Drug Law

rushfan4 wrote: The big negative being easier access to these addictive drugs leading to more addictions and all of the negatives associated with drug addictions.  And I have to be honest that that kind of scares me.  How many people who wouldn't otherwise do drugs because they are illegal would just "try them once to see what it is like" because it is legal and accessible, become addicted, and completely ruin their lives?  I suppose that should be everyone's choice to make but it is possible that the outcome could be pretty catastrophic.

Ask any teenager, it's way easier to get pot than alcohol when you are underage.  Pot is also less *chemically addicting.

Your point is very valid for most other illegal drugs, though


Edited by Triceratopsoil - September 05 2013 at 18:19

Triceratopsoil wrote: rushfan4 wrote: The big negative being easier access to these addictive drugs leading to more addictions and all of the negatives associated with drug addictions.  And I have to be honest that that kind of scares me.  How many people who wouldn't otherwise do drugs because they are illegal would just "try them once to see what it is like" because it is legal and accessible, become addicted, and completely ruin their lives?  I suppose that should be everyone's choice to make but it is possible that the outcome could be pretty catastrophic.  Ask any teenager, it's way easier to get pot than alcohol when you are underage.  Pot is also less *chemically addicting. Your point is very valid for most other illegal drugs, though

I suspect that this is probably true.  I am sure that I am in a minority that has never tried pot and has no real desire to do so, although if it were legal and I could order a joint to go with my pint of Killians I might just do that because I could.  I have a strong aversion to cigarette smoke though, so have really never had any desire to smoke anything or even be around smoke.  I can't really say that I am all that big of a fan of contact highs from attending concerts.  I kind of question the "smoking pot has had no ill effects on me" people, as most that I have met seem to be lacking quite a few brain cells.  I can't say that it might not be due to excessive alcohol or other drug use however.

drugz, k

rushfan4 wrote: Triceratopsoil wrote: rushfan4 wrote: The big negative being easier access to these addictive drugs leading to more addictions and all of the negatives associated with drug addictions.  And I have to be honest that that kind of scares me.  How many people who wouldn't otherwise do drugs because they are illegal would just "try them once to see what it is like" because it is legal and accessible, become addicted, and completely ruin their lives?  I suppose that should be everyone's choice to make but it is possible that the outcome could be pretty catastrophic.  Ask any teenager, it's way easier to get pot than alcohol when you are underage.  Pot is also less *chemically addicting. Your point is very valid for most other illegal drugs, though I suspect that this is probably true.  I am sure that I am in a minority that has never tried pot and has no real desire to do so, although if it were legal and I could order a joint to go with my pint of Killians I might just do that because I could.  I have a strong aversion to cigarette smoke though, so have really never had any desire to smoke anything or even be around smoke.  I can't really say that I am all that big of a fan of contact highs from attending concerts.  I kind of question the "smoking pot has had no ill effects on me" people, as most that I have met seem to be lacking quite a few brain cells.  I can't say that it might not be due to excessive alcohol or other drug use however.

Scott, your concerns are valid and not silly at all.  I did party back in the day, and all of my friends partied.  I can tell you first hand that if the weed were better quality, more available, with no consequences for using it, everyone I know would have indulged a lot more.  Instead, it was expensive, pretty poor quality, and carried risks. 

I don't know how people can say with a straight face that legalizing would not lead to much more use by young people, but then again, these are the same people who claim it is harmless.  It is far from harmless.  While it may not be physically addictive, the tars in good weed are damaging to your lungs over time and that is undeniable.  No, it may not kill you quickly, but like cigs if you use a lot over time it may well contribute to lung disease.  I won't even address psychological issues as there's much to debate there, but like you, I have the same experience with long time stoners....you just know they've been affected.  Maybe not all are affected in that way, but some clearly are.  I have seen this "harmless" drug contribute to the woes of some people I've known.  I've seen guys lose motivation, I've seen very smart guys lose interest in life as they became more interested in the next buzz. 

Legalizing will over time ingrain the message  that this drug is safe and no problem to use, or at the least it makes them a bit more likely to experiment.  While I admit the drug is fun, less deadly than alcohol in many ways, it is not harmless and making it legal means kids/young adults will use it more, and use more of it.  That's my opinion based on personal experience.  Had my circle of buddies had access to that great bud in the fancy glass jars, with no risk of trouble, we would have smoked our asses off.  Instead, it was somewhat difficult to get the good stuff, so often we didn't bother with any of it. 

I'm not a prude on this stuff and back then I would have argued the opposite view.  I still don't support harsh penalties for recreational use nor do I support job discrimination for a weed pee test positive.  But growing up and seeing the effects on good people I've known, you have to be honest with yourself.  It is not harmless and it is best avoided or used very sparingly.  I know the Libertarian argument would be , it's your choice, it's your body, blah blah blah.  If Johnie's life damaged because he used, that's his problem.  Maybe.  Looks good on paper.

I know saying this stuff here is opening myself to huge ridicule.  But its worth it to me to say to some of the teens who may read this, not everyone agrees with the popular message on this stuff.  Everyone wants you to swallow the "weed is harmless"  message now.  I encourage you to dig a little deeper and consider your body, think about how precious your lungs are.  I've seen people die from lung disease.  I know smoking is fun, I love it actually.  I loved weed  and I loved Cigs even more(though I don't use either anymore) .  It's very hard to give up these things once you start to enjoy them.  Think about all of it before you start...you might be one of the people who can't give it up.  I wish I hadn't abused myself as long as I  did.  I worry about COPD now every time I feel short of breath.  It's a very sh*tty way to die, trust me on that one. 

ok, enough babble.  I' don't really want a debate.  People are going to do what they do, and they'll decide on their own someday whether it was wise.  I just wanted to give one man's opinion looking back. 

Finnforest wrote: I don't know how people can say with a straight face that legalizing would not lead to much more use by young people, but then again, these are the same people who claim it is harmless.  It is far from harmless.  While it may not be physically addictive, the tars in good weed are damaging to your lungs over time and that is undeniable.  No, it may not kill you quickly, but like cigs if you use a lot over time it may well contribute to lung disease.  I won't even address psychological issues as there's much to debate there, but like you, I have the same experience with long time stoners....you just know they've been affected.  Maybe not all are affected in that way, but some clearly are.  I have seen this "harmless" drug contribute to the woes of some people I've known.  I've seen guys lose motivation, I've seen very smart guys lose interest in life as they became more interested in the next buzz.

This is an excellent comment. I don't exactly know where the notion that weed is "harmless" comes from. Too much Vitamin C is harmful for crying out loud... Marijuana is not just thin air. It is a toxin. The feeling of being high is your body telling you that something is foreign in your body and shouldn't be there, and our attraction to that feeling as humans is one of our many evolutionary blips.

Regarding the big dogs of the narcotics world, I would say that they are made class A and highly illegal due to the fact that you need only a very small amount to become hooked on a substance that is highly detrimental. They are illegal at the moment for a reason, but I really do feel that we come down too hard on addicts. The real issue for me is that addicts are treated as lesser people, which they are most certainly not, and also leads to knock on effects on the homeless population. I have lost count on how many people don't give to homeless people thinking that "They're just drug addicts and will spend all of my money on smack" is a valid excuse. Not only are they saying something hugely derogatory to the homeless population, but they are also making a general assumption on the homeless population that is backed up by little to no reliable evidence.

Decriminalisation making room for proper medical treatment will reduce the homeless population significantly I believe, for the above reasons.

You can regulate it if it's legal.

You take the "taboo" and the "can't do it so I have to do it" thing if it's legal.

Addicts will be treated as addicts if they and their families are willing and not if a judge orders it so (unless it's something specific like drugged driving) if they are legal.

The cash cow of keeping thousands of small-time drug dealers who are just trying to earn an income in huge bloated jails for the jail-police industry will fade away if it's legal.

And out of principle. None should have a say in what other person puts in his/her body unless it harms someone else.

I think Scott's point is fair, but I think, overall, drug addiction and overdosing would decrease. If it's made legal, over time, drugs will become less of a social stigma and information on how to use drugs properly will become more widely available and it will also be a lot safer to buy and consume them, as we start regulating them.

That it be legal doesn't mean we would be saying it is harmless. Check how we managed to bring down tobacco use by attacking it without making it illegal. And I guess by now only 20 people on Earth think tobacco is harmless.

True, but still, if there was no information available, then even more people would drink like that.
But does that mean we should try to prevent them from doing that? Who are we to decide what some college student does to themselves

^And only college students.
No high school pupils, not even middle school pupils.
And, of course, no middle age people (cf. Williams Burroughs).