Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Legalizing drugs      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 51
view profile
History
Legalizing drugsPage 3 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
I'd like to see each state decide which drugs to criminalize, according to the moral views of the majority in that state. They may think, for example, that marijuana or some other substance is not harmful enough to outlaw, but that drugs like methamphetamine and heroin are. And views about allowing a certain substance but taxing it, how much to tax it, if so, the minimum age a user must be, and so on, no doubt vary from state to state.

The big problem with that is that these substances are transported between states--and that brings them within Congress' power to make laws regulating interstate commerce. That was the Supreme Court's basis for upholding a federal law against marijuana some years ago, even though the cultivation and use of marijuana by the person involved was allowed under California law. Even though none of the marijuana from the six plants the woman grew for her personal medicinal use had ever left California, the Court held that it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce in marijuana. And because it did, Congress could prohibit it under the Control Substances Act.

It's interesting that the reasoning behind the decision in this case, Gonzalez v. Raich, is very similar to the reasoning in one of the arguments in the decision upholding Obamacare. The same case--Wickard v. Filburn, from 1942--was cited as precedent in both decisions.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 52
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 10/5/2013 7:31:59 PM

matt.............

"i think they should legealise all drugs,,,, "

Really? Even drugs like warfarin...... propofol....... heroin........ hash oil........

All drugs?

Paul K

It's clear that the War on Drugs has failed. As a corollary, it's clear that people will find ways to get access to drugs, illegal or not. Frankly, I don't see a single reason why we should keep drugs illegal - what is this achieving? (aside from lining the pockets of drug traffickers)

Frankly, we should abandon failed policies and look for better alternatives. This is the only logical thing to do. To cling to failed policies and keep trying is literally insane (definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result).

As far as I'm concerned, people have a right to do what they want with their own bodies (as long as they do not harm others by doing so). If someone wants to take drugs then you have no right to deny them. Of course avoiding damage to others requires rules and regulations (like we have for alcohol), but that can only happen if drugs are legalized.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 53
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 10/6/2013 8:00:19 AM

As far as I'm concerned, people have a right to do what they want with their own bodies (as long as they do not harm others by doing so). If someone wants to take drugs then you have no right to deny them. Of course avoiding damage to others requires rules and regulations (like we have for alcohol), but that can only happen if drugs are legalized.


HUGE holes in your reasoning there. Specifically due to the existence of drugs which have harm to others as a natural result of using them at all. PCP, and various other "recreational" illegal drugs, directly result in the user becoming a danger to others. Legalizing such as those, and then trying to regulate their use, is flat out impossible, and incredibly irresponsible.

I do agree with you for SOME of the drugs currently illegal, but certainly not all of them.

Oh, and where do we draw the line, between what's best for us as individuals, and what's best for us as members of families, of groups, and of nations? This is where it gets really tricky. If an individual destroys their usefulness to their children or siblings through the use or misuse of these kinds of things, their families are harmed. Their employers are cheated. Their customers are put at risk of defective products, if they are manufacturers, or repair people, etc.

I am all for individual freedom, but only up to a very hard to nail down point. We already have HUGE problems in our society, due to the rise of the "all for oneself" approach to economics. I oppose adding drug use to that mess.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 54
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 10/6/2013 10:38:38 AM

HUGE holes in your reasoning there. Specifically due to the existence of drugs which have harm to others as a natural result of using them at all. PCP, and various other "recreational" illegal drugs, directly result in the user becoming a danger to others. Legalizing such as those, and then trying to regulate their use, is flat out impossible, and incredibly irresponsible.

So does drinking alcohol - people who drink alcohol do damage to others, either through increased aggression, drunk driving or any other reckless behavior. Tobacco also has enormous negative externalities (second-hand smoke, positively correlated with lung cancer), yet it is also legal, but with restrictions on how it's used (e.g., people at my workplace have to go all the way outside to smoke).

Also, making drugs legal does NOT mean that anyone can get them (it just means that possession and use of such substances is not a crime). We create laws to determine who can access drugs and in what quantity/form, and I don't see why this would also not be the case for illegal drugs if we were to legalize and regulate them. This is especially so for a dangerous drug like PCP - the Wiki article on the drug states 'users frequently do not know how much of the drug they are taking due to the tendency of the drug to be made illegally in uncontrolled conditions', making use of the drug that much more dangerous (this can be resolved by regulating the drug).

The War on Drugs has shown us that those people who really want a drug will find ways to get it, and that there are always people willing to supply it. What we need to do is make sure that if people are going to do drugs that they do so in a way that does not endanger them or others.

Remember that abstinence-only sex education does not work either - making teens take a vow of abstinence does not prevent them from doing it, and when they do it they do it unprotected. We've learned this lesson many times over: you cannot control a problem drug/activity by trying to deny access to it. It's time we abandon the War on Drugs and seek better alternatives.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 55
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 10/6/2013 11:53:22 AM

So does drinking alcohol - people who drink alcohol do damage to others, either through increased aggression, drunk driving or any other reckless behavior.


Yes, but you see we aren't talking about whether we should make something currently legal, illegal. We are talking about whether to legalize everything else or not.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 56
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 10/6/2013 2:36:56 PM
I haven't seen anyone argue that anything should be legalized to make it "more socially acceptable." One of the things I tried to point out in another thread (I think) is that how a society or culture views something is rarely affected by legal trimmings, one way or the other.
 Walts
Joined: 5/7/2005
Msg: 57
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 10/15/2013 2:49:32 PM

Oh, and where do we draw the line, between what's best for us as individuals, and what's best for us as members of families, of groups, and of nations? This is where it gets really tricky. If an individual destroys their usefulness to their children or siblings through the use or misuse of these kinds of things, their families are harmed. Their employers are cheated. Their customers are put at risk of defective products, if they are manufacturers, or repair people, etc.


Yes, I agree Igor, BUT, we, as a society we HAVE drawn a "line". We "allow" legal gambling, alcohol consumption, smoking cigs, cigars, etc. Yet, there is a lot of evidence how these "legal" things are not so good for "some" people to use, yet, we still "allow" it.

Yet, I know a few people that smoke the pot but, don't drink the booze, or smoke the cigs, or gamble. So, that "line" should/could be questioned, no????? Individuals react/act differently with different things. Some people should touch a drop of booze. Some people shouldn't lay down one "bet". Some people shouldn't even go to a fast food joint.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 58
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 10/15/2013 3:18:12 PM
Not sure whether you are agreeing with me or not, there, walts. We do draw lines. I was opening the floor to discussing the fact that we have to figure out where to draw lines about all of this.

Your examples show the kind of thing I am trying to get at, as in how difficult it is to decide where our belief in personal freedom and individual rights to oneself, comes into conflict with our simultaneous call for people to behave responsibly and with respect to each other, and to the whole of society.

And, since the particular mechanism of government that we have chosen requires it, we are not allowed to write laws which are interpreted one person at a time. they either have to apply to everyone, or no one. Therefore, the fact that THIS ONE guy can handle Heroin addiction just fine, without ever impinging even slightly on anyone else, has no place in a discussion of what the laws about Heroin ought to be. I have friends who can get drunk, and drive perfectly well, but that would NEVER influence me to change laws against driving under the influence.

I agree about questioning the lines as drawn, it's a part of our government of the people etc, to review decisions and change them if we see we can and should. I also think that we do need to draw some lines. Not just erase them all, because we each know someone who is just fine with whatever.
 Walts
Joined: 5/7/2005
Msg: 59
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 10/16/2013 7:30:55 AM
I think what I'm trying to say is that our law makers have drawn a line and yet it confuses me, especially with evidence given, all regards to pot, not heroin, meth, X or whatever. Cigs cause cancer, proven. Still legal, and have always been, even after the medical evidence found 30 or 40 years ago. Medical evidence on pot????? Far from negative when comparing to the cigs. Is it all about the money????? Or is it because the government/law makers are "protecting" us from the evils of pot usage????? One of the arguments(reasonings) that some use for the legality of pot is how much $$$$$$$$ the government can make(and save) if legal. THAT is a little bizarre in my head for where to place that line that has to be drawn.

I know more people phone in "sick" because of overindulgence of the booze. A hurt on our society and the workplace, yet, again, no questions on the "legality" of it all. Socially acceptable to be hungover and useless to the world once in awhile. Again, when comparing, I know very few that phone in "sick" with a hangover after smoking a doob or two the night before. Here in BC most would not be able to smoke a doob themselves. They'd be asleep.
 Havcer
Joined: 1/6/2010
Msg: 60
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 10/16/2013 3:52:04 PM
My proposition of legalizing non-lethal drugs would be this:

Create a new department to regulate all non-lethal drugs such Cannabis, DMT, and LSD ect. This department would run in terms of how the DMV currently works. At a certain age, you become applicable to take a test to legally allowing your use of non-lethal drugs. Before you take this test, you would need to an enroll in a analytical/comprehensive course on the drugs, covering it's chemical composition, history (both on the drug itself and noted users who lives were affected by it negative/positive), adverse/beneficial psychological affects, how to use, abuse, moderation ect, essentially covering everything about the drugs. You are now a fully informed/educated on it thus you have the right to make the choice to whether use the drug or not as now you've taken the correct steps for full responsibility of all it's repercussions. Now since you're fully aware of all the implications of using drugs, punishment for producing negative outcomes due to your use use will result in much harsher punishments. This incentive is also much higher to the normal person than buying it illegally since all it takes is a course and test! Within any legal system, there will always be a black market for it but this method is most efficient to give both sides what they want; Legal drug use without the harmful consequences of it.

This also does several things. It will bring more jobs on a federal level, higher income to the states/government, money in the hands of people and greatly help negate all the possible horrible consequences of drug usage. Implicitly, it may even bring about more acceptance of the drugs since users would be forced to be educated on it teaching others who view it negatively the possible positive sides of it. But of course, words only speak so much, a higher-educated user-base will also help stave off the stigma of only losers/dead-beats/dangerous people use the drug and in fact, may bring about a new stigma of drug-users who use to it cohesively with the normal toils of life. It's hard to hate/dislike someone who takes care of his life in every aspect and uses drugs, this perception would slowly change society view on it.

All in all, the implications of creating a system in which one must be fully educated on it before be allowed to partake is always the most efficient method to encompass both sides of the debate. By doing this for drugs, the ripple of change this can bring is endless possibilities of beneficial mutual living but only time will tell. It would be great if this method applied to alcohol/cigarettes too, but sadly those drugs are heavily endured in our society to which making any big unwanted change to them will be shot down quick, it's not practical. Non-lethal drugs should be our next step top improve the systems in which we currently have in place to control substances that can potentially be detrimental, it will be the example in which we should eventually apply to all drugs.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 61
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 10/16/2013 8:04:22 PM

Not sure whether you are agreeing with me or not, there, walts. We do draw lines. I was opening the floor to discussing the fact that we have to figure out where to draw lines about all of this.

I think "drawing lines" on any drug is a mistake. This would only make sense if such laws actually worked in keeping those drugs out of people's hands. What such laws actually do is cause the government to lose control of those drugs, while giving the ILLUSION of safety. IMO, the more dangerous a drug is, the more it needs to be regulated and controlled. We should be urging lawmakers to create laws to regulate dangerous drugs, not criminalize them.
 Walts
Joined: 5/7/2005
Msg: 62
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 10/17/2013 7:56:42 AM

As far as legallity goes, just about everybody was drinking some form of alcohol since the beginning of time, yet not nearly that large of a percentage of people smoke/eat pot. At this point, the potheads are screaming that everybody they know smokes pot........... bingo. Of course everybody they know smokes, because that is whom they associate with. Pot is a relatively new thing, so it is not accepted as universally as alcohol is.


Google is your friend. Use it. Cannabis has been recorded to be used during 6000 BC!!!!!! That's a long time ago. Oh, maybe check where "hash oil" is derived from while you are at it.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 63
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 10/17/2013 2:11:45 PM

I think what I'm trying to say is that our law makers have drawn a line and yet it confuses me, especially with evidence given, all regards to pot, not heroin, meth, X or whatever. Cigs cause cancer, proven. Still legal, and have always been, even after the medical evidence found 30 or 40 years ago. Medical evidence on pot????? Far from negative when comparing to the cigs. Is it all about the money????? Or is it because the government/law makers are "protecting" us from the evils of pot usage????? One of the arguments(reasonings) that some use for the legality of pot is how much $$$$$$$$ the government can make(and save) if legal. THAT is a little bizarre in my head for where to place that line that has to be drawn.


You are conflating and confusing how and why laws are passed or changed, with how scientists do things. The two are only related to the extent that each group occasionally talks about the other, and tries to use what the other said to help persuade people to let them do as they wish.

Basically: laws are NOT usually passed or ended, because of facts, or logic. At least not the facts and logic which are directly related to the focus of the laws. The reason why some things are illegal and others are not, is not ONLY because the illegal things were thought to be more dangerous. As has been said here already many times, there is no secret plot behind why Pot hasn't been legalized yet, so put it out of your head that all the legislators are meeting in secret, or laughing up their sleeves. The reason why is obvious is repeated all the time, out in the open: the powerful groups who oppose it, connect the idea of Pot smoking, directly to a lot of people they strongly dislike, and they don't go after alcohol, because they associate drinking alcohol with people they approve of.

And no matter how many legislators you might "out" for having indulged in what you want to have legalized, they STILL wont do so, even if you prove that ALL of them get high. Because they don't get elected for what they personally do, or don't do for themselves. They get elected or not, for what the voters think that they are doing for THEM (note that voters get fooled all the time, hence I say "what the voters think that they are doing for them," and not "what they are actually doing for...or to, the voters"). This is why Clinton won reelection in spite of being outed as a womanizing swine in his personal life. The voters weren't saying "we WANT old guys to pork our twenteen daughters on the sly," they were saying "He seemed to make our lives better overall than we think that the Republican candidate would do, so we will overlook his trysts."

Same thing with legalizing or not legalizing drugs.
 grizzelda
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 64
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 10/21/2013 9:48:50 AM
I have a few more thoughts on this.

While alcohol use has been around for the past 3-4 thousand years, and drug use to some level as well, part of the natural control of these substances has been the fact that unless you were financially well off, using these substances had a much higher "cost", if you were a farmer or working class and abused alcohol, there wasnt the safety net that we have today to save you from disaster, if you didnt get your crop in becasue you were too drunk, you had no income at all and you paid a very high price for your drunkeness, same if you were any real type of tradesman, if you couldnt make a living, you didnt survive. There was no one there giving you a fall back or a food bank to use .Pretty simple, no products no money. This was the very reason for the temperance movement of the early 20th century, too many men spending all their money on booze and allowing their families to starve or lose the roof over their heads, not too mention the physical abuse that was rampant as well from the drunks.

Now we have all these "safety nets" that people who choose these lifestyles get to help themselves to. I have no issue with people that find themselves in a bind because of bad luck, health issues etc. However what I do see as a very large possibilty of the people that want the right to smoke pot doing exactly what many humans have done for thousands of years, but the difference is that they wont starve and the cost to their getting high on a regular basis will be carried by the people not the users themselves.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 65
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 11/4/2013 9:23:59 PM

Drugs legislation is hampering clinical research, warns David Nutt
Tuesday 5 November 2013

On Monday, Prof Nutt was awarded the 2013 John Maddox Prize, in recognition of his courage in "promoting science and evidence on a matter of public interest, despite facing difficulty and hostility in doing so." In their citation, the judges said they wanted to recognise Prof Nutt's impact on the evidence-based classification of drugs, in the UK and elsewhere in the world.

In 2009, Prof Nutt was sacked by the then health secretary, Alan Johnson, from his post as chair of the government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for publicly stating that alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis. Despite his dismissal, his forthright views on drugs have rarely been out of the headlines and he has continued to campaign for a more rational government policy on drugs that takes into account the actual harms caused by them.

/snip/

Awarding this year's John Maddox Prize, professor Colin Blakemore, a neuroscientist at the University of Oxford and one of the judges, said that working "in circumstances that would have humiliated and silenced most people, [Prof Nutt] continued to affirm the importance of evidence in understanding the harms of drugs and in developing drug policy. He took personal risk to his reputation in the name of sound science and in defending the right of researchers to present scientific opinion publicly. Policy makers are, of course, not compelled to follow scientific advice, but they are accountable to the public and to their own advisers if they choose not to do so. We need people like David Nutt to assert the independence of scientific advice and to inform the public when government policy departs from that advice."

Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, said that Prof Nutt was "a bold scientist who will inspire others to keep evidence at the centre of public and policy debates about science."

The John Maddox Prize is now in its second year, and a joint initiative of science journal Nature, the Kohn Foundation and the charity Sense About Science.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/04/drugs-legislation-david-nutt-john-maddox



It may or may not be relevant to note that the Professor David Nutt mentioned in the article is "DM (Doctor of Medicine) FRCP FRCPsych FMedSci is a British psychiatrist and neuropsychopharmacologist specialising in the research of drugs that affect the brain and conditions such as addiction, anxiety and sleep".
Whereas Alan Johnson, the government health secretary who sacked him, is an ex-postman.


The Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs (originally called The Independent Council on Drug Harms (ICDH)) is a UK-based drugs advisory committee proposed and initially funded by then-32-year-old hedge fund manager Toby Jackson. It is chaired by Professor David Nutt and was officially launched on 15 January 2010 with the help of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. The primary aim of the committee is to review and investigate the scientific evidence of drug harms without the political interference that could result from government affiliation.

The establishment of the committee followed the controversial sacking of Professor Nutt, on 30 October 2009 as chair of the UK's statutory Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs by UK Home Secretary, Alan Johnson after the Ecstasy controversy. The controversy followed his Eve Saville Memorial Lecture (2009) at the Centre.

At the time the group was launched, it was reported that its likely top priorities would include downgrading the current official risk estimates for psychedelic drugs, ecstasy and cannabis, and increasing warnings of the dangers of ketamine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Scientific_Committee_on_Drugs



This ^^^ is all concerning the UK, as is the related article below, but the events and attitudes are analogous to most western governments and their tendency to reject scientific and evidence based conclusions when these conflict with their other tendency toward populist sloganeering designed to pander to dumb prejudice.



A government adviser has quit the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs over the criminalisation of mephedrone.
Friday, 2 April 2010

Eric Carlin said ministers had pledged to ban the drug so as to appear "acting tough" in the run-up to the election.

Mr Carlin is the seventh member of the body to resign following the sacking of former chairman Professor David Nutt.

Mr Carlin, 47, a former chairman of the English Drug Education Forum, told the BBC he was "extremely unhappy" at the way the council arrived at its decision earlier this week.
"Our decision was unduly based on media and political pressure."
He added: "As well as being extremely unhappy with how the ACMD operates, I am not prepared to continue to be part of a body which, as its main activity, works to facilitate the potential criminalisation of increasing numbers of young people."

Speaking later to the BBC, he criticised the way the Home Office addressed drugs as a criminal justice issue, rather than a public health or social impact issue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8601315.stm



.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 66
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 11/9/2013 11:01:54 AM
Anything that grows naturally should be legal.

Anything you have to manufacture should be regulated by ELECTED professionals.

Anything you poison and sell should be illegal. (adding chemicals to tobacco, adding dye to booze).

Anything "sold" that can harm others should be illegal to profit from.
 RussArtLover
Joined: 5/13/2010
Msg: 67
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 11/9/2013 3:52:24 PM
Too generic Dame. You can do better :)
I kinda agree but education has to come first. Only reason I ever smoked pot to begin with, was "in-stead" of pulling a tire iron out of my trunk and beating those guys to death for nagging me. One "No" should have been enough. Instead I inhaled and blew a career in science and spent the last 40 years humoring musicians.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 68
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 11/9/2013 5:22:53 PM
How the hell are you going to regulate drugs when they are legal? If people don't have to be sneaky to get such drugs and it's open to access, they will get as much as they want and as much quantity from stores or markets and drug dealers they want. Just like regulation of guns doesn't work with ammo amount, if people want more guns and ammo, they'll just get guns in the black market. It hasn't stopped criminals from accessing guns. I think people are looking at it from the perspective that because laws don't stop people from taking drugs that they are useless. You got to look at it from the perspective of limiting, which these do. Seriously, there are punishments for drinking while driving, and people still do it. But this law causes less people to do so. I'm not a perfect person, trust me, and if there wasn't tougher laws on drinking, I'd probably have drank while buzzed as well as many others, but because I don't want to kil someone or have my license taken, and insurance spiked I don't. So many other people don't because of that, whereas, before that much more did drive while under the influence. I went to St. John's islan for my sisters wedding back in 2008 and there were no laws against drinking while driving, and holy shit, it seemed like every person driving their car had a alcohol drink in their hand while driving their car there, it was kind of scary. If people taking drugs know the government that made their drugs illegal, but are regulating how much they can use or take, then they'll simply get away from the regulations by meeting up with drug dealers, so regulation wouldn't help any more than laws against such drugs.

You basically answered your own question: we should legalize and strictly regulate drugs, just like we do with drugs like alcohol. We have laws against drinking and driving, and there is no reason not to expect similar laws for any other mind-altering drug (depends on the effect and potential harm). Legalizing means that we will have at least some level of control over these drugs, while at the same time severely depriving profits from drug lords and traffickers.

There is no way to completely eliminate the harm from drugs (hell, even Tylenol can be lethal if misused). Our policy towards drugs should be towards making drugs as safe as possible (whatever results in the least harm). Prohibition has proven to be a failure, so we should be looking at alternatives - and that can only happen when prohibition is repealed and these drugs are legalized. This is my basic argument: we should look into building a logical, science-based framework for our drugs policy (as opposed to the fear/superstition/feel-good approach we are using now).


Anything you have to manufacture should be regulated by ELECTED professionals.

I disagree on the 'elected' part. We should be leaving such decisions to academic/science professionals (the worst thing we could ever do is leave such things open to political influence).
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 69
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 11/9/2013 5:32:28 PM
^^^^^^^^^Elected by other scientists as opposed to appointed by special interest groups.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 70
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 11/10/2013 8:04:17 AM

How the hell are you going to regulate drugs when they are legal?


In the same way anything legal is regulated? Like... with regulations.



If people don't have to be sneaky to get such drugs and it's open to access, they will get as much as they want and as much quantity from stores or markets and drug dealers they want.


This applies to alcohol as well, yet most people don't abandon their lives so they can devote themselves to consuming it. Besides, as post #64 points out, the restrictions have very little impact on availability anyway - all they do is criminalise large numbers of people who are not otherwise criminals, clog up the legal system to no effect, and make dealing with the issue sensibly much harder.



You got to look at it from the perspective of limiting, which these do.


How do you know? Large percentages of the population are known to have tried various 'illegal' drugs at one time or another. And what is the rationale behind wanting to 'limit drugs' anyway?
The evidence suggests that the prohibitions aimed at some drugs do more harm than the drugs.

As for the specific claim that the current approach 'limits' either use or supply -
http://www.icsdp.org/Libraries/doc1/All_Website_Full_Study.sflb.ashx
http://www.icsdp.org/Libraries/doc1/All_Website_Backgrounder_09_30_2230.sflb.ashx

September 2013
STUDY OVERVIEW
Published in the British Medical Journal Open, the study, entitled 'The temporal relationship between drug supply indicators: An audit of international government surveillance systems', raises questions about the effectiveness of international law enforcement efforts to reduce illegal drug supply.

Researchers reviewed approximately two decades of global drug surveillance data culled from government databases of illegal drug supply, and found the supply of major illegal drugs has (with few exceptions) increased, as measured through a general decline in the inflation-adjusted price and an increase in the purity of illegal drugs.

Specifically, researchers found that between 1990 and 2010:
• with the exception of powder cocaine, the purity and/or potency of illegal drugs in the U.S. generally increased;
• globally, the price of illegal drugs (with few exceptions) generally decreased; and
• these troubling trends occurred despite seizures of cannabis, cocaine, and opiates generally increasing in major drug production regions and major domestic markets.




Yes, but it regulates the drinking and driving part. It doesn't regulate people from drinking, so regulation doesn't help much in the sense you go some place and some drunk guy, irritable from being drunk, which some guys are and fights you or someone.
/snip/
A drug is not good like Cocaine, etc when it makes you want to steal $ from your grandma.

Your anecdotes are all very interesting, but tell me, do you suppose public policy (on drugs) might be more effective if the policy makers understood the actual harms and derived their responses and strategies thereto from the totality of the evidence? As in - what really works and, ideally, causes least harm.
Rather than forming their policy based on responses to popularity polls run by tabloids and talkback radio.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 71
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 11/10/2013 9:57:31 AM

Our workplaces will be flooded with drugs without being detected.


umm... why do you think that legalising drugs will make people suddenly abandon the concepts of doing a good job and being functional at work while simultaneously making them unconcerned about, firstly, not looking like a incompetent blockhead in front of their colleagues, and secondly, being fired?


Even if these dry drugs are legalized, I'm 100% sure, all companies would prohibit them from entering workplaces.

That's the case now. There's no reason anything would change. Being intoxicated at work (by anything), regardless of your occupation, is already grounds for dismissal. Sensitive industries already conduct drug and alcohol testing on their workforces to enforce zero tolerance policies.
Nothing would necessarily change.


Note, it's not possible to carry alcohol, beer or wine bottles, in your pockets, and take them to workplaces.

Yes it is. Hip flasks in your pocket, disguised 'water' bottles in your lunch, refilled fruitjuice tetrapaks, etc etc etc, though only a fool would do it.


The bottom line is our industrial productivity would take a nose dive.


Guesses and opinions aren't the same as facts.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 72
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 11/10/2013 3:00:32 PM

Another factor that goes against drugs and many are not thinking about, in my opinion,
is portability of drugs .
I pointed this out to some of my friends who were supporting legalization of drugs.
Our workplaces will be flooded with drugs without being detected.

Even if these dry drugs are legalized, I'm 100% sure, all companies would prohibit them from entering workplaces.

Note, it's not possible to carry alcohol, beer or wine bottles, in your pockets, and take them to workplaces.
But these type of dry drugs can be easily concealed in pockets or in small areas of a garment.
Alcoholic drinks require refrigeration and larger spaces for storage, not available everywhere.
But the dry drugs are very easy to carry around, can be stored in any place for as long as users want or until expiration date, if such a thing exists.

The bottom line is our industrial productivity would take a nose dive.

LOL, this is rich. People carry around small bottles with them all the time (e.g., in a small bag or backpack), filled with water, juice or some other liquid. Alcohol, like vodka or rum, can easily be stored in them instead and it would be virtually impossible to detect them (and of course these drinks don't require refrigeration). The only reason people do not secretly bring vodka-filled bottles to work is because they know that there will be serious repercussions if they are caught consuming them at work (which you can usually tell by their inebriated behavior and/or the smell of their breath).
 trinity818
Joined: 9/1/2006
Msg: 73
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 11/12/2013 12:14:06 PM
I don't know about the wisdom of legalizing all drugs, but there has been progress made in Cannabinoid research and it's tumor suppression capabilities.

http://www.medicinalgenomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Cannabinoids-for-Cancer-Treatment-Sarfaraz-2008.pdf

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

It is certainly worth looking further into. I feel our governments are doing us a grave disservice by inhibiting cannabinoid research.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 74
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 11/12/2013 5:09:33 PM

But I'd rather come across a drunk wanting to fight me but can feel pain. Than some psychotic person high on bath salts wanting to eat my face and trying to fight off a person who can't feel any pain what so ever. You can't compare the two.


True enough (actually, possibly not, as there are both numbing effects and increased hostility related to alcohol consumption), but just as unfair is the comparison of marijuana & "bath salts".
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 75
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 11/13/2013 3:56:56 PM

You may regulate with how people use or take drugs in public but how are you going to regulate people using drugs at home? You give certain amounts or quantities or set it that way? Well what if these people don't want their drugs regulated or certain quantities? They'll just seek a drug dealer or get the drug through other markets to get the non regulated amounts they want even if the drug is now legal. And some maybe double up on dosage just because they want more or don't care that so much can hurt them, because they want a stronger high now.

We should not be regulating how people use drugs in the privacy of their homes - laws and regulations on drug use should only be used to prevent harm to other members of society. After all, there's nothing to stop someone from overdosing on alcohol, or even Aspirin (there's no limit to how much you can buy at the local drug store).
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Legalizing drugs