War on drugs

Cocaine does, but heroin is a depressant not a stimulant.

I'm in favor of legalizing and regulating most drug use.

I'd also be in favor of requiring mandatory rehab rather than jail and fines in the case of non-violent drug users assuming the drug used is illegal.

Ah yes, you're quite right. In that case the danger is more in the degree of addiction, I suppose.

Do you mean what is wrong morally, or legally? I think Yoda covers most of the former, and for that reason the legalisation pretty much falls in line with the consequences. The government(s) have a responsibility to give the people an acceptable standard of living and part of this is controlling what they use for their bodies, it's about education, people need to be aware from the dangers and deterred from it, I think that is the main priority of criminalisation. There are definitely far worse consequences to something like heroin than alcohol, alcohol is still discouraged in many ways, and it is still considered as a negative drug in someways, but it's far from as effecting as others.

But personally I believe that when it comes the actual act of using drugs, if caught, the focus shouldn't be on punishing the user - if it's something small like cannabis or a one of on a common drug, then a fine is normally issued to deter them and nothing too serious happens - but more education and rehabilition, they should be given help and have to attend programs that support them and attempt to deal with the issue rather than punish them for something they might not be very responsible for, especially the lower levels of the "social spectrum" which are particularly vulnerable. Those who should be punished should be those involved in the production and trading of it, depending on the level of it.

__________________

I aways talk about morally, I don't really care for legality haha. So according to what most of you say you would agree to legalize marijuana, hash, magic mushrooms, etc. But would disagree to legalise heroin, meth, crack, etc. because after using they could do some harm to others.


Is that accurate?

__________________
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages

I don't think it's as simple as that, one section for one, one for another. I think it's about levels of intervention and deterrent, I think to a degree all drugs are bad, even if not directly. The lifestyles that evolve from them often cause pain for others, think about marijuana and legal highs, many of these people might resort to violence and such in order to be able to afford their habit. Then hallucinogens like mushrooms leave you not in control of your body, so obvious negative actions can occur as as a result of that. The problem is as you go up the ladder the addictions get worse, so do the lifestyles of those involved, the likeliness of acts of violence and abuse towards others, and also from a supply side the exploit-ability and violence that comes from those selling it.

The argument for legalising weed I think is mainly regarding regulation, there are argued health benefits, so a lot of people think it needs to be used and further explored medically. Also a lot of people use it, so the government would be able to tax and regulate what is sold, it should eliminate at least some of the illegal trade etc. I don't think the concern is much what marijuana does directly to your health (although there are still question marks) but was arises from it, it's becoming more and more common and socially acceptable, so naturally people are looking to ways to make it work for everyone.

I can't imagine a pot head resorting to violence over a joint.
Sounds like something out of reefer madness lol.

Unlike cocaine which needs a very particular environment to grow, weed can be grown and cultivated pretty much anywhere.

They say money doesn't grow on trees, but cannabis literally does. (okay not technically a tree)

If it weren't for all these laws and regulations those who are desperate to get high but cannot afford it simply need a little patience and they can grow their own.

Sure, it's a good band.



Oh, wait...

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

Yes that's my stance. I would be opposed to legalizing heroin, meth, crack because they are extremely dangerous, extremely additive and legalizing them would do great harm to the individual and society.

I'm for legalizing marijuana (also known as cannabis and as a more purified form, hash).

We've always had legal recreational drugs: alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. And if a person doesn't think those are drugs then they're in denial.

One time I saw this thing on TV where they were flying helicopters over forests and locating cannabis.
Then they would go in there and kill thousands of plants.

It made me bizarrely sad, killing all of that life for no reason. It was like a holocaust.

I'd rather not have my face eaten off.

You are sovereign over yourself. If you want to use substances on your body you should be able to.

It's a really stupid thing, this "war on drugs". First, because it doesn't actually work, second, because it generates a crime industry out of it. Alcohol became ilegal in the US for some time and gangsters took over that business.

No government imposed restrictions on any drugs (except, drugs that might turn people into psychopaths that start killing other people, if such drugs existed in the first place).

Among existing main drugs, heroin, LSD, meth, etc, I don't see them as more dangerous than alcohol. Maybe cocaine, but still could be taken in a controlled environment in that case.

Legalize heroin. It's mass produced so costs 10 dollars a gallon. Most people can buy a lifetime supply of heroin for 10 dollars. No problem emerges from people killing other people to get money for the drug.

You really think cocaine is more dangerous than heroin and that people should have pretty much free access to it, really?

By what standard are they not more dangerous? Heroin users are dramatically more likely to commit all sorts of crimes, violent and otherwise. More likely to die. More likely to be killed. And it's not just because the drug is illegal; other drugs are illegal and don't cause a fraction of the suffering. And alcohol didn't, either, even during prohibition.

It may be valid to argue that being illegal makes some of this work. And it may be valid to argue that even all this violence and all these destroyed lives are just part of the price we pay for individual liberty. But I don't see how it's remotely tenable to pretend there's no difference in aggregate outcomes among various types of drug use.

It's easy to afford a "lifetime supply" of something that kills you.

Affordability isn't the issue, and is a meaningless concept in the context of heroin. Highly addictive drugs are not actually affordable at any price, because they monopolize your life and need to be taken over and over.

Why?

That's not a social problem. Drinking coke increases your probability of dying.

Crime related alcohol deaths were pretty high I would think.

Well, I am not a specialist in the effects of heroin. I though it wasn't like cocaine that stimulates people.

Let's see, effects of Heroin:

"Once heroin enters the brain, it is converted to morphine and binds rapidly to opioid receptors.11 Abusers typically report feeling a surge of pleasurable sensation—a “rush.” The intensity of the rush is a function of how much drug is taken and how rapidly the drug enters the brain and binds to the opioid receptors. With heroin, the rush is usually accompanied by a warm flushing of the skin, dry mouth, and a heavy feeling in the extremities, which may be accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and severe itching. After the initial effects, users usually will be drowsy for several hours; mental function is clouded; heart function slows; and breathing is also severely slowed, sometimes enough to be life-threatening. Slowed breathing can also lead to coma and permanent brain damage.12"

Hum, it doesn't looks like people will start killing other people because they received a dosage of heroin. So I guess it's perfectly ok for it to be legal.

Precisely.

Point is that people comic crimes to get money to buy the drug. With a cheap mass produced drug the problem is solved. You buy a gallon of heroin and inject yourself like crazy until you die. It is a form of pleasurable suicide.

Yes, if you start using heroin there is a high probability that you will die. Same applies if you stick a knife into your neck. Now you think the government should forbid people to use knives?

And yes, people have the right to kill themselves.

If this were true then there would be no such thing as a functioning alcoholic.

Drug use is a symptom not a cause.

In truth I don't think the majority of drug users, even those of "hard drugs" are addicts. I think the average user of any drug is a casual user - we're just so used to seeing documentaries about junkies and crack addicts living in the street that we've developed this viewpoint of them.

And when a person is put in jail for simple drug possession, likely causing them to lose employment and less likely to be rehired you create the circumstances which lead to drug addiction in the first place.

The only drugs I'd be concerned with being made legal in some capacity are drugs which cause dissociative or hallucinogenic effects such as PCP or "bath salts", since people have committed violent acts while in a psychotic state from using these drugs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann...b_6506936.html

In Rat Park, all the rats obviously tried both water bottles, because they didn't know what was in them. But what happened next was startling.

The rats with good lives didn't like the drugged water. They mostly shunned it, consuming less than a quarter of the drugs the isolated rats used. None of them died. While all the rats who were alone and unhappy became heavy users, none of the rats who had a happy environment did.

At first, I thought this was merely a quirk of rats, until I discovered that there was -- at the same time as the Rat Park experiment -- a helpful human equivalent taking place. It was called the Vietnam War. Time magazine reported using heroin was "as common as chewing gum" among U.S. soldiers, and there is solid evidence to back this up: some 20 percent of U.S. soldiers had become addicted to heroin there, according to a study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. Many people were understandably terrified; they believed a huge number of addicts were about to head home when the war ended.

But in fact some 95 percent of the addicted soldiers -- according to the same study -- simply stopped. Very few had rehab. They shifted from a terrifying cage back to a pleasant one, so didn't want the drug any more.

Professor Alexander argues this discovery is a profound challenge both to the right-wing view that addiction is a moral failing caused by too much hedonistic partying, and the liberal view that addiction is a disease taking place in a chemically hijacked brain. In fact, he argues, addiction is an adaptation. It's not you. It's your cage.


Not following that statement. There's no way enforce a law against suicide because you can't prosecute a dead person, so I don't know what that statement even means.

It's hard to punish the dead.