the archives

dusted off in read-only


Drug Legalization posted 08 Jul 2004, 00:07 by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

ADMIN EDIT: This is a split topic from "the value of a life", so the beginning post dosen't make that much sense, but just keep reading. Thank you. You make good points. I totally agree with your drug idea. I have been saying that for year. Legalize drugs and we'll have a short burst of massive ODs, then everyone will see someone they know destroyed and never touch the stuff, except for the nuts, and they'll get taxed the hell out of. view post

posted 08 Jul 2004, 01:07 by Loof, Peralogue

I dont think legalising drugs, (at least not all drugs) would save any money at all. Sure you would save in on prison and court funding, and would probably be able to make a bucket on taxing the stuff. But lots and lots of this money would be eaten up by hopital and therapy bills. Altho while i was typeing this it came to me that America dosn't have goverment sponsored hospitals at least not to the extent I'm used to. So maybe you could make money out of it, but im sceptical to if it would be "worth it". Now if what you meant was legalice some of the weaker drugs that are illegal now, like marujana you might win me over since they aren't as adictive or hassardous to one's health. But predicting the effects of any drug legalisation is next to imposible, so I remain a sceptic... view post

posted 08 Jul 2004, 03:07 by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

I'll say more on the drug legalization bit later, but for now, one of my first cousins (and the one closest in age to me) was just arrested in a massive sting operation. She might be serving more than a few months this time. But work beckons and I better get ready. Will reply more later. view post

posted 08 Jul 2004, 14:07 by MagnanimousOne, Candidate

I'm sure there are some good arguments for legalizing all drugs, and I may be for that as well if I thought about it more. But what I meant was the lightweights, like MaryJane and Shrooms. And maybe cocaine - ok I'm probably losing most of you here. I've rolled a few in my day, if its not obvious yet, so I speak from experience when I say it does not lead to heavier drugs. I have had many opportunities to try (read: peer pressure) cocaine and other heavier drugs and have chosen not to. So people get high - big deal. Alcohol abuse is much more detrimental to the person and to society as a whole in my opinion. There's a percentage of the population that, for some reason, see drugs as evil. What's up with that? The costs of fighting the war on drugs are ridiculous. When you factor in the policing, courts and prisons, social programs, propoganda machines, other things I'm not thinking of ;)... The topic has been officially highjacked - and here I was hoping to hear people bash me on my thoughts on the death penalty. view post

posted 08 Jul 2004, 21:07 by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

I was wondering where a reply of mine had gone ;) Okay, time to address the drug bit from a personal perspective: I am of many minds when it comes to drug legalization. I personally think something is wrong with society and the justice system when over 50% of the inmates serving time are there for drug use and/or simple possession. Yet I think it would be highly irresponsible to just legalize them all without establishing certain agencies in a much greater depth than we've had before. I'll illustrate what I mean by discussing my cousin Amy. She's 30 years old, single, has a 3 year old son. Ever since she was 13, she's been a drug user/abuser. She started with pot, but decided she wanted something stronger. So she started to use crack cocaine and heroin. Now I knew about her pot use, but not about the others, so I didn't say anything back then. Maybe I should have, I don't know. Things were relatively okay until after she graduated from high school in 1992. She was an honor roll student and had a decent enough personality. But she decided to rebel. She decided she wanted more than the occasional hit or shoot-up. She dropped out of college. She went through literally dozens of jobs over the next few years. Started to sleep around, probably prostituting herself for drugs. Her parents didn't know how to handle the situation. She started to threaten them, making insinuations that she might burn down the house and kill them if they didn't leave her alone. Her personality became odious to most of us in the family. I couldn't tolerate being around her for more than a few minutes, just because of the bad vibes she emits when on drugs. She started to go deeper into the habit, stealing things to feed her cravings. She was caught and arrested on many occasions for simple possession or petty theft. She'd serve a few months, somehow get out on probation, and begin doing it all over again. In 2000, she became pregnant with a sometime-boyfriend. She was arrested for testing positive for crack while pregnant. She served about five months in prison, let out just to give birth to her son. She had to have a monitor bracelet clipped to her when she was granted a furlough to attend our grandfather's funeral in April 2001. She did try, back in 2003, to break the habit and succeeded for about 4-5 months. Yet she was back at it in January of this year and had to serve a few more months. She was just let out at the end of June, only to be arrested in a massive sting operation a couple days later. This might finally be her first felony offense, since she's likely to be charged with transport as well as possession. She's been very distant to her son when she's on drugs and had to surrender custody to her parents. She's still been very erratic in behavior and last year assaulted her mother while she was driving my cousin home after she couldn't get home from another's house. You might have noticed that I didn't mention anything about rehab in the above paragraphs. That's because she really hasn't been ordered into a real long-term rehab program, nor have steps been done to confront the causes of the behaviors that have led to drug abuse. I personally think that both sides of the Drug Debate have been lacking in the discussion of how to deal with the social causes of drug use. I have no problems with people smoking the occasional fatty (even if I can't, use to bad lungs - reason why I don't smoke cigs), but there just isn't an effective rehabilitation setup in the US. I think a lot of that has to do with American mindsets regarding drug use. They seem to see it as a criminal/shouldn't be criminal thing, not failing to see the socio-cultural aspects of drug use and abuse. Look at the number of abuses regarding prescription drugs. There's something major that going on mostly under the radar of the drug wars and something should be done. I personally think that there probably should be a greater social engagement with the issue, because it's a social matter and not just a personal one. Then again, it's just my opinion. view post

I'm of a mixed opinion on this issue.. posted 08 Jul 2004, 21:07 by Grantaire, Moderator

I certainly don't think that drugs such as heroin, cocaine, etc should be legalized, because they are extremely damaging. Drugs that are weaker such as marijuana- maybe. As was said above, if people saw what it could really do to people in their lives, that would act as a better deterent than any propaganda. Additionally, taxing the hell out of anything legalized would increase revenue, and hopefully make it not as desirable. I don't see why some drugs (again, think marijuana) are illegal, when there are drugs such as alcohol and tobacco that are currently legal. Alcohol causes everything from car accidents to bar fights, as well as severe health problems in the long run, and tobacco is eventually deadly. I think that all drug use is bad, but I think that by legalizing some of the weaker ones, we could try to get some good out of it. Larry, your story was very sad, but it goes with what I said- if the drug use on her part led to no one being able to stand her, isn't that a lesson to your whole family: don't do drugs, they can mess up your life just like that. However, I don't really know. As I said, I have those mixed thoughts, I need to study the issue more indepth. view post

posted 08 Jul 2004, 22:07 by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

It's a disesase, in the end. It just ruins so many lives and not just the drug user's. It should be treated as such and options should be made available (and maybe mandatory) for repeat occurrences. view post

posted 09 Jul 2004, 00:07 by Loof, Peralogue

I agree totaly with totaly with you Larry on the problem beinga social one and also that it shoudl be treated with rehab and not prison. Although I think one of the reasons prison is the reality is again the cost issue, rehab probably costs alot more. I don't realy have any experience with heavy drugs, so there I cant add much. But even weaker drugs have aperant long term effects, especialy on peoples personalitys (as does alcohol or any drug). My general stance on "light" drugs is that a little doesn't hurt as long as it doesnt become a habit, this goes for legal as well as illegal ones. But if legalisation is the answer I simply don't have enought information to say what i think one way or the other. view post

posted 09 Jul 2004, 13:07 by Replay, Auditor

The funny thing about discussions such as these is that they nearly always bring out biased opinions i.e. those who take or have taken drugs want it legalised; those who haven't want them to stay illegal. It is not really suprising though, as those who do take drugs obviously feel there isn't much wrong with it, especially the lighter ones. They haven't had any side effects with them, so why should they be made to feel like a criminal when others can freely drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes? And on the other side, legalisation won't really affect those who don't take drugs, so they are not really for it. Plus, since they have never had any interest in drugs, they are usually misinformed about them and base their decisions about legalisation just on their own assumptions. I don't think either side should be ingored though because they are biased, infact I think both sides bring up good points and offer unique views that should be listened to. Because it is really only though seeing as many views as possible that an informed decision can be made. Personally, I don't think they should be legalised. As someone who used to be heavily into the drugs scene ten or so years ago and now no longer touches them (though still smoke, which is my only vice), I think I have a pretty good perspective on drugs. I've seen just how much they can mess with people's lives - even the so called soft drugs such as cannabis which can not only mess with your memory and make you depressed, but can also bring on paranoia and even phsycosis. The thing is though, this does not happen to everyone. I know a lot of people who smoke it every day for years and have no ill effects at all. So what we get is a lot of people saying that there is nothing wrong with it. But just because this is so, it doesn't mean it's the same for everyone, and it is for this reason (along with others) that I feel they shouldn't be made legal. You could of course argue that alcohol also affects a lot of people in bad ways, but just because we have one drug legalised doesn't really mean we should legalise another. As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right. I agree that the punishment for drugs is far too severe than it should be. A fine or at the most community service is enough for possesion of any drug. And if it is a harder drug, rehabilitation is what is needed, not a prison sentance - that is only really needed for those are push huge amounts of it. Still, keeping it illegal is enough to stop a lot of people from trying them, no matter what the sentance is. And this I feel is a good thing. Even though I would not have agreed all those years ago when I took them myself, I now think it is a sad state of affairs when a country thinks about making something legal that promotes escape from everyday life. But then its not really suprising in this day and age when everyone thinks the only way to find happiness is by chasing one pleasure after another, be it through drugs, adrenline rushes or even passive entertainment. And the saddest part of it is that not only does it takes a hell of a lot for someone to realise just how futile it is, but it takes even more to actually do something about it and change. view post

posted 09 Jul 2004, 14:07 by Grantaire, Moderator

Replay, I think you're just making an assumption. I argued for legalisation, but I have never done any drugs in my life, nor would I if they were legalised. view post

posted 09 Jul 2004, 16:07 by MagnanimousOne, Candidate

@Larry> I think most people have been touched in some way by drug abuse. Your cousin's story is sad, but not uncommon. In fact it's probably pretty typical of abusers. Not to diminish what your family and cousin are going through. To take these people off the streets and put them in jail with violent criminals does nothing to help them. Like another poster mentioned, it probably only makes them worse. Jail is like criminal college, go in as an amateur and come out with a degree. I think the a lot of abusers would huff paint if drugs weren't available. It's not about the high, it's about punishing yourself. Suicide the slow way. They need help to find out why they want to do this to themselves. Drugs are the symptom, not the problem. Rehab and counselling instead of jail makes sense to me. @Loof> I dont think rehab would be more costly than prison - if it works. It's a matter of fixing the problem, vs putting the problem on hold and having to deal with it again as soon as the person is released from jail. @Replay> No doubt most with an opinion on this subject are speaking from experience, or lack of. Same with any other topic. I and others have already compared pot to booze. I think most would agree that the detrimental effects to the person and to society caused by alcohol are worse than pot - disregarding the costs of the drug war. What about comparing pot to caffeine, or cold medicine? People don't normally have adverse effects from these everyday drugs, but a percentage do. A percentage get adicted, too. Escape? Try TV, books, just about any other form of entertainment or sports. I've always believed we all have our addictions, whether it be drugs/alcohol or work or collecting baseball cards or sex;), etc. view post

posted 09 Jul 2004, 17:07 by Replay, Auditor

Grantaire: Perhaps, but I didn't say all, I said most. This is just from my own experience of talking to people about this subject btw and wasn't really aimed at what had already been discussed on this forum, as everyone here seems to be making informed comments. Maybe it was an over-generalization though (something I tend to call others up on) and as such shouldn't have been made. view post

posted 09 Jul 2004, 20:07 by Wil, Head Moderator

I have never done drugs (including cigs, and alcohol except for one glass of champaign) yet I am in favor of drug legalization. I believe that if drugs were legalized, we would be able to control them better then we do now. People wouldn't be buying pot laced with god knows what not to mention the extra revenue that would be attained by taxes. I think there is a social stigma against drugs that everyone who uses them are bad people. I think this is wrong and legalization would help fix that. view post

posted 10 Jul 2004, 02:07 by Loof, Peralogue

[quote:1gmiebpz]@Loof> I dont think rehab would be more costly than prison - if it works. It's a matter of fixing the problem, vs putting the problem on hold and having to deal with it again as soon as the person is released from jail. [/quote:1gmiebpz] You missunderstoot me a bit i think. I wasn't saying rehab was a impractical idea because it would cost to much. I actualy think it's the only good solution. And you might be correct that in the long run it would save money. What I was saying was that one of the reasons I think its not used more is that initialy it costs more then simply locking people up. So those who are making the dissisions don't think it can be afforded. view post

posted 12 Jul 2004, 03:07 by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

I agree with whoever said (and I can't find the quote now) that the social issue is the root of the issue and drug issues should be fought there. view post

posted 18 Jan 2005, 05:01 by dolemite, Commoner

I don't think anybody here is really arguing that crack or meth should be legalized, lots of people however, are more sympathetic to weed. I think there's a relatively straightforward solution that allows people who want to smoke weed to smoke, and keeps it off the shelves at 7-11, and also out of the hands of criminal groups. If you don't have children in the house, you are allowed to grow your own, maybe 1-3 plants or something. No more criminal groups getting rich, no college kids in jail for having a smoke that's weaker thn the beer in their other hand, no weed being pushed by massive corporations onto young'ins. view post

posted 29 Jan 2005, 19:01 by anor277, Didact

Well there is at least one person here (me) that thinks all drugs should be legalised (and funnily enough I'm not too sympathetic to weed users - the hippy freaks!). The counter argument is that if all drugs were legalised, i.e. an open slather regime, there would be more addicts than at present; and indeed given the widespread availability of any drug currently this is a valid consideration. Nevertheless, for mine drug use is a personal choice - if you are addicted to a particular drug you should have it supplied safely and legally. view post

posted 30 Jan 2005, 07:01 by Da-krul, Auditor

Let anyone use any drugs they want, if they OD who cares, its Natural Selection. view post

posted 17 Feb 2005, 16:02 by Echoex, Auditor

That's a careless sentiment. What if it was your child who overdosed? view post

posted 18 Feb 2005, 06:02 by neongrey, Peralogue

Then your child was clearly too dumb to be alive. view post

posted 18 Feb 2005, 13:02 by Echoex, Auditor

That hardly makes it more righteous. view post

posted 20 Feb 2005, 07:02 by neongrey, Peralogue

Doesn't make it any less, either. A person's a person. Whether it's yours, theoretically speaking, should make no difference. Of course, in practice, you get emotional attachments and suchlike, but I stand by that: if I had a kid that was doing shit like that, I could, and would, if it came to being the only option, send them out on their ass, and when they died in a gutter, think the world a better place. It'd still -suck-. But that's beside the point. view post

posted 21 Feb 2005, 13:02 by Echoex, Auditor

Which begs the question "do you have children?" Ex. view post

posted 23 Feb 2005, 20:02 by neongrey, Peralogue

No. I believe I was quite clear throughout all of that that I was speaking purely theoretically. It [i:3kqs5dx0]shouldn't[/i:3kqs5dx0] make a difference. view post

posted 25 Feb 2005, 13:02 by Echoex, Auditor

Speaking as one who has children, I do everything I can to ensure the safety and well-being of my child. I partially agree with you: The rest of the world can go to hell for all it matters. But I will fight until the last rock is thrown to keep my son from harm. I'll cite an instance from the Paul Bernardo / Karla Homolka murders. If you're not familiar with this example, Bernardo and his wife Homolka were convicted of the sexual molestation and murder of young girls in Southern Ontario (this was in the early 1990's). One such girl -- Leslie Mahaffey -- broke curfew one night and her parents locked her out of the house to teach her a lesson. They never saw their daughter alive again. Mahaffy was a troubled teen and her parents were likely very frustrated with her lack of respect for their authority. But had they made a different choice -- had they exercised a little bit of parental discretion -- their daughter might be alive today. Parents need to balance discipline and forgiveness with great caution. You contend that if you didn't have a choice with your child, you would "send them out on their ass, and when they died in a gutter, think the world a better place". Well, I contend that you shouldn't make such wonton statements until you're qualified to do so. view post

posted 27 Feb 2005, 00:02 by Da-krul, Auditor

Whats so bad about that statement? If someone go's OUT of their way, and knows the risks, and casuses severe bodily harm or death to themselves, oh we'll. That person knew the risks before they do it. And are we talking about a young ...hmm lets say......... 8 year old and below child or a bit older? view post

posted 28 Feb 2005, 12:02 by Echoex, Auditor

Age has nothing to do with it. You're expressing such a limited worldview. You're basing your argument on 'if's. "If I had a child..." "If that child knew the risks...". I'm not suggesting that you're wrong. I just think that you're putting the cart before the horse. I'm suggesting to you that you reconsider those statements until you have children (if you choose to). It's very easy to be so right-wing on this issue. It's the obvious moral high-ground. I, for one, could not consider the world a better place if something happened to my son. He would have to do something REALLY bad for me to ever turn my back on him. And over-dosing on drugs is not one such instance. Ex. view post

posted 02 Mar 2005, 00:03 by Da-krul, Auditor

Allright then, if thier over 18 Let them use any drugs they want, buy that age they should know right from wrong, and should ahve enough info to make thier decisions, if they OD , oh well its Natural Selection. Now THATS better. view post

posted 02 Mar 2005, 13:03 by Echoex, Auditor

"Natural selection"? Do you even know what that means? Drugs are not [i:2n1uwnqy]deus ex machina[/i:2n1uwnqy]. One does not walk through the jungle and get attacked by a poppy. It takes a conscious decision to pack that pipe and inhale. That's not natural selection; nature has nothing to do with it (other than human nature, I suppose). So your next argument will be: "These people are born stupid and so they deserve to die, and this is natural selection." Except you'll have spelling mistakes and grammar errors. The inherent flaw in your theory is that you don't have to be stupid to do drugs. You simply have to exist, and that's an entirely more sinister ball of wax. I've never known a drug-dealer to issue IQ tests as a prerequisite for doing business. If you don't mind a bit of homework, go online and google "famous and brilliant people who were/are drug-addicts". view post

posted 02 Mar 2005, 19:03 by Da-krul, Auditor

Allright, I admit that the refrence to Naturel Selection isn't correct, I can admit that. So heres the revised revised version. Allright then, if thier over 18 Let them use any drugs they want, buy that age they should know right from wrong, and should have enough info to make thier decisions, if they OD , oh well if they knew the risks, and decided to take it apon themselves to play roulette with thier life, then its no hair off my back. * And A side note, I never (Or at least I don't belive I did) said that you have to be stupid too do drugs (Allthough in my personal opionion anyone who does is). I've know some smart people who do drugs, yes I think less of them, and yes I do know that drugs arn't confined to people with a low IQ. view post

posted 02 Mar 2005, 20:03 by neongrey, Peralogue

[quote="Echoex":359ny7o5]Age has nothing to do with it. You're expressing such a limited worldview. You're basing your argument on 'if's. "If I had a child..." "If that child knew the risks...". I'm not suggesting that you're wrong. I just think that you're putting the cart before the horse. I'm suggesting to you that you reconsider those statements until you have children (if you choose to). It's very easy to be so right-wing on this issue. It's the obvious moral high-ground. [/quote:359ny7o5] Perhaps child is not the right word. On the other hand, perhaps it -is- the word I want to use for someone who -would- be my child, who would be currently living under my authority. I never intended to imply age; the word child is more expedient than 'son/daughter'. [quote:359ny7o5]I, for one, could not consider the world a better place if something happened to my son. He would have to do something REALLY bad for me to ever turn my back on him. And over-dosing on drugs is not one such instance. Ex.[/quote:359ny7o5] Everybody in the world is someone's kid. One shouldn't be more special than any other just because it's yours. I have a certain fundamental lacking in human empathy, if you hadn't noticed. It's probably a good thing I think the world has enough brats in it without me adding to them. :P view post

posted 07 Mar 2005, 12:03 by Echoex, Auditor

Certainly, everyone is somebody's kid. But until I'm given the authority to discipline at my discretion every child on this planet, I won't hold myself accountable or responsible for the choices of those children. On the other hand, I have -- in my care -- a child whose choices and well-being are my responsibilities. view post

posted 08 Mar 2005, 02:03 by AjDeath, Didact

I think they should be legal, and the U.S gov't should make tons of money off of them. view post


The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.