legalize drugs ?????

SweetChildofMine

We were the generation that was going to bring peace and love to the world- until our 401K's and stock portfolios became a more pressing issue. :(

Thats the funniest thing Ive seen all day.

LMFAO same goes for Gen X too the few of us we are.

SweetChildofMine

I can see where Brandon is coming from though. Old generals on old tired horses riding on ideas that got us into this mess not letting go and trying to get a breathe of fresh ideas into a system that obviously is headed for major meltdown. I dont think its disrespectful its a matter of saying lets put some new ideas in there even if its coming from the new "kids" on the block. I can actually sympathize with that at least. Who says that all wisdom comes with age? (not that you should show disrespect, however, the street does work both ways)

Hugh Freaking Dillon

pandora wrote:

well yes it does obviously...

do you have anything productive to add to the subject matter
or just want to discuss my post

because that is against posting guidelines

so is insulting people in your posts.

I had many things productive to add, but as usual, you dismiss everything anyone has to say if you don't agree with them, so there's really no point.

SweetChildofMine

redrock wrote:

brianlux wrote:

- improving education, finding ways to make the world a better saner place so people feel less compelled to need escape

Exactly. Tackling the roots of the problem. No use putting a bandage over a festering wound - it won't heal, just get worse. No use 'detoxing' an addict if he/she will be going back to the same environment that caused this person to start taking drugs...

I think i said that like page 1 or 2... but whatever. lol

lukin2006

pandora wrote:

brandon10 wrote:

Anyone with half a brain knows how bad meth, coke, heroin, and other hard drugs are. So there is no reason to preach to anyone here about which ones are worse. There is also no reason to preach about children using them. We all know that it is currently a problem. And that is the point, our system isn't working. The billions of dollars being spent on the war on drugs flat out isn't working. That money would be much better spent on education and an advertising blitz to shift culture even more against hard drugs. We have a billboard campaign where I live that shows before and after pictures of actual hard drug addicts. It is very eye opening to see the difference in appearance of these people. It's about time more money was spent this way. But instead we continue to waste money on prisons and other effects of the war on drugs. So Pandora can preach all the nonsense she wants about the children and the killer drugs. But her old lady ways are just making the effects of drugs on children and society worse. She just fails to grasp that because of a lack of ability to reasonable thought process.

your mother must be so proud she raised a loving respectful child

And yes good money is going towards education and ads now to get the word out
more is needed
this wasn't here a decade ago when we needed it most so this is promising to people
who have been victimized

The prisons are to house those cooking CRYSTAL METH and those pushing it
not the users

I am reasonable enough to be kind and respectful to even those I do not agree with
something you are not capable of ...
that is unreasonable of you

The only reason all those drugs are illegal is because the government says so...who says the government is right. How about the damage that is caused by the pharmaceuticals people take everyday.

Facts on Prescription Drug Deaths and the Drug Industry

http://theconference.ca/facts-on-prescr ... g-industry

Recreational Drugs FAR Less Likely to Kill You than Prescribed Drugs!

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... drugs.aspx


Now I realize meth is extremely dangerousI am pro legalization of all drugs. I think society if we just regulated the industry, taxed the industry and redirected police resources to other areas.

Thoughts_Arrive

Godfather. wrote:

my most trusted friend and Consigliere have Mr.Montana come and see me so we can talk about a small investment in his land and devolopment company.

Godfather.

I will fly to Miami tomorrow to meet with him and arrange for him to fly to New York for our meeting.
We shall make him an offer he can't refuse.

pandora

lukin2006 wrote:

pandora wrote:

brandon10 wrote:

Anyone with half a brain knows how bad meth, coke, heroin, and other hard drugs are. So there is no reason to preach to anyone here about which ones are worse. There is also no reason to preach about children using them. We all know that it is currently a problem. And that is the point, our system isn't working. The billions of dollars being spent on the war on drugs flat out isn't working. That money would be much better spent on education and an advertising blitz to shift culture even more against hard drugs. We have a billboard campaign where I live that shows before and after pictures of actual hard drug addicts. It is very eye opening to see the difference in appearance of these people. It's about time more money was spent this way. But instead we continue to waste money on prisons and other effects of the war on drugs. So Pandora can preach all the nonsense she wants about the children and the killer drugs. But her old lady ways are just making the effects of drugs on children and society worse. She just fails to grasp that because of a lack of ability to reasonable thought process.

your mother must be so proud she raised a loving respectful child

And yes good money is going towards education and ads now to get the word out
more is needed
this wasn't here a decade ago when we needed it most so this is promising to people
who have been victimized

The prisons are to house those cooking CRYSTAL METH and those pushing it
not the users

I am reasonable enough to be kind and respectful to even those I do not agree with
something you are not capable of ...
that is unreasonable of you

The only reason all those drugs are illegal is because the government says so...who says the government is right. How about the damage that is caused by the pharmaceuticals people take everyday.

Facts on Prescription Drug Deaths and the Drug Industry

http://theconference.ca/facts-on-prescr ... g-industry

Recreational Drugs FAR Less Likely to Kill You than Prescribed Drugs!

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... drugs.aspx


Now I realize meth is extremely dangerousI am pro legalization of all drugs. I think society if we just regulated the industry, taxed the industry and redirected police resources to other areas.

The government also bans drugs that are released to the public, that after use are found to
cause heart failure, renal failure, etc so therefore are removed for the public's safety.
This also takes place with supplements and foods, dangerous toys and other products.

This is what governments do. They represent people, advise and protect.

Pharmaceuticals are created to help manage real life health issues.
They have a purpose for creation.

CRYSTAL METH has no health benefit ...
it was created for the sole purpose to cause addiction and profit from it....
illegally.

Sludge Factory

pandora wrote:

CRYSTAL METH has no health benefit ...
it was created for the sole purpose to cause addiction and profit from it....
illegally.

You really should do your research before you continue to spout off even more false information. Crystal Meth dates back to WWII. It was used by both the axis and the allies forces. It was extensively used to reduce fatigue and suppress appetite. Following the war era, Meth tablets were referred to as "work pills" and used widely in Japan. Not only that, it was legally used in the U.S. as well.

http://www.crystalmethaddiction.org/His ... l_Meth.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#History

USARAY

a war drug ... nice

mikepegg44

Sludge Factory wrote:

pandora wrote:

CRYSTAL METH has no health benefit ...
it was created for the sole purpose to cause addiction and profit from it....
illegally.

You really should do your research before you continue to spout off even more false information. Crystal Meth dates back to WWII. It was used by both the axis and the allies forces. It was extensively used to reduce fatigue and suppress appetite. Following the war era, Meth tablets were referred to as "work pills" and used widely in Japan. Not only that, it was legally used in the U.S. as well.

http://www.crystalmethaddiction.org/His ... l_Meth.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#History

I was going to post this earlier as well.

it has been around for a long time...and it will be around for a long time into the future. making it illegal does nothing to stem the tide. it just puts money in the pockets of those that don't deserve it

I would love for drugs to be legal because it would be a step in the direction of personal freedom...but i would settle for drug decriminalization. it would be a start and would focus the efforts of the DEA and local police in the direction of the suppliers and not the get highers

peacefrompaul

mikepegg44 wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

pandora wrote:

CRYSTAL METH has no health benefit ...
it was created for the sole purpose to cause addiction and profit from it....
illegally.

You really should do your research before you continue to spout off even more false information. Crystal Meth dates back to WWII. It was used by both the axis and the allies forces. It was extensively used to reduce fatigue and suppress appetite. Following the war era, Meth tablets were referred to as "work pills" and used widely in Japan. Not only that, it was legally used in the U.S. as well.

http://www.crystalmethaddiction.org/His ... l_Meth.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#History

I was going to post this earlier as well.

it has been around for a long time...and it will be around for a long time into the future. making it illegal does nothing to stem the tide. it just puts money in the pockets of those that don't deserve it

I would love for drugs to be legal because it would be a step in the direction of personal freedom...but i would settle for drug decriminalization. it would be a start and would focus the efforts of the DEA and local police in the direction of the suppliers and not the get highers

I couldn't agree more Mike

peacefrompaul

Sludge Factory wrote:

pandora wrote:

CRYSTAL METH has no health benefit ...
it was created for the sole purpose to cause addiction and profit from it....
illegally.

You really should do your research before you continue to spout off even more false information. Crystal Meth dates back to WWII. It was used by both the axis and the allies forces. It was extensively used to reduce fatigue and suppress appetite. Following the war era, Meth tablets were referred to as "work pills" and used widely in Japan. Not only that, it was legally used in the U.S. as well.

http://www.crystalmethaddiction.org/His ... l_Meth.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#History

Blitzkriegs were more effective because of meth. Bombers used to stay alert and awake for runs until they complained it made them too angry and agitated. They switched to Dexedrine (an amphetamine).

USARAY

peacefrompaul wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

pandora wrote:

CRYSTAL METH has no health benefit ...
it was created for the sole purpose to cause addiction and profit from it....
illegally.

You really should do your research before you continue to spout off even more false information. Crystal Meth dates back to WWII. It was used by both the axis and the allies forces. It was extensively used to reduce fatigue and suppress appetite. Following the war era, Meth tablets were referred to as "work pills" and used widely in Japan. Not only that, it was legally used in the U.S. as well.

http://www.crystalmethaddiction.org/His ... l_Meth.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#History

Blitzkriegs were more effective because of meth. Bombers used to stay alert and awake for runs until they complained it made them too angry and agitated. They switched to Dexedrine (an amphetamine).

angry and agitated yeah we need more people like that around :roll:

peacefrompaul

squirt wrote:

angry and agitated yeah we need more people like that around :roll:

It's bad, no doubt. I still believe in the choice to use it or not.

brandon10

mikepegg44 wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

pandora wrote:

CRYSTAL METH has no health benefit ...
it was created for the sole purpose to cause addiction and profit from it....
illegally.

You really should do your research before you continue to spout off even more false information. Crystal Meth dates back to WWII. It was used by both the axis and the allies forces. It was extensively used to reduce fatigue and suppress appetite. Following the war era, Meth tablets were referred to as "work pills" and used widely in Japan. Not only that, it was legally used in the U.S. as well.

http://www.crystalmethaddiction.org/His ... l_Meth.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#History

I was going to post this earlier as well.

it has been around for a long time...and it will be around for a long time into the future. making it illegal does nothing to stem the tide. it just puts money in the pockets of those that don't deserve it

I would love for drugs to be legal because it would be a step in the direction of personal freedom...but i would settle for drug decriminalization. it would be a start and would focus the efforts of the DEA and local police in the direction of the suppliers and not the get highers

It's nice to see you guys join the conversation after a weekend of overly dramatic posts that brought nothing worth reading to the conversation......well for the most part

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Remember I think legalizing marijuana would be reasonable and I would support such a movement. I'm strongly opposed to legalizing the more destructive harder drugs. I'm not going to provide any links describing the negative effects of drugs such as meth or heroin, nor am I going to provide links detailing the potential impact on society given legalization. When you come to a forum such as this, genuine discussion is what I seek to engage in. I can google any topic and become well-versed in a minute if I so choose. I don't need to for this one though.

I'm curious to know from the pro-legalization side a couple of things:

1. If it was possible to rid the world of the aforementioned 'hard' drugs, would the pro-legalization side concede that this would be a good thing? Or would this side suggest that the world needs these drugs? Despite having no medicinal value and used rather almost exclusively in recreational fashion, do these drugs actually have some value that is legitimate?

2. Given that it is likely the answer to the first question above is 'yes'... I'm wondering why we would make a move to legalize and accept these drugs into society's fold? The war on drugs has been difficult - because this is so... do we give this fight up? If we did, what becomes our next fight? Do we give that one up too when it gets difficult?

3. When an addict needs their drugs, theft, prostitution, and violence has shown to manifest itself so that the dependent can make it to their next fix- day to day. Further, medical costs for treatment and rehabilitation are shared by all. Can we really cite freedom of choice given the direct impact of the drug on the user as well as the indirect impact on the rest of society? In other words, can we actually condone such drug use knowing very well of the destructive qualities related to the usage?

To further illustrate what I am getting at (and using an example I have used before): if someone wanted to raise a cougar in an urban setting, should they have the same freedom? Despite the potential risk to themselves and others, consistency would demand that it be the person's freedom of choice to raise the cougar as a pet. Are rules and regulations that serve to maintain the safety and welfare of the larger masses not significant? Is it only freedom of choice when it serves a position's side to an argument (for this, 'yes'... but for that, 'no')?

brandon10

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Remember I think legalizing marijuana would be reasonable and I would support such a movement. I'm strongly opposed to legalizing the more destructive harder drugs. I'm not going to provide any links describing the negative effects of drugs such as meth or heroin, nor am I going to provide links detailing the potential impact on society given legalization. When you come to a forum such as this, genuine discussion is what I seek to engage in. I can google any topic and become well-versed in a minute if I so choose. I don't need to for this one though.

I'm curious to know from the pro-legalization side a couple of things:

1. If it was possible to rid the world of the aforementioned 'hard' drugs, would the pro-legalization side concede that this would be a good thing? Or would this side suggest that the world needs these drugs? Despite having no medicinal value and used rather almost exclusively in recreational fashion, do these drugs actually have some value that is legitimate?

2. Given that it is likely the answer to the first question above is 'yes'... I'm wondering why we would make a move to legalize and accept these drugs into society's fold? The war on drugs has been difficult - because this is so... do we give this fight up? If we did, what becomes our next fight? Do we give that one up too when it gets difficult?

3. When an addict needs their drugs, theft, prostitution, and violence has shown to manifest itself so that the dependent can make it to their next fix- day to day. Further, medical costs for treatment and rehabilitation are shared by all. Can we really cite freedom of choice given the direct impact of the drug on the user as well as the indirect impact on the rest of society? In other words, can we actually condone such drug use knowing very well of the destructive qualities related to the usage?

To further illustrate what I am getting at (and using an example I have used before): if someone wanted to raise a cougar in an urban setting, should they have the same freedom? Despite the potential risk to themselves and others, consistency would demand that it be the person's freedom of choice to raise the cougar as a pet. Are rules and regulations that serve to maintain the safety and welfare of the larger masses not significant? Is it only freedom of choice when it serves a position's side to an argument (for this, 'yes'... but for that, 'no')?

This is more like it.

1. If the world could somehow rid itself of hard drugs I would be all for it. You are right about one thing, they are nothing but a detriment to society.

2. The reason that even though we answer yes to your first question and feel like we should make these drugs legal is based on multiple reasons. The first reason is that eradicating these drugs from our world is impossible. You admit that the war on drugs is a complete failure yet you'd like to keep fighting it. It simply is never going to work. The Reagan government ramped up the war on drugs in the early 80's thinking that throwing a whole bunch of money into enforcement would have some ability to eradicate drugs. It hasn't and it won't. We think that legalizing drugs would quite possibly slow down gangs and violence associated with drugs. Basically diminishing the majority of the black markets drugs.

Also we feel that far too much money is spent on the war on drugs and that money would be better served towards education and help for those who have become addicted.The billions that are spent on prisons, lawyers, and enforcement of these laws may go much further towards eradicating hard drugs if that money was spent on education and treatment programs to keep people away from these nasty drugs.

There are also some that simply feel the government doesn't have the right to tell us what we can and can't do to our bodies. I'm sort of on the fence on this point. Mainly because society isn't that intelligent and may sometime need a little regulation. But I haven't quite made up my mind on this. But it does bring me to your analogy.


As I said I do believe in some regulation in society for obvious reasons like this. But there is a reason your comparison doesn't work. When people are told they may not have a cougar in an urban setting they don't try to have a cougar as a pet anyway. They either find another hobby or live on a farm or maybe buy a zoo. But drugs will just never be like that. They are always going to be around in some capacity or another. There isn't a cougar epidemic as far as I can tell.

When something doesn't work, we need to try something different.The worst society to me is one that doesn't learn from it's mistakes. The war on drugs has been a mistake for a long time. I think it's time to try something new.

SweetChildofMine

http://www.alternet.org/story/154219/wh ... &rd=1&t=12

a good short perspective on why these things take hold....

USARAY

there will always be pain and suffering responsibility for each individual take care of their world
blend into others share peace so much anger in this thread how many are high
think individual peace comes with drugs guess not
so why hide there why say yes legal or not why accept the hole you dig why so angry
trying to reach hell you found it already

mikepegg44

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Remember I think legalizing marijuana would be reasonable and I would support such a movement. I'm strongly opposed to legalizing the more destructive harder drugs. I'm not going to provide any links describing the negative effects of drugs such as meth or heroin, nor am I going to provide links detailing the potential impact on society given legalization. When you come to a forum such as this, genuine discussion is what I seek to engage in. I can google any topic and become well-versed in a minute if I so choose. I don't need to for this one though.

I'm curious to know from the pro-legalization side a couple of things:

1. If it was possible to rid the world of the aforementioned 'hard' drugs, would the pro-legalization side concede that this would be a good thing? Or would this side suggest that the world needs these drugs? Despite having no medicinal value and used rather almost exclusively in recreational fashion, do these drugs actually have some value that is legitimate?

2. Given that it is likely the answer to the first question above is 'yes'... I'm wondering why we would make a move to legalize and accept these drugs into society's fold? The war on drugs has been difficult - because this is so... do we give this fight up? If we did, what becomes our next fight? Do we give that one up too when it gets difficult?

3. When an addict needs their drugs, theft, prostitution, and violence has shown to manifest itself so that the dependent can make it to their next fix- day to day. Further, medical costs for treatment and rehabilitation are shared by all. Can we really cite freedom of choice given the direct impact of the drug on the user as well as the indirect impact on the rest of society? In other words, can we actually condone such drug use knowing very well of the destructive qualities related to the usage?

To further illustrate what I am getting at (and using an example I have used before): if someone wanted to raise a cougar in an urban setting, should they have the same freedom? Despite the potential risk to themselves and others, consistency would demand that it be the person's freedom of choice to raise the cougar as a pet. Are rules and regulations that serve to maintain the safety and welfare of the larger masses not significant? Is it only freedom of choice when it serves a position's side to an argument (for this, 'yes'... but for that, 'no')?

1. I agree the world would be a better place without the "harder" drugs. But there are those that like them. Actually like the effects, thinks it helps them. My opinion should way nothing into their ability to use those drugs. The value is to the person who uses them, whether it be to numb the pain of their existence, or to "expand their mind" ... it doesn't matter why they want to use them, or the benefits they seek...it isn't up to me to tell someone else what they can put in their own body...
2. There is a difference between difficult and not working. WWII was difficult, but it was working. Vietnam was difficult and NOT WORKING...there is a difference. Why does there automatically have to be a next fight...a next war on social issues...it doesn't need to exist in any capacity. Legalizing the drugs, or decriminalizing them (two different things I know) would help rid the inherent advantages to the "pushers"...the fact that society says those are taboo is an automatic trigger to people...society allowing something to exist and condoning it are two different things. If we take people in and quit the back alley black market it may be more possible to save those who want it and give a safer path to use for those that want the drugs. It also takes away the incentive for many street gangs to exist, not to mention the cartels.
3. When the drug user begins to affect those around him, through property theft it becomes a problem and there are laws in place to punish that behavior. But you won't find me arguing that prostitution should be illegal either. If two grown adults want to engage in sex for money who am I to say they cannot. Treatment is a much better payment option than billions wasted fighting a war we cannot win. Overall I would say that costs to society would go down, whether it be through the release of non-violent drug offenders from prisons or through the resources of law enforcement re-allocated to more important things like solving property and violent crimes. I don't condone drug use, I don't think people should use them....but I am not the end all be all and my morality, as much as it works for me and I would like to think would work for everyone, should not be forced on someone else.

and for the latter example. I don't care if someone raises a cougar...I would venture to guess there are thousands of people in urban areas right now that are raising pets that could possibly pose a threat to their neighbors...I don't think it is in the governments best interest to fight continual what if scenarios...if you want to make crimes worse when drugs are involved go ahead...but the drugs should not be the crimes on their own. Same with exotic pets. I wouldn't want a cheetah next to me, but wouldn't it be in my best interest to know the cheetah was there and be able to make decisions based on knowledge rather than just have to assume everyone has a cheetah in their basement. We can come up with examples all day long about specific things that may pose a danger to others...If my cheetah kills, hurts, or terrorizes someone, that is when I should be held criminally liable. i would much rather live next to a person illegally owning a dangerous big cat than someone cooking meth in their garage.
I will pose one question back at you, if freedom and personal choice pose dangers to us and others, why do we have any? Why do I have the freedom to drink but not get high? why do I have the freedom to drive? why do I have the freedom to own a gun? You say why should we legalize drugs, I say why does it matter what I do as long as i am not affecting others?
We don't know what dangers would ACTUALLY happen if we legalized drugs, all we know is the dangers that ARE happening because they are illegal... i can't see more people dying as a result of legalized drugs...but we have to look further than just our street, our neighborhood...the effects of the war on drugs are felt internationally...