PDA

View Full Version : Drugs - should it be legal or illegal to take them?


Blackmoor
09-12-11, 19:03
Yes, no or maybe.

Whatever you think, please give your reasons why.


:)




PS: !! Please try to remember this is the debate thread and put some "meat" in your reply, not just yes or no because I think it's fab or gross, respectively...



:cool:

Edit: To give this post a bit more context - here's something that got me thinking.

It’s a matter of concern when we live in a society that punishes people, sometimes very savagely, for drug use: it makes it a difficult subject to be open on. It’s important to be open on it otherwise we can never have a clear and honest discussion.

Looking at the broad expanse of history, what I see in the western civilisations has been
a gradual trend over hundreds and thousands of years towards increased individual
freedom, towards removing the unreasonable power of the state to intervene in our lives.
This seems to be the direction, except in one area where we’ve gone back rather than
forwards in the last 40 years: the personal, individual use of drugs. It seems to me that if
we are not sovereign over our own consciousness then we can’t meaningfully claim to
be sovereign over anything. It’s useless – a complete waste of time – to indulge
ourselves in all sorts of self congratulation about how free we are, about how our
democracies are a model of freedom when we are prepared to send people to prison
for exploring that most intimate, that most precious, most sapient part of themselves
which is their own consciousness.

I feel that the war on drugs, the persecution of individuals for exploring their own
consciousness with drugs, has set in motion a huge reverse in the true direction of
western history, has pushed us away from the quest for individual freedom and into a
place where we are empowering the state to control the most personal aspect of our
lives, and I don’t think that can be good. I feel that it is a negative historical trend, and
we need to wake up and do something about this because the struggle for individual
freedom is perhaps the most important thing that western culture has given to the world.
We can’t just let that go now because of some ideological hatred of drugs.

First of all let me be clear that when I talk about the right to use drugs I am referring to
adults, I am not referring to children. I am quite persuaded by the research that indicates
that marijuana use, particularly heavy marijuana use, amongst teenagers can have
extremely detrimental effects, I think the evidence for that is quite compelling, and I
would not be urging or encouraging teenagers to smoke marijuana. Unfortunately at the
moment teenagers, especially, don’t believe the information that’s given about drugs: it’s
seen to be tainted and coming from a source that they do not trust and do not believe in.
I am not surprised that, despite the dangers to their health, huge numbers of teenagers
are continuing to smoke marijuana.

I would like to see an honest and open debate on the subject with full information
available to all members of the public. One of the reasons why I am convinced that full
honest information is the way to go is what’s happened with tobacco in our societies
over the last 20 years. In precisely the period that we have seen a dramatic escalation
in the use of almost all illegal drugs, we’ve seen a dramatic decline in the use of the
highly addictive legal drug called tobacco, and that decline has not come because
people have been sent to prison for using tobacco, it’s not come because their homes
have been broken into by agents of the state, it’s not come because there are draconian
laws that prevent the use of tobacco. The decline has come solely for one reason:
because people have believed the good information that has been put out there that has
shown them that tobacco use can be very bad for your health and they have made

choices not to use tobacco.

I believe the same level of information should be made available on drugs; as long as
those who take drugs are set in opposition against the state, feel themselves in danger
of attack and harassment by the state, see the state effectively as their enemy, they are
not going to believe what the state has to tell them. If it is true that certain drugs are
genuinely very harmful to our health, as we know is the case with tobacco, then it seems
obvious to me that we need to remove this whole subject from the issue of criminal
sanctions, and we have to throw it out to public common sense. We have to give people
information they can trust, and they will act on that information. For adults, if they choose
not to act on that information, that’s also their business, but the most important thing is
that the information should be there, it should be trusted, and it should be honest. We
have definitely seen the evidence where one harmful drug is concerned: when good
information is provided on tobacco it does result in a reduction of use.

So, talking about use of drugs by adults – I am in favour of restricting use to children, but
I think that will operate most effectively if children believe the information given to them
about drugs, which is not the case at the moment – I believe we are moving in a strange
direction which in a rather sinister manner is minimising adult responsibility. More and
more we find the state stepping in and presenting itself as taking responsibility for
decisions that we as adults should really be making for ourselves, and one of those
decisions is, as a responsible adult, whether to use drugs or not. I would guess that,
even in a regime where all drugs were completely legal, the vast majority of adults
would not partake. I think that would be their choice and I respect that choice, I think we
are talking about a minority interest here, but such statistics as are available do show
that it’s a substantial minority interest of the order of millions of people in Britain and tens
of millions in the US who are, as adults, interested in exploring their own consciousness
with drugs. The way the drug issue has been cast in our society up to now, particularly
by the media and politicians, is as a totally frivolous, worthless lightweight recreational
pursuit.

I personally don’t view the subject that way. If we use words like freedom, we have to
use them in their full meaning and, where adults are concerned, if we want to imagine
that we are free we have to imagine a society in which we are free to use drugs even if
they may be harmful to us: that has to be our choice. After all, our society already
accepts the principle that individuals may do things that are harmful to themselves – it’s
clear from the fact that we tolerate and keep completely legal the use of alcohol and
tobacco, both of which are known major health risks far more so than most illegal drugs.

But it’s not only that. We put young men into the army – when they join the army they’re
taking a job that may put their lives at risk, people go skiing, people go bungee jumping,
people jump out of aeroplanes for the excitement of so doing. Let’s not pretend that
that’s completely free of danger; there is risk in that adventure, and I would say – I’ve
never done it myself, but when somebody jumps out of an aeroplane I would imagine it
has an extraordinary effect on their consciousness. It must be a tremendous feeling.
Why else would so many people do it? They must get something special out of it, and
they’ve decided as adults that getting that special thing is worth the risk of jumping out of
that plane. I’m not going to go to them and say “Look, I know this is a really special
experience for you but it’s a bit dangerous, so I’m sorry, you’re not allowed to do it and
actually, if I catch you doing it I’m going to send you to prison.”

The interview is long, this is only a part of it. But I think it raises some extremely valid points.

Cochrane
09-12-11, 19:07
Which ones?

larafan25
09-12-11, 19:08
If we lived in ....the Lord of the Rings universe...I wouldn't care what anyone does.

I just think of drug usage as...IDK...people playing with herbs (lol that's horrible).

Blackmoor
09-12-11, 19:10
Which ones?It's for you to determine where the boundaries are.

NRO.
09-12-11, 19:10
Yes.

It'll be like reverse psychology.

Zelda master
09-12-11, 19:13
It's the same question as to why Alcohol a drugstype in itself isn't illegal... Because people are idiots and for the most part have no idea what they are talking about...

the ancient
09-12-11, 19:14
I don't know people take it anyway so....

Side-question: why should drugs be illegal and cigarettes not?

Blackmoor
09-12-11, 19:14
It's the same question as to why Alcohol a drugstype in itself isn't illegal... Because people are idiots and for the most part have no idea what they are talking about...Good point. So what's your view on the matter?

Cochrane
09-12-11, 19:22
It's for you to determine where the boundaries are.

Alright.

- Medical ones: Obviously yes.
- Alcohol, Tobacco: Hard to say; the main reason why they are legal and some others are not is history. I think the experiments in the US showed that the social cost of outlawing them, in particular alcohol, outweigh those of allowing them, considering how widespread their use and demand is.
- Drugs that cause addiction in most or all cases: Obviously no. Exceptions can be made for the use of severe painkillers for terminal patients, but no general use.
- Weaker drugs that (supposedly) do not cause addiction: I don't know enough about the individual effects of each one, but in general, I'm reluctant. In many cases, higher dosages can create adverse health effects (Marijuana is a good example), and I am not convinced that their dangers are purely imaginary.

In general:
Oddly enough, the people who most argue that the government should keep out of their lives (i.e. conservatives) tend to be the ones least likely to argue for legalization of weed. Completely baffles me. It's as if the "the government should stay away" thing was not a goal in itself, but instead just a means to an end: The government should stay away whenever it does something unpleasant, like tax people or regulate businesses, but should continue to forbid things we don't like. But surely that can't be right.

I think the government does have a duty to protect people from their own stupidity, at least to a certain point. Forbidding at least hard and dangerous drugs is part of that. For many weaker drugs, it can be hard to say whether they should be allowed or not, but given the many uncertainties, I'd argue against it. I don't think this needs to be categorical: There is nothing wrong with the general idea of a drug that makes people a little happier; it's just that as far as I know, all current offerings have problematic side effects.

shebj
09-12-11, 19:27
that's a difficult question; it shouldn't be allowed legally; 'cause it sure would open the door for a lot more addictions; but to some drugs their also shouldn't be so hard punishments...

Draco
09-12-11, 20:46
If it grows in the ground it should be perfectly legal.

Greenapple968
10-12-11, 01:34
Drugs should be illigal; they're dangerous and damaging and I have no respect for those who do drugs. The BNP want all drug dealers to be executed, bit extreme.

Draco
10-12-11, 02:05
Drugs should be illigal; they're dangerous and damaging and I have no respect for those who do drugs. The BNP want all drug dealers to be executed, bit extreme.

Drugs being illegal has done the most to create the danger and damage surrounding them.

leglion
10-12-11, 02:09
Drugs should be illigal; they're dangerous and damaging and I have no respect for those who do drugs. The BNP want all drug dealers to be executed, bit extreme.

So is my mother's cooking sooo... :whi: [/Good point]

moodydog
10-12-11, 02:09
Its a tough one. A person on Heroin may need heroin to "survive". Though I am completely against the drug. Anyone caught dealing drugs though should face strict punishment.
And again it depends on what type of drugs... Weed, Ecstasy and magic mushrooms are probably not going to be as life wrecking as Acid, Amphetamine, Cocaine and Heroin. (In fact, its arguable that Ecstasy and magic mushrooms fall under the latter)
Rather than going to prison, a person on drugs should be helped to get off them.

Ward Dragon
10-12-11, 04:35
I think drugs should be legal but regulated. The regulations would vary depending upon how dangerous the drug is. If the drug is very likely to make somebody violent towards other people then maybe it should stay illegal, or possibly only legal in a padded cell XD But for most drugs, I don't think there's a good enough reason to make them outright illegal especially considering all of the black-market baggage that comes with drug smuggling and drug dealing.

It's as if the "the government should stay away" thing was not a goal in itself, but instead just a means to an end: The government should stay away whenever it does something unpleasant, like tax people or regulate businesses, but should continue to forbid things we don't like. But surely that can't be right.

That pretty much sums up the Republican party. They want small government in terms of government programs and spending, but also laws that restrict individual freedom based on their idea of morality.

Drugs being illegal has done the most to create the danger and damage surrounding them.

I agree.

disapearing-boy
14-12-11, 16:45
Drugs being illegal has done the most to create the danger and damage surrounding them.

Exactly! Couldn't have said it better myself. If drugs were legalized what would happen to all the gangs/cartels involved in it? They got no products to sell, and no territory to sell it in. Of course to eliminate drug related crime, the world as a whole would have to legalise drugs.

It's also unfair that doing minor drugs can cost you your job. As long as it doesn't affect your job (ie.. being stoned at work is obviously a big no no), it shouldn't be an issue.

Addictive drugs like heroin (ect...) should be kept illegal for obvious reasons.

I don't do drugs but I know a lot of people who do or did weed, no one ruined their lives yet but I do believe there are dangers. All that smoke can't be good for one's lungs, yet I never hear anything about weed and lung cancer. It only makes sense that there's a link.

Alpharaider47
14-12-11, 18:43
Rather than going to prison, a person on drugs should be helped to get off them.

You can only help people that want to be helped.

I'm with Cochrane on this one, for the most part.

Greenapple968
28-12-11, 02:17
Even if all dangerous drugs were made illegal, would it completely stop people from getting hold of them? Various drugs are illigal right now but people still use them. I remember hearing about a woman who had to have her leg amputated after she injected herself with an illigal drug. The fact that it was illigal didn't stop her.
I myself am heavily agaisnt drugs and I can't see myself ever taking them; in 18 years I've never even smoked before.

xXhayleyroxXx
28-12-11, 02:18
There's laws and limits for a reason, and I'm happy with them.

Greenapple968
28-12-11, 02:19
There's laws and limits for a reason, and I'm happy with them.

Same here. :hug:

Andes
28-12-11, 07:49
If it grows in the ground it should be perfectly legal.

Very much so. Unfortunately it isn't even true of regular 'food' crops anymore, thanks to those delightful folks at Monsanto. Business and politics are the main reasons why drugs are illegal, but whatever the whys and wherefores, I believe in freedom of choice to do unto yourself whatever the heck you like.

pEhouse
28-12-11, 08:17
There's laws and limits for a reason, and I'm happy with them.

Really? What about laws that forbid homosexual couples to get married?
Laws always reflect the time we live in (we have all heard of crazy old laws, e.g. "It is illegal for a woman to be on the street wearing “body hugging clothing”."), and sometimes they need an overhaul.

robm_2007
28-12-11, 08:22
^ Comparing laws in general is going to bring about a digressive and unfriendly argument :p

I did not read that OP because it was TL :p

However, I am mostly against the use of drugs (besides alcohol, caffeine, and OTC stuff that is responsibly taken), but I would not care if marijuana was legalized. It's more of a hippie drug than a hardcore fatality waiting to happen type of drug. I am against Crack, meth, Heroine and those kinds of major drugs. I dont agree that people should have access to drugs and freely take them, I think that they should be illegal, since so much murder, larceny, and health risks accompany those majorly bad drugs.

If any of them have their (logical) medical uses, then they should be able to be prescribed in extenuating circumstances.

Ikas90
28-12-11, 11:08
I suppose they are illegal for a reason. If they were legal, too many people would be using them, and that leaves lots of room for misuse, because there are too many idiots out there who would use the drugs incorrectly.

I'm referring to marijuana in particular here. If too many people start using it, we could have a problem. But nowhere near as much as a problem as alcohol causes. In my opinion, marijuana use should be restricted to certain individuals, with the right mindset and attitude. It should not be so much a recreational drug, and nor should it be used for recreational purposes. That's why it needs to remain illegal, as there are too many people who just want to use it for fun, and eventually end up damaging themselves.

The same could be said for alcohol, though. There's no real benefit to alcohol, but I don't have a problem with people using it in moderation. Same for marijuana. If anything, both alcohol and marijuana should be either legal, or both illegal. Not one legal, and the other illegal.

Debatable subject alright. It takes trying to picture how society would run having the legal status of alcohol and marijuana switched around. The way I'd see it:

Positive outcomes
- There'd be no drunk drivers
- There'd be far less accidents
- There'd be far less deaths, if any
- There'd be less crime
- There'd be less illogical thinking

Negative outcomes
- Brain damage for those who are psychologically addicted
- Impaired mentality for those who abused it
- Overpopulation and higher demand for the drug
- Certain pharmaceutical companies lose money
- More lazy and jobless people

That's all I can think of for now. Overall, it could mean less problems, or more problems, depending on what you value and how you look at it. If you see over-population as a bad thing, then it means more problems for you. I think those matters can be combated with education though, rather than legalisation/illegalisation of certain drugs.

Chug a Bug
01-01-12, 14:26
When you say "drugs" I assume you're referring to illegal narcotics (prescribed drugs are obviously of benefit or they wouldn't have been prescribed in the first place) - which are banned for a good reason. They're addictive and ruin peoples lives and health. Obviously people will still get hold of them but it does limit the risk.

I suppose they are illegal for a reason. If they were legal, too many people would be using them, and that leaves lots of room for misuse, because there are too many idiots out there who would use the drugs incorrectly.

I'm referring to marijuana in particular here. If too many people start using it, we could have a problem. But nowhere near as much as a problem as alcohol causes. In my opinion, marijuana use should be restricted to certain individuals, with the right mindset and attitude. It should not be so much a recreational drug, and nor should it be used for recreational purposes. That's why it needs to remain illegal, as there are too many people who just want to use it for fun, and eventually end up damaging themselves.

The same could be said for alcohol, though. There's no real benefit to alcohol, but I don't have a problem with people using it in moderation. Same for marijuana. If anything, both alcohol and marijuana should be either legal, or both illegal. Not one legal, and the other illegal.

Debatable subject alright. It takes trying to picture how society would run having the legal status of alcohol and marijuana switched around. The way I'd see it:

Positive outcomes
- There'd be no drunk drivers
- There'd be far less accidents
- There'd be far less deaths, if any
- There'd be less crime
- There'd be less illogical thinking

Negative outcomes
- Brain damage for those who are psychologically addicted
- Impaired mentality for those who abused it
- Overpopulation and higher demand for the drug
- Certain pharmaceutical companies lose money
- More lazy and jobless people

That's all I can think of for now. Overall, it could mean less problems, or more problems, depending on what you value and how you look at it. If you see over-population as a bad thing, then it means more problems for you. I think those matters can be combated with education though, rather than legalisation/illegalisation of certain drugs.

Cannabis is often seen as a "safe" or non-dangerous drug but it's as least as bad as alcohol in my experiance, someone I knew took it and he would become paranoid and aggresive, rather like being drunk. I couldn't stand the stink of it, personally.

I have heard it say that if alcohol had been been invented today rather than being ingrained in the culture for thousands of years, it would be banned. Which is an interesting point.

Mad Tony
01-01-12, 14:32
Positive outcomes
- There'd be no drunk drivers
- There'd be far less accidents
- There'd be far less deaths, if any
- There'd be less illogical thinkingWhere an Earth did you get this from? :confused: None of that makes any sense at all.

Chocola teapot
01-01-12, 15:05
They should let people take what they want, but reduce a drug user's access to Medical Care.

It would put people off damaging themselves and expecting the government to fix it.

Ikas90
01-01-12, 15:08
Cannabis is often seen as a "safe" or non-dangerous drug but it's as least as bad as alcohol in my experiance, someone I knew took it and he would become paranoid and aggresive, rather like being drunk. I couldn't stand the stink of it, personally.

I have heard it say that if alcohol had been been invented today rather than being ingrained in the culture for thousands of years, it would be banned. Which is an interesting point.

It's probably going to have different effects on different people. That's why I said it's use should be restricted. Other than that, I know it's a drug that calms the mind and generally, is quite peaceful.

If someone consumes a load of alcohol after being depressed, it is likely that they will come home and abuse their wife and children, possibly even beat them up. It's not good.

Where an Earth did you get this from? :confused: None of that makes any sense at all.

Well, if alcohol is made illegal, and cannabis made legal, wouldn't that mean that less people would be consuming alcohol? At least to some degree.

I see the flaw in my first point. My bad. What I meant was, there'd be less drunk drivers.

What else didn't you understand? Make it clear exactly what doesn't make sense to you, and I'll clarify. :)

Eros5th
01-01-12, 15:33
I don't see why some are illegal but some are legal.

Just make them all legal and regulate them.

Mad Tony
01-01-12, 15:35
Well, if alcohol is made illegal, and cannabis made legal, wouldn't that mean that less people would be consuming alcohol? At least to some degree.

I see the flaw in my first point. My bad. What I meant was, there'd be less drunk drivers.

What else didn't you understand? Make it clear exactly what doesn't make sense to you, and I'll clarify. :)I think there'd be a slight decrease in accidents and deaths, but nothing major. Remember that driving stoned isn't exactly good either.

I don't understand how there'd be less "illogical" thinking either.

Ikas90
01-01-12, 15:45
I think there'd be a slight decrease in accidents and deaths, but nothing major. Remember that driving stoned isn't exactly good either.

I don't understand how there'd be less "illogical" thinking either.

It's debatable whether driving while stoned is dangerous or not, but it doesn't impair your driving to the point that alcohol does.

Alcohol impairs your judgment and logical frame of mind. With marijuana, you just 'feel high', while still retaining your sense of right and wrong.

I've managed to have very intelligent discussions with people who are stoned. They are far better than what I've ever had with drunk people.

Spong
01-01-12, 15:54
There's laws and limits for a reason, and I'm happy with them.

Can't wait to see you say that when fox hunting is legalised again :p

Anyway, drugs...

I'm only speaking about the UK Government here, I couldn't give a monkeys about any other country. Also, I'm only talking about the 'softer' drugs, crap like amphetamines, cocaine & heroin can stay right where they are. The British Government should legalise and regulate cannabis and resin, at the very least it removes the blatant and ridiculous double-standards we have at the moment with alcohol and cigarettes being legal. Both cigarettes and alcohol are as equally damaging in a health sense as cannabis or resin, if not more potentially damaging. The psychological effects of cannabis vary from person to person and prolific use can (not 'will') very much amplify the psychological problems already present within a user. Alcohol can do exactly the same, with the added 'bonus' that it pickles your liver at the same time.

If the Government legalise it, they can regulate the content so that people aren't buying something laced with horse tranquillizers and headache pills. They can regulate the price and supply and, best of all, slap a big ol' tax on it so they're coining it in. That's all that matters to our Government, not our health. If it was about our health and not the potential income, smoking and drinking would actually be banned outright.

On the topic of driving while stoned, a friend of mine has been a pot smoker for well over twenty years. He drives every single day of his life, I feel completely safe with him when I'm in the car while he's behind the wheel and smoking a joint. If anything, being stoned can make a person more conscious of what they're doing, unlike alcohol.

Mad Tony
01-01-12, 16:29
It's debatable whether driving while stoned is dangerous or not, but it doesn't impair your driving to the point that alcohol does.

Alcohol impairs your judgment and logical frame of mind. With marijuana, you just 'feel high', while still retaining your sense of right and wrong.

I've managed to have very intelligent discussions with people who are stoned. They are far better than what I've ever had with drunk people.It certainly impairs it to an extent. The bottom line is - driving while stoned or drunk is a bad idea.

Marijuana isn't as harmless as you think. Being stoned or drunk are very similar. Remember, not everyone gets violent when they're drunk.

Ikas90
01-01-12, 17:50
It certainly impairs it to an extent. The bottom line is - driving while stoned or drunk is a bad idea.

Marijuana isn't as harmless as you think. Being stoned or drunk are very similar. Remember, not everyone gets violent when they're drunk.

I'm aware of that. Smoking anything into the lungs is not going to be good for you. However, it's also not as harmful as some people like to think. I'm not saying that it isn't bad - but alcohol and cigarettes have proven to be worse.

The people that suffer from the side-effects of marijuana are those who overdo it, or have genetic imperfections (such as schizophrenia). If taken in moderation, and not smoked, but rather, eaten from in baked cookies, it is practically harmless. At least, as far as I know. Nothing's been determined of that.

Not everyone that gets drunk gets violent, but the chances are far greater, not to mention cases of marijuana inducing violence are rare, if at all existent.

leglion
01-01-12, 18:58
Marijuana by itself(no smoke) should not be harmful unless you have some kind of disease.