Should ALL Drugs Be Legal and Free?

thebman

Cannabis yes (don't smoke it). No good reason to keep it illegal that I have heard.

As for the others, it would have to be on a case by case basis. I don't know enough to say if all drugs should be legal and free

Voted don't know.

Pat Sheen

Biggins wrote: »

Where's the simple "no" option?
Talk about one sided polls!

Even as a semi-indicator poll, its a failed poor attempt.

I said I was drunk! btw the no is the "keep doing what we're doing...." option.

Crumble Froo

even if they were legal, they should NEVER be free. **** that.

i'd agree pretty much with seanybiker's first post here...hash and grass, yep, though i'd like to see it controlled, and wouldnt mind seeing it as illegal in public, but totally safe in your own home.

other drugs; coke, E, opiates, ritalin. i'd like to see them kept illegal, but i would also like to see more progressive means of dealing with offenders. chucking them in jail is a bit of a crap idea tbh. and simple possession/use should be dealt with differently to dealing any sort of large amount.


edit: not voted in the poll because i dont think ALL drugs should be legal, certainly not legal and free, and i don't think we should keep doing what we're doing and i do have an opinion on this.

poll fail, tbh.

seanybiker

Crumble Froo wrote: »

i'd agree pretty much with seanybiker's first post here...hash and grass, yep.

Thank you for that.
One of the fellas I know which would make it 3 people I know that inject heroin. Only heard a few days ago that he raped a 14 year old girl and then went onto her bebo and abused the crap outta her. A week after he raped her he seen her in town(waterford) and made a show of the girl in front of everyone saying she was crap.
Sadly I used to hang around with this chap. Out and out scumbag all his life. I wont say his name cos anyone from waterford will know him and the court case aint up yet. Scum out and out. Im sorry I know the prick.
Now the "legalise drugs" people . I would like to know your answer to that.

Crumble Froo

seanybiker wrote: »

Thank you for that.
One of the fellas I know which would make it 3 people I know that inject heroin. Only heard a few days ago that he raped a 14 year old girl and then went onto her bebo and abused the crap outta her. A week after he raped her he seen her in town(waterford) and made a show of the girl in front of everyone saying she was crap.
Sadly I used to hang around with this chap. Out and out scumbag all his life. I wont say his name cos anyone from waterford will know him and the court case aint up yet. Scum out and out. Im sorry I know the prick.
Now the "legalise drugs" people . I would like to know your answer to that.

let's not forget that some people are just out and out assholes, and that no amount of drink, drugs or abstinence will really change that.

there's just about NO heroin in new zealand (where im based), but most people here who inject drugs will inject morphine for the chillout, or ritalin for the stimulant. i know heaps of people who, at some point in their lives, have injected drugs, usually in a habitual manner. to categorise these people as 'bad' people is just plain wrong. a couple of people who have been users at some point in their lives, i would consider very good friends.

im not going to deny that many people aren't "themselves" after a hit, but i do believe it is a minority who turn to violence to get money for the drug.

i don't believe it should be legalised, though, not by a long shot.

Snowie

its stupid....


Theres nothing worse the having to listen to some coked ip fruit cake or being drunk and being hugged bye a soem dude who with the effects of mdma.... no thanks keep them ileagal besides more money to be made that way hard part is protect your assets Ie drugs form satilite's navey etc gaurda, once you have that sorted your on your way

Crumble Froo

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

being hugged bye a soem dude who with the effects of mdma....

cos you need the effects of mdma for people to hug you? that's probably the alcohol.

Snowie

Crumble Froo wrote: »

cos you need the effects of mdma for people to hug you? that's probably the alcohol.

im the one doing the huging *love buzz*

Odysseus

seanybiker wrote: »

Thank you for that.
One of the fellas I know which would make it 3 people I know that inject heroin. Only heard a few days ago that he raped a 14 year old girl and then went onto her bebo and abused the crap outta her. A week after he raped her he seen her in town(waterford) and made a show of the girl in front of everyone saying she was crap.
Sadly I used to hang around with this chap. Out and out scumbag all his life. I wont say his name cos anyone from waterford will know him and the court case aint up yet. Scum out and out. Im sorry I know the prick.
Now the "legalise drugs" people . I would like to know your answer to that.

Seany I'm not necessarily in the legalise camp, but I'm a psychotherapist and have worked in various treatment settings for 12 years, and to be fair the above behaviour would in my opinion have very little to do with that person's addiction. You have basically described a violent sex offender and banging up heroin isn't responsible for that, there would be alot of other factors going on there.

Rented Mule

b28 wrote: »

By the way, drug companies are legal drug dealers.

What do the follwoing have in common ??

Beer/Liquor Companies
Pharmeceutical Companies
Drug Dealers/Gangs

They are all united to make sure that drugs will always remain illegal. They have the most to lose the day they become available over the counter/grow your own.

KeyLimePie

drugs are bad, alcohol is bad, smoking is great.

m@cc@

Leighton Screeching Seller wrote: »

Like in holland. Magic mushrooms are legal there too I think?

No, they're officially illegal but prosecutions are rare.

JC 2K3

The problem with the drugs legalisation debate is people know absolutely fúck all about drugs, they just go along with different propaganda.

There're three groups, generally:
-The "Drugs are bad, mmmk?" group, who oppose all drug use and don't really give any arguments besides "drugs are pathetic and harmful!"
-The "Only cannabis should be legal" group, which adhere to the same anti-drug bullshít as the above group, but they believe that cannabis should be legal based on propaganda from pro-weed groups or because it's very a common drug.
-The "legalise all drugs" group, who generally take the anti-establishment position and believe that everyone should have the freedom to put whatever the hell they like in their body.

Each of these groups is flawed, and none really know what they're talking about. The first two irritate the crap out of me, especially the second one. The third exhibit a bit more freedom of thought, but ultimately lack insight into the drugs question, seeming to believe that all will be right in the world when drugs are legalised.

Mr Benevolent

Bad poll choices tbh, I'm not voting in this one.

From experience in other countries, the drug legality depends on lots of aspects:

a) on the drug itself, its purity and antisocial implications
b) on the education system and its ability to turn out well balanced individuals
c) on the social system and its attitude to mind-altering substances in general

and lots more.

In other words, you can't just legalise all drugs, frankly that would be insane. However, restricting drug use by making it illegal obviously causes issues too.

5318008!

The main problem is lack of education. Put simply, people don't have any sort of notion of the relative dangers of each drug. Blatant lies, exagerations and propaganda give people a view of drugs that's way off.If everyone knew the truth i doubt we'd even be having this discussion.

Ever wonder why crack is so addictive, and cocaine isn't so much? Ever wonder why so many people get addicted to tobacco but not stronger drugs?

The answer lies in the route of administration. The less time that passes between taking the drug and your brain's reward system firing, the more addictive it'll be. If you inhale or inject a drug the come-up will be almost instant, giving it a very high addictiveness. If you snort a drug the come up takes a few minutes so while it's not in the same league as inhaling/injecting it's still relatively addictive. If you take a drug orally, the come up takes longer and as a result the chances of addiction are a lot lower.

Weed is less addictive because when inhaled the come-up isn't instant, as it affects the reward system in an indirect manner.However it would still be a lot less addictive if people got their cannabinoids from pills instead of inhaling them.

If all drugs (including stimulants and opiates) were available in pill form, you wouldn't see the problems with addiction you see now.There's no point denying that addiction will occur, but it'll be a lot less severe and it'll take longer to develop so people will have plenty of warning.

Obviously there's other important factors aswell. Such as if you take the drug socially or alone, how often you take it, whether you use it as an emotional crutch ect. but they're true to every drug no matter how you take them

Black Swan

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote: »

I think sex should be prescription only.

Another Pfizer (Viagra) stock holder?;)

Tony Danza

From a Saturday night in Dublin it seems to me that a lot of us aren't mature or responsible enough to drink, so no, I don't think legalising some of these drugs is a good idea.

If we act like children, I think it's proper order that we get treated this way.

Dudess

bigeasyeah wrote: »

Yay lets legalise everything-guns,prostitution,rape and maybe a spot of vigilante justice

Rape? How is that a fair comparison?

Also, I never fail to find it bemusing how people think even occasional moderate drug use is worse than regular binge-drinking sessions...

Pat Sheen

JC 2K3 wrote: »

The third exhibit a bit more freedom of thought, but ultimately lack insight into the drugs question, seeming to believe that all will be right in the world when drugs are legalised.

I know one thing, a lot of dangerous individuals would have their primary source of income removed by making drugs free, legal and regulated. And users will get pure drugs. Seems like a decent start. What "insight" do you think I lack, you don't know me? What about the former police, prosecutors and judiciary who oppose prohibition? Do you really think they lack insight? Sounds to me like you are in a judgemental ivory tower.

Captain-America

Pat Sheen wrote: »

Sex is legal and free...unless you pay for it or do it wrong and is one of the most powerful human drives there is. Like drugs, it's both pleasurable and potentially dangerous and nearly everyone does it, like drugs. Why shouldn't drugs have the same status?

If your feeling a rising sense of rage and/or disgust at this statement, my question to you is this.... Assuming that rising sense of rage and/or disgust is because you don't use controlled drugs and believe no-one else should either then, do you smoke tobacco products, drink alcohol, tea, coffee, lucozade, energy drinks or regularly use any one of hundreds of abusable pharmaceutical concotions? ..YES?...well then you are a drug user too.

So take a deep breath and then, think!

It's not like prohibition has made controlled drugs any less available, so by definition they're even less controlled now than they've ever been DESPITE prohibition. Therefore drugs control is a logical fallacy.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.~Albert Einstein

Do we need to think differently?

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.~Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein was a scientist, not a drugs advocate.

Rented Mule

Captain-America wrote: »

Albert Einstein was a scientist, not a drugs advocate.

I am not so sure about that....with his beady eyes and whacked out hair.

Uncle Al looks like he was a serious toker in his day.

Dudess

CaptainSkidmark wrote: »

yeah and a year later we are all in rehab

Like all of us who drink alcohol are in rehab?

el_tiddlero

Captain-America wrote: »

Albert Einstein was a scientist, not a drugs advocate.

because an idea originated in one context, does not mean that it can't apply in any subsequent new context.

in this case, the 2 quotes chosen by the OP apply perfectly to the situation. It is irrelevant whether or not they were originally meant in this context, all that matters is that they apply..

besides, both those statements are just general observations on the workings of society imo and are applicable to all areas of life, not just science or legalisation or whatever..

I don't know that anyone who supports legalisation believes that it's a magic bullet that will cure all of our problems, but it is plainly obvious that criminalisation is a wildly ineffective and costly means of controlling any substance. We have explored the prohibition angle to it's fullest, imo there is no further development that can be made through prohibition. The drugs are still available (how readily is not the issue). There is still a public demand for them. Therefore, we can conclude, that prohibition as a means of erradicating the use of these (currently) illegal substances has failed.

It is our duty to future generations to explore other options. Honestly, we've given prohibition almost 100 years to work. It hasn't. How about if we dedicate the next 100 to legalisation and regulation. If at the end of that time it has proven more problematic than prohibition, then we can change back.

There are a lot of activities that are classed as crimes that should not be, simply because their illegality heightens the level of risk to those who wish to engage in them. It is the duty of any progressive society to minimize the risk to any of its members regardless of what they choose to do. By keeping just some drugs illegal we increase the risk to users. Is that fair?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

irisheddie85 wrote: »

legal drugs are either medicinal or highly taxed. if you were to do this to canibis cocaine and even heroin it would move them out of its target audience (the poor) and make the poor sightly more functioning members of society and who wants that?
not the government becuse then they would vote

What? What a bad statement. Drugs are fcuking expensive. Heroin and pills aint.

irisheddie85 wrote: »

okay not "poor" but ill educated, and i include myself in this group as i am currently "under the influence"

Speak for yourself. If anything the "anti-drug" heads are ill educated.

I love weed and I am very educated.

humanji

Pat Sheen wrote: »

I know one thing, a lot of dangerous individuals would have their primary source of income removed by making drugs free, legal and regulated. And users will get pure drugs. Seems like a decent start. What "insight" do you think I lack, you don't know me? What about the former police, prosecutors and judiciary who oppose prohibition? Do you really think they lack insight? Sounds to me like you are in a judgemental ivory tower.

Do you honestly believe that someone will go straight when a single avenue of illegal income dries up a little? There will still be illegal drugs to sell and many other illegal ways to make money. Legalising drugs will change f*ck all. And thanks to the Irish tendency to go overboard, any legalised drugs will be as abused as alcohol and tobacco. All in all, it's a terrible idea.

regob

Pat Sheen wrote: »

Sex is legal and free...unless you pay for it or do it wrong and is one of the most powerful human drives there is. Like drugs, it's both pleasurable and potentially dangerous and nearly everyone does it, like drugs. Why shouldn't drugs have the same status?

If your feeling a rising sense of rage and/or disgust at this statement, my question to you is this.... Assuming that rising sense of rage and/or disgust is because you don't use controlled drugs and believe no-one else should either then, do you smoke tobacco products, drink alcohol, tea, coffee, lucozade, energy drinks or regularly use any one of hundreds of abusable pharmaceutical concotions? ..YES?...well then you are a drug user too.

So take a deep breath and then, think!

It's not like prohibition has made controlled drugs any less available, so by definition they're even less controlled now than they've ever been DESPITE prohibition. Therefore drugs control is a logical fallacy.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.~Albert Einstein

Do we need to think differently?

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.~Albert Einstein

should the pope be a women?

Acacia

I don't really know, tbh.Maybe if some drugs were legal, there wouldn't be so much gang violence and all?

Though I don't see why they should be free. Alcohol/coffee/nicotine aren't free, why should they be?

Let's face it, nobody would get any work done if they were handing out free smack, hash or whatever have you. :pac:

Duck's hoop

Acacia wrote: »

I don't really know, tbh.Maybe if some drugs were legal, there wouldn't be so much gang violence and all?

Though I don't see why they should be free. Alcohol/coffee/nicotine aren't free, why should they be?

Let's face it, nobody would get any work done if they were handing out free smack, hash or whatever have you. :pac:

I think you're on to something.

It's an accessibility issue. Both cost and prohibition are barriers to access. And coke is prohibitively costly. But I've been places where tea and other drugs, while they weren't entirely free, they weren't pricey. This didn't encourage me to consume.

The number of heroin addicts, and 'rehabilitating' addicts on 'maintenance programs' indicates that prohibition of that drug is not an effective barrier, to at least a certain demographic.

Maintenance is essentially prescribed, and so legal, liquid smack. On the medical card.

People will do what they want. The question is which vested interest gets the cut.

Holsten

Legal, yes.

Free, no.

You'd have even more useless doley heroin addicts.

JC 2K3

Pat Sheen wrote: »

I know one thing, a lot of dangerous individuals would have their primary source of income removed by making drugs free, legal and regulated. And users will get pure drugs. Seems like a decent start. What "insight" do you think I lack, you don't know me? What about the former police, prosecutors and judiciary who oppose prohibition? Do you really think they lack insight? Sounds to me like you are in a judgemental ivory tower.

Which drugs exactly are you proposing be legalised? There are thousands, and some are actually, genuinely harmful (and I don't mean the usual suspects which lies and exaggerations are told about). What regulation schemes do you propose for these drugs? (you need some regulation, because otherwise some drugs could go the way alcohol has gone)

My point is it's not as simple as saying "we should legalise all drugs". My position is that we should legalise a certain amount of minimally harmful drugs with well thought out, adequate regulations, decided upon on a drug by drug basis.

I think you lack insight and fall into the third category in my original post because the suggestion that all drugs should be free and legal is ill thought out and simply ridiculous.