General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLet's legalize meth, and every other such recreational drug.
The War on Drugs has been lost, lost long ago. Destined to be a losing proposition from its inception. It is past time for us to recognize this simply fact, and alleviate the massive harm that the WOD is inflicting upon the American people by ending it.
The plain, pure, simple fact of the matter is that a vast majority of humanity feels the need to alter their state of consciousness at some point or another, with various drugs. Prohibiting those drugs is not going to change human nature, but rather force people to endure all sorts of dangers in order to fulfill that need.
Worse, we are losing our country, our civil liberties to this prohibition. All the time while enriching the national security and prison industries needlessly.
If you look at other experiments in legalization, you will see that they are successful. Britain has legalized heroin and look what's happened. A heroin addict gets up in the morning, goes downtown on the tube, stops in at a NHS office, gets his clean, legal shot of heroin. He then goes to work, is a productive, tax paying citizen, gets off work, goes back by NHS to get his evening shot, goes home and is a law abiding citizen at home. No need to rob or assault to get money to feed his habit, no need to place him on the public jailhouse support system, and if he wants help for his addiction, since there is no longer any legal stigma, he can get his addiction treated for what it truly is, a health issue.
The same applies to meth. Do you think meth addicts want to ingest a product that has been made in a back room, that consists of battery acid, sulphur and other toxic ingredients? No, they are ingesting meth because they can't get pharmaceutical grade amphetamines. Why do they want that? Well, meth, speed, those are working class drugs, drugs for the poor. They allow that poor fellow to continue to schlup his ass to two or three jobs he needs just to get by in this world. Perhaps if we started addressing the root problems of drug use, poverty and such, we would actually lower the rate of drug use.
But until we do, it only makes sense to legalize all drugs. There are several advantages. First, we would stop the massive crime wave that is associated with the current drug world. No need to shoot innocents, no need to rob or murder if you can get your drugs legally and cheaply.
Second, we can remove the stigma of illegality from drugs, and treat them as what they really are, a public health problem. We can tax drugs, and use those revenues to provide much needed attention to the problem of drug addiction. The funny thing is, in countries that have legalize drugs, even hard ones, the rate of drug use goes down because that aura of glamor and danger that surrounds drugs, that aura that appeals to many a rebellious youth, is gone, no more rebellious than your old man drinking a beer. Furthermore, with legal drugs comes clean drugs. During alcohol prohibition, far too many people died from bathtub gin, under today's drug prohibition, far too many people are dying from drugs they cooked up for themselves, the modern equivalent of bathtub gin. Safe, legalized pharmaceutical grade drugs would go a long way to alleviate the suffering, and health problems, of drug users.
Third, we would get our civil liberties back, and stop our progress along this road we're traveling down towards a police state.
Prohibition hasn't worked in the past, in fact it has only made things worse. Why not learn from that, and end this prohibition against all drugs. We would be better off as a country, as a society.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...but not for manufacturers or distributors.
waddirum
(1,005 posts)should have a legitimate pharmaceutical source, rather than the crap cooked up in a trailer.
Methamphetamines were legal (and dispensed over the counter) for many years. They should still be available.
gateley
(62,683 posts)took them all for a big chunk of my life) the fact that it was legal or illegal didn't enter into the decision at all. I'm with you -- people who want to get high will do it whether or not the law approves, same with people who choose not to.
Legal, illegal..... If you want it, you can get it. Period. I'd rather people be on pharmaceutical/lab grade than the bathtub variety.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)could have some assurance that you won't get something toxic in the mix you weren't expecting, or wouldn't get thrown in jail for using? That to me is the issue in legalizing drugs, that and taking the illegitimate profit out of it. I don't know how you could in good conscience sell meth or other debilitating drugs to a user, but at least that user might feel safer to seek help than if they might end up in prison or dead from poisonous ingredients.
Maybe it should only be available, legally, in a clinic, where the user has to promise to undergo therapy to stop using. Since I've never used drugs, it's just a theory with me, and I'm interested in what a real drug user would want to happen.
gateley
(62,683 posts)high, period.
I would never sell drugs because I know how they destroyed my life, but I think the criminals and profiteers need to be eliminated. Not sure how to do that, though.
Offer REAL education (as opposed to Reefer Madness) all through school, and offer support and help for those who decide they want to stop.
A promise means nothing -- we are living a lie when we're in the throes of addiction. Nobody will stop using until they are ready.
w8liftinglady
(23,278 posts)Meth is a shit replacement for cocaine.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)But meth is a shit replacement for pharmaceutical grade amphetamines, not coke. Crack is the shit replacement for coke.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Cocaine is different from amphetamine
Desoxyn is pharmaceutical meth.Dr's used to hand it out like candy back in the '60's-'70's.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)What other drug is a treatment for altitude sickness?
Also should be good for emphysema.
think
(11,641 posts)Although your headline is pretty bold your arguments and examples are well thought out.
Well done. 
But I do think if users cause problems for the community (violence, stealing, etc.) then the community has the right to insist the offender go to a stint in rehab. I think that is fair.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And I dislike unilateral actions even when it's something I agree with. But, good arguments.
(Incidentally, we're already catching hell at the UN for the states that have legalized pot; there's a conference this spring in Quito and it's going to be quite a show.)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)because they're all illegal.
It's just that people can cook meth out of household chemicals.
If it was legal, people wouldn't actually be doing meth.
Maybe they'd be doing something like Adderall (which is a cocktail of amphetamines), which happens to be made in pharmaceutical facilities, and doesn't have shit like Coleman gas and Drano in it.
People wouldn't be shooting black tar heroin, they'd get pharmaceutical grade morphine.
IMHO, what we should have is legalized recreational (or addiction-management) prescriptions. Of course, the drugs I talk about are pretty potent, and kill people when they overdose. So if you're addicted, or just want to get high, you would go to a doctor, and get a script explicitly and legally to get wasted. He'd write up the dose, check you out to make sure the dose won't instantly kill you, maybe even give you some place to lie down when you shoot up, and keep an eye on you if you have a bad reaction, and make sure you don't get behind the wheel of a car or something if you're too wasted to drive.
LiberalLoner
(11,467 posts)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)Narrated by Morgan Freeman, including interviews of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter...
It came out two days ago and is free to watch online right now: http://www.breakingthetaboo.info/view_documentary.htm
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)But, make sure that you cannot legally promote meth to kids, etc., open a drug mall, ...
RevStPatrick
(2,208 posts)Of course, it's not gonna happen.
Because it's rational. We are not a rational society.
And because there are VERY powerful forces that make shit-tons of money from these drugs being illegal. And I'm NOT talking about the cartels, or the dealers or the smugglers or the growers.
I'm talking about this sentence of yours:
"All the time while enriching the national security and prison industries needlessly." As well as the banksters who launder all that money. The people behind those industries are not going to let YOU fuck up their gravy train.
Of course, you don't help your argument with this:
..."under today's drug prohibition, far too many people are dying from drugs they cooked up for themselves, the modern equivalent of bathtub gin. Safe, legalized pharmaceutical grade drugs would go a long way to alleviate the suffering, and health problems, of drug users."
Those same banksters and national security and prison industry types WANT those kind of drug addicty people to die off. They're always going to be replaced by the next batch of drug addicty people, as long as the world sucks, there will always be more drug addicts and the gravy train keeps rolling on. Fuck you and your "we would be better off as a country" shit, THERE'S MONEY TO BE MADE!!!
Time to go roll a spliff...
TeamPooka
(25,577 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)on the case today! 
jerseyjack
(1,361 posts)fija.org
Fully informed Jury Association.
When enough jurors vote "Not Guilty" or no indictment/No Bill, then the prosecutors will give up prosecuting this bullshit.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Criminal charges should only get involved if the people selling drugs are intentionally and knowingly selling to addicts instead of getting them help.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)of destruction. People use drugs to that point because largely because they are unhappy.
mike_c
(37,046 posts)Kicked and rec'd.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... off the market.
The savings from all of the nonsense now involved would put a major dent in the boogeyman "National Debt."
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)I view Marijuana as benign. I can't say I've ever done meth or cocaine, or spent any time with people who did because I left as soon as hard drugs ever come out, but amphetamines and opioid drugs ruin lives.
Pot? Pfft. I don't like it but the worst I saw was vigorous snacking.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)However the simple fact of the matter is that meth is going to be around and in use whether it is legal or not. Furthermore, various examples, both in studies and real life, have shown that once you make such a substance legally available, treat it as the health problem it is, your rate of usage goes down.
Furthermore, you're not going to get rid of any such substance, be it alcohol, meth or dope until you start addressing some of the major root problems that cause such usage. Life can be utter hell for many people, and thus they turn to drugs, be they legal or otherwise, for some sort of relief. When that happens shouldn't we be thinking of the health of the user in order to minimize the costs to both them and society at large?
GatorLarry
(55 posts)But I have some serious questions.
First, I fully support legalizing marijuana and taxing it like alcohol and cigarettes. I'm not so sure about heroin, and disagree that meth should be legalized. Meth destroys your body (and probably your mind) faster than most anything else I believe.
I also agree that we have lost far too many liberties in the so-called War on Drugs and its newest cousin, the War on Terror.
But my question is this: Does the U.K. (which someone said legalized heroin) have a welfare framework like we do here in the U.S.? Or does any country that has legalized drugs? I see a huge potential problem with people who are addicted being chronically on government assistance while they stay high. There is already a small percentage that has no intention of ever doing anything but staying on government assistance and it seems this would only increase that number.
I agree that drug addiction should be treated as a health issue rather than a criminal matter . . . but who pays for that? The in-patient facilities are there to make big profits and we can't afford to add that much more to our gigantic deficit. Should we have government drug addiction facilities? And what about the ones that just refuse treatment and chose to stay addicted?
I know we could do so much with only a fraction of the bloated defense budget. Is that where we should be looking?
I'm not trying to stir the pot, just asking some questions that I hope can start a discussion.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)even though I don't smoke it. I am firmly against legalizing meth and the other orchestra of drugs that screw people up. I don't think pot screws people up anymore than caffeine, alcohol or nicotine.
The others? I think they do.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Let it run it's course.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Some of them just as fast as meth.
As to your question, the UK and other countries with various legalized drugs generally have a better social safety net. The thing is however, people who are addicted in this country are already using and abusing government assistance because they are spending all of their money on black market drugs. In my younger days I lived in, well, let's say an interesting neighborhood. I had a neighbor who was actually quite a nice guy, but terribly hooked on prescription downers, drugs like oxy and such. Of course, like many addicts, he dealt as well, but also spent all that money he made, a few thousand a week, on his habit. Since he wasn't working above board, he qualified for all sorts of government programs and used them.
Legalized drugs would be much cheaper, and by treating drug addiction as a health problem with no criminal stigma, more people would be getting help and getting well.
As far as the money issues go, well, taxing the drugs would work well. Take pot. If you are running a legal, legit dope market, it's going to take probably a buck a pound to produce pot. It is, after all, a weed that grows anywhere and is no harder to cultivate and process than any other plant. By the time it gets through the wholesaler, distribution and various other middlemen, the corner store is going to probably charge fifteen, twenty dollars an ounce. Tack on another twenty dollars per ounce in taxes, and at forty bucks an ounce, that dope is going to fly off the shelves, since last I knew, and it's been many a year, good bud is going for around one hundred an ounce.
Now, let's do some math. The estimated amount of dope smoked in this country is currently running somewhere between twenty and twenty five thousand tons each year. Let's take the low side of that, twenty thousand tons. At a tax rate of twenty dollars per ounce, that works out to be 12.8 billion dollars that you can use for education and treatment. That's just revenue from dope alone. You can easily double or triple that amount when you tax the various other drugs in the same manner, namely in a large amount, but with a total price that is significantly below the current black market price.
Furthermore, since you're going to be keeping people out of jail, a lot of revenue that is currently going into prisons can be diverted to treatment and education as well. Start subtracting the costs to society that come from the secondary crime wave that prohibition brings, start adding the jobs and revenue that an entire new industry will bring in, and I think there will be plenty of money for full treatment and education, and much more.
However I do agree, we just have got to cut our military budget.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)were universally desperate people who fully knew about the long-term consequences of this terrible drug, but tended to use it because it could be locally and cheaply manufactured, and they needed something to get high on (I will not get into why they need to be high, except to say that they have snakes in their heads that they must keep anesthetized at all costs).
Had other drugs--particularly cocaine--been more physically and financially accessible, few of them would have preferentially gone for the meth.
So I suspect that the way to REDUCE meth use is to legalize other stuff.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Whose cost is high, and their need is overwhelming. Addicts will do anything to feed their addiction, including commit crimes and endanger those around them.
However if you legalize meth, bring the costs down, take it out of the dangerous back alley black market, they won't pose near the danger that they do now. They won't feel the need to commit crimes in order to feed an expensive habit.
I live in Missouri, meth capital of the country. I've had things stolen because of meth, I've had to deal with more than one tweaked out person wanting to get what I have. I know exactly how dangerous black market meth is. Like any sort of prohibition, be it alcohol or meth, the drug doesn't go away, it is simply joined with crime and violence. The only way to severe that connection is doing away with prohibition.
GreenPartyVoter
(73,393 posts)1) Are people on or under the influence of certain drugs a danger? Should we be putting them into the workplace like that?
2) Are people who are coming down and looking for another fix a danger?
3) Don't certain drugs lead to an escalation of needing more and more to create the physical effect desired? Is a morning/evening fix enough to get them by?
4) What about health side effects? Just as heavy drinkers may find themselves facing cirrhosis and other issues, what about the quality of health of drug users? How do we balance the rights and freedoms of the individual and concern of a nation for the health of its citizens?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)more than I'd trust a coked up or methed up person. It's one thing to get your urges toned down, but when your urges get turned up, you get dangerous.
Think about it. Getting wired and whacked at the same time isn't safe for those around you.
I don't know what it is like to get coked up or methed up, but I know it has to be far more intense than a cup of coffee, a shot of booze, or any other type of ingestion.
Folks that use coke and meth typically shoot up. That's far different than rolling a cigarette and smoking. Or brewing coffee. Or indulging in a fermented beverage.
GreenPartyVoter
(73,393 posts)I saw on something stronger in college, well, one threw me on the floor and dry-humped me in front of everyone in the dorm lobby. Delightful. The other one thought it was a great idea to hang out of the third floor window.
I've seen TV/movie versions of people on strong stuff, but I don't know how that syncs up with real world reactions. I guess I would need to talk with ER docs and police officers to get a better picture.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I didn't go there, but friends did, and they got experiences like you did with people that used. That was more than enough to turn me off towards people that used cocaine and meth, and insure that I had no desire to use it myself or be around people using it. I'll leave at a moment's notice if there are drug users at a party. Never have, never will.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I've done my best to avoid people that get messed up and take liberties, but they seem to be always in our midst, don't they?
Take care, my dear, and if you need to talk, I am here.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Because they only see worst case scenarios and extremes. Talk to someone who has actually been there and they'll tell you that most people are fine doing recreational drugs because they know what they're doing.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)I've been around coke a whole lot in my life but I've never met a single person that shoots it up. Same with meth, though I've been around that less frequently. Those two are typically snorted.
Heroin is much more likely to be shot but with the quality that's out today, it too is more often snorted than it used to be. Same with Oxys.
And most people that do coke are not addicts, it's not really an addictive drug. It's very recreational and is usually done strategically to ward off severe drunkenness. The jonesers and addicts are not typical in drug culture, they're anomalies. But the squares all think the guy on the news that went nuts is how everyone reacts when they party, it's kind of funny really.
I'm personally against meth because it's all poisonous chemical, there's nothing natural about it unlike weed, coke and even heroin.
The biggest problem that I've seen with it is that it keeps you awake too long and you don't eat, that's what leads people to become paranoid, delusional and unhealthy more than anything.
All of these things can be used safely if they're done responsibly. Some people just aren't capable of doing that though and those are the people that shouldn't touch any of it. You really have to know yourself.
Laochtine
(394 posts)Awhile ago, it might have been Frontline. The gave the heroin, user at a clinic as many fixes a day to keep them from stealing.
If they wanted to quit they were weaned off. Since the addicts didn't have to scrounge for fixes all day they could work, no dirty
needles cut down the AIDS and Hep, crime went down.
If we look at it completely from a mercenary stand point we would save a lot of money. The conservatives will crow that since
it's legal we are encouraging our kids to do it, which is crap. Addicts will be addicts, with thoughtful solutions we can make it safer
for everyone.
GreenPartyVoter
(73,393 posts)groups providing safe houses for alcoholics where they can drink, so it would not surprise me if accomodations are also made for other addicts.
Laochtine
(394 posts)Like getting a coffee before work, but they were integrated into society. You're welcome!
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Yes, people under the influence, of alcohol or meth, can be a danger. What is the recreational drug whose users are most involved in auto wrecks? Yeah, alcohol. And no, we shouldn't, and don't, put them into the workplace. But then again, since employers are collecting oceans of piss already in tests designed to weed out drug users, I don't think that would be a problem.
Yes, certain drugs, like alcohol, lead to an escalation of needing more and more. Whether a heroin addict, or meth addict, or alcohol addict be able to just use a morning, evening dose, well, some will, some won't, and a doctor or other qualified professional can adjust the dose. Or, we can do like we do with alcohol and let the user determine the dose. Will they be dangerous when needing another fix, is an alcoholic a danger when he needs another bottle? The danger, with alcohol or meth prohibition, is in the prohibition itself. Make something vastly expensive, get lots of people hooked, put it on the black market, that's a recipe for danger.
Yes, there will be health side effects, just as you said there are health problems with alcoholics, cigarette users etc. But since these people won't be dealing with the really nasty effects of black market garbage drugs, but rather pharmaceutical grade material, the health problems will actually decrease.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)As far as #4 goes, you can list a lot of legal substances that would be little different. Alcohol and cigarettes aren't exactly great for long term health if overused.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)AFAIK heroin is not legal in the UK, but some European countries prescribe morphine to heroin addicts (just from a quick perusal of wikipedia).
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Meth use should be treated as a medical problem, not a criminal problem. We should adopt the approach of "harm reduction" for meth addicts. Those who make it, or smuggle it, should be thrown in prison.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)than over the counter meth
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)Give the addicts a place where they can get their fix cheaply (or even for free) and safely, with no fear of infections from dirty needles, Faces of Meth style body breakdowns from meth cooked with drano, arrests, etc.
I'm all for the harm-reduction strategy. Prohibition has proven to be a miserable failure that's been turning our country into a police state.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Can't remember which city. Most street crime completely dried up.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)People with addictions could go to the clinic, with no fear of arrest or harassment, get a dose of cocaine, heroin, or whatever they're addicted to, in pharmaceutical grade, with clean needles, and with beds available and medical staff supervising so they can intervene if there's an overdose or bad reaction.
The patients ended up being able to hold down jobs, work productively, stopped committing crimes.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)part of their 'harm reduction' policy towards drugs.
gulliver
(13,952 posts)...of drug possession or trafficking. Arrest and conviction records for these non-crime "crimes" hold people back and prevent them from contributing as much to society as they could. Not only is it cruel, it is contrary to the general welfare of the country. We all need people to be free to grow and seek their best potential.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)if i had better access to it. I can't imagine that i am such an aberration
however, i do find my reservation hypocritical because i believe that we have some inherent right to make decisions about our bodies
ArcticFox
(1,249 posts)The stuff is seriously bad for your health, and super addictive. It's this argument that keeps otherwise reasonable people anti-marijuana - fearing a slippery slope.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)has been in place for 40 years since Nixon--and has succeeded in ruining the public trust, and international standing. It has done irreparable damage to our relationship with our government, because they began to prey on regular citizens. Their blatant racist and violent policies have created a rift in our country that has manifested in counter culture lifestyle and destructive behaviors in people who have lost hope.
In the last 40 years, cartels, DEA, FBI and CIA have developed dangerous relationships that have resulted in countless deaths. The Drug War, like any war on people done for profit--is a criminal enterprise. Dismantling this criminal enterprise is now nearly impossible to do all at once. It has to be done in stages, or the same criminal people will be in place with a different name and will find other ways to launder money.
I think this is very different than alcohol prohibition, that only lasted 15 years from 1920-1935--in that the mobsters and law enforcement could shift their focus when the laws were changed.
If legalization is to work, our drug policy needs to be rewritten with new missions for law enforcement agencies and for our medical establishment. We need to do this in stages, to transform each agency so that they have other jobs. Otherwise they will just find other ways to subjugate people to fill their jails.
These agencies are part of our infrastructure, which has been in the hands of abusive corporate entities with no social conscience. IF we are to end the Drug War, we need another national mission--to rebuild a country that is focused on creativity and harmony with each other and the Earth.
The war paradigm needs to go.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)US to be a hopeless place, filled with despair and gloom. One can easily validate that by scratching under the surface a bit.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)I don't think the US is bright enough to do this, and beyond that, there are too many that find keeping these drugs illegal to be highly profitable.
As usual, follow the money trail. Keeping these drugs illegal has little to do with morality and health, but rather with profitability for the enforces and the entire legal, enforcement, corporate, prison and political gamut. What's best for "we the people" flew out of this country a long time ago. Now all we get is bullshit.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And I admit to having a decidedly small l left-libertarian (ooh! That word!) disposition when it comes to the government telling consenting adults what they can do with their own bodies.
Legalize, regulate, tax pot. Maybe psychedelics as well. Also fully investigate the therapeutic potential of substances like MDMA. Psilocybin. LSD.
Adopt a harm reduction, as opposed to law enforcement, approach to other hard drugs. Education. Treatment on demand.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)9:50AM EST December 4. 2012 - CAMDEN, N.J. -- Toxicology reports have confirmed a mother smoked marijuana laced with PCP before decapitating her son and sticking the toddler's head in the freezer in August.
The Camden County prosecutor's office received the positive test for the dangerous combination often referred to as "wet" on Monday, confirming initial beliefs that Chevonne Thomas was high on the hallucinogen when she committed the horrific crime in her Camden home.
Thomas, who had a history of using the drug and mental illness, used a knife to decapitate 2-year-old Zahree. She then stuck the boy's head in the freezer in her home and called 911 and reported something had happened to her child.
Responding officers found the boy's torso on the first floor of the home before discovering his head in the freezer, authorities said.
Upstairs in her home, Thomas stabbed herself soon after ending a chilling six-minute phone call to dispatchers.
During the call, she matter-of-factly admitted stabbing her son before breaking into a repetition of monosyllabic words and short phrases.
The crime shocked the city and cast questions on the state Department of Children and Families' involvement with Thomas.
Thomas had earlier lost custody of the boy because of drug use and had regained care of the boy just months before his death.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Since this person had a history of mental illness, which doesn't require drugs to exhibit horrid behavior... I guess I don't get the point you are trying to make.
Yes, there will always be horrible things that happen.
This has no bearing on legal or illegal drugs in a medical centered treatment approach.
It's unlikely this person would've gotten the attention of anyone for drug use - however, if marijuana were legal, no one would ever have to partake of cannabis laced with anything else unless it was volitional.
Anyone who would chose to partake of PCB has a problem.
Johnny2X2X
(24,166 posts)Pot should be legalized, cocaine too IMO. The drug war is a failed idea. Take away the crime with doing drugs and you'll take away the criminal element involved in drug dealing. You'll also restore our civil liberties.
Heroin I am on the fence about.
Meth, no. And there's a lot of misonformation about Meth in this thread IMO. Meth is not a replacement for any other drug, meth users want meth, not adderol or coke. There is no replacement drug for the high that meth gives its users. It stands on its own. You aren't going to find a replacement for meth, people are going to want to do it as it is now.
It's hard to describe what meth does to a person. The high the 1st time changes a person forever. Then they are constantly chasing that high. Everything you were told about drugs when you were young, that turned out to be BS, well, with Meth it's not BS. You can be an addict after 1 time with Meth. Continued Meth use will take over and destroy everything in your life, not might, but will, if you continue to use meth there is a 100% chance your life will be destroyed, I don't care if you are a multi millionaire and can afford all you want, meth will destroy your life utterly and completely. It's impossible to overstate the ill effects of Meth, I don't think people who haven't tried it can begin to understand how demented this drug is. There would be no way to distribute meth legally because whatever you give the addict for that day wouldn't be enough for them, they would want and need more and more and more.
I just can't see legalizing meth, it's too harmful to society and individuals. There is nothing else that threatens society like meth does.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)its called Desoxyn.
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)DISPATCHES FROM AMERICA
War on drugs, war on human nature
By Lewis Lapham
<snip>
That the consummations of the wish to shuffle off the mortal coil are as old as the world itself was the message brought by Abraham Lincoln to an Illinois temperance society in 1842. "I have not inquired at what period of time the use of intoxicating liquors commenced," he said, "nor is it important to know." It is sufficient to know that on first opening our eyes "upon the stage of existence," we found "intoxicating liquor recognized by everybody, used by everybody, repudiated by nobody."
<snip>
So again with the war that America has been waging for the last 100 years against the use of drugs deemed to be illegal. The war cannot be won, but in the meantime, at a cost of $20 billion a year, it facilitates the transformation of what was once a freedom-loving republic into a freedom-fearing national security state.
The policies of zero tolerance equip local and federal law-enforcement with increasingly autocratic powers of coercion and surveillance (the right to invade anybody's privacy, bend the rules of evidence, search barns, stop motorists, inspect bank records, tap phones) and spread the stain of moral pestilence to ever larger numbers of people assumed to be infected with reefer madness - anarchists and cheap Chinese labor at the turn of the twentieth century, known homosexuals and suspected Communists in the 1920s, hippies and anti-Vietnam War protestors in the 1960s, nowadays young black men sentenced to long-term imprisonment for possession of a few grams of short-term disembodiment.
If what was at issue was a concern for people trapped in the jail cells of addiction, the keepers of the nation's conscience would be better advised to address the conditions - poverty, lack of opportunity and education, racial discrimination - from which drugs provide an illusory means of escape. That they are not so advised stands as proven by their fond endorsement of the more expensive ventures into the realms of virtual reality. Our pharmaceutical industries produce a cornucopia of prescription drugs - eye-opening, stupefying, mood-swinging, game-changing, anxiety-alleviating, performance-enhancing - currently at a global market-value of more than $300 billion.
Add the time-honored demand for alcohol, the modernist taste for cocaine, and the uses, as both stimulant and narcotic, of tobacco, coffee, sugar, and pornography, and the annual mustering of consummations devoutly to be wished comes to the cost of more than $1.5 trillion. The taking arms against a sea of troubles is an expenditure that dwarfs the appropriation for the military budget.
<snip>
Much more: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/NL11Aa01.html
TYY
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)and legalise ALL drugs for OTC sale. Every one of them. Except antibiotics. For the obvious medical reasons.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)need to be closely monitored for toxicity (digoxin, lithium), for example.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Those people who don't.... won't last long.
We can probably end serious abuse in 2-3 generations.
DonCoquixote
(13,956 posts)Meth labs go BOOM, MJ does not.
http://methlabhomes.com/2008/10/what-happens-when-a-meth-lab-explodes/
So no, I do not want Meth labs near me, especially when big corporations can get permission to start making this in larger batches, or, simply here and legalize cooks who do.
The drug war is full of BS, but not all of it is BS.
CheapShotArtist
(333 posts)legalized--there's no logical reason to keep them illegal, considering that alcohol is legal. Both soft drugs and hard drugs should be legalized, but regulated like alcohol, and people should be allowed to at least do them at home if not in public. It would not only reduce the number of people who have their lives ruined over non-violent offenses, but it would take the thrill away from rebellious teens and children who want to try something illegal.