What drugs should be decriminalized?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date

What drugs should be decriminalized?

  • Total voters
    10
Don Quixote said:
what makes you think that a large number of people would get stoned and wander around in public or operate a vehicle while stoned
Click to expand...

What makes you think they wouldn't?

Don Quixote said:
or at least as many as are in prison for drug offenses right now
Click to expand...

And if they were released, would they would get stoned and wander around in public or operate a vehicle while stoned?
 
Rune said:
Only those which one can grow themselves should be legal.
Click to expand...

Heroin is basically from opium poppies, but undergoes some degree of processing. Of course, if that's too much for you, then I'm sure people would be just glad to switch to morphine, which is a product fully extracted from opium poppies. The only reason addicts really switched to heroin in the first place is because it's more powerful for its weight, which is, of course, useful in an illegal market. In a legal market, morphine would probably thrive over heroin anyway,

It would, of course, be utterly stupid to allow the sell of morphine, while not allowing the sale of safer drugs such as ecstacy, LSD, or even Cocaine. Really, morhpine/heroin are basically the worst drugs.
 
RazorX said:
I agree, just as soon as the government promises not to spend one fucking dime on drug rehabs, AIDS hospices, crack babies, and all the other ills that are caused by drug abuse of responsible adults.
Click to expand...

1. Should we stop spending money on anti-alcoholism measures as well?

2. How would you tell whether their AIDS was from an STD or an unclean needle? Should we just stop treating AIDS as a public health hazard, in order to properly sate your vindiciveness? Anyway, the only reason injection is really so popular among heroin users is because the bioavailability is much higher using that method, which is important mainly due to the fact that the drug is expensive because it's banned.

3. Crack babies are a myth. Babies born to a parent that had used cocaine/crack have incidences of defects roughly equivalent to those of mothers who used nicotine, and not as bad as mothers who used alcohol. Really, most of what you've heard about crack in your life is bullshit hysteria. For instance, the media seemed to treat it as some new drug, when in reality it was just a simpler method of freebasing cocaine for smoking (freebasing being required because cocaine, being a slat, doesn't burn). Of course, smoking a drug produces a much faster effect than snorting or ingesting it, and it's also more bioavailable that way, so a smoked drug is more likely to cause addiction. But all of the new things that were attributed to crack specifically, such as "crack babies" was bullshit.

Anyway, it's really weird and honestly disgusting that you'd say that we should refuse to treat a child with birth defects because those birth defects are caused by the mother using drugs. I hate rightists, fucking sick in the head. You guys have no emotions besides contempt for your fellow human beings, and spite.
 
EchoSackett said:
A tax on drugs was the inroad to illegalization. You don't want to create another special interest. We'd be better off handling it through voluntary donations.
Click to expand...

That's an oversimplification. Marijuana was illegal in all 50 states, and the federal government was looking for a method of helping to enforce the ban at the federal level without drawing the ire of the extremely conservative Lochner era court. The idea it hit upon was simply to pass a tax on marijunia - if people paid their tax, they'd be incriminating themselves in state courts. Obviously, not many people paid their tax, which gave the federal government the excuse it was looking for to treat it as a criminal matter. Later, of course, courts took a much more expansive view of the interstate commerce clause, and now the federal government basically prosecutes it on that ground without reference to the tax law.

Anyway, other drugs, such as tobacco and alcohol, are taxed very heavily, and, surprisingly enough, this has not been "an inroad to illegalization". Taxation done for the purpose of generating revenue should not be considered equivalent to taxation that is mostly an excuse for the federal government to help enforce a ban on the drug, dealing with interstate drug trading and such. And taxation wasn't an "inroad to illegalization", because it was already illegal everywhere. There was no point in time where someone was thinking that they were passing this tax law with the serious purpose in mind of generating revenue, or when some crafty committee chairman was sitting in his lair somewhere, saying "Fools! They think it's just a tax! I've really pulled the wool over their eyes, because there's no way this would pass if it were simply a ban on marijuana rather than a dark, secret road to illegalization!", while laughing evilly.
 
Damocles said:
I think DQ meant to make laws that are stronger for illegal acts committed under the influence. Decriminalize the drugs, heavy laws for crimes committed under the influence, all while stressing mental health and drug counseling.

The reality is the only real regulation on those drugs now is what is put on them by the drug cartels, this makes it easy to get children addicted. The war on drugs is fought stupidly.
Click to expand...

I don't think the laws should be any harsher for acts committed under the influence than such acts committed regularly. In order to specially discourage irresponsible use of the drug, it should not be a mitigating factor, but I don't see why it should be treated worse.
 
Isn't one of the reasons for laws prohibiting drug use is that people under the influence of drugs are likely to hurt themselves and others?
 
Don Quixote said:
i do not recommend any of the above with the exception of buddah butter made from mj

also, i do not know what drugs can be synthesized or made at home (maybe lsd)

i also forgot datura, a plant that grows wild in ca, but may be purchased in nurseries...
Click to expand...

Datura is kind of toxic, and it's a deliriant rather than a hallucinogen, which isn't pleasant. You can also get the same effect from taking a great deal of Benadryl. Let's just say that there are not many cases of Datura or Benadryl addiction. Most people who try it, try it once, and wish that they had not tried it. With Hallucinogens, mostly you just see colors, and things look particularly vivid for a while. Stories of people typically getting full on hallucinations of some complex thing that's not really there are overblown, and it's not as if you can't tell the difference between the visual distortions and reality. In particular, stories of people jumping off of buildings because LSD made them think they could fly are obviously bullshit (how did you know they thought they could fly? Did you ask them afterward? This myth comes Diana Linkletter, who committed suicide several months after using the drug, but is often erroneously described as being on it at the time). The hallucinations with deliriants, on the other hand, can't be differentiated from reality. Also, LSD and other psychedelics usually induce a sense of euphoria, while the Deliriants mainly cause stupor and confusion.

Anyway, the only drug most people could synthesize at home would probably be meth. The amphetamines are the simplest synthetic psychoactive compounds, which is probably why they were also they the first to be discovered. Ecstacy, on the other hand, requires more skill than most people have, and LSD requires basically a PhD in Chemistry to synthesize. I mean, even if you had the knowledge, one key ingredient, ergotamine, is so heavily controlled and so rare that you'd have to have a pretty sophisticated criminal network to hope to obtain it. It's definitely not something someone's going to be making in their home.
 
\\((|))// said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Almost immediately the violent crimes associated with illegal distribution would cease, the price would reduce so that idiots who take them wouldn't have to steal to get them. Basically look at the improvements one can associate with the end of the First Prohibition and you will see the same benefits associated with ending the Second Prohibition.

It would be far more difficult for the underage to get them as they would sell behind counters where people check IDs, more supportable DUI laws and research into effects could be done (idiots wouldn't be able to claim that MJ has no associated cancers, well unless it really doesn't, for instance because real medical research could be conducted.

You could write whole books about the subject (many have been written about the ending of the First Prohibition).
 
Damocles said:
Almost immediately the violent crimes associated with illegal distribution would cease
Click to expand...

They would? How do you know?

Damocles said:
the price would reduce so that idiots who take them wouldn't have to steal to get them.
Click to expand...

Really? Who told you that?

Damocles said:
Basically look at the improvements one can associate with the end of the First Prohibition and you will see the same benefits associated with ending the Second Prohibition.
Click to expand...

Have you got some examples?

Damocles said:
It would be far more difficult for the underage to get them as they would sell behind counters where people check IDs
Click to expand...

Do those types of laws stop underage drinking? Smoking?

Damocles said:
more supportable DUI laws
Click to expand...

How so? What's unsupportable about current DUI laws?

Damocles said:
research into effects could be done (idiots wouldn't be able to claim that MJ has no associated cancers, well unless it really doesn't, for instance because real medical research could be conducted.
Click to expand...

So no real medical research has been conducted as of now?

Damocles said:
You could write whole books about the subject (many have been written about the ending of the First Prohibition).
Click to expand...

Got any suggestions? I'd like to read one or two.
 
Damocles said:
Almost immediately the violent crimes associated with illegal distribution would cease, the price would reduce so that idiots who take them wouldn't have to steal to get them. Basically look at the improvements one can associate with the end of the First Prohibition and you will see the same benefits associated with ending the Second Prohibition.

It would be far more difficult for the underage to get them as they would sell behind counters where people check IDs, more supportable DUI laws and research into effects could be done (idiots wouldn't be able to claim that MJ has no associated cancers, well unless it really doesn't, for instance because real medical research could be conducted.

You could write whole books about the subject (many have been written about the ending of the First Prohibition).
Click to expand...

Actually it seems that MJ may be a powerfull anti-carcinogenic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top