Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Drugs aren't illegal because they're harmful

Announcements Posted on
The News & Current Affairs and Society forums need more moderators! 20-04-2014
TSR wants you: get involved with Power Hour. 10-04-2014
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    :facepalm:

    If you actually read the beginning of thread this has already been discussed and resolved, nowhere did I say smoking cannabis is a treatment for cancer.

    The chemicals found in cannabis are apparently more effective since it actively targets cancer cells, killing them. Combined with this is the little to no negative side effects. Having a friend who died of cancer, I know myself that chemotherapy is far from a pleasant thing. That is why it is more effective.
    Take cannabis for example, it has been found to be more effective at treating cancer than chemotherapy, whilst at the same time far less harmful and with less side effects.
    I ask you to read the post you are quoting...


    Anyway it doesn't matter that you mean the chemicals when you say "cannabis" or cannabis when you say "cannabis", or that you got a little confused/changed your opinion on a small facet of your argument, we all do.

    You still havn't shown any papers that support it.

    As for the "friend who died of cancer" card, my mum has cancer so I can pull that one too.

    You have given no evidence to support your claims that these studies into cancer exist, it seems pretty fanciful to me - even if there are some half baked research into the matter, the fact that it hasn't been picked up on (given the ammount of attention and funding cancer research gets) is proof that its useless. I'm sure there is a study somwhere that toast can effectivley treat cancer in some mild way in a small percentage of the population - its just not that effective when compared with current modern medcines that have been in research and development for years.
    • Thread Starter
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    You said it's more effective than chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is a treatment for cancer, ergo you said it is a treatment.

    So your definition of "effective" isn't the drug actually working, it's how you feel while on it? That's completely ridiculous. Chemotherapy isn't meant to make you feel more pleasant, it's there to get rid of the cancer. As long as the cancer goes in the long run, how good you feel during the treatment shouldn't really be a major concern
    My God, you obviously know nothing about what it's like to go through chemotherapy if you are playing it down like that.

    It is more effective as it targets cancer cells, whereas chemotherapy makes no distinction. I won't reiterate this again, please read more carefully.

    I am not suggesting that cancer is now cured, I am trying to illustrate that the potential benefits of a drug are completely overruled and the drug is smeared if there is as so much of a whiff of potential that it can get you high.

    The high is the real reason why there is prejudice against drug users, nothing to do with the harm to the individual or society, this is completely obvious.
    • Thread Starter
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    I ask you to read the post you are quoting...


    Anyway it doesn't matter that you mean the chemicals when you say "cannabis" or cannabis when you say "cannabis", or that you got a little confused/changed your opinion on a small facet of your argument, we all do.
    I've not changed any element of my argument, there are hundreds of chemicals in cannabis.

    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    As for the "friend who died of cancer" card, my mum has cancer so I can pull that one too.
    That was low. I bet if an illegal narcotic cured your mum of cancer tomorrow, you'd still consider it "evil".


    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    You have given no evidence to support your claims that these studies into cancer exist, it seems pretty fanciful to me - even if there are some half baked research into the matter, the fact that it hasn't been picked up on (given the ammount of attention and funding cancer research gets) is proof that its useless. I'm sure there is a study somwhere that toast can effectivley treat cancer in some mild way in a small percentage of the population - its just not that effective when compared with current modern medcines that have been in research and development for years.
    I guess all these news articles published by the BBC and the Times and newspapers all over the world are all fabricated lies. Keep believing what you want to believe.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reflexive)
    Me too, incredibly more productive. No wonder Freud wrote so much.

    But not many people take stimulants to be more productive, they take them for lesiurely reasons.
    **** me! I'd forgotten how productive to society Freud was...:rolleyes:

    How would you like to get in a plane or a car that had been designed and serviced by people who were high...
    • Thread Starter
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fuzzed_Out)
    **** me! I'd forgotten how productive to society Freud was...:rolleyes:
    Yes I guess the study of human psychology did nothing to improve society and the way we live today at all. :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Fuzzed_Out)
    How would you like to get in a plane or a car that had been designed and serviced by people who were high...
    I would love to, it would be probably better designed. Many highs improve lateral thinking.

    This illustrates your ignorance of drugs if you think none of the world's greatest inventions were invented or none of the world's most complex mathematical theorems were solved by people whilst they were high.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    My God, you obviously know nothing about what it's like to go through chemotherapy if you are playing it down like that.

    It is more effective as it targets cancer cells, whereas chemotherapy makes no distinction. I won't reiterate this again, please read more carefully.

    I am not suggesting that cancer is now cured, I am trying to illustrate that the potential benefits of a drug are completely overruled and the drug is smeared if there is as so much of a whiff of potential that it can get you high.

    The high is the real reason why there is prejudice against drug users, nothing to do with the harm to the individual or society, this is completely obvious.
    After looking at the effects of THC myself (you seem incapable of providing a link) there does turn out some positive research, checking wikipedia:

    A two-year study in which rats and mice were force-fed tetrahydrocannabinol dissolved in corn oil showed reduced body mass, enhanced survival rates, and decreased tumor incidences in several sites, mainly organs under hormonal control. It also caused testicular atrophy and uterine and ovarian hypoplasia, as well as hyperactivity and convulsions immediately after administration, of which the onset and frequency were dose related.
    Which is good (but hardly symptom-less), clearly research is being done in this area! But to quote a scientist in this area:

    "THC offers some promise, but we have a long way to go before we know what its potential is,"
    A few lab experiments on mice in the last few years is hardly revolutionary and you can't expect it to just "scale" up and there to be THC pills on our shelves in a few months - medical research takes years before medications are produced.

    This also hardly supports your idea that the government is somhow "suppressing" the use of it as an anti-cancer drug "because it gets people high", as its only a couple of scientific papers doing small-scale lab tests on mice.



    Also, do you know morphine is? Its an opiate, and pretty much gets you high, its also one of the most common analgesic medication used in trauma victims. So clearly the government isn't going to prevent the use of a medcine because it "gets you high".
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fuzzed_Out)
    **** me! I'd forgotten how productive to society Freud was...:rolleyes:

    How would you like to get in a plane or a car that had been designed and serviced by people who were high...
    You absolute penis. I meant prolific in terms of output, which was the original point. Plus if you had ever taken coke you would know it makes you extremely productive, which is why field workersin Bolivia chew on coca so they can work all day long.

    The ironic thing is, plenty of inventions were conceived and worked on while high. Certainly a lot of academics take substances for intellectual work. It's called high for a reason, it makes you feel good and opens your mind. People don't get addicted to something that has a nasty effect.
    • Thread Starter
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    After looking at the effects of THC myself (you seem incapable of providing a link) there does turn out some positive research, checking wikipedia:

    A few lab experiments on mice in the last few years is hardly revolutionary and you can't expect it to just "scale" up and there to be THC pills on our shelves in a few months - medical research takes years before medications are produced.

    This also hardly supports your idea that the government is somhow "suppressing" the use of it as an anti-cancer drug "because it gets people high", as its only a couple of scientific papers doing small-scale lab tests on mice.
    That's not the point, the point is that they would rather you take inferior drugs, cause harm to yourself or kill you than let you get high.

    This is further compounded by the fact that the only real dangers of many drugs are contamination with other drugs/chemicals which would not occur if legalised.

    Plus I was not talking about solely THC in particular for treatment of cancer, although I neglected to mention it too had many potential medical benefits.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Please, such thinking is completely naive. With most mainstream recreational drugs there is little threat to society, and little harm to the individual. The harm is equal, if not less, to huge variety of perfectly legal, and even encouraged, activities.
    You're getting ahead of yourself, I wasn't debating whether I or you agree with it, rather the concepts behind it.

    If anything I would say that you are naive to think that legalising all drugs will have a net beneficial effect. For example, from our experiences with 24 hour drinking all it did was promote binge drinking, antisocial behaviour and increase hospital related admissions.

    The point is that the government would rather totally ban a drug because it gets you high than accept it has medicinal qualities. Medical marijuana is still illegal in this country, however medicinal or not there is no REAL reason for it to be illegal.

    The idea of any drug high other than drunkness is alien and suspicious to a lot of people. I believe this is the real reason for why many substances are banned, not the official "logical" one. It's simply prejudice.
    The real reason why 'medical' cannabis isn't legalised is because it has questionable efficacy or benefit. Even the studies and references to news articles that you made show this.

    The point is that the acetaminophen serves no medical purpose, is it not illogical that they insert potentially harmful chemical in a medicine to prevent people from getting high off another less harmful one? If their true motive is to prevent harm.
    Combining multiple analgesic drugs ("Multimodal analgesia") together offers a better quality of analgesia and allows you to reduce the doses of the drugs used which in turn decreases the risk and severity of side effects - that was why Tylenol was developed.

    I'm not saying it is, however in some medical circles it is rightly considered a wonder-drug. The point is that the potential benefits of marijuana far outweigh the perceived negatives. Someone as knowledgeable as yourself must agree with this.
    Again, you're making very bold claims based on very little (if any) evidence?

    Even in the studies that have shown some benefit to using cannabis they haven't strictly been using cannabis per se but an isolated and more concentrated derivative.

    Claiming prohibition makes drugs less accessible is a complete fallacy, if anything it makes them much more accessible.

    Prohibition makes drugs far more accesible to children (no this is not a "think of the children" argument). At the age of 14 I had access to speed, MDMA, cannabis and cocaine within 15 minutes of a phone call. Getting access to alcohol was far more difficult as you needed the cooperation of a compliant adult, leading to the abuse of cannabis rather than alcohol in my age group (probably a good thing). Recently in the news were two 8 year olds who had marijuana in the playground, I doubt they could have got access to alcohol in the same way, what adult is going to buy them alcohol?
    You say that alcohol was more difficult to get hold of because you needed the co-operation of an adult however the same can be said about getting hold of narcotics at some (if not multiple) points in the supply chain.

    Prohibition tends to deter people whether that is something you personally experienced or acknowledge. On the other hand legalising it creates the impression that it is acceptable.

    Think about the millions spent on enforcing drugs laws and putting recreational drug users through the justice/criminal system. It's not worth it and does not benefit society in the slightest.
    1) Someone commiting a crime against another due to their drug use is not acceptable, legal or illegal.

    2) Enforcing the illegal drug laws does cost millions but equally so does enforcing those relating to the legal drugs out there (eg; the black market, counterfeiting, anti-social behaviour, drink/drug driving laws, addict related crime, etc) - these crimes won't suddenly disappear if we legalise all recreational drugs.

    Also what is illogical is that you are claiming that if banned substances were legalised such as marijuana, it would cost society because it costs society so much to keep alcohol legal. So you are comparing alcohol with less harmful drugs non-addictive drugs, and claiming other drugs should not be legalised because alcohol is so harmful and costs society so much!!! But yet they are keeping alcohol legal! And alcohol is more harmful and also addictive!
    As we have seen with alcohol decreasing the prices, increasing availability and making it more socially acceptable has increased the cost to society, not reduced it. To me that is a great example of what to expect should we legalise all prohibited narcotics. Sure other recreational drugs may be less harmful than alcohol and it may cost less to society but we can't get away from the fact that they have questionable (if any) benefit, they are a potentially harmful and they are still a cost to society.

    The legality of alcohol should not be used as an argument to legalise all narcotics, rather it should be a warning call.

    Drugs such as Cannabis, MDMA, ecstasy, ketamine, LSD and magic mushrooms have no real reason for being illegal, apart from a prejudice against the "high".
    You want to legalise ketamine? You do know that Professor Nutt, formerly of the British Home Office's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, actually raised the issue of reclassifying ketamine higher because of the frequency and severity of it's negative side effects (ie; urinary problems - cystitis, incontinence, haemoglobinurea, etc). Then there are the other side effects which are documented (ie; memory impairment).
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    weed was most likely made illegal because the government cant tax it and a few other stupid reasons... and as far as i know there has only been 1 death due to smoking weed and that was because the person was allergic to a chemical in it.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bacforever3)
    I always believed they were banned due to potential affect on society they would have.
    Yeah, but if drugs were legal it would completely destroy the black market illegal drug trade, which would surely be positive on society....:confused:
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    That's not the point, the point is that they would rather you take inferior drugs, cause harm to yourself or kill you than let you get high.
    I will again mention morphine, as you seem to have skipped that bit out.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aj1467)
    weed was most likely made illegal because the government cant tax it and a few other stupid reasons... and as far as i know there has only been 1 death due to smoking weed and that was because the person was allergic to a chemical in it.
    Call me dense, but why can't the government tax it?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    You're getting ahead of yourself, I wasn't debating whether I or you agree with it, rather the concepts behind it.

    If anything I would say that you are naive to think that legalising all drugs will have a net beneficial effect. For example, from our experiences with 24 hour drinking all it did was promote binge drinking, antisocial behaviour and increase hospital related admissions.

    The real reason why 'medical' cannabis isn't legalised is because it has questionable efficacy or benefit. Even the studies and references to news articles that you made show this.

    Combining multiple analgesic drugs ("Multimodal analgesia") together offers a better quality of analgesia and allows you to reduce the doses of the drugs used which in turn decreases the risk and severity of side effects - that was why Tylenol was developed.

    Again, you're making very bold claims based on very little (if any) evidence?

    Even in the studies that have shown some benefit to using cannabis they haven't strictly been using cannabis per se but an isolated and more concentrated derivative.

    You say that alcohol was more difficult to get hold of because you needed the co-operation of an adult however the same can be said about getting hold of narcotics at some (if not multiple) points in the supply chain.

    Prohibition tends to deter people whether that is something you personally experienced or acknowledge. On the other hand legalising it creates the impression that it is acceptable.

    1) Someone commiting a crime against another due to their drug use is not acceptable, legal or illegal.

    2) Enforcing the illegal drug laws does cost millions but equally so does enforcing those relating to the legal drugs out there (eg; the black market, counterfeiting, anti-social behaviour, drink/drug driving laws, addict related crime, etc) - these crimes won't suddenly disappear if we legalise all recreational drugs.

    As we have seen with alcohol decreasing the prices, increasing availability and making it more socially acceptable has increased the cost to society, not reduced it. To me that is a great example of what to expect should we legalise all prohibited narcotics. Sure other recreational drugs may be less harmful than alcohol and it may cost less to society but we can't get away from the fact that they have questionable (if any) benefit, they are a potentially harmful and they are still a cost to society.

    The legality of alcohol should not be used as an argument to legalise all narcotics, rather it should be a warning call.

    You want to legalise ketamine? You do know that Professor Nutt, formerly of the British Home Office's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, actually raised the issue of reclassifying ketamine higher because of the frequency and severity of it's negative side effects (ie; urinary problems - cystitis, incontinence, haemoglobinurea, etc). Then there are the other side effects which are documented (ie; memory impairment).
    This post reflects my views very well. Going into town on a friday night makes me really despair for society. Why? Because of alcohol. Should we legalise drugs because alcohol is legal? NO!
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aj1467)
    weed was most likely made illegal because the government cant tax it and a few other stupid reasons... and as far as i know there has only been 1 death due to smoking weed and that was because the person was allergic to a chemical in it.
    Err, why on earth wouldn't the government be able to tax it?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingMessi)
    Yeah, but if drugs were legal it would completely destroy the black market illegal drug trade, which would surely be positive on society....:confused:
    Probably not no. The prices might come down but the government would tax it heavily which would still leave a niche for the black marketeers and counterfeiters, as we've seen with alcohol, tobacco and other legal drugs.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fuzzed_Out)
    **** me! I'd forgotten how productive to society Freud was...:rolleyes:

    How would you like to get in a plane or a car that had been designed and serviced by people who were high...
    Freud was extremely productive to society, although his psychodynamic theory was wrong in detail the basis of his theories were correct and were the basis of modern society...
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    Probably not no. The prices might come down but the government would tax it heavily which would still leave a niche for the black marketeers and counterfeiters, as we've seen with alcohol, tobacco and other legal drugs.
    You think there's a big black market for alcohol and tobacco? :confused:


    By big, I mean vaguely comparable to the white market.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    Heroin is one of the least physically harmful drugs around. Granted its addictive but no more so than nicotine and going cold turkey wont kill you like doing so with an alcohol addiction could. Risk of overdose is not much higher than with alcohol and is unlikely unless done purposefully. The harms heroin use causes come almost entirely from its illegality.

    Not true. The harm that heroin can cause is way more complex - blood-born viruses from injecting, scarred or collapsed veins, chronic abscesses, infection of the heart lining, tuberculosis, completely messed up immune system, OD due to purity variables and dodgy gear.

    That's without even getting on to the psychological aspects, such as anxiety, depression and how it can totally devastate people's lives.

    Agree though that alcohol can, too, be highly destructive.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    Probably not no. The prices might come down but the government would tax it heavily which would still leave a niche for the black marketeers and counterfeiters, as we've seen with alcohol, tobacco and other legal drugs.
    I suppose, but I still can't help but feel that regulation of these drugs would be positive-if I remember correctly, weed (or maybe cannabis) is legal in the Netherlands, and I'm sure drug-related crime rates are lower there....

    Of course there'd still be a black market (I exaggerated somewhat), but it'd be greatly reduced in my opinion...

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: May 8, 2012
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.