Drugs fuck you up, man

[Spendulus]

Once again, you are all ignoring the best solution for this. We should make all sorts of drugs legal. That will reduce the crime rate and gradually the drug consumption rates will also come down. Countries such as Uruguay and Portugal have legalized drugs, and they have witnessed sharp drop in deaths due to drug overdose.

I'm not ignoring that at all, and I agree that drugs should be made legal.  It's an unholy shitfuck of a mess that criminalization has created, and any "war" on drugs is a joke.  But for those who get addicted--and there are going to always be plenty of them, legalization isn't exactly helping them nor is legalization a cure.  And I do have sympathy for addicts, with limits.  Some people are born predisposed to addiction, some are not.  

Bit of an oversimplification, though, to assert that "all drugs" should be made legal.

Legal can be thought of as produced by legitimate businesses with quality control in place, then sold at some type of legitimate store or outlet at prices comparable to street prices (otherwise people buy on the street.)

It's easy to say this regarding the marihuana issues.

I would likely allow legalization of at least some hallucinogenics.  LSD, cactus.  There's certainly a long track record with these and some understanding of them.

What about opiates?  All?  Some?  Why?

What about meth?

Now what about cocaine and crack?

The problem is, by keeping drugs illegal you turn users into criminals, and therefore if they get caught, they go to prison rather than getting help. This setup also actively stops users seeking help (because they are afraid of punishment).

I understand your point of view, where you think the more benign drugs like weed and psychedelics should be legalized. But I think all drugs should be legalized. I don't agree with any law which punishes victimless crime, I think as conscious human beings we should have control over what we decide to put in our own bodies without fear of state punishment.

The key is education - if everyone was properly educated about the dangers of certain drugs then I believe there would be far less people with drug problems.

actually I don't think you believe exactly what you said, bolded above.

Suppose there is a cancer drug that kills 1/4 of those who take it.  Should it be legalized?  Should the entire FDA approval process be discarded?

Are you trying to say "all drugs that might make me feel good should be legalized?"

No one is saying they shouldn't be regulated.  Look at what's happening with marijuana.  Look at alcohol.   And the fda approval I think you're talking about is for new medicines and that's not relevant.   Also, everything is a poison.  It all depends on the dose.

Yes, I think it is relevant.  The use of the word "Drug" in this context means essentially "something I want that is controlled so I can't get it."

Who says what that is?  Who says it is only feel-good stuff?

Some feel good stuff has horrible physical and mental consequences and side effects.

As does some medical non-feel good drugs.

[protokol]

Once again, you are all ignoring the best solution for this. We should make all sorts of drugs legal. That will reduce the crime rate and gradually the drug consumption rates will also come down. Countries such as Uruguay and Portugal have legalized drugs, and they have witnessed sharp drop in deaths due to drug overdose.

I'm not ignoring that at all, and I agree that drugs should be made legal.  It's an unholy shitfuck of a mess that criminalization has created, and any "war" on drugs is a joke.  But for those who get addicted--and there are going to always be plenty of them, legalization isn't exactly helping them nor is legalization a cure.  And I do have sympathy for addicts, with limits.  Some people are born predisposed to addiction, some are not.  

Bit of an oversimplification, though, to assert that "all drugs" should be made legal.

Legal can be thought of as produced by legitimate businesses with quality control in place, then sold at some type of legitimate store or outlet at prices comparable to street prices (otherwise people buy on the street.)

It's easy to say this regarding the marihuana issues.

I would likely allow legalization of at least some hallucinogenics.  LSD, cactus.  There's certainly a long track record with these and some understanding of them.

What about opiates?  All?  Some?  Why?

What about meth?

Now what about cocaine and crack?

The problem is, by keeping drugs illegal you turn users into criminals, and therefore if they get caught, they go to prison rather than getting help. This setup also actively stops users seeking help (because they are afraid of punishment).

I understand your point of view, where you think the more benign drugs like weed and psychedelics should be legalized. But I think all drugs should be legalized. I don't agree with any law which punishes victimless crime, I think as conscious human beings we should have control over what we decide to put in our own bodies without fear of state punishment.

The key is education - if everyone was properly educated about the dangers of certain drugs then I believe there would be far less people with drug problems.

actually I don't think you believe exactly what you said, bolded above.

Suppose there is a cancer drug that kills 1/4 of those who take it.  Should it be legalized?  Should the entire FDA approval process be discarded?

Are you trying to say "all drugs that might make me feel good should be legalized?"

Look you're right, I was talking mainly about illegal recreational and therepeutic drugs, but I never said abolish any approval procedures or regulation on drugs. That's a different argument entirely. If anything, I would encourage regulation of illegal drugs because it would prevent countless deaths due to purity levels, dangerous impurities, or one drug being sold as another.

Not to mention taking the drug trade out of the hands of ruthless criminal gangs (who not only murder 10s of thousands of people a year, but also use the drug money to fund other lovely side businesses such as human trafficking), and into high quality controlled laboratories.

Your example of a cancer drug that kill 1/4 of it's users isn't really what we're talking about here, but I'll give my take on it anyway:

First off, it would be subject to multiple trials and research before being allowed for use, and if it killed 25% of users in human trials then it's pretty unlikely it would ever be released. Even if it happened to have pleasurable psychoactive effects, and it was synthesised by some underground chemist, then it would be a ridiculous business strategy to sell it as a recreational drug due to its 25% death rate. Basically that whole point is moot.

[Spendulus]

Once again, you are all ignoring the best solution for this. We should make all sorts of drugs legal. That will reduce the crime rate and gradually the drug consumption rates will also come down. Countries such as Uruguay and Portugal have legalized drugs, and they have witnessed sharp drop in deaths due to drug overdose.

I'm not ignoring that at all, and I agree that drugs should be made legal.  It's an unholy shitfuck of a mess that criminalization has created, and any "war" on drugs is a joke.  But for those who get addicted--and there are going to always be plenty of them, legalization isn't exactly helping them nor is legalization a cure.  And I do have sympathy for addicts, with limits.  Some people are born predisposed to addiction, some are not.  

Bit of an oversimplification, though, to assert that "all drugs" should be made legal.

Legal can be thought of as produced by legitimate businesses with quality control in place, then sold at some type of legitimate store or outlet at prices comparable to street prices (otherwise people buy on the street.)

It's easy to say this regarding the marihuana issues.

I would likely allow legalization of at least some hallucinogenics.  LSD, cactus.  There's certainly a long track record with these and some understanding of them.

What about opiates?  All?  Some?  Why?

What about meth?

Now what about cocaine and crack?

The problem is, by keeping drugs illegal you turn users into criminals, and therefore if they get caught, they go to prison rather than getting help. This setup also actively stops users seeking help (because they are afraid of punishment).

I understand your point of view, where you think the more benign drugs like weed and psychedelics should be legalized. But I think all drugs should be legalized. I don't agree with any law which punishes victimless crime, I think as conscious human beings we should have control over what we decide to put in our own bodies without fear of state punishment.

The key is education - if everyone was properly educated about the dangers of certain drugs then I believe there would be far less people with drug problems.

actually I don't think you believe exactly what you said, bolded above.

Suppose there is a cancer drug that kills 1/4 of those who take it.  Should it be legalized?  Should the entire FDA approval process be discarded?

Are you trying to say "all drugs that might make me feel good should be legalized?"

Look you're right, I was talking mainly about illegal recreational and therepeutic drugs, but I never said abolish any approval procedures or regulation on drugs. That's a different argument entirely. If anything, I would encourage regulation of illegal drugs because it would prevent countless deaths due to purity levels, dangerous impurities, or one drug being sold as another.

Not to mention taking the drug trade out of the hands of ruthless criminal gangs (who not only murder 10s of thousands of people a year, but also use the drug money to fund other lovely side businesses such as human trafficking), and into high quality controlled laboratories.

Your example of a cancer drug that kill 1/4 of it's users isn't really what we're talking about here, but I'll give my take on it anyway:

First off, it would be subject to multiple trials and research before being allowed for use, and if it killed 25% of users in human trials then it's pretty unlikely it would ever be released. Even if it happened to have pleasurable psychoactive effects, and it was synthesised by some underground chemist, then it would be a ridiculous business strategy to sell it as a recreational drug due to its 25% death rate. Basically that whole point is moot.

Yeah, well, unfortunately....when you go down this road of estimating and validating harmful effects, you wind up exactly where we are now.  Except that we'd like to argue that certain drugs have been WRONGLY EVALUATED to have extremely harmful effects, so harmful that they should be criminalized.

I believe that one by one, those sanctions can be lifted.  Specific drugs, whose effects are well understood, one at a time.  That would solve 80-90 of the problem which might be as good as could be done.

But there couldn't ever be a blanket legalization of feel-goods because in many cases their harmful effects might not be known or fully evaluated.  Plus new ones will arise and often.

[Chinatsu]

Yap, mentally physically, emotionally and socialy. Better go partying, at least you have social life.

[Ernstew]

Yes and to show to all that they are really dealing with that problem. Usually police caught the dealer and than he is few days in jail and again on the street and so on...not to mention connections between mexican dealers and police on the other side of the border..

[protokol]

Yeah, well, unfortunately....when you go down this road of estimating and validating harmful effects, you wind up exactly where we are now.  Except that we'd like to argue that certain drugs have been WRONGLY EVALUATED to have extremely harmful effects, so harmful that they should be criminalized.

I believe that one by one, those sanctions can be lifted.  Specific drugs, whose effects are well understood, one at a time.  That would solve 80-90 of the problem which might be as good as could be done.

But there couldn't ever be a blanket legalization of feel-goods because in many cases their harmful effects might not be known or fully evaluated.  Plus new ones will arise and often.

OK you've lost me now, what do you mean by "go down this road of estimating and validating harmful effects"? Are you suggesting this is how the state decides what drugs should be illegal? Because that's absolutely not how it works, most drug laws are due to political reasons and not based on evidence.

I think that's what you mean by "wrongly evaluated"? That some of the safest drugs are illegal, and some of the most dangerous are legal? That's certainly true, stuff like weed and psychedelic mushrooms haven't killed anyone, but things like Fentanyl are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands.

Your idea of legalizing drugs one by one based on their harm profile isn't a terrible idea, far from it. However it still doesn't address the fact that users of drugs that are deemed "too dangerous" will still be criminalized, denying them help, and also that the production of said drugs would stay underground and be unregulated, causing more death and injury to users.

Your last sentence demonstrates a misunderstanding of how the drug market works, people are not going to experiment with new untested drugs if there is already a legal option. A good example of this is the rise in "legal high" type drugs, which people only use because the best drugs are illegal. If MDMA, Cannabis, LSD, mushrooms etc. were legal, few people would experiment with lesser known drugs with barely any human experimentation.

As someone with personal experience of this legal high/research chemical market, I can tell you that it does self-regulate itself to a degree. And also that most deaths due to these newer drugs are due to unprofessional vendors mislabelling drugs, or naive users not being careful enough with dosages. A good example of this would be the incidents involving Bromo-Dragonfly or 25i-NBOMe (worth googling). The vast majority of deaths like these would have been avoided if LSD and mushrooms were legal.

The vast majority of deaths due to opiates like Heroin are due to impurities and incorrect dosages. By keeping it illegal, these deaths are not being addressed and will continue. From a harm-reduction perspective, it makes sense to legalise them and allow users to access pure product of a known dosage from a controlled laboratory. Just because it's legal, it doesn't mean that every schoolkid is going to start mainlining Heroin.

A proper education programme would address things like this, show schoolkids the real evidence of how dangerous certain drugs are, explain the risks of different types of drugs. Tell them that ALL drugs can be dangerous, but if you really want to take them, stick to the safer ones and be careful how you take them.

[Spendulus]

Yeah, well, unfortunately....when you go down this road of estimating and validating harmful effects, you wind up exactly where we are now.  Except that we'd like to argue that certain drugs have been WRONGLY EVALUATED to have extremely harmful effects, so harmful that they should be criminalized.

I believe that one by one, those sanctions can be lifted.  Specific drugs, whose effects are well understood, one at a time.  That would solve 80-90 of the problem which might be as good as could be done.

But there couldn't ever be a blanket legalization of feel-goods because in many cases their harmful effects might not be known or fully evaluated.  Plus new ones will arise and often.

OK you've lost me now, what do you mean by "go down this road of estimating and validating harmful effects"? Are you suggesting this is how the state decides what drugs should be illegal? Because that's absolutely not how it works, most drug laws are due to political reasons and not based on evidence.

I think that's what you mean by "wrongly evaluated"? That some of the safest drugs are illegal, and some of the most dangerous are legal? That's certainly true, stuff like weed and psychedelic mushrooms haven't killed anyone, but things like Fentanyl are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands.

Your idea of legalizing drugs one by one based on their harm profile isn't a terrible idea, far from it. However it still doesn't address the fact that users of drugs that are deemed "too dangerous" will still be criminalized, denying them help, and also that the production of said drugs would stay underground and be unregulated, causing more death and injury to users.

Your last sentence demonstrates a misunderstanding of how the drug market works, people are not going to experiment with new untested drugs if there is already a legal option. A good example of this is the rise in "legal high" type drugs, which people only use because the best drugs are illegal. If MDMA, Cannabis, LSD, mushrooms etc. were legal, few people would experiment with lesser known drugs with barely any human experimentation.

As someone with personal experience of this legal high/research chemical market, I can tell you that it does self-regulate itself to a degree. And also that most deaths due to these newer drugs are due to unprofessional vendors mislabelling drugs, or naive users not being careful enough with dosages. A good example of this would be the incidents involving Bromo-Dragonfly or 25i-NBOMe (worth googling). The vast majority of deaths like these would have been avoided if LSD and mushrooms were legal.

The vast majority of deaths due to opiates like Heroin are due to impurities and incorrect dosages. By keeping it illegal, these deaths are not being addressed and will continue. From a harm-reduction perspective, it makes sense to legalise them and allow users to access pure product of a known dosage from a controlled laboratory. Just because it's legal, it doesn't mean that every schoolkid is going to start mainlining Heroin.

A proper education programme would address things like this, show schoolkids the real evidence of how dangerous certain drugs are, explain the risks of different types of drugs. Tell them that ALL drugs can be dangerous, but if you really want to take them, stick to the safer ones and be careful how you take them.

Regardless of whether we agree on all points, you show evidence of a serious depth of knowledge on the subject and should take the time to explain it further.  I highlighted a section above, which falls into the category "I'm not so sure about that..."

Drugs seem to come in as fads, in the popular market.  Given that, I don't think users are inclined to do any more than listen to their excited peers when popping a pill.  And they are not capable of judging side effects or risk, in almost all cases. 

In an atmosphere of legalization, would the users be receptive - more receptive - to discussions about risk and side effects from "old people?"

Well, you gotta see heroin addicts with their teeth rotten, and then falling out,  to comprehend how disgusting it is...

[BADecker]

The vast majority of medical drugs are bad for your health.   

[protokol]

Yeah, well, unfortunately....when you go down this road of estimating and validating harmful effects, you wind up exactly where we are now.  Except that we'd like to argue that certain drugs have been WRONGLY EVALUATED to have extremely harmful effects, so harmful that they should be criminalized.

I believe that one by one, those sanctions can be lifted.  Specific drugs, whose effects are well understood, one at a time.  That would solve 80-90 of the problem which might be as good as could be done.

But there couldn't ever be a blanket legalization of feel-goods because in many cases their harmful effects might not be known or fully evaluated.  Plus new ones will arise and often.

OK you've lost me now, what do you mean by "go down this road of estimating and validating harmful effects"? Are you suggesting this is how the state decides what drugs should be illegal? Because that's absolutely not how it works, most drug laws are due to political reasons and not based on evidence.

I think that's what you mean by "wrongly evaluated"? That some of the safest drugs are illegal, and some of the most dangerous are legal? That's certainly true, stuff like weed and psychedelic mushrooms haven't killed anyone, but things like Fentanyl are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands.

Your idea of legalizing drugs one by one based on their harm profile isn't a terrible idea, far from it. However it still doesn't address the fact that users of drugs that are deemed "too dangerous" will still be criminalized, denying them help, and also that the production of said drugs would stay underground and be unregulated, causing more death and injury to users.

Your last sentence demonstrates a misunderstanding of how the drug market works, people are not going to experiment with new untested drugs if there is already a legal option. A good example of this is the rise in "legal high" type drugs, which people only use because the best drugs are illegal. If MDMA, Cannabis, LSD, mushrooms etc. were legal, few people would experiment with lesser known drugs with barely any human experimentation.

As someone with personal experience of this legal high/research chemical market, I can tell you that it does self-regulate itself to a degree. And also that most deaths due to these newer drugs are due to unprofessional vendors mislabelling drugs, or naive users not being careful enough with dosages. A good example of this would be the incidents involving Bromo-Dragonfly or 25i-NBOMe (worth googling). The vast majority of deaths like these would have been avoided if LSD and mushrooms were legal.

The vast majority of deaths due to opiates like Heroin are due to impurities and incorrect dosages. By keeping it illegal, these deaths are not being addressed and will continue. From a harm-reduction perspective, it makes sense to legalise them and allow users to access pure product of a known dosage from a controlled laboratory. Just because it's legal, it doesn't mean that every schoolkid is going to start mainlining Heroin.

A proper education programme would address things like this, show schoolkids the real evidence of how dangerous certain drugs are, explain the risks of different types of drugs. Tell them that ALL drugs can be dangerous, but if you really want to take them, stick to the safer ones and be careful how you take them.

Regardless of whether we agree on all points, you show evidence of a serious depth of knowledge on the subject and should take the time to explain it further.  I highlighted a section above, which falls into the category "I'm not so sure about that..."

Drugs seem to come in as fads, in the popular market.  Given that, I don't think users are inclined to do any more than listen to their excited peers when popping a pill.  And they are not capable of judging side effects or risk, in almost all cases. 

In an atmosphere of legalization, would the users be receptive - more receptive - to discussions about risk and side effects from "old people?"

Well, you gotta see heroin addicts with their teeth rotten, and then falling out,  to comprehend how disgusting it is...

The legal high market is a very interesting subject, and one which is especially pertinent right now as the UK government is about to bring in blanket ban legislation concerning it, called the "Psychoactive Substances Bill. It's a very badly thought out law, and is a great example of why banning things and criminalizing the market isn't always the best option. Here's an opinion piece from the most recent issue of New Scientist if you wanna learn more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2074813-youre-not-hallucinating-mps-really-did-pass-crazy-bad-drug-law/

The legal high market really took off in the UK after a drug called mephedrone or 4-MMC became popular. Mephedrone has an effect profile similar to MDMA and amphetamines, and became the party drug of choice for many people, because it was cheap and easy to obtain. Its release also coincided with a drought of MDMA in the UK and Europe (which resulted in high prices and low quality product). It quickly became incredibly popular, the Daily Mail et al heard about it and before long it was banned, and it's been a cat and mouse game ever since: The government bans a drug, then some chemist makes a new drug which bypasses the law, rinse and repeat. This is the reason for the new legislation.

If MDMA was legal, there would be no incentive for chemists to design novel recreational drugs which circumvent legislation. The vast majority of users of classic drugs like MDMA, LSD and amphetamines are weekend users who like to party every now and again, they do not come under the media stereotype of a drug addict. If they had a choice between a new, untested drug or the classics that have been used for 30 years plus, the vast majority would pick the classics - no-one wants to die, they just wanna have a good time.

Of course there's always been a small segment of drug users/chemists who enjoy experimenting with obscure and novel drugs, out of curiosity. For example people like Alexander "Sasha" Shulgin, who "rediscovered" MDMA and synthesized hundreds of novel psychedelic substances in his laboratory.

Sorry, I've started babbling, my point is the novel drug market is a direct result of drug legislation, if the shit was legal in the first place, the legal high market would never have taken off, and most of these new drugs wouldn't exist/be available to consumers.

You make some very good points about drug "fads" and people maybe not listening to advice. In my experience, the drug education was terrible in school. Things like "Just Say No!" and "This is your brain on drugs!" are the sort of things I'm talking about, totally bullshit education which is basically lies. By telling kids to not take ANY drugs, because they're ALL gonna kill you, is really stupid. Because when kids realize that some drugs are pretty safe, they think "well they lied about that, so they probably lied about the others", and then they take 10 MDMA pills at once and die.

To answer your question, I think kids would be more receptive to drug education if they believed what they were being told, and if it was based on evidence rather than scaremongering. Of course there will always be that one kid who ignores all the advice, but I sincerely believe better education would result in less harm.

Regarding heroin addicts, I realize this is a big problem, especially in some areas. Don't forget though, that for every homeless, toothless addict you see on the street, there is another functional one that goes to work every day and pays a mortgage. It's not what the media would have you believe, but they do exist, you just don't notice them.

Addiction is a common occurence, and has a lot to do with situation as well as substance. There is an excellent TED talk about this, it's really worth watching if you've got 15mins to spare:

https://www.ted.com/talks/johann_hari_everything_you_think_you_know_about_addiction_is_wrong?language=en

[salinizm]

Once again, you are all ignoring the best solution for this. We should make all sorts of drugs legal. That will reduce the crime rate and gradually the drug consumption rates will also come down. Countries such as Uruguay and Portugal have legalized drugs, and they have witnessed sharp drop in deaths due to drug overdose.

Not legal. Nationalized. They should be produced distributed and controlled only by government. Without any kind of advertising and a good drug education in schools.

This way the money currently helping mafia would be in the hand of the government and would be used to get a better education and healthcare. That's a win win.

i agree with you  drug trade must be controlled by governments..

[bizerinm]

Punishments for dealers and users also. Govrnment should do something, question is what. You can make drug from everything. Problem lies in weakness of people

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Yeah, well, unfortunately....when you go down this road of estimating and validating harmful effects, you wind up exactly where we are now.  Except that we'd like to argue that certain drugs have been WRONGLY EVALUATED to have extremely harmful effects, so harmful that they should be criminalized.

I believe that one by one, those sanctions can be lifted.  Specific drugs, whose effects are well understood, one at a time.  That would solve 80-90 of the problem which might be as good as could be done.

But there couldn't ever be a blanket legalization of feel-goods because in many cases their harmful effects might not be known or fully evaluated.  Plus new ones will arise and often.

OK you've lost me now, what do you mean by "go down this road of estimating and validating harmful effects"? Are you suggesting this is how the state decides what drugs should be illegal? Because that's absolutely not how it works, most drug laws are due to political reasons and not based on evidence.

I think that's what you mean by "wrongly evaluated"? That some of the safest drugs are illegal, and some of the most dangerous are legal? That's certainly true, stuff like weed and psychedelic mushrooms haven't killed anyone, but things like Fentanyl are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands.

Your idea of legalizing drugs one by one based on their harm profile isn't a terrible idea, far from it. However it still doesn't address the fact that users of drugs that are deemed "too dangerous" will still be criminalized, denying them help, and also that the production of said drugs would stay underground and be unregulated, causing more death and injury to users.

Your last sentence demonstrates a misunderstanding of how the drug market works, people are not going to experiment with new untested drugs if there is already a legal option. A good example of this is the rise in "legal high" type drugs, which people only use because the best drugs are illegal. If MDMA, Cannabis, LSD, mushrooms etc. were legal, few people would experiment with lesser known drugs with barely any human experimentation.

As someone with personal experience of this legal high/research chemical market, I can tell you that it does self-regulate itself to a degree. And also that most deaths due to these newer drugs are due to unprofessional vendors mislabelling drugs, or naive users not being careful enough with dosages. A good example of this would be the incidents involving Bromo-Dragonfly or 25i-NBOMe (worth googling). The vast majority of deaths like these would have been avoided if LSD and mushrooms were legal.

The vast majority of deaths due to opiates like Heroin are due to impurities and incorrect dosages. By keeping it illegal, these deaths are not being addressed and will continue. From a harm-reduction perspective, it makes sense to legalise them and allow users to access pure product of a known dosage from a controlled laboratory. Just because it's legal, it doesn't mean that every schoolkid is going to start mainlining Heroin.

A proper education programme would address things like this, show schoolkids the real evidence of how dangerous certain drugs are, explain the risks of different types of drugs. Tell them that ALL drugs can be dangerous, but if you really want to take them, stick to the safer ones and be careful how you take them.

I agree with pretty much all of this and it was well stated.  I would add that heroin ODs are often not just heroin but combinations with benzos, etoh, and some other stuff.   In my town they're finding Fentanyl with the dope, and that can easily be lethal.

[AMR008]

Drugs should be made legal , probably then goverment will gain taxes instead of losing money fighting against it

[Whosdaddy]

Drugs should be made legal , probably then goverment will gain taxes instead of losing money fighting against it

I guess you are saying this by comparing drugs with alcohol consumption. Drugs is completely different from it. It's addiction will definitely ruin one's life. So, Governments will never legalize it.

[Furio]

Drugs should be made legal , probably then goverment will gain taxes instead of losing money fighting against it

I guess you are saying this by comparing drugs with alcohol consumption. Drugs is completely different from it. It's addiction will definitely ruin one's life. So, Governments will never legalize it.

The addiction rate of "legal" drugs are much higher, so is the mortality rate of any illigal drugs COMBINED, compared to the legal drug deaths in the usa. You're propagizing a false and intented false argument wielded by the state, the addiction rate of alcohol is MUCH higher than all other drugs combined. It's now prooven in other countries who let go of their false and unjust drugwar, that crime, addiciton goes down by 50 to 80%, just by not criminalizing addicts. Please do some research before bloating like a sheep....

Also, did you ever question why the usa has so many meth and black tar addicts, those people get this from their ILLIGAL dealer, even if they are just looking for weed, dealers push this shit, because it will get them customers for life.In countries that seperate soft and hard drugs, have MUCH MUCH lower crime and addiction rates... Believe it or not, the war on drugs CREATES addictions, not help abolish it...

[Whosdaddy]

Drugs should be made legal , probably then goverment will gain taxes instead of losing money fighting against it

I guess you are saying this by comparing drugs with alcohol consumption. Drugs is completely different from it. It's addiction will definitely ruin one's life. So, Governments will never legalize it.

The addiction rate of "legal" drugs are much higher, so is the mortality rate of any illigal drugs COMBINED, compared to the legal drug deaths in the usa. You're propagizing a false and intented false argument wielded by the state, the addiction rate of alcohol is MUCH higher than all other drugs combined. It's now prooven in other countries who let go of their false and unjust drugwar, that crime, addiciton goes down by 50 to 80%, just by not criminalizing addicts. Please do some research before bloating like a sheep....

Also, did you ever question why the usa has so many meth and black tar addicts, those people get this from their ILLIGAL dealer, even if they are just looking for weed, dealers push this shit, because it will get them customers for life.In countries that seperate soft and hard drugs, have MUCH MUCH lower crime and addiction rates... Believe it or not, the war on drugs CREATES addictions, not help abolish it...

Without government's legalization still many drug dealers manage to spread drugs.
More help should be available through schools, colleges, universities and other humane organizations to help drug users/abusers, they cannot go this journey alone. These need to be stopped first to prevent the spreading of drugs.

[madonnino]

So for this politics topic I wanted to talk specifically about the harmful effects of illegal drugs and how the forum's users' cities' drug problem are. I will start off by saying that I have cerebral palsy and some mental health issues and to any casual observer, I may be a user of crack cocaine. This is not the case however; I have schizo-effective disorder. I do embarrass myself in public from time to time but I am doing my best.

Is there a rampant drug use problem in your city? In Vancouver, it seems everyone is on something. Soiled cloths, staggering. People love their drugs. To top it all off the drunks assault the alleged drug addicts. (I got assaulted by some douche keeping his neighborhood safe. Ignorance is bliss, ignorance is bliss.

How's the drug problem in your city?

i think the only problem in my city it's prohibition, of course there are people on heavy drugs, these people need helps of the community

[Cass LeChat]

Drug addiction is a result of shitty social conditions like poverty, isolation, and trauma and who is criminalized is extremely political.

[BADecker]

Drug addiction is a result of shitty social conditions like poverty, isolation, and trauma and who is criminalized is extremely political.

Drug addiction is mostly the result of the war on drugs. If people were allowed to grow and smoke marijuana freely, the price of the stuff would be cheap, people would socially figure out where the limit was, and marijuana oil would keep them so healthy that they would easily be able to overcome any dangerous addiction.

When did the war on drugs come into being? A hundred years ago? Did people smoke pot before that time? People smoked pot and used drugs for thousands of years. Now all of a sudden it is illegal. Further, it is the illegality of one drug that drives people to find additional drugs that are not illegal. When those are made illegal, people find more new ones. It is the drug war that has brought about meth and crack. People would never have developed these and others if there was no drug war, because marijuana can be easily grown at home. And it is all because the medical has found that free marijuana oil can heal so many things that it might put the pharmaceutical companies out of business.

Then there is the medical drug addiction that is running rampant all over the world.

The whole drug thing is about money. Repeal the anti-drug laws, and the problem will go away by itself. In addition, a whole bunch of people who harmed nobody will get out of prison and jail.

[shido]

Drugs should be made legal , probably then goverment will gain taxes instead of losing money fighting against it

I guess you are saying this by comparing drugs with alcohol consumption. Drugs is completely different from it. It's addiction will definitely ruin one's life. So, Governments will never legalize it.

alcohol is a drug. it depends on the drugs we're talking about. The high addiction ones should never be legalized indeed