Drugs

[Danoff]

Drugs are bad. mmmkay?

I’d like to preface this thread by saying that I never have and never will take drugs for recreational reasons. I take medicine when I need it, pain killers after surgery - that kind of thing. But the drugs I’m talking about here are recreational.

I’m interested in hearing why (not whether) you guys think drugs should be made legal or stay illegal (or both and at what capacity).

 

[Duke]

In a nutshell, I'll put it this way. Let me stipulate that I'm oversimplifying a bit.

Drugs should be pretty much legalized. They should be sold like cigarettes or liquor, with a clear and simple warning concerning the dangers and health risks, and only to those over 18 or 21 or some age.

BUT.

Any crime committed while testing positive for drug use should come with a mandatory doubling of penalty. So if you kill someone while driving blasted, or you mug someone to support your habit, you're doing double time.

If you can control your actions and your consumption, you're not a criminal.

I can forsee the outcry that this system punishes poor people, because obviously rich people won't have to steal to support a drug habit, but poor people will. Tough. Rich people can eat better food, drive nicer cars, and live in bigger houses, too. That's the reason to be rich.

 

[DGB454]

Yeah..I want to be riding on the same road that someone on Acid is driving on. That way if he kills me he will double his prison sentence and my family will have the satisfaction that he is in jail for a long time. (good trade off huh?)

Keep them illegal. That's all we need is more legal mind altering drugs for people to be driving on the roads with.

 

[Gil]

Drugs can be legalized, IF they can make it past the FDA's testing standards for safety, and side effects, propagation of other diseases, etc.
I figure they took Hismanal (a pretty good antihistamine, that had some really bad side effects related to heart disease) off the market. Ecstasy, LSD, and Marijuana have no chance. Though Marinol, an appetite stimulant made from Cannibis, seems to be doing all right.
If that's not an option, than I have to agree with DGB. I really don't give a flying flip if you do drugs at home, after putting your keys in a 4 or 5 digit combo lock safe, with a time lock feature, that won't allow the combination to be worked for at least an hour...
(I figure if you're straight enough to open the safe, you're prolly straight enough to drive)
But if you're gonna get "polluted" then join me and mine on the streets of this nation. I would rather you stick with Tylenol.

 

[milefile]

There are so many different kinds of recreational drugs. Some of them are produced as prescriptions and used recreationally. Some are produced only for recreation, including alcohol. And all of them have varying levels of detriment/benefit. Some can cause psychosis, some merely laziness. Some can kill you, others can't. Some cause biological addiction, which often leads to crime, and some don't. The term "recreational drugs", although everybody knows what it means, is not that useful. The law, already contrived, would still need to be complicated and comprehensive to account for so many variables. But the bottom line should be personal responibility; only when your lifestyle infringes on someone else's does it become a problem, and only then should laws become relevant. I essentially agree with neon duke, although I'd call it de-criminalization. The law might need to reserve some kind of control, and there would be some benefit to leaving a modicum of deterent in place, like a ticket.

And DGB, your driving example holds no water at all because alcohol is legal. Unless you are prepared to say alcohol should be criminalized, you're just blowing smoke. The decision to drive intoxicated is just that. The intoxicant is practically irrelevant.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by DGB454
Yeah..I want to be riding on the same road that someone on Acid is driving on.

Then what about alcohol? It's already illegal to drive under the influence... so by your logic, the next step is to make alcohol consumption illegal as well.

Driving while intoxicated is driving while intoxicated, no matter what the intoxicant is.

 

[1X83Z]

Great. Suddenly, we legalise drugs and double the number of DWI-related road deaths. Suddenly we legalise drugs and now there are hundreds of watchdog and government groups trying to raise awareness as there now are for alcohol - that's a lot of money down the toilet. When we legalise drugs, the same thing will happen here that happened in Zurich ten years ago - it will turn to crap so the citizens will get the drug laws repealed anyway.

Does anybody find it interesting that neon_duke is against public smoking but for public drug use?

 

[milefile]

I'm not following how driving is the first thing people think of.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by milefile
I'm not following how driving is the first thing people think of.

Why wouldn't it be?

 

[Danoff]

First of all, I don't think Neon ever said he was for public drug use. He said that it would be BAD to allow drugs to be used while driving. We have public intoxication laws, though alcohol is free. We have intoxication laws about driving and alcohol remains free to use. I don't see a problem with allowing drugs to be legal, but holding them to the standards that alcohol is held to.

I'm with Milefile and Duke.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by M5Power
Does anybody find it interesting that neon_duke is against public smoking but for public drug use?

Where did I say that?

It's illegal to be intoxicated in public. I have a friend who was ticketed for walking home drunk, because he had been smart enough not to drive. That's another issue, but it illustrates the point.

You're welcome to use drugs. But don't shoot up in the park or go screaming down the street when the acid takes a wrong turn in your head. If you can't not do those things, don't do drugs.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Where did I say that?

Do you honestly expect people would use drugs only within their home and never go out in public high? People don't do that now, and it isn't even legal.

 

[Duke]

We are expected to do so with alcohol. We shouldn't we be expected to do so with marijuana or cocaine?

I fail to understand why the laws should be different. Anything that can pass FDA approval as being consumable may be consumed. Items that cause intoxication should be controlled to restrict access to adults. Actions that are dangerous to perform while intoxicated, such as driving, should be illegal when you are intoxicated.

What is the fundamental difference that you see between alcohol abd the drugs I mentioned above?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by neon_duke
We are expected to do so with alcohol.

But we clearly do not do so with alcohol! 17,500 People died from collisions in which alcohol was involved in 2001; a number which is steadily rising. Why do we need to add more drugs that can easily cause death to the few we've already got?

Actions that are dangerous to perform while intoxicated, such as driving, should be illegal when you are intoxicated.

They are, but that doesn't stop it from happening. Ever. I don't want more drug-addicted losers on the streets, around me or anybody I care about. We've got enough problems trying to stop alcohol abuse and DUI-related deaths. If you actually think the government saying 'friends don't let friends drive drunk' works, you're in a fantasy world. The surgeon general warning people about cigarette use doesn't work, too, clearly.

What is the fundamental difference that you see between alcohol abd the drugs I mentioned above?

None, both should be banned immediately.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by M5Power

None, both should be banned immediately. [/B]

That's centrist?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by milefile
That's centrist?

No, it's experience. I let my emotions talk on some issues.

 

[milefile]

I'd be bummed if couldn't enjoy a beer while grilling up the brats on Memorial Day.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by M5Power
But we clearly do not do so with alcohol! 17,500 People died from collisions in which alcohol was involved in 2001; a number which is steadily rising. Why do we need to add more drugs that can easily cause death to the few we've already got?

How about this. We take the billions of dollars spent trying to prevent drug use in general, and focus those resources on preventing intoxicated driving. That ought to be easier to make a dent in. And more effective, too.

None, both should be banned immediately.

Although I disagree, at least your logic is internally consistant, which is worthy of respect.

 

[Gil]

I still believe that hosts and bars should have a combo lockbox that everyone puts their car keys in before they get any alcoholic beverage.
If they can work the combination, (and it should be fairly complicated). Then they can drive home. IF not they should have a ride called for them.
It would take a heck of a lot more responsibility than we presently show as a society.
For that reason alone I have some difficulty with the de-criminalization of "recreational" drugs.
Now, on the flip side, if recreational drugs were regulated by the Government, and made to certain tolerances by drug companies, the incidences of OD's might go down dramatically.

Duke is right on the point that DWI is DWI no matter what the intoxicant. I suppose, reservedly, that decriminalization has a chance of actually lowering drug use.
Part of the allure is the "high". But, in a lot of cases, the thrill of doing something "wrong" and against the law, adds to the thrill.

Legal or not, it's still a bad idea to drink to excess, drug to excess, eat to excess, etc.
Each of those things take a toll on your body, whether or not you get prematurely killed as a result of your particular addiction.

 

[vat_man]

Make 'em legal - and tax the hell out of them (not so they're more expensive than currently, though). Set up a licensing scheme for dealers, and impose very strong penalties on those dealing without licenses. As part of the licensing scheme, dealers should be forced to identify where they get their supplies from - something I'm sure international drug agencies would be interested in.

I like duke's idea of penalties for crimes being commited whilst under the influence of drugs (including alcohol) being doubled.

If people are going to do these things, the Govt should at least be making some money out of it.

...and if you think people aren't driving when high now, you might be in for a shock, because they are, particularly with marijuana (specifically because it's very difficult to detect at the moment).

 

[Pako]

I don't know... I first have to decide the motivation out of my comment. I've seen many friends and family members destroy their lives with legal/non-legal drugs. Drugs are drugs, and outside of their intended, medical purpose, I see to purpose of their existance.

Now purley from a Governmental control issue, I say legalize and tax the bajeebies out of it. (see vat_man's post)

Then theirs the subject of 'natural' herbs and such. Now when I say natural, I'm not talking about 2000mg THC, genetically altered, roid pumped canibus, but actually, naturally grown plants, cactie, and fungas shouldn't be made illegal nor should it try to be taxed for 'own consumption'.

Those are just my simple thoughts...

 

[Danoff]

Make 'em legal - and tax the hell out of them

I’ve heard this argument sooo many times. And it’s true to a certain extent. The government saves money in the long run because:

1) We don’t have to ask the coast guard to chase down drug smugglers
2) We don’t have to pay police to find dealers
3) We can tax them (more on this in a moment)
4) Drug users take up a lot of space in prisons. It’s bad enough that these non-violent offenders are right next to violent criminals, but that they end up draining tax dollars doing so is just wrong.

I’m sure there are more reasons that we’d save money as a country, but those are the ones I could think of.

Have you ever heard of acid users referring to finding a “safe place” before they use the drug? That’s exactly what most hardcore drug users do. They don’t shoot up cocaine or heroin or acid and then go out in public shooting people and driving cars…. they get somewhere where there are a bunch of pillows and food and hallucinate for a while. The idea is to feel good, not get killed.

So I don’t think we’d see a whole bunch of druggies driving around - Especially if it were illegal like driving while drunk. They could even keep their TLA (three letter acronym) and call it DWI.

About the taxes… We can tax them, but only to a degree. After a threshold, taxes create a black market. This is already happening with cigarettes in some areas (New York). That only takes money away from the companies making the products, and prevents taxes from getting to the government.

Another fringe benefit of legalizing drugs is that it would allow companies to make the drugs carefully. For drug users this means even better drugs. For the rest of us, it means fewer drug users (friends, family) end up dead because the drug was laced with something.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by neon_duke
How about this. We take the billions of dollars spent trying to prevent drug use in general, and focus those resources on preventing intoxicated driving. That ought to be easier to make a dent in. And more effective, too.

We try to prevent intoxicated driving, and we find loads and loads of drunks at those roadside checkpoints at every holiday, but the fact is that nearly 20,000 people were killed in year 2001 in DUI traffic collisions. There's no way anybody can prove to me that this number won't grow - maybe even double - if we legalise even more things that impair judgement.

Make 'em legal - and tax the hell out of them (not so they're more expensive than currently, though).

Why not? I don't much care about cigarettes, with examples I've cited of it helping the economy, and the long period of time it takes when exposed to secondhand smoke for it to kill you (plus your ability to get up and run if you feel your health is threatened), but alcohol is cheap and dangerous the way it is handled currently.

Set up a licensing scheme for dealers, and impose very strong penalties on those dealing without licenses. As part of the licensing scheme, dealers should be forced to identify where they get their supplies from - something I'm sure international drug agencies would be interested in.

International drug agencies? Why wouldn't we just start growing marijuana in America?

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by M5Power
International drug agencies? Why wouldn't we just start growing marijuana in America?

Yeah - that's about as likely as legalising drugs in the first place - what about heavier drugs like heroin and cocaine?

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by vat_man
Yeah - that's about as likely as legalising drugs in the first place - what about heavier drugs like heroin and cocaine?

Most of thepot used in America is grown in America.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by vat_man
Yeah - that's about as likely as legalising drugs in the first place - what about heavier drugs like heroin and cocaine?

Marijuana, if legalised, would be easy to grow and a fair moneymaker for US farmers. I don't know about heroin and cocaine; I don't even know (or really care) where heroin comes from.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by M5Power
Marijuana, if legalised, would be easy to grow and a fair moneymaker for US farmers. I don't know about heroin and cocaine; I don't even know (or really care) where heroin comes from.

Afganistan!

 

[Danoff]

we find loads and loads of drunks at those roadside checkpoints at every holiday, but the fact is that nearly 20,000 people were killed in year 2001 in DUI traffic collisions.

I’m picking on what I think is your best point here. Legalizing drugs might lead to more traffic collisions which would kill more people than the years previous. It might. I probably wouldn’t reduce that number. But I have several responses to this, the first one might seem cold and heartless, but actually it is full of purpose, passion, and love of my fellow man. The rest of them are more PC.

1) If more people died in traffic collisions that is not caused by the legalization of drugs. That is caused by murders who decide to drive while intoxicated. You cannot claim that if someone shoots another person with a legal gun (or bow and arrow, or stabs them), that then lack of gun law killed that person. That justification just doesn’t work. Plus, isn’t it worth a few more accidental deaths over the whole country to maintain freedom??? If we’re willing to die overseas for freedom, why not take a few risks right here at home for it? (Told you you’d think it was cold…. But it’s not).

2) Freeing up the coast guard and police from monitoring drug smuggling and dealing would allow those very same people to help with more important matters like finding crackheads on the road.

3) Crackheads are already on the road. Whether or not it is legal.

4) Read what I said about finding a safe place

I honestly think legalization of drugs would result in fewer drug related deaths and a more useful law enforcement agency, not to mention more useful prisons and fewer paroles. I’m open to objections.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by danoff

1) If more people died in traffic collisions that is not caused by the legalization of drugs. That is caused by murders who decide to drive while intoxicated. You cannot claim that if someone shoots another person with a legal gun (or bow and arrow, or stabs them), that then lack of gun law killed that person. That justification just doesn’t work. Plus, isn’t it worth a few more accidental deaths over the whole country to maintain freedom??? If we’re willing to die overseas for freedom, why not take a few risks right here at home for it? (Told you you’d think it was cold…. But it’s not).

This is the first time I've ever made an audible plea for less spin when on this forum. Do you actually believe that DUI accidents aren't caused by liquor? Maybe you're drunk right now. I agree with your poorly-thought-out analogy for this reason: Whether guns are legal or not, if somebody wants to kill, they're going to find a way. But DUI is a completely different story and you should be able to see that instantly. Without the alcohol, these people are not going to die. It's really, really simple. Pick up on it.

2) Freeing up the coast guard and police from monitoring drug smuggling and dealing would allow those very same people to help with more important matters like finding crackheads on the road.

Yeah - when crackheads take a family of four off a Florida key bridge, the US Coast Guard can be called to search for remains.

3) Crackheads are already on the road. Whether or not it is legal.

I'm going to be honest with you, I expect the same in return. The legalisation of drugs WILL cause more people do drive under their influence. It is simply absurd to believe otherwise. Yeah, there are drug-abusing losers cruising around right now putting me and everybody I care about in danger, but when drugs are legalised, there will be more of them. And, as it looks for alcohol, there will be more deaths.

 

[Danoff]

M5

Personal attacks seem to be a common theme on this forum. I’d like to address your most prominent points.

The legalisation of drugs WILL cause more people do drive under their influence

Please back this statement up with some supporting evidence other than

It is simply absurd to believe otherwise

I am not swayed by that claim and you shouldn't let yourself be.

Also, you seem to have dismissed my point that police would be freed up to perform more important duties. I would like for you to consider it further. This statement

the US Coast Guard can be called to search for remains

Is not going to convince me that freeing up the coast guard (and a lot of the government money in the coast gaurd) to serve as police or in the military would not be useful.

This is the first time I've ever made an audible plea for less spin when on this forum

Exactly how am I spinning anything. Please explain that statement.

Do you actually believe that DUI accidents aren't caused by liquor?

YES. I DO. They’re caused by people. Liquor sits in a bottle and does nothing. People (not liquor ok?) go out and drive and kill other people. How can you miss that?

? Maybe you're drunk right now

I don’t drink.

I agree with your poorly-thought-out analogy for this reason: Whether guns are legal or not, if somebody wants to kill, they're going to find a way. But DUI is a completely different story and you should be able to see that instantly. Without the alcohol, these people are not going to die. It's really, really simple. Pick up on it.

Without people abusing alcohol by drinking and driving those people aren’t going to die. That’s really simple. Pick up on that. Who is really to blame here? The alcohol, people who drink alcohol responsibly, or the people doing the killing? Think about the gun analogy more and restrict it to guns only. Without guns, nobody would be shot… does that mean guns kill people? NO. People kill people.