Recreational Drug Use Legalization

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Cloud

Really? all drugs? I don't know of anyone who supports this...

Radar hasn't chimed in yet. I'm just sayin'.

[Cloud]

maybe you should make a poll

[Shawnee123]

'ere

[Flint]

Another angle:
The government outlaws the chemicals needed to make chemically pure forms of illegal drugs, and the labs resond by finding newer, dirtier ways to cook even more dangerous, less stable concoctions; and the user doesn't even know what he/she is ingesting/injecting/smoking. At least, if we let them keep cooking the good stuff, it would be less dangerous to the people who are going to do it anyway.

[piercehawkeye45]

Before a good law could be made, there has to be a distinction between "soft" and "hard" drugs. I support the legalization of all drugs but think that the "hard" drugs should be regulated much more heavily than "soft" drugs.

"Soft drugs"

• Marijuana
• Shrooms
• LSD
• Ecstasy
• Alochol
• Tobacco

"Hard" Drugs

• Cocaine
• Crack
• Opiates
• PCP
• Meth
• etc

I would like to see all the soft drugs have the same rules and regulations. They should be legal for everyone above 18 but if someone breaks the law while under the influence of one of these drugs, the penalty for the crime should be increased. These drugs, while potentially harmful, will not kill people (besides alcohol) and only present a risk to society or other individuals when one loses control.

The economic regulations will have to be a little different with the traditional illegal drugs compared to alcohol and cigarettes because of business interests but that will be easy to solve if any solution is necessary.


The hard drugs should be either prescribed or heavily regulated over the counter (I haven't thought about this too much yet). These drugs are dangerous to not only the user, but the people around them but this is the best solution in my opinion because if we have no regulation or totally illegalize it, it will be abused much more often. We can not prevent hard drug use, but we can lower the numbers with education and regulation.


I believe all drugs should be legalized because it is in the same boat as alcohol and sex. Prohibition failed and teaching safe sex will cause many less pregnancies and STDs as opposed to abstinence. As I said earlier, you can not stop drug use or sexual activity, but you can lower the numbers by education and regulation and more importantly, teach kids to do these more responsibly.

Other reasons is that it will lower the amount of people in jail, it will stop the black market on drug trade and the crime that comes with it, allow faster and more effective rehabilitation, safer and more pure drug use since some drugs like ecstasy are safe when pure but very dangerous when cut with heroin or meth, brings some money to the state in forms of taxes, better research on drugs, and can have better control solving problems when it comes to drug use.

[lookout123]

What exactly is the logical dividing line between hard and soft drugs?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by lookout123

What exactly is the logical dividing line between hard and soft drugs?

I divided them based on addiction (besides alcohol) and death rates. My list is just based off my research and personal experience so I'm not saying that my list should be concrete.

I would consider acid a soft drug because it is non-addicting and you can not overdose on it. There are obviously pretty big health risks that come with it but with proper education it can be a lot safer so people know how to avoid and take care of bad trips and avoid taking a hit a week or anything insane like that.

Does anyone know of any studies of LSD that goes more in depth than Merc's article, specifically the frying of the brain as Cloud mentioned?


For MDMA (ecstasy), I believe most of the negative effects come from impurities, which would be avoided if legalized, and besides that, the three leading causes of death with ecstasy are Hyponatremia (drinking too much water), Hyperthermia (body overheating), and overdose, all which are preventable (keep in mind this is coming from someone that has never taken it). And for addiction, I haven't seen any hard proof that it is addicting because of the real lack of pure ecstasy. This is obviously a drug that would need to be taken with extreme caution and it really is hard to tell without any definite studies.


For shrooms, it is very similar to lsd.


Aliantha, I personally have not taken either shrooms or lsd but I know many people that have done them responsibly and they were well in control of themselves. I would still say alochol makes people do much stupider things than either shrooms or lsd.


Monster, people convicted of drug charges have a choice to go the frontline to avoid jailtime so I guess they are already exploring the option. But I personally don't like the idea of the state actually training that many antisocial personalities, though it isn't like jail is much better.



For state intervention, what I would like to see is that there is drug education to high school freshman that goes in depth and talks about the realities of drug use and then I will stick with my ideas on regulation and availability. I also think that rehab and hospital treatment should be around the same as it is now.

[monster]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I
Monster, people convicted of drug charges have a choice to go the frontline to avoid jailtime so I guess they are already exploring the option. But I personally don't like the idea of the state actually training that many antisocial personalities, though it isn't like jail is much better.

Who said anything about training them? They can take the places of our expensively trained real soldiers, drawing the fire.... so then the real soldiers can go in, do what they have to and come home again. on two legs, not in a bag.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I divided them based on addiction (besides alcohol) and death rates.

Death rates alone do not tell the story.

I would consider acid a soft drug because it is non-addicting and you can not overdose on it.

That would be an incorrect assumption.

There are obviously pretty big health risks that come with it but with proper education it can be a lot safer so people know how to avoid and take care of bad trips and avoid taking a hit a week or anything insane like that.

Your assumption is that drug users seekers are rational people who can control their urges and desires. Another false assumption.

Does anyone know of any studies of LSD that goes more in depth than Merc's article, specifically the frying of the brain as Cloud mentioned?

There are whole textbooks written on the subject. The effects of LSD drug abuse are highly documented.

For MDMA (ecstasy), I believe most of the negative effects come from impurities, which would be avoided if legalized, and besides that, the three leading causes of death with ecstasy are Hyponatremia (drinking too much water), Hyperthermia (body overheating), and overdose, all which are preventable (keep in mind this is coming from someone that has never taken it). And for addiction, I haven't seen any hard proof that it is addicting because of the real lack of pure ecstasy. This is obviously a drug that would need to be taken with extreme caution and it really is hard to tell without any definite studies.

The studies are very well documented as are the deaths and effects of long term use of MDMA. This is not a new thing here guys. You talk like this is some new fangled thing that people are just playing with on the side. And granted there may be people like that. IMHO the the health risks well out weigh any minor benifit of getting you jollies for a night of bliss.

For shrooms, it is very similar to lsd.

Correct, same negative effects.

I would still say alochol makes people do much stupider things than either shrooms or lsd.

Less stupid? An individual is certainly in much less control under the influence of shrooms or LSD, alcohol is at least something that you can graduate.

Monster, people convicted of drug charges have a choice to go the frontline to avoid jailtime so I guess they are already exploring the option.

Completely and utterly incorrect. That option went out in the 70's.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That would be an incorrect assumption.

??

"LSD is not considered an addictive drug since it does not produce compulsive drug-seeking behavior as do cocaine, amphetamine, heroin, alcohol, and nicotine."
http://www.drug-addiction.com/what_is_lsd.htm

"I must emphasize that there is no danger of death or injury from overdose of LSD, which must have about the highest therapeutic index of any drug known (the ratio of fatal dose to effective dose is unknown since no human being has ever died from an overdose of LSD, but must be very high, as individuals have mistakenly ingested hundreds of doses at a sitting; this is a way of saying that the drug is not at all toxic)."
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_dose.shtml

Your assumption is that drug users seekers are rational people who can control their urges and desires. Another false assumption.

When did I ever make an absolute statement? There are rational and irrational drug users, what makes this issue any different than alcohol?

Less stupid? An individual is certainly in much less control under the influence of shrooms or LSD, alcohol is at least something that you can graduate.

From the many friends that I've known that has taken acid and shrooms, no one has done anything really stupid, though none of them took large doses and most of them are in fairly good control when under the influence of other drugs as well.

[Cloud]

Does anyone know of any studies of LSD that goes more in depth than Merc's article, specifically the frying of the brain as Cloud mentioned?

I'm sure there are plenty, since LSD is probably the most heavily documented drug of all.

But I'm not basing that statement on studies--I'm basing it on personal knowledge from contact with people who have overdone this particular drug.

[Cloud]

LSD is a pretty fucking hard drug. And I should know. Too much of that will fry your brains just like those iconic eggs.

Even if we stipulate that better laws can be made, and use logic to determine what those should be . . . the moralists would never agree to it.

[lookout123]

moralists? who is that exactly? Christians? Conservatives? I'm a big C Christian who is pretty conservative, but if you can show me a reasonable drug policy that will improve society, then I'm all for it.

[Undertoad]

I'm with PH. Level 1 widely available, level 2 drugs only available by prescription. Prohibition has failed us and we need to figure out a way to admit it without scaring the blue-hairs.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'm with PH. Level 1 widely available, level 2 drugs only available by prescription. Prohibition has failed us and we need to figure out a way to admit it without scaring the blue-hairs.

How do you decide goes in which list and how do you regulate? If it is legal you know it's going to be regulated or someone gets sued. You can end up with some nasty quality variations in list 1 as it stands.