[megan.c]

If you take most drugs carefully, trust your dealer and have someone with you then they're less dangerous than alcohol.

If they were legal then all the risks could be ironed out with education - the main fear mongering with MDMA is that you can either dehydrate or do the opposite and drown by drinking too much water when you can't pass it out. You're actually aware of your actions the whole time, if people weren't so desperate to get water into their friends and knew how to handle it there would be far fewer deaths from taking Ecstasy.

(you do need to be careful not become reliant though, my friend does it regularly and he told me today he is feeling less of a buzz from it - that's when people start turning to harder stuff)

[mohsanrabbani]

(Original post by Steevee)
So long as they're not abused, there really aren't any true downsides to the majority of drugs.

Their ban is a sad hangover from more prudish times. I do find the societal attitude towards drugs as a whole perplexing, and I only hope that as our generation grows up we can induce a more sensible attitude toward them

interesting point "as they're not abused".

Drugs like crack cocaine are the most addictive type. in my experience observing many subjects in my area this drug cannot be taken sensibly. It only results in higher doses and quantities reach time as the users begin to chase the initial "buz".

So in my opinion class A drugs should definitely stay banned. On the other hand drugs like cannabis can be overlooked providing a safe system on there production and distribution.

[The Patriot]

Drugs, above almost every other prejudice I have witnessed, is the one with the most hate, yet the least knowledge.

95% of the public really don't know eff all about drugs. They eat up the stereotypes and false rumours and spread them, to justify their own ignorance and fear of the substances. I bet, for instance, most people think that LSD is a dangerous drug, and that you get hooked on heroin after trying it once. Both complete bullcrap. LSD is less addictive than nicotine by some distance, and less dangerous than alcohol. Also, heroin requires usually 7-8 hits for an average person to become physically addicted.

I personally think that every should try some psychadelic drugs. It can give you a fantastic understanding of who you are, provided you don't OD. Of course some people are too weak to do this, but for those in a strong mental state, psychadelic drugs are fantastic to tell you the truth.

[Steevee]

(Original post by mohsanrabbani)
interesting point "as they're not abused".

Drugs like crack cocaine are the most addictive type. in my experience observing many subjects in my area this drug cannot be taken sensibly. It only results in higher doses and quantities reach time as the users begin to chase the initial "buz".

So in my opinion class A drugs should definitely stay banned. On the other hand drugs like cannabis can be overlooked providing a safe system on there production and distribution.

Depends on the person, in my opinion.

And what about drugs such as LSD, which are Class A but in no way addictive.

Drug legislation needs to be based on harm to the user, not some archaic 'moral' hangover. So whilst perhaps Heroin and Crack should not be legal due to their addictive nature, there should certainly be a discussion on the legality of drugs that are not addictive, or only nominally addictive. If I want to take MDMA, LSD, Cannabis or DMT, why should I not be able to?

[. . .]

(Original post by geetar)
Yes, it will be. I'll send you a signed copy when I'm done.

If you're actually serious about it and decide to do it send me a copy too.

[Tolth]

OP - why do you think it is reasonable to discuss 'drugs' as one homogeneous entity? The term 'drugs' includes everything from alcohol (which, despite social acceptability, is certainly a narcotic substance with some bloody nasty side effects as anyone who's ever spent a night doing one too many tequila shots can tell you) to cannabis to PCP. I realize that it's tempting to treat them as a single group, but it's certainly far easier to defend the use of marijuana, or even LSD than it is something like crack cocaine.

[RajPopat94]

(Original post by original_username)
Because high people do not make for obedient workers?

That's going on the basis that people will be high all of the time. Using the same logic, alcohol should also be banned, because drunk people do not make for obedient workers either.

[Irrelevance]

(Original post by exlunu)
So, yeah, what do you think ab it?

The whole point is trying something new like experiencing a different culture. Having a go is perfectly reasonable as it gives you a different experience to what you're normally used to so I can see why people would try provided they can stop at any given time rather than cave in and keep doing it because everybody else is.

Trouble is that people pretty much can't cope with the addiction and get hooked very quickly. People who use any kind of recreational drug regularly don't realise that they're addicted thinking they're doing it because it's 'fun' rather than because their body is like 'GIVE ME MORE OF THAT GOOD **** RAR NOW'. Two examples of this would be two separate friends of mine - one takes coke occaisionally on a night out. Maybe three, four times a year. Another friend of mine is dependant on cannabis. Literally dependant to the point where he pissed his money all over the wall to keep himself feeling 'normal'.

In an ideal world, we would legalise everything. Gain a load of tax and kill profits for every major recreational substance on earth. The trouble is society really can't trust the people taking them.

[TheCurlyHairedDude]

(Original post by Robertall)
Drugs are bad. I did cannabis about 5 years ago. It has taken me all this time just to start to get back to normal. Avoid drugs at all cost. What appears innocent or fun isn't.

I'm 100% sure you're the only who has experience what you say. 5 years my ass lol you must have OD's and it ****ed you up MENTALLY, but physically no harm.

[Suetonius]

=

[Tolth]

(Original post by Robertall)
Drugs are bad. I did cannabis about 5 years ago. It has taken me all this time just to start to get back to normal. Avoid drugs at all cost. What appears innocent or fun isn't.

If a single example of using a substance with less short/long term harmful effects than alcohol broke your brain for 5 years, I posit that you are either A: Mental, B: Asian, or C: Both.

[Khalak]

(Original post by exlunu)
I myself dont experiment with drugs. However, when it come to drugs, I find our society absolutely crazy. They have lots of benefits and give people exciting states of mind, even improve creativity. Compared to alcohol, i think drugs are more interesting if its popular. Why UK do not legalise all drugs and let people use them instead of alcohol.
Drugs world are new to me,even I know its interesting. Some of my friends at University talk about drugs all the time while the others are like " Nah, ill never try it".
So, yeah, what do you think ab it?

I think the NHS should nto treat druggies unless under 18.

However i think drugs should be legal, so if people take them then thats their choice and they should be left to die. this world has too many people, if some want to live a short life and die, then I could not care less.

[Suetonius]

Without even going into the practical positives of ending prohibition (destroying the black market, purity etc.) it's intrinsically wrong on moral grounds. John Stuart Mill's 'harm principle' (from 1859; over 150 years ago) posits "that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." To others. Not "to his/herself". Those who favour prohibition, in one sweep, manage to violate freedom of choice, the non-aggression principle, and the principle of self-ownership. I personally "would sooner let a leper come near a small boy than a man who preached such a thing". Add to this the fact that, according to the great Milton Friedman, prohibition results in 10,000 additional homicides a year, and there's absolutely no moral justification for it.

[Tolth]

(Original post by Khalak)
I think the NHS should nto treat druggies unless under 18.

However i think drugs should be legal, so if people take them then thats their choice and they should be left to die. this world has too many people, if some want to live a short life and die, then I could not care less.

Thank you, person who registered on an internet forum purely to post about how they wish more people would die. Amazing first post.

[Tolth]

(Original post by Suetonius)
Without even going into the practical positives of ending prohibition (destroying the black market, etc.) it's intrinsically wrong on moral grounds. John Stuart Mill's harm principle states "that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." To others. Not "to themself". Those who favour prohibition, in one sweep, manage to violate freedom of choice, the non-aggression principle, and the principle of self-ownership. I "would sooner let a leper come near a small boy than a man who preached such a thing". Add to this the fact that, according to the great Milton Friedman, prohibition results in 10,000 additional homicides a year, and there's absolutely no moral justification for it.

Spot on. It's pretty rare that I'd unequivocally agree with someone who is obviously economically very much a liberal. It says a lot about narcotic prohibition that a Marxist and a fan of Friedman both think it's a ludicrous and unethical position for a government to take.

[Khalak]

(Original post by Tolth)
Thank you, person who registered on an internet forum purely to post about how they wish more people would die. Amazing first post.

No if they choose to die, let them, what right do you have to keep a fully formed adult alive against their will, and it is against their will as they chose to take drugs and knew they will die as a result.

It it makes you a little happy, you could do treat them like three times, after that, be done with repeat druggies. The country is in a mess we cannot afford to treat maniacs intent on taking drugs and then relying on the rest to pay for their treatment. They are not ill because they are unlucky , they chose to be ill because they took drugs.

[Tolth]

(Original post by Khalak)
No if they choose to die, let them, what right do you have to keep a fully formed adult alive against their will, and it is against their will as they chose to take drugs and knew they will die as a result.

It it makes you a little happy, you could do treat them like three times, after that, be done with repeat druggies. The country is in a mess we cannot afford to treat maniacs intent on taking drugs and then relying on the rest to pay for their treatment. They are not ill because they are unlucky , they chose to be ill because they took drugs.

Yes. All human beings completely understand the ultimate consequences of each and every action they take, all people are perfectly rational, and people who develop a habit of using addictive drugs sit down before doing so and state 'Time to ruin my life!'

[Khalak]

(Original post by Tolth)
Yes. All human beings completely understand the ultimate consequences of each and every action they take, all people are perfectly rational, and people who develop a habit of using addictive drugs sit down before doing so and state 'Time to ruin my life!'

no why should i pay tax to treat a repeat druggie?

[RajPopat94]

(Original post by Brianop)
I heard there are potential long term side effects of having weed i.e schizophrenia, hallucinations etc. all sorts of mental problems.

I'd like to know why people still support something like weed in the light of their knowledge of potential long term side effects.

People who do weed are most probably aware of this, in the same way that people who drink alcohol are aware of the side effects of alcohol too. It doesn't stop them from doing it though. I think it's more the inconsistency which annoys people. There is so much evidence to support that alcohol is worse than weed, in which case: why should alcohol be legal when weed is not?

[Tolth]

(Original post by Khalak)
no why should i pay tax to treat a repeat druggie?

Because we're human beings and we care about other people.