Drugs should be completely legalized. It does not hurt you if I decided to take a drug. Nor should it matter if I hurt myself while on an illegal substance if I have made the conscious decision to take the drug. I will tell you what kills more people than crack cocaine. Heart disease. So if you are to limit my use of a drug because I may cause harm to myself, then by those same standards should bacon be added to a list of illegal foods because it may cause you harm?

Drugs have been present since the beginning of civilization, some even think it may be what caused our rapid development into civilization. But the main point is that we humans like our drugs, and I would be hard pressed to think of a point where we will ever stop taking them, legal or not.

You will also ending up helping a lot of people out. Addicts are too afraid of facing harsh prison sentences for the drug use, so they refuse to seek help because they fear they will be arrested. Legalization will allow for them to seek help more openly.

Drugs are not the problem, abuse of them is. Just like with any prescription drug if you overuse or misuse them they can be dangerous. But used in appropriate levels with moderation there should be no reason I can't trip balls once or twice a month.

(June 27, 2013 at 7:57 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: No, but I know of ppl who buy illegal cigarettes.

Whens the last time their illegal cigarette dealer got into a firefight with small arms, rpgs, apcs, techs,and wire guided missiles against the governing body of a foreign state? Illegal cigarettes, I'm guessing, means tax free smokes, state line crossers. Small potatoes. The american farmer could deliver you a pack-o-weed for a marginally higher price than a pack of smokes. Not going to be able to afford too many private armies that way though - and there's no need to, as law will product your product (as a producer) rather than threaten it.

(June 28, 2013 at 1:33 am)plaincents822 Wrote: Drugs should be completely legalized. It does not hurt you if I decided to take a drug. Nor should it matter if I hurt myself while on an illegal substance if I have made the conscious decision to take the drug. I will tell you what kills more people than crack cocaine. Heart disease. So if you are to limit my use of a drug because I may cause harm to myself, then by those same standards should bacon be added to a list of illegal foods because it may cause you harm?

Yes. Aware of that. Heart disease is the culmination of plenty of lifestyle and genetic factors, not just one substance. People do take steps to help others prevent it, if i'm not mistaken people are taking steps to make school lunches healthier, kids do more gym, etc. etc. This sort of diseases is about prevention, it's not addiction. Unless you're talking about people who are addicted to food?

Quote:Drugs have been present since the beginning of civilization, some even think it may be what caused our rapid development into civilization. But the main point is that we humans like our drugs, and I would be hard pressed to think of a point where we will ever stop taking them, legal or not.

Agreed. Should we not make recreational drugs safer? Should we stick to dangerous ones because ppl like them?

Quote:You will also ending up helping a lot of people out. Addicts are too afraid of facing harsh prison sentences for the drug use, so they refuse to seek help because they fear they will be arrested. Legalization will allow for them to seek help more openly.

Decriminalization.

Quote:Drugs are not the problem, abuse of them is. Just like with any prescription drug if you overuse or misuse them they can be dangerous. But used in appropriate levels with moderation there should be no reason I can't trip balls once or twice a month.

I know there are people who can use recreational drugs and not get addicted. I also know there are people who are predisposed to addiction (it's genetic). Scientists have had a lot of trouble trying to pinpoint what exactly causes addiction and very recently there's research showing it's biological in basis and caused by the drug. Not all drugs are created equal, drugs that you take for medication now have been through trials to see their potential for misuse. Some are more likely to cause addiction than others, in other words. And addiction, when you first take a drug, before you get addicted you're in control, once you are addicted you feel horrible without the drug. It is a form of suffering. You may be convinced that people want to suffer when they choose to do this, I am more convinced that addiction is a medical condition where someone really cannot control if they want to take a drug or not, the urge is just overwhelming. If everyone used drugs in moderation and addiction is such minor and rare thing, then there's really no need to fuss over this, but people don't. And prescription drug serve a purpose, it's a benefit vs risk thing, and they are the most misused, not the illegal ones.[/quote]

(June 28, 2013 at 2:06 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Yes. Aware of that. Heart disease is the culmination of plenty of lifestyle and genetic factors, not just one substance. People do take steps to help others prevent it, if i'm not mistaken people are taking steps to make school lunches healthier, kids do more gym, etc. etc. This sort of diseases is about prevention, it's not addiction. Unless you're talking about people who are addicted to food?

I would argue that food is an addiction for everyone, albeit an addiction that without we would die. But if you don't think you're addicted to food I would challenge you to try and quit, I guarantee a relapse.

None-the-less drug abuse and addiction is not a simple as "if you take the drug you're abusing it" or "if you take the drug once you're addicted." I would argue they are motivated by the same lifestyle and genetic factors attributed to heart disease.

(June 28, 2013 at 2:06 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Agreed. Should we not make recreational drugs safer? Should we stick to dangerous ones because ppl like them?

We can certainly attempt to make safer drugs, that I have absolutely no problem with. But in order to make those safer drugs, drugs have to be legalized because it is against the law to use those substances. So we cannot make safer drugs without first legalization for experimentation. In a free legalized market, companies would also be competing to make drugs that are safer because safer drugs means more customers.

Even still if someone chooses to use a dangerous drug it is their choice to partake. Again relating back to heart disease, imagine if I told you that bacon was just too harmful for you so from now on you had to eat turkey bacon because it's healthier. It shouldn't matter if one is healthier than the other, you should be able to choose based on your own concerns and evaluations. If you choose to eat healthier than by all means do so, but no one should be able to force you to eat healthier.

(June 28, 2013 at 2:06 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Decriminalization.

Truly gangster's paradise. Say for example they decriminalize ecstasy. So it is not illegal to use it, but it still remains an unregulated product. That allows the illegal manufacturer the opportunity to add unhealthy fillers to the product and sell it to customers at a decreased risk. Where as a legalized and regulated manufacturer would be required to put no unhealthy additives to the product. Essentially decriminalization gives a nice surface appearance, but leaves the underground drug world untouched.

(June 28, 2013 at 2:06 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: I know there are people who can use recreational drugs and not get addicted. I also know there are people who are predisposed to addiction (it's genetic). Scientists have had a lot of trouble trying to pinpoint what exactly causes addiction and very recently there's research showing it's biological in basis and caused by the drug. Not all drugs are created equal, drugs that you take for medication now have been through trials to see their potential for misuse. Some are more likely to cause addiction than others, in other words. And addiction, when you first take a drug, before you get addicted you're in control, once you are addicted you feel horrible without the drug. It is a form of suffering. You may be convinced that people want to suffer when they choose to do this, I am more convinced that addiction is a medical condition where someone really cannot control if they want to take a drug or not, the urge is just overwhelming. If everyone used drugs in moderation and addiction is such minor and rare thing, then there's really no need to fuss over this, but people don't. And prescription drug serve a purpose, it's a benefit vs risk thing, and they are the most misused, not the illegal ones.

I am sorry to inform you but the high addiction rate thing is cooked up from the war on drugs.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2008...ntage_drug

Take it from someone that has taken his own fair share of drugs. That whole, "if you take it once you'll become an addict" mantra the D.A.R.E. police like to repeat doesn't hold up very well.

The Streets pretty much sums up my feelings on the topic of legalizing MJ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxF4vE67g40

Maybe Obama's feelings about medical marijuana are like mine toward watermelons that haven't been stolen. Spoils the enjoyment? (Hard to make that case to the people in jail though.)

Obama knows that if he allows marijuana to be accessible then conservatives will view him as weak/wants to destroy morality. Obama cares too much about his image to do something that would actually help the country out. That's the main problem with Obama.

(June 28, 2013 at 1:33 am)plaincents822 Wrote: Drugs should be completely legalized. It does not hurt you if I decided to take a drug. Nor should it matter if I hurt myself while on an illegal substance if I have made the conscious decision to take the drug.

To a certain extent, but it does tend to hurt society to a certain extent when someone becomes addicted. Drugs like crack cocaine or methamphetamine are highly addictive, and there's not really any such thing as an occasional user. It's also highly unlikely that a crack or meth user is going to remain gainfully employed for long, so they either have to resort to public assistance or crime. This is why I generally don't have a problem with marijuana, because it is not addictive like the harder drugs are. You never hear of anyone going to rehab for a marijuana addiction. It's apparently able to enjoy it recreationally without having it interfere with your life.

The other problem I have with hard drugs like methamphetamine is that the production of meth results for 9 lbs. of toxic waste for every 1 lb. of drug manufactured. All this toxic waste will have to be dealt with, though it could be argued that drug companies being regulated with what they do with their waste is better than a couple of rednecks brewing it up in their trailer park and then throwing the toxic waste outside on the ground or pouring it down the sink.

The black pres that enhanced welfare programs and legalized drugs. Yeah, mystifying yall, why he wouldn't want to be that guy.

(June 28, 2013 at 7:49 am)HAL9000 Wrote: Obama knows that if he allows marijuana to be accessible then conservatives will view him as weak/wants to destroy morality. Obama cares too much about his image to do something that would actually help the country out. That's the main problem with Obama.

I wish he'd realize that they're going to keep hating him no matter what. They've never liked him and never will. That's why there are all those teabaggers calling him a Marxist Nazi Commie Muslim liberal. And also seeing as how he doesn't need to worry about reelection, he should just do what is right instead of worrying about offending the right wing of the country.