i think it depends on the drug. pot is harmless, no one is gona do any damage to themselves or anyone else because they smoke a joint. Also weed has healing properties so it should be legal, i know it gets rid of a hangover or headache instantly. other drugs like heroine and crack i think should remain illegal becuz really they can only do harm and they create physical dependancy to the substance.
Poll: Should We Be Able To Use Any Substance (drug) We Want?
- Thread starter chiggerwood
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But I think because of the mind altering effects of some drugs, cutting off the head would be the better solution than hacking at the tail. Low class drugs, fair enough, but Heroin, Crack, Meth...these are a danger to society and a constant danger to yourself.benylor said:
I agree with everything but the weed. Weed and ecstacy are the least harmful substances out of all the drugs, but they certainly aren't harmless.soulasylum85 said:
I have many reasons for thinking this. You could look back at human history and look when alcohol was first created. Look at tribes of people all over the world. Plus, I think even children have this innate and thus unlearned infatuation with changing how they feel physically. Its like when we all spun around until we felt dizzy becuase it was weird/trippy/fun.WalkingParadox1 said:
I have. I went to two parties, in both of which he had previously taken an ecstasy pill. He was no fun.Superior Mind said:
Yeah cos people are gonna do it anyway whether it's legal or not. And besides it doesn't prevent any problems caused by it if it's illegal or legal.
It might even prove a deterrent as a lot of people using stuff like that are attracted to it because it's dangerous and forbidden.
It might even prove a deterrent as a lot of people using stuff like that are attracted to it because it's dangerous and forbidden.
It depends.
Obviously society has to be able to function, but if it's not affecting anyone else and not affecting your ability to work I think Yes.
Obviously society has to be able to function, but if it's not affecting anyone else and not affecting your ability to work I think Yes.
Yes, I think people of legal age should be able to use whatever substance they wish. HOWEVER I don't think it would be a good idea to just release the trade of said substances to everyone. Some substances should be regulated and the government would be wise to make sure that it will be hard for people to get a hold of more than they can handle. And if someone does show signs of substance abuse and addiction they will have their substance usage priviliges taken away for some time to go sober.
Also with a regulated legalisation of certain substances, the police should crack down even harder on people selling said substances on the black market, as to make the statement that while the controlled substance usage is legal and viable, illegal procuring and usage is considered a serious offense.
Also with a regulated legalisation of certain substances, the police should crack down even harder on people selling said substances on the black market, as to make the statement that while the controlled substance usage is legal and viable, illegal procuring and usage is considered a serious offense.
I don't think it's just "these days". There's always been a large proportion of the populace that is unforgivably stupid.CuddlyCombine said:
With the exception of the Ecstacy part, this should have ended the thread. Too bad the rest of the world is filled with 'tards who believe an opinion is a reason to make policy (and endlessly debate things here)Superior Mind said:
ok i have never tried ecstacy, but i really do think weed is harmless. ok if u smoke a joint or bowl it could potentially cause lung cancer but if u smoke through a water filtered pipe, use a vaporizer, or eat it in baked goods it removes that risk. weed is only harmful because it is illegal, for example you can get arrested or lose your job, but if it was legal then i do believe it would be harmless.ChromeAlchemist said:
OK...The strongest anti-legalisation I've found here is the "it isn't just about you, it can harm other people" thing (by the way, I voted yes). I believe fully that we should be able to fuck ourselves up as much as we choose, but obviously when the activity impacts others then it becomes a grey area.
My first point against this would be a case of damage control. If drugs are legal, then the money spent on acquiring them goes to corporations and government; while it might not be entirely nice (think ExxonMobil), then at least to some extent it can be regulated. At the moment, heroin sales go...largely to the Taliban, and a lot of (though not all) hard drugs to some sort of criminal cartel involved in stuff a little worse than getting you high (trafficking women against their will for prostitution, violence etc.). So for this reason, I'd say I'd prefer the money in the hands of people we can regulate, if not necessarily trust.
And, if it's legal, then by definition it's cleaner; you don't get alcohol with anti-freeze in it, and if heroin was legal it would be white and give you mild constipation rather than black and making you a trembling wreck. Evidently, the addiction would still be a problem, but I really feel that with an instituionalised system of dealing with this we'd have less crime resulting from theft to pay for it, especially if prices were lower. It would also be considerably healthier for the addict, and thus I don't think that the burden on hospitals would be dramatically increased to an extent where the tax revenue from the drugs themselves is considerably outstripped. While the consumption of ecstacy and marijuana might jump at legalisation, I doubt that the most serious drugs would; people are, rightly, too wary to shove themselves full of heroin and crack just because it's legal.
For the record, I've done marijuana and ketamine (as well as laughing gas, but that clearly doesn't count). I found it a piece of piss to get hold of, and if I wanted acid or mushrooms then I really doubt I'd have much of a problem. I think the war on drugs is, ultimately, based on a premise of well-meaning but misguided concern, and that a lot of the problems associated with the drug trade - as well as with prostitution, but that's for another day - is due to its illegality.
TL;DR - I enjoy heroin pumped directly into my eyeballs.
My first point against this would be a case of damage control. If drugs are legal, then the money spent on acquiring them goes to corporations and government; while it might not be entirely nice (think ExxonMobil), then at least to some extent it can be regulated. At the moment, heroin sales go...largely to the Taliban, and a lot of (though not all) hard drugs to some sort of criminal cartel involved in stuff a little worse than getting you high (trafficking women against their will for prostitution, violence etc.). So for this reason, I'd say I'd prefer the money in the hands of people we can regulate, if not necessarily trust.
And, if it's legal, then by definition it's cleaner; you don't get alcohol with anti-freeze in it, and if heroin was legal it would be white and give you mild constipation rather than black and making you a trembling wreck. Evidently, the addiction would still be a problem, but I really feel that with an instituionalised system of dealing with this we'd have less crime resulting from theft to pay for it, especially if prices were lower. It would also be considerably healthier for the addict, and thus I don't think that the burden on hospitals would be dramatically increased to an extent where the tax revenue from the drugs themselves is considerably outstripped. While the consumption of ecstacy and marijuana might jump at legalisation, I doubt that the most serious drugs would; people are, rightly, too wary to shove themselves full of heroin and crack just because it's legal.
For the record, I've done marijuana and ketamine (as well as laughing gas, but that clearly doesn't count). I found it a piece of piss to get hold of, and if I wanted acid or mushrooms then I really doubt I'd have much of a problem. I think the war on drugs is, ultimately, based on a premise of well-meaning but misguided concern, and that a lot of the problems associated with the drug trade - as well as with prostitution, but that's for another day - is due to its illegality.
TL;DR - I enjoy heroin pumped directly into my eyeballs.
voted no mainly because depends on what your doing at the time, ie drink driving, and also from personal experience of witnessing radical life changing side effects some substance have on people. ie mental illness, birth defects in babies etc, list is almost endless, not to mention potential for death, or cause of crippling strokes etc, ie then thru your own recreation and freedom of expression you become a burden to your loved ones and if not them on the medical system. Guess I've gotten cynical as I've gotten older, but I do remember back in my teens me and all of my aqquaintance's would have 100 percent voted that yes ppl should be aloud to do what ever the hell they want, that figure is now more like 70%no and 30%yes.
people on E are only fun to hang out with if you're on E too. people love amphetamines because it stops them from overthinking, so they just go off the hook. well, at least until it wears off, then they get all paranoid. me? i was more into hallucinogens, "mind expanders", which, if taken too far, leads to a paranoia of its own kind: philosophical psycho-babble that makes no sense to anyone but the user.Superior Mind said:
some people like to see just how far they can push their own physical--and psychological-- limits with the drugs they put in their system. and i've seen a lot of people completely fuck their lives up over pushing these limits.
and despite this, a lot of them also persevered, turned their lives around, and actually became wiser and more mature than people i know who have been sober all their lives.
but that doesn't mean everyone turns around, either.
overall, it doesn't matter if drugs are legal or illegal, there will always be people willing to try anything. skydiving isn't illegal, yet i'd say that's a lot more dangerous than taking some magic mushrooms and jamming with my band. and somehow what i'm doing is against the law?
if you want an interesting look at how overkill some users can get, go to fuckitall.com and look for the short documentary "safety third", about the website creator's friend at Burning Man 2007. i won't tell you anything else, just watch it. trust me.
You should be able to take every drug under the sun, the only thing that should stop you is whether you think it's a good idea or not.
You know it's unconstitutional, to take away my god given pharmaceutical!
I'm not sure if actually taking drugs is a crime; having drugs in your possession, sometimes is; selling drugs is most definitely illegal, as is driving under the influence of drugs.
Personally I think it has less to do with the individuals rights and more to do with the repercussions of paying gangs for drugs, but that only really applies to certain conditions; I guess it has as much to do with the individuals rights as it does with the governments obligations to protect them. Assuming you think governments should try and care for it's citizens (or subjects, as the case may be).
But I'm not sure if we should limit one persons rights because of the actions of others, e.g. no black people are allowed out after 9:00 PM because one black dude broke the law. There's defiantly a point where point where we have to turn around and say the risks to other people are to high to allow someone to own something, in this case lets say a drug that turns people in to raving monsters that cannot be killed and infect others causing them to rise from the dead to feed on the living, lots of people will disagree with where the line should be though.
I'm not sure if actually taking drugs is a crime; having drugs in your possession, sometimes is; selling drugs is most definitely illegal, as is driving under the influence of drugs.
Personally I think it has less to do with the individuals rights and more to do with the repercussions of paying gangs for drugs, but that only really applies to certain conditions; I guess it has as much to do with the individuals rights as it does with the governments obligations to protect them. Assuming you think governments should try and care for it's citizens (or subjects, as the case may be).
But I'm not sure if we should limit one persons rights because of the actions of others, e.g. no black people are allowed out after 9:00 PM because one black dude broke the law. There's defiantly a point where point where we have to turn around and say the risks to other people are to high to allow someone to own something, in this case lets say a drug that turns people in to raving monsters that cannot be killed and infect others causing them to rise from the dead to feed on the living, lots of people will disagree with where the line should be though.