So, first, hello everyone, been awhile.

Second, what's the view on drugs?
Whether it be caffeine, acetaminophen, or ecstasy, where're y'all at?

Proposition 19 in California, the adjacent state, will officially legalize Cannabis, despite the fact that it's a Federally illegal substance.
Ah, the beauty of Federalism.
I've drunk alcohol before, am a huge caffeine fan (though less that I would be, had I the funds), and have tried some other things.

What about you?

Alcohol is awesome. Plenty of other drugs should clearly be legalised and licenced as alcohol is. It's so unbelievably ridiculous that substances that are less harmful and addictive than alcohol or tobacco are illegal. It really is impossible to morally justify making such drugs illegal. I can put whatever the f*ck I want into my body, thank you, and it probably wouldn't hurt anyone else like frigging legal tobacco does.

Yeah I'm bitter. I really f*cking want to try LSD.

I don't use any recreational drugs myself (caffeine included), but yeah, what Dave said. Alcohol and tobacco are legal by virtue of the length of time they've been (ab)used in society, not for any reasons relating to the actual harm done. And it drives me nuts when politicians are sat there spouting bollocks to try and defend the current system, because the only reason I can think of for their mind-bogglingly dedicated defence of the current system against all evidence is that they're sat firmly in the wallets of the big alcohol and tobacco companies. One particularly staggering example is the recent case here of Professor David Nutt being fired from the government's drugs advisory board for daring to provide scientific advice that went against their preconceptions. Gods forbid scientific advisers provide scientific advice!

Here's my proposed law changes:
a) Decriminalise possession for personal use of *all* drugs. Criminal punishments for it do precisely zero good. Instead, increase support for rehab programs and focus on the dealers.
b) Legalise and tax everything less dangerous than alcohol. For "less dangerous than alcohol", see this graph from a study in the Lancet (Nutt, David, Leslie A King, William Saulsbury, Colin Blakemore. "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse" The Lancet 2007; 369:1047-1053):

Most deaths from those drugs can be attributed to contamination, being cut with crap/other drugs, etc. Legalisation and regulation prevents that; people know if they buy, say, an ecstasy tab it's going to be pure e and not cut with who knows what crap with who knows what cross effects and stuff.
c) Educate people on the *actual* risks, not the isolated horror stories that make up current drugs education. Let people make informed decisions. In general people are bright enough to notice that not everybody who takes ecstasy or whatever drops dead in spectacular media-frenzy fashion, and therefore quite rightly dismiss everything they're taught in schools.
d) Control usage through taxation. Hitting people in the wallets is vastly more effective than "ZOMG YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DROP DEAD!" Use extra tax revenue to fund health services where necessary. Encourage through lower taxation usage of less harmful drugs, especially reduction in alcohol consumption. Currently alcohol is a factor in a truly enormous number of ambulance and police calls. You don't see people on pot out beating the crap out of each other, for example.

Yep.
And yep. Cannabis (which I've never actually done, interestingly) is a Schedule 1 substance here. Tough as it gets.

But what about the continuation of a poverty cycle?
Wouldn't the resulting cost in social welfare outweigh the tax benefits?

Criminalising drugs doesn't seem to be working very well at reducing usage rates, does it? Illegal drugs are everywhere. With rehab rather than punishment, sensible educational campaigns, and price inflation through taxation, you'll be able to control things much better. Hell, things will even get better if you can push people off drugs like alcohol which currently have enormous social welfare costs onto something less harmful.

I'm for complete liberty, no matter how affecting the substance is. If people want to flooping 'eck up their lives, that's their prerogative.

Recreational drugs in particular should be completely legal. I can see why people would want to continue to ban heroin, for example.

Better social welfare than 'defense' spending. I mean, the war on drugs has been going since at least the 70s (can't quite remember.) All these years and drugs are still widespread enough. I mean, people complained about Iraq...well admittedly I didn't agree with that either, but still. At least that only lasted seven years.

Not to mention my source, who was in the military for this in the 70s, pretty much brags about his epic stories during battles. Basically, they would invade, confiscate the weed, and troop members would celebrate their good deeds by taking a puff themselves.

I agree with you all. It is way better to make drugs legal (for all the reasons mentioned above) and let people do whatever they want with their bodies.
And drug suppliers are known to introduce poor children into taking drugs or recruiting them for their shadowy dealings which all end up with them being addicts (with them having made no informed choice of their own)) and involved in gang wars like the kinds that take place in parts of Mexico and Chicago. Making drugs legal would stop all that too.
Drugs, prostitution and betting should all be made legal.

*not surprised Dansariki was the one to start this topic*

*also not surprised Sent wrote a page-long response*

:P

That being said, I can pretty much sum up my views with: I honestly don't care whether or not people do drugs (although I may not necessarily wish to associate too much with someone who goes through life high all the time). I don't. I think it's flooping 'ecking stupid, but anyone of age has the right to make their own choice about it, as long as they know the risks.

FuzzyLobster wrote:*also not surprised Sent wrote a page-long response*

Gee, am I that predictable now!?

FuzzyLobster wrote:That being said, I can pretty much sum up my views with: I honestly don't care whether or not people do drugs (although I may not necessarily wish to associate too much with someone who goes through life high all the time). I don't. I think it's flooping 'ecking stupid, but anyone of age has the right to make their own choice about it, as long as they know the risks.

Concise words of wisdom there.

Thanks.

Well, okay, except for chocolate. I'M ONLY HUMAN, OKAY! :P

---

Sentynel wrote:

FuzzyLobster wrote:*also not surprised Sent wrote a page-long response*

Gee, am I that predictable now!?

I thought Cannabis was already legal in California? I know its legal here in Denver. And I would rather it be legal and be able to sell in such shops that are regulated because buying it off the streets is far more dangerous. It cane be laced and such.

OK, i had no idea how many people were for drugs!

anyway. I'm against them. they should be illegal, the dangerous one's like canabis and heroine, etc. and no i don't think it'll clean up england (or the world) or stop anybody doing it but it will work as a detterent and make people think before taking them and make the more sensible people think otherwise.

and as for the people who say people are fine to *uck up there own lives. my dad smoked all his life and eventually died of cancer when i was eight leaving me and my 3 sisters (all of who are younger than me) to be raised by our mother who'd, along with us, had just watched my dad die of cancer for a year so maybe you should all think about the people they know before saying that because it's not just their lives they mess up. my dad had a fag put in his hand from the age of tweleve by his parents who'd always smoked, he just couldn't quit, it was incredably difficult for him. It's the same with drugs except it's worse because it has a phycological effect on the person taking it.

I don't take anything, except alcohol occasionally. i don't drink coffee cause i don't like it but my sister loves it so she does. obviously none of us smoke.

indie2 wrote:OK, i had no idea how many people were for drugs!

anyway. I'm against them. they should be illegal, the dangerous one's like weed etc. and no i don't think it'll clean up england (or the world) or stop anybody doing it but it will work as a detterent and make people think before taking them and make the more sensible people think otherwise.

and as for the people who say people are fine to *uck up there own lives. my dad smoked all his life and eventually died of cancer when i was eight leaving me and my 3 sisters (all of who are younger than me) to be raised by our mother who'd just watched my dad die of cancer for a year so maybe you should all think about the people they know before saying that because it's not just their lives they mess up. my dad had a fag put in his hand from the age of tweleve by his parents who'd always smoked, he just couldn't quit, it was incredably difficult for him. It's the same with drugs except it's worse because it has a phycological effect on the person taking it.

I don't take anything, except alcohol occasionally. i don't drink coffee cause i don't like it but my sister loves it so she does. obviously none of us smoke.

I'm sorry to hear about your family. Yeah, one thing about drugs and smoking, alcohol consumption etc. (though they all come under the category of drugs) is the effect they have on a family. But even if they are made illegal, people won't stop taking it. Banning substances has never worked because there has always been a demand for it and where there is a will there are a thousand ways to circumvent laws. It is a pity your grandparents introduced your father to smoking at such a young age. And yeah, I suppose they got into smoking because of the easy availability of cigarettes (which is because smoking has never been illegal). But everything has a positive side and a negative one. I mean, look at technology. Or nuclear power or anything. You can use it make bombs or choose to generate electricity from it. It depends on the person using it. I'm not saying drugs etc. has as many benefits as technology but there are people who use it for recreation, for stimulus, to experience something new or for a positive experience etc. And I suppose you do know that many drugs that are used by people also happen to be used for medication, so it is not all bad. There just has to be more awareness. And, like Sent said, educate people about the facts. I suppose if your dad's school or some of his other relative had stepped in to prevent him from getting addicted in the first place, things would have been better. And remember, there are some people who genuinely want to have it for whatever their reasons. Just the fact that it can be misused (and yeah, I agree it has been misused an awful lot) shouldn't make people ban something. People just need to be educated properly and, majority of the times, they will make the right choice themselves. If they still want to go ahead and spoil their life and that of their families, there is really nothing you can do.

On a different note, I had read a joke about HIV. I don't remember it properly, but it was something about banning sex to prevent spread of AIDS.

indie2 wrote:OK, i had no idea how many people were for drugs!

anyway. I'm against them. they should be illegal, the dangerous one's like canabis and heroine, etc. and no i don't think it'll clean up england (or the world) or stop anybody doing it but it will work as a detterent and make people think before taking them and make the more sensible people think otherwise.

and as for the people who say people are fine to *uck up there own lives. my dad smoked all his life and eventually died of cancer when i was eight leaving me and my 3 sisters (all of who are younger than me) to be raised by our mother who'd, along with us, had just watched my dad die of cancer for a year so maybe you should all think about the people they know before saying that because it's not just their lives they mess up. my dad had a fag put in his hand from the age of tweleve by his parents who'd always smoked, he just couldn't quit, it was incredably difficult for him. It's the same with drugs except it's worse because it has a phycological effect on the person taking it.

I don't take anything, except alcohol occasionally. i don't drink coffee cause i don't like it but my sister loves it so she does. obviously none of us smoke.

I'm not for drugs. As I said, I don't use them myself. My opinions are based on the simple observation that people use them anyway, banned or not, so therefore what are more effective methods of reducing use?


Cannabis and heroin are hardly comparable (see the graph I posted earlier). I don't support legalising the really dangerous stuff like heroin and cocaine (though I do support decriminalisation of personal use, for reasons posted earlier - users need help, not punishment. This was recently done in Portugal - all drug usage was decriminalised - and they saw no rise in usage rates). But cannabis is no more dangerous, and arguably significantly less so, than alcohol and tobacco, our friendly neighbourhood legal drugs. It's certainly not good for you, but it doesn't make you physically dependent, unlike tobacco, and is very difficult to overdose on, unlike alcohol (not to mention the social effects of alcohol - cannabis doesn't make you violent or inclined to risk taking, unlike alcohol).

I sincerely wish stuff like that didn't need to happen. I've seen my own relatives die painfully from smoking-induced cancer, I've seen it happen to other families. I've seen people die of liver failure from alcoholism, people with their brains melted by alcoholism-induced Korsakoff's syndrome. But ultimately, it is their right to self-destruct, if they choose to. As n&b says, you're never going to stop that happening by just making drugs illegal. Illegal drug use is rife, and there are plenty of other dangerous things around and casually accepted (ever stepped in a car?). Educate people sensibly and realistically on the effects of drugs, give them the help and support they need to quit, and let them make their choices with full knowledge of the consequences.

Which is more helpful to people who, for whatever reasons, have gotten addicted to drugs and want to stop? Providing medical help and support, or calling them criminals, fining them money they haven't got or throwing them in a prison which is, guess what, full of illegal drugs? (I've heard former prisoners speculate that the guards turn a blind eye to the levels of drug availability because the prisoners are easier to control if they're all stoned off their heads the whole time.)

Sentynel wrote:Which is more helpful to people who, for whatever reasons, have gotten addicted to drugs and want to stop? Providing medical help and support, or calling them criminals, fining them money they haven't got or throwing them in a prison which is, guess what, full of illegal drugs? (I've heard former prisoners speculate that the guards turn a blind eye to the levels of drug availability because the prisoners are easier to control if they're all stoned off their heads the whole time.)

That.
Good post. As usual.

Sentynel wrote:
Which is more helpful to people who, for whatever reasons, have gotten addicted to drugs and want to stop? Providing medical help and support, or calling them criminals, fining them money they haven't got or throwing them in a prison which is, guess what, full of illegal drugs? (I've heard former prisoners speculate that the guards turn a blind eye to the levels of drug availability because the prisoners are easier to control if they're all stoned off their heads the whole time.)

true, i agree with the educating part, but the problem is what will they be told, we already know that they harm us, that they can kill us, what more can they tell us that we don't already know, surely the specifics can't change the fact of the basics. I still believe if most of them were made illegal it would be a detterent. them not being illegal is like saying they aren't actually dangerous and it's ok to take them.

I'm not the world best encyclopedia on drugs, i don't know what they do other than that they make you high and can also harm you badly and maybe kill you. the specifics of each drug i have hardly any idea of. I only know the basics but it's still taught me not to take them.

what's the point in giving them medical help for what they've done to themselves when the goverment told them it was ok by legalising it. i don't want to pay for people who are addicted to dugs to get treated, i live in england which has a NHS funded by our taxes. It would take money from vital areas of the NHS that need more funding (like cancer treatment and wasting deseases etc).

I'm not saying they shouldn't get treated or should be treated like criminals some are just kids that were influenced by their mates and wanted to look cool and got hooked (like what happens with cigarettes), They should be helped. But some are also chavvy idiots who do it because they have nothing else to do and those people i really don't want to pay to get treatment (these types are the druggies i know most where i live).

and I'm pretty sure that's not the case where i live or in most parts of america, most people are mostly clean when they leave prison here, those hooked on drugs get a limited supply which is cut down over time until they're no longer dependant. (Of course that doesn't stop them going back on them when they get out.)

I don't see what good legalising them will do to help anybody. and educating and legalising them sends mixed messages. One person will tell them they are bad for you and the law will be telling you they're OK. Sure it'll probably be less drugs-are-bad and more drugs-do-this-this-and-this but theres still the mixed message (and look at sex ed, what good has that done anybody).

And all of this talk about education and helping these people doesn't change the fact that there is no good reason for legalising drugs. we can educate them all we want give them as much help that we can possibly give but none of it is a reason for legalising them. sure maybe they'll get treated less like crimnals and more like people with problems but thats a pretty poor reason for legalising something that could kill you, whether it'll make a difference or not.

indie2 wrote:true, i agree with the educating part, but the problem is what will they be told, we already know that they harm us, that they can kill us, what more can they tell us that we don't already know, surely the specifics can't change the fact of the basics. I still believe if most of them were made illegal it would be a detterent. them not being illegal is like saying they aren't actually dangerous and it's ok to take them.

I'm not the world best encyclopedia on drugs, i don't know what they do other than that they make you high and can also harm you badly and maybe kill you. the specifics of each drug i have hardly any idea of. I only know the basics but it's still taught me not to take them.

what's the point in giving them medical help for what they've done to themselves when the goverment told them it was ok by legalising it. i don't want to pay for people who are addicted to dugs to get treated, i live in england which has a NHS funded by our taxes. It would take money from vital areas of the NHS that need more funding (like cancer treatment and wasting deseases etc).

I'm not saying they shouldn't get treated or should be treated like criminals some are just kids that were influenced by their mates and wanted to look cool and got hooked (like what happens with cigarettes), They should be helped. But some are also chavvy idiots who do it because they have nothing else to do and those people i really don't want to pay to get treatment (these types are the druggies i know most where i live).

and I'm pretty sure that's not the case where i live or in most parts of america, most people are clean when they leave prison here, those hooked on drugs get a limited supply which is cut down over time until they're no longer dependant. (Of course that doesn't stop them going back on them when they get out.)

I don't see what good legalising them will do to help anybody.

Most people will be exposed to others taking drugs around them at some point in their lives. They will also likely see that said drug-taking people spectacularly fail to drop dead in a variety of exciting ways the instant they do so, and quite rightly conclude that drugs are not, in fact, like little packages of cyanide. The best example of this is probably ecstasy - our education relating to ecstasy consisted solely of the case of Leah Betts, who took some ecstasy (I believe it was suspected to be mixed with something rather less pleasant, as well, another problem legalisation would fix), drank too much water, and died of water intoxication. That was all. "Ecstasy is a horrible class A drug that will cause you to DROP DEAD." In its heyday in the 90s, it's estimated the number of people taking it ran to over a million, and it's still wildly popular. The number of deaths linked to ecstasy are *tiny* - about 30 a year, and most of those can be attributed to contaminated pills or interactions with other drugs (certain anti-HIV medication is particularly bad, and there have also been cases linked to MAOI-class antidepressants).
The government allows us to do any number of things that are potentially dangerous - driving cars is the big one, but everything from playing sports to legal drugs to stepping outside in a thunderstorm have their associated risks and are entirely legal. We're trusted to make our own decisions on the risks we take because it is not the government's place to lock us all up in padded cells for our own safety. So why is the same not applied to drugs? Why can we not be given accurate information and trusted to make our own decisions on drugs? (For instance, about 1 in 250 people will be killed by their cars, or about 1 in 5 motorcyclists by their bikes. Professor David Nutt, the bloke evicted from the Drugs Advisory Board for advising, points out that '"acute harm to person" occur{s} in approximately 1 in 10,000 episodes of ecstasy use compared to about 1 in 350 episodes of horse riding.')

This is an example of the problems with the current educational system. You're the kind of person to decide not to take drugs based on what you've been taught; that's fine (and probably eminently sensible). The problem comes when people discover that everything they've been taught about soft drugs like cannabis and ecstasy is, frankly, a blatant lie. It doesn't take a genius to go to a club or something and observe the number of people taking ecstasy without keeling over. Then you get problems when they extrapolate this to all drugs. After all, ecstasy, heroin and cocaine are all Class A. If ecstasy is that obviously safe, and we're taught much the same about the dangers of it and coke/heroin, then surely heroin and cocaine are just as safe as ecstasy, right?

Newsflash for you: You pay *enormous* amounts of money for the treatment of alcohol-related problems (from short term alcohol poisoning and getting into fights to long-term problems like liver damage), tobacco related problems, and the medical effects of people already addicted to illegal drugs. (You pay for all the people doing the horrifically risky act of driving. You pay for every idiot who slips with a knife because they weren't using it properly, who proverbially or literally runs with scissors. Again, it's where you draw the line.) Isn't it better to pay to encourage people not to take drugs and to get off them if they are, than to pay to clean up the results? I reiterate that making them illegal plainly does not stop usage.

Do you know that for sure? I can't vouch for every prison everywhere, and certainly some provide rehab programs, but I know that drugs in prisons are acknowledged to be a huge issue by the prison services, and I've read more than one discussion on the subject by ex-prisoners.

OK, maybe you're right or wrong and maybe i'm right or wrong on the prison's debate. I don't know if all of prisons are like i say so it's probably a mixture which means we're both right so lets agree on that one as it's not the issue.

cars, playing sport and stepping outside in a thuderstorm is something thats nessary, to get to work, to keep fit and healthy or just having to get home from work and the weather just happens to be bad. Drugs have no use in this world other than to either help people with illness (and dying people with pain) which i agree with strongly, if you're dying and are in absolute agony usually illegal drugs should be available legally but other than that they are useless other than to make people high and whether they kill them or not they damage people in some way like alcohol, information on this is easily found on the internet, i don't know whether i can link a site here but the site i went on was reliable.

and yes, you could say this is also true for alcohol but alcohol is not addictive unless you let it be.

sure people can make their own minds up, but drugs can often take people's minds from them, they affect people's mentality and the decisions people make. people get addictied to it and that therefore takes their decision on whether to use it or not away from them. just because they are incontrol taking it the first time and can make that decision doesn't mean they get that chance the second or third, they might not even be down from the first high before taking it again.

and just because it happens rarely doesn't take away from the fact that it happens. and when it doesn't it still hurt's people in some way whether mentally or otherwise. all of which is for no benefit other than the feeling it gives you.

indie2 wrote:cars, playing sport and stepping outside in a thuderstorm is something thats nessary, to get to work, to keep fit and healthy or just having to get home from work and the weather just happens to be bad. Drugs have no use in this world other than to either help people with illness (and dying people with pain) which i agree with strongly, if you're dying and are in absolute agony usually illegal drugs should be available legally but other than that they are useless other than to make people high and whether they kill them or not they damage people in some way like alcohol, information on this is easily found on the internet, i don't know whether i can link a site here but the site i went on was reliable.

and yes, you could say this is also true for alcohol but alcohol is not addictive unless you let it be.

sure people can make their own minds up, but drugs can often take people's minds from them, they affect people's mentality and the decisions people make. people get addictied to it and that therefore takes their decision on whether to use it or not away from them. just because they are incontrol taking it the first time and can make that decision doesn't mean they get that chance the second or third, they might not even be down from the first high before taking it again.

and just because it happens rarely doesn't take away from the fact that it happens. and when it doesn't it still hurt's people in some way whether mentally or otherwise. all of which is for no benefit other than the feeling it gives you.

Oh, right, so we shouldn't let people do things for fun, only if it's necessary? Ban motor racing, since that sport doesn't provide exercise benefits and is dangerous? Hell, ban all sports - a gym is a much safer way to get fit? Or maybe ban video games, books, movies, TV, because after all, people only do them for fun, and while they're not actively dangerous people could be doing something necessary instead! Pubs, alcohol, clubbing, they're definitely all out. People do dangerous stuff all the time for no reason other than that it's fun. It's not the government's place to say "no, you can't do that, it's too dangerous", especially such arbitrary criteria. If they're going to set a threshold at which things are too dangerous for the population to be allowed to do, then set a consistent threshold and stick to it. At the moment? They're making it up as they go along and pretending like they're being all logical about it.
The amount of damage done by different drugs varies hugely; for example, take magic mushrooms - also Class A - which are almost entirely harmless - LSD's only real negative effects are possible bad trips, and shrooms aren't as strong an effect and much less likely to trigger them.

No drug is addictive unless you let it be. The problem is people *do* let it be, for whatever reasons, and whether it's legal or not. Some drugs may form physical dependencies more than others (tobacco compared to alcohol, for example) but at the root a "psychological" dependency is just a chemical feedback loop in the brain; it's not all that different from a physical dependency.

Again, this is why you provide honest and accurate education on the effects, and provide whatever support necessary to get off them. Again, I don't want everybody running around off their tits on drugs. I am simply observing that current education and legal methods are blatantly not working, and looking for better methods.

Life is full of pain. The world is big and cruel and painful. You can't fix that, and even if you could, do you think banning fun things on the grounds they might be dangerous is a good way to go about it? We're straying into philosophy here, but what ultimately is the point of life if you don't enjoy it? You can sit down and minimise every risk you take, live your life never doing anything fun because it's too risky, and in the end you'll die just like everybody else. It's your personal choice where you draw the risk line, but is it right to extrapolate your choice to the rest of the population? I don't think it is.