[meow444]

Yeah I totally agree. Making drugs illegal has just set up a massive black market which fuels many of the worlds biggest problems. Terrorism and other organised crime is largely funded by selling illegal drugs.

[captainaesthetic]

I think that we can argue all day back and forth about evidence concerning the dangers of some drugs, and whether people are benefited or damaged by the use of them. There are points from both sides: some people ruin their lives through the use of drugs, whilst others will use them for recreation in a safe environment with entirely positive consequences. At the end of the day it comes down to the decisions that the user themselves makes; it's up to them.

I for one think that the main point and heart of the debate is over the government actually making the decision for us. Making the possession/use of ANY drugs illegal actually takes away the autonomy of the people; it removes the right that we have to put what we see fit into our bodies - it is no longer our decision whether we do drugs or not as legislation already tells us that we can't.

This is the problem. It's authority telling us what we can and can't do to ourselves, on a dangerously personal level.

A probable response to this will be that the government is preventing problems such as addiction or accidents involving intoxicated drivers from occurring. I'd dismiss such an argument on the grounds that an individual doing drugs is solely responsible for their actions - if they misuse and abuse them they should be held accountable for making that decision - it is this destruction of the freedom of an individual that is the problem here and should be seen as such.

[n00]

(Original post by confusedexcited)
Sorry, when did I ever say that experiences won't affect your mind? I said drugs in themselves won't,

Taking drugs isnt an experience?

(Original post by confusedexcited)
because they don't add anything to your mind..Right

They totaly alter the way your mind works. Ego loss is an extremely powerful thing, if you don't feel that this can add anything to your mind then well im stumped.

(Original post by confusedexcited)
secondly I wouldn't nessecarily refute anything given by that study..I'd merely say they could gain that openness without recourse to mushrooms..

Well if thats true whats the problem exactly with getting it from a drug? A drug in this case that is extremely safe with minimal risks that takes minutes to take effect, where as gaining that kind of openness without could take weeks, months, years, forever.

Have you really taken hallucinogens? What level trip did you have?

[ckingalt]

I agree that Illegal drugs should be decriminalized. The pros far outweigh the cons.

I would like to point out that I do know several people who use drugs on a very occasional basis who are fine. I don't know anyone who uses regularly whose life isn't a complete mess. That observation includes THC/cannabis.

[walterwhite123]

(Original post by JaggySnake95)
I agree with legalising drugs such as MDMA, Cannabis and LSD. They have no negative effect, while drugs such as Heroine and other opiates do and therefore obviously shouldn't be legal.

And if they don't want to legalize them, then I think they should be a little more relaxed because someone can get several years in jail for merely a repeat possession of a soft drug such as cannabis or LSD.

There is a lot of ignorance towards drugs and a lot of idiots will think they are cool by saying ''OMG you think you are so cool doing drugs''. I was watching a documentary on LSD and educated white males from ages 18-24 are most likely to do LSD, so I think it's statistics like that that show people who do drugs can't all be labelled idiots. Some of the most influential people have done drugs (Steve Jobs, The Beatles, Pink Floyd). If you were their parents you wouldn't be sad they took drugs, you'd be proud of how successful they were.

While I tend to agree they should be legalised, I hardly think you can say that Cannabis, LSD and MDMA have no negative effects.

[cid]

I don't really care if drugs are legalized or not because it shouldn't directly effect myself, however I'm sure the tax revenue would be beneficial to the country.

I wonder though how much if would truly effect the black market trade since the BM products would likely be far cheaper than the government sanctioned and heavily taxed products, smugglers, growers, chemists and dealers have flourished in the shadows for years, offering someone the same thing as competitors at a higher price isn't likely to be successful.

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by confusedexcited)
I'm fairly sure that legalising the drug trade would make tackling the illegal drug trade far easier. People are more likely to buy paracetemol from Boots than they are from shady man on the street corner.

It depends entirely on how it's regulated/ taxed. If tax is as high as it is likely to be then there will still be a market for criminals to exploit, but this time if the police caught a dealer in posession with intent to sell they would have an almost impossible time getting a conviction out of it, and any conviction would under current laws be shorter.

Now, personally I'd make the trade of these chemicals extremely heavily regulated, but even so it is extremely unlikely that anyone would use illegal vendors, as there is so little to gain from using an illegal one as opposed to a legal one.

This may be the obvious answer to a fairly wealthy, middle-class person who uses drugs recreatively, but as there is a huge problem with illegal tobacco, I highly doubt currently illegal drugs would avoid it.

In my opinion the whole argument is suffering from not being seriously analysed by either side and so for the most part you just have 2 polar opposites with the usual confirmation bias promoting findings that support their view. My personal take on it is that I'd support the legalisation of weed, magic mushrooms and ecstasy, but little in any other substances, despite maintaining the belief that what a person does to their own body is their own business. I would like to see serious and impartial analysis of the wider impact of drug legalisation and for the findings to be reflected in legislation rather than the current "drugs are fine!" and "no they're not!" binary.

[Pindar]

(Original post by walterwhite123)
While I tend to agree they should be legalised, I hardly think you can say that Cannabis, LSD and MDMA have no negative effects.

But compared to substances which are completely normal, socially acceptable to take regularly. They are comparatively harmless. No substance in the world, including tap water, has no potential negative effects.

Scale of harm


Notice how alcohol, the fifth most dangerous substance on that list out of 20 commonly used recreational drugs, is legal.

Notice how LSD and Ecstasy pills on the lower end of that chart, are significantly lower in harm than alcohol and tobacco. As you can see, many legal or Class C drugs are much more harmful than Class A drugs.

On the list, out of the Class A drugs only 3/6 are addictive, those at the top end of the chart far apart from the other ones. Out of the legal drugs, ALL but one are addictive.

The positives far outweigh the minimal and unlikely negatives. I'm sure McDonalds meal would feature far higher on that list than many of those so called 'dangerous' substances. After all obesity is worse than smoking.

[takethyfacehence]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
whereas MDMA allows the user to remain fully in control of their actions

I agree with basically everything you're saying on this topic, but this is a bit misleading. Using MDMA does/can render you much less than fully in control of your actions.

[danny111]

(Original post by confusedexcited)
There are people who also claim that horoscopes have changed their lives. I don't think recreational drugs have any long term positive benefits, oh they certainly have short term ones. But,smoking a spliffdrinking alcoholafter a long day at work doesn't alleviate the problem of the difficult work, it merely masks the symptoms.

Changing your perspective on reality can quite clearly be a bad thing. If I thought that in my new perspective it's good to **** in nurseries and masterbate on the bus it would be rather awkward.


I'm sure millions of people are sure the drugs helped them, but I'm fairly sure that they're wrong. Because drugs don't actually add anything, what is more likely is that the drugs alcohol masked the problem long enough for the problem to go away, or they found a different solution.


I have tried both cannabis and hallugienics,, it was delightful. The point of the analogy was that they alcoholcan never fill the hole, because they themselves are lacking the 'centre' with which the hole can be filled...

Everything you said applies to alcohol and cigarettes.

[Pindar]

(Original post by takethyfacehence)
I agree with basically everything you're saying on this topic, but this is a bit misleading. Using MDMA does/can render you much less than fully in control of your actions.

Well people misinterpret MDMA as the sort of drug which is going to make you lose 'control'. Like alcohol. Whereas on MDMA you're usually fully lucid and comparatively in control of your actions, albeit with an extremely elevated mood and energy levels.

Not that I would recommend driving on it.

[ROYP]

(Original post by confusedexcited)
Much like the consumption of doughnuts, they exist to fill a hole, whilst they themselves have a hole within them.

Best thing I've ever read

[walterwhite123]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
But compared to substances which are completely normal, socially acceptable to take regularly. They are comparatively harmless. No substance in the world, including tap water, has no potential negative effects.

Scale of harm


Notice how alcohol, the fifth most dangerous substance on that list out of 20 commonly used recreational drugs, is legal.

Notice how LSD and Ecstasy pills on the lower end of that chart, are significantly lower in harm than alcohol and tobacco. As you can see, many legal or Class C drugs are much more harmful than Class A drugs.

On the list, out of the Class A drugs only 3/6 are addictive, those at the top end of the chart far apart from the other ones. Out of the legal drugs, ALL but one are addictive.

The positives far outweigh the minimal and unlikely negatives. I'm sure McDonalds meal would feature far higher on that list than many of those so called 'dangerous' substances. After all obesity is worse than smoking.

True. I was just objecting to the use of the phrase 'no negative effects'. Particularly when used with MDMA which has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of people.

[confusedexcited]

(Original post by danny111)
Everything you said applies to alcohol and cigarettes.

Yes it does.

(Original post by Llamageddon)
It depends entirely on how it's regulated/ taxed. If tax is as high as it is likely to be then there will still be a market for criminals to exploit, but this time if the police caught a dealer in posession with intent to sell they would have an almost impossible time getting a conviction out of it, and any conviction would under current laws be shorter.
This may be the obvious answer to a fairly wealthy, middle-class person who uses drugs recreatively, but as there is a huge problem with illegal tobacco, I highly doubt currently illegal drugs would avoid it.

In my opinion the whole argument is suffering from not being seriously analysed by either side and so for the most part you just have 2 polar opposites with the usual confirmation bias promoting findings that support their view. My personal take on it is that I'd support the legalisation of weed, magic mushrooms and ecstasy, but little in any other substances, despite maintaining the belief that what a person does to their own body is their own business. I would like to see serious and impartial analysis of the wider impact of drug legalisation and for the findings to be reflected in legislation rather than the current "drugs are fine!" and "no they're not!" binary.

I'd broadly agree with you, however I do quite strongly feel that it is unlikely that there would remain a lack of a strong blackmarket for most serious (by which I mean artificial) drugs. I think this is mostly down to risk aversion, whilst ciggerates are percieved to be relatively safe, something like paracetemol is not, hence there's no black market for nureofen.

(Original post by ROYP)
Best thing I've ever read

Thank you

(Original post by n00)
Taking drugs isnt an experience?



They totaly alter the way your mind works. Ego loss is an extremely powerful thing, if you don't feel that this can add anything to your mind then well im stumped.



Well if thats true whats the problem exactly with getting it from a drug? A drug in this case that is extremely safe with minimal risks that takes minutes to take effect, where as gaining that kind of openness without could take weeks, months, years, forever.

Have you really taken hallucinogens? What level trip did you have?

Because drugs fail to solve any problems at all. They can mask symptoms whilst the problem is solved, but they in themselves cannot solve anything.

Not everyone gains that kind of openness, some become schizophrenics. This is a small proportion, but you're idealising drugs, which is a very odd thing to do..

I have taken them, I don't know how you rate things on a 'level' scale, but I think it was significant...

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by confusedexcited)
I'd broadly agree with you, however I do quite strongly feel that it is unlikely that there would remain a lack of a strong blackmarket for most serious (by which I mean artificial) drugs. I think this is mostly down to risk aversion, whilst ciggerates are percieved to be relatively safe, something like paracetemol is not, hence there's no black market for nureofen.

Your average drug addict is not exactly risk averse. Nor is your average drug pusher.

Again it's treating drugs as though they're a middle-class hobby. If paracetamol was taxed heavily, very addictive and used for recreational purposes, you would see a black market for the stuff. Possible solutions to this could be to not tax heavily which politically comes across as impossible (to me), to accept the consequences of blackmarket drugs within the framework of looser laws on drug use and selling or, relax laws on substances like mushrooms/ cannabis that can be produced easily in this country whilst remaining tight on harder substances.

Our current international obligations make the legalisation of substances like heroin and cocaine difficult at best, and you have to consider that the countries producing them are being torn apart by it. I don’t see how creating a “safe” market would do anything other than exacerbate the problems in the likes of Columbia and Afghanistan. From that end you will still have the involvement of cartels, drug lords and so on, that create endless suffering for people in those countries and in others.

I think the legalisation of drugs extends far beyond the rights of the individual to damage their own body in the way they see fit put simply because the individual is not the only person to suffer from the use, production and selling of drugs. I believe we can create a framework for a more liberal attitude towards certain softer drugs and that in some cases this would be preferable to the status quo but we’re talking about a question which is frankly far more complicated than most people on this thread are treating it as.

[confusedexcited]

(Original post by Llamageddon)
Your average drug addict is not exactly risk averse. Nor is your average drug pusher.

Again it's treating drugs as though they're a middle-class hobby. If paracetamol was taxed heavily, very addictive and used for recreational purposes, you would see a black market for the stuff. Possible solutions to this could be to not tax heavily which politically comes across as impossible (to me), to accept the consequences of blackmarket drugs within the framework of looser laws on drug use and selling or, relax laws on substances like mushrooms/ cannabis that can be produced easily in this country whilst remaining tight on harder substances.

Our current international obligations make the legalisation of substances like heroin and cocaine difficult at best, and you have to consider that the countries producing them are being torn apart by it. I don’t see how creating a “safe” market would do anything other than exacerbate the problems in the likes of Columbia and Afghanistan. From that end you will still have the involvement of cartels, drug lords and so on, that create endless suffering for people in those countries and in others.

I think the legalisation of drugs extends far beyond the rights of the individual to damage their own body in the way they see fit put simply because the individual is not the only person to suffer from the use, production and selling of drugs. I believe we can create a framework for a more liberal attitude towards certain softer drugs and that in some cases this would be preferable to the status quo but we’re talking about a question which is frankly far more complicated than most people on this thread are treating it as.

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but did you read fully my initial post? I didn't say anything about the legalisation of either cocaine, or heroin, I mentioned instead decriminalising those and other 'hard' drugs.

I'm fairly sure we agree on most points...When I was claiming that the black market for drugs would reduce when legalised, I obviously meant in terms of my initial criteria for drugs which would be legalised, cannabis, psycobylin muschrooms, LSD, and MDMA. I wasn't talking about opiates, or cocaine, or indeed any of the other dugs you mentioned in your critique. I really don't mean to be rude, but you should read the OP.

Of course the legalisation of drugs extends beyond the sovreignty of self, in the same way that the moral obligation to ensure where possible that food is produced ethically. Again, this is eluded to in the initial post..

Just to clarify - when I said a 'clean supply', I meant of needles, methadone and other items facilitating rehabilitation..

[py0alb]

It would be quite fun if the choice wasn't just "what shall we drink tonight" but "should we drink tonight? or smoke weed? pop some x? etc etc"

I honestly think that hard drug use would go down if you legalised a moderate range of softer drugs. The only reason soft drugs currently act as a "gateway" to hard drugs now is because they put you in contact with people who can supply you with hard drugs and occasionally try to push them onto you. If you could just get your drugs from tescos, who would bother using illegal dealers?

[py0alb]

(Original post by captainaesthetic)
I think that we can argue all day back and forth about evidence concerning the dangers of some drugs, and whether people are benefited or damaged by the use of them. There are points from both sides: some people ruin their lives through the use of drugs, whilst others will use them for recreation in a safe environment with entirely positive consequences. At the end of the day it comes down to the decisions that the user themselves makes; it's up to them.

I for one think that the main point and heart of the debate is over the government actually making the decision for us. Making the possession/use of ANY drugs illegal actually takes away the autonomy of the people; it removes the right that we have to put what we see fit into our bodies - it is no longer our decision whether we do drugs or not as legislation already tells us that we can't.

This is the problem. It's authority telling us what we can and can't do to ourselves, on a dangerously personal level.

A probable response to this will be that the government is preventing problems such as addiction or accidents involving intoxicated drivers from occurring. I'd dismiss such an argument on the grounds that an individual doing drugs is solely responsible for their actions - if they misuse and abuse them they should be held accountable for making that decision - it is this destruction of the freedom of an individual that is the problem here and should be seen as such.

Thats a perfectly valid argument for decriminalisation, but not for legalisation you realise?

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by confusedexcited)
Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but did you read fully my initial post? I didn't say anything about the legalisation of either cocaine, or heroin, I mentioned instead decriminalising those and other 'hard' drugs.

Whilst you may have included it in your OP, which I have read, you used the term "serious drugs" in the post I quoted arguing that a black market wouldn't be created for them. I'm fairly sure one would in most circumstances. Those that you are suggesting should be legalised both in your most recent post and OP are not what I would consider “serious drugs”, and I would agree that a black market there would be fairly manageable and small-scale, depending on taxation and regulation, but it was not the point you were making in the post I quoted and it is the point there that I was challenging.

My initial objection was actually based on the “decriminalisation” as I’m not entirely sure you fully grasp how much harder that makes the job for police in dealing with the supply. The idea of giving a “cocaine caution” to somebody with enough to sell to 30+ people because you can’t prove “intent to supply”, to me, would be bad. As it stands you still get them off the streets for possession. Equally, as you have alluded to, the idea of giving people a criminal record for recreational use of soft drugs is not in the least bit ideal.

When it comes to drug policy it is at all times vital to consider the difficulties it presents to the enforcement of laws. I can assure you that from my experience of dealing with the cannabis caution the above would happen for any substance that was “decriminalised”, whether you knew they were supplying it or not. Burden of proof, due process, etc. If people think that is preferable to what we have now then that’s a point they can make, but unintended consequences are rife with the law.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Llamageddon)
Whilst you may have included it in your OP, which I have read, you used the term "serious drugs" in the post I quoted arguing that a black market wouldn't be created for them. I'm fairly sure one would in most circumstances. Those that you are suggesting should be legalised both in your most recent post and OP are not what I would consider “serious drugs”, and I would agree that a black market there would be fairly manageable and small-scale, depending on taxation and regulation, but it was not the point you were making in the post I quoted and it is the point there that I was challenging.

My initial objection was actually based on the “decriminalisation” as I’m not entirely sure you fully grasp how much harder that makes the job for police in dealing with the supply. The idea of giving a “cocaine caution” to somebody with enough to sell to 30+ people because you can’t prove “intent to supply”, to me, would be bad. As it stands you still get them off the streets for possession. Equally, as you have alluded to, the idea of giving people a criminal record for recreational use of soft drugs is not in the least bit ideal.

When it comes to drug policy it is at all times vital to consider the difficulties it presents to the enforcement of laws. I can assure you that from my experience of dealing with the cannabis caution the above would happen for any substance that was “decriminalised”, whether you knew they were supplying it or not. Burden of proof, due process, etc. If people think that is preferable to what we have now then that’s a point they can make, but unintended consequences are rife with the law.

There are ways round these issues. You can set a strict maximum possession limit at about the amount one person might reasonably take in an evening, with escalating punishments for possessing more. The police could and probably should still confiscate any illegal drugs you found, that doesn't necessarily contradict them being decriminalised.