at one time, but the effects were disasterous, so it was made illegal. There are better ways of dealing with drug abuse than legalization of its use. Drug court keeps abusers out of prison. Giving treatment to whoever wanted it would lessen its abuse. Making something legal doesn't make it harmless. As for ephedra, which is an ingredient in a methampetamines, has been associated with many deaths.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem is that research on majiuana was out-lawed, so they will never find out the exact effects.

Marijuana, LSD, and the substance now know as exctasy (i forget it's name) are the only 3 drugs classified in the catagory of not being allowed to be researched. And not for very valid reasons, mostly to help with the situation of counter culture. Ya dig?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Excstasy is MDMA... it releases seratonin from your brain into the rest of your body and you feel euphoric. it is an excellent combination with good techno music ;)

Kids - dont do drugs. The come down is rather terrible... you will feel depressed for a number of hours, and sometimes paranoid.

'If you drink alcohol, you only effect your own body'

JillUser... i know in theory, this is correct... but i see all too often people dying on the roads from drunk driving, and many a drunken bar fight... Sexual Harrasment, Domestic Abuse... I am not saying some illicit drugs dont have these effects... i am just implying that the effects of alcohol do stem a lot deeper than killing ones own braincells.

You argue that Marajuana effects other people, no less than cigarettes... still legal... and the side effects of smoking... i dont really need to elaborate.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Muggaz, again you didn't bother to really read what I said. I specified that if you used alcohol within legal limits (i.e. not driving with an illegal blood alcohol limit) you would be only effecting your own body. I am aware of all of the problems linked with alcohol abuse. If you have one alcoholic drink, it is pretty much gauranteed you aren't going to harm anyone. Noone can predict how someone will behave following a dose of LSD or excstasy.

Second hand cigarette smoke does not make you high.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am an avid drug user. I am a father of two kids. A graduate 2nd in my class. I own a small business. I am a member of NORML(National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws).

The drug war is a sham and anyone who believes different just hasn't done the research. Are drugs addictive? Hell yes. If you can feel good all the damn time then you might fool yourself into thinking drugs are the answer just like millions of people do with alcohol.

I have friends who are hopelessly hooked on methamphetamines. I can understand why they started. Who doesn't want to be alive, awake and full of inspriation and ambition? The problem is the addiction. And with Meth the addiction rate is roughly 90% from the last statistics I read (which is probably an understatement from my experiences). Sure speed freaks start out working overtime, keeping the house spotless, etc. But within several weeks or months of being on it constantly it is a completely different picture. The house smells like cat shit and clothes are everywhere and nothing is clean.

I smoke Marijuana because I like the affect it has on my mind as well as how it helps with the pain of my Fibromyalgia and Hidradenitis Suppurvita. I have smoked Marijuana since I was 12. The marines and sailors would stop at the ports in Guam and get us kids high. Go Military ~snickers~. I did get addicted to pot. My mom and dad always told me it was bad and would make me crazy. It was those lies that made me experiment with other drugs. It was the lies that did it. I don't believe kids should be smoking pot personally. I smoked pot because my family life sucked! It was an outlet at the time, unfortuneately for me it also became an addiction that led into even worse drugs and worse addictions. I was fortuneate at some point in my life that I received the gift of accountability, however I have some friends who still dont' have it and they are in their 30's.

You are going to find people who abuse everything and that equates to some bad programming by their parents, especially if they have never been instilled with accountability. Really, it is more than just a word ~grins~. People abuse sex, over the counter drugs, gambling, work, etc. It seems we all have a krutch of some kind wheather it be fanaticisim in religion, drugs, work, etc. Although we view some of these addictions as beneficial there is no such thing as a benificial obssession. ~smiles~
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem is that research on majiuana was out-lawed, so they will never find out the exact effects.



It has been researched several times and is heavily researched in other countries. They have found every claim that our governemnt flouts to be an out and out lie. Marijuana.com, Hightimes.com and some other sights can fill you in on current research in this matter.

Everytime a president like Nixion has been given the detail of scientific findings and proof by the scientific community that Marijuana should not be illegal. The president has found it fitting to throw it in the garbage and double efforts and waste tax payers money to spew rhetoric to our people instead of truth.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
JillUser... i read exactly what you said! i am not that rude!

however, i dont think you have read what i have said... From personal experience, i would rather be talking to someone who is on MDMA or LSD rather than someone who has been drinking all night. MDMA and LSD are relaxants... Alcohol fosters destructive behavior.

The users who do use alcohol withing the legal limits (you can drink as much in the privacy of your own homes) are the perpitrators of the domestic abuse etc. You dont really acknowledge that this happens, just because you dont know to much about the abuse of alcohol - i am actually a bit amazed that its such a non-issue to you, because i consider it a massive one.

Passive cigarette smoke can still get you cancer...

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Muggaz, I know plenty about the abuse of alcohol and other drugs. I have family members that have flushed their lives down the toilet due to both. Domestic abuse can't be pawned off on alcohol either. There are many people that will get destructive no matter what they are or aren't using.

So, are you passively saying I am rude by saying you don't think I read what you said? I read what you said. I just didn't see why you would bring up drunk driving if you had read all of what I had said. You might not think you are rude but you are definitely condescending.

I am in no way saying that alcohol abuse or abuse of anything is acceptable. I am saying I think it is naive to think that there would be any circumstance where other substances could be legalized and regulated. I don't like the idea of drunks behind the wheel and I don't like the idea of someone on LSD behind the wheel any better.

How do you determine a "safe" amount of MDMA or LSD? How do you test, like with a breathalizer, if someone is outside a legal limit? What kind of liability would be attached to someone supplying such substances? These are questions that would need solid, proven answers before you could set any kind of legal limits.

Second hand marijuana smoke can give you cancer and get you high. Neither are good. If I had it my way, I would never be exposed to cigarette smoke. It smells nasty, makes my eyes burn and gives me a headache. The world isn't perfect. I don't see how making more drugs legal is going in the right direction.

Too many people try to escape reality rather than trying to make it a better reality. Just say what you want, do what you want and screw anyone that disagrees. Is that the kind of society we really want?

I can certainly see why people use drugs to deal with pain. I have been in pain so severe that I needed drugs. They certainly have a purpose but they can so easily be abused.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

The basic problem of Marijuana as opposed to other drugs is that it gives a contact high. I just don't see how it could ever be legalized because of that. You would have to have all kinds of restrictions on it because of its direct affect on people nearby.

If I go to a bar, as much as I dislike cigarette smoke, it doesn't alter my consciousness.  I would have the same problem with alcohol if people drinking caused me to get drunk along with them simply because I was standing nearby.

I tend to think that cigarettes should not be legal for similar (though not as significant) reasons. Peoples rights end when they infringe on the rights of others. I'd be all for legalizing pot if it were restricted to those who lived in their own homes (not apartments, not condos) who don't have any minors in the house. But I don't see that happening.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry Jilluser... i am a condescending fool :(

I brought up the drink driving because you said if you drink, you only effect your own body... that is unless you crash into a family of six people while under the influence.

I just think that is is double standards to have alcohol and cigarettes available when quite clearly they cause a lot of harm... You either have to compromise with the drugs, or bring a hard line in...

I like your point Brad that pot could be legalised in the confines of your own home... but i also agree that i dont really see it happening either.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you tried to make something legal for only those who own their own homes, you would have so many people crying discrimination that the idea wouldn't get off the ground. I just don't see any way of regulating it. I don't dispute the fact that alcohol and cigarettes cause a lot of harm. They tried outlawing alcohol here in the US. It didn't work out too well but I would sooner be in favor of outlawing alcohol and cigarettes than for legalizing LSD and the like.

The fact of the matter is, a big enough number of people who use abuse. They screw things up for the people who are responsible for their actions. It only takes a few people doing very bad things while under the influence of a substance for people to get outraged.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
A bog problem come when you try to make something illegal that is done by a large number of people. In France, it is believed that more than 10% of the population is smoking or had smoked marijuana at least once. It's quiet a significant number. The law in France made them all potentially on their way to jail or heavy fee. Except with this, this people are normal people from every background and often young. They do not harm to anyone except that their money is fueled into underground economy and so help dealers, pimp and a lot of people that are outlaw and subsquently promote illegal activities

As a former smoker (tobacco and canabis), I have always been and still am for a regulated distribution with state taxation and special shops for selling and consummation. This is my position for canabis, I m not sure about other drugs as I'm unexperienced about them. But I think that someone who is seriously addicted need some help to stay within the limit of the law (ie. methadone programe, accomodation and food) Actually it is cheaper to help addicted than to treat them as criminalised as it has been showed by several real scale studies done in Germany, in Switerland and Netherland.

One big problem with drug came from the lack of pragmatism around the way to handle it for the state. One always forget that the use of drug is as old as human. Probably than before the use was more codified and with a purpose. The danger came from drugs usage without education and frame, it leave you with all the excess (addiction, overdose, brainless...)
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I guess we'll just keep buying it from the network of Oliver North, Barry Seal (oh, he's dead from them needing to get at his diary, flight records, receipts, and tapes, so used the Congessional hearings to gain authority to access his Swiss bank account), Roger and Bill Clinton's (one was arrested for possession, the other had his face re-constructed due to burnt out sinuses. Of course he won't release his med. records, but a viewing of video of his press conferences show the lines, even with the make-up and hollywood directed lighting, if you ever look)gang under Jackson Stephens in Arkansa, and let's not forget the man who holds the distinction of being nicknamed "Poppy" Bush to his smuggling friends George H.W. Bush (the one who says he was not CIA in 1963 when JFK was shot and a memo was sent saying to tell him there was concern of invasion of Cuba over it. Yeah, the guy who owned zapata oil, was maried to Barbara, and had corp. office in Houston, thus the naming of the ships in the Bay of Pigs the Barbara and the Houston, in 'Operation Zapata').
To those who are un-informed of the 'boxcars' (4X8X20ft. containers) of cocaine which were witnessed being loaded, by two high-school kids who were 'suicided' by placing them on the tracks, this is all just whacko conspiracy theory. Whatever it is, FACT, we can all agree on the issue of even legalizing marijuana, but it will not be done by our elected officials, chosen to vote as we desire, and the illegal and un-taxed proceeds of the sale will continue to line the pockets of the very drug dealers we are trying to eliminate by such acts. WHY? Because we live in a representative Democracy? Because it makes economic sense? Or because the drug dealers who control the outlawing for profit, much as they did in enacting prohibition of alcohol, care for us and our health so need to keep us buying it from their underlings on street corners at controlled mark-ups? And without the bother of taxing to cut anyone else in on the revenue.
Crazy to think there are 'boxcars' worth of cocaine on streets of America, isn't it? I mean it was all brought in by the kids on the street corner we've all seen. They are clearly the deviate genius masterminds of the whole thing and if we just arrest them, it will all go away. Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan, poppy production if going back to pre-Taliban days, the ancient smuggling routes are protected again by (censored due to whacko name which can't be true at all. I guess we'll say, "street corner, jeans around his knees, genius drug dealer" here). Prison population goes up and up and up, and we hear the children sing, "We're all out of prison cells, build us more jails ma" That'll solve this drug problem thingy. Now can we get back to the things that REALLY drive this economy, like sales of arms , I mean, er, Republicans who want to defend democracy and liberate the women of Iraq, please? Glad I got it right on this issue at least. I used to think there was oil and privatization (qua sale of the infrastructure of a sovereign Nation) of Iraq for our, I mean THEIR own good. It feels good to be on the cutting edge of really understanding things as they really are for once.
In closing, Iraq BAD, Republicans GOOD, Democrats UN-AMERICAN, re-elect Bush. When are we going to get to November? "Are we there yet?" Blog On.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Haha... you been smokin the cheeba just now?

I would really rather it if this argument stayed well clear of political lines... because honestly, if i may speculate, they both use as much as each other!!!!

Wahkonta Anathema - you are really hitting the point of the argument though.

We just had a music festival here, and the police employed the services of sniffer dogs at this event. That was fricken rediculous. Over 300 cautions were distributed and about 70 summons. What are sniffer dogs going to do to alleviate the problem? Drugs users are at the bottom of the chain... and as you have said, drug use is as old as civilisation... people are ALWAYS going to use drugs... like people are always going to smoke or drink...

Prohibition is not an option, because that will just fill the prisons... i just really think its double stadards, and there has to be a middle ground somewhere, because we canot continue to line criminals pockets with cash. Huge assumption here, but i think its safe to say that columbias little army is financed with drug $$$. The little guy like me has a huge dent in the conscience every time i buy cocaine... i know its financing some gangsta... all i want to do is get trashed guilt free!!!!

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I apologize for my rant on politics at the end of my post. I woke up negative and reacted to what I perceived as gang bullying on another post. It was knee jerk, emotional and subjective. I do apologize for it and will be more controlled in the future - I hope.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah I hear ya Wahkonta. I too have woken up on the wrong side of the bed once or twice perhaps ~chuckles~ ~honorable bow~
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Muggaz,

You raise some good points but I think your off in a few spots. If the government were to legalize drugs like Marijuiana, Cocaine, and Herione prices would drop off dramatically. Why? Because then the element of supply and demand comes back into realistic margines. Right now drugs can run from pretty cheap (weed) to ridiculusly expensive (Cocaine). Government regulation would argue some form of control over pricing, supply, and most importantly quality.

This actually leads to another benefit, safety. If its government legalized your most likely going to have less addicts and overdoses. Why? Because there will be known, open, non-legal ways to get help and places to do "the high." Granted, the points more opinion on my part than fact but it does kind of fall into line with the common sense rule.

Personally, I'm not sure if the hard drugs should be legalized. They do create far too many problems with very little (to no) benefit but I think they could have benefits in a small, legitimate sense. Cocaine already has forms that are used as pain killers and if legal, and a patient is terminal, why couldn't it be used?

Now marijuiana and X I could see being legal. As long as they're relatively clean sources and the public knows the risks and benefits they couldn't have a much more detrimental effect than alcohol already does. Actually, marijuiana would probably be superior! Have you ever known a nasty stoner?

Finally, your example for a problem with legalization has an unrealistic overtone. A 10 year old ALREADY can get cocaine. Trust me, its out there and easy to get even with the high prices. Hell, how many users of any drug get the first taste for a price? I know I sure didn't with the drugs I've tried. Its all been free from other users. Now granted, if I had kept doing things I would have been paying but I haven't and I don't. Doesn't mean I don't see the point. Let me know if you want any further discussion on this. I''m also at http://www.tealart.com
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
What is everybody going on about with drugs helping you escape reality!? I have been very, very, very high, I've been tripping on LSD and I've had cocaine pumping through my body but I have never, ever escaped reality. It is still very much there and you are still a part of it.

A lot of the non-users posting here sound ignorant to me. That isn't meant as an insult, but more to say that if you have spent your life believing every word the government tells you about drugs then you really are not in a position to comment. The constant stream of lying and half-truths that are used to justify these antiquated laws are not useful when attempting to have a frank discussion on prohibition.

Altering your consciousness is not inheritently a bad thing. For example, many of the advances in computing were made by regular users of psycho-active substances (and still are). Additionally, there is evidence that pretty much every major religion has used psycho-active substances in their rituals in the past.