Turn on thread page Beta

Drugs aren't illegal because they're harmful watch

    Offline

    16
    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.
    In what way have I played it down? I have made no comment on the severity of it other than saying it isn't designed to make you feel better while you are having it - it's sole aim being to get rid of the cancer.

    And does what to the cancer cells, kills them? You haven't explained why if it is so effective it isn't being used either in areas where it is fully legal for medicinal purposes, or countries where it is quasi-legal as a recreational drug like the Netherlands.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sherlllll)
    You idiotically claimed that none were addictive and that addiction related crime wouldn't really be an issue.

    So basically...you're completely wrong and talking utter bull****. Most of what you've argued is simply speculative crap...
    Wow you post sources to prove your argument, which you don't read.

    "LSD has zero physical addiction potential. It is not physically addictive and it is not a drug that you will want to immediately do again. This is not the type of drug where a user experiences withdrawal if another dose isn't ingested within a relatively short period of time."

    "Rather than creating a physical addiction, Kit Kat is a drug that creates a psychological dependency on it. After taking ketamine for awhile, you will start to associate the drug with pleasurable experiences."
    But
    "Chronic users develop something close to permanent tolerance so, after months of use, are unable to experience the psychedelic effects ever again." Making prolonged use pointless.

    (Original post by sherlllll)
    http://www.ecstasyaddiction.com/ (MDMA is Ecstasy...)
    "Call 1-800-468-6933 Now!

    Start a Narconon recovery plan
    for you or someone you love
    TODAY!"

    This is a website trying to sell a program aimed at family and friends of people concerned with someones ecstasy use, very unbiased source you've got there if they are trying to convince concerned family to buy their product with the false idea that ecstasy users are addicted.

    Let's look at the good drugs guide which you are usually so keen to cite.

    http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/ecstasy/addiction.htm
    "Ecstasy is not physically addictive in the way that drugs like cocaine, nicotine and heroin are. Many users are, however, addicted to the emotional state they reach on the drug. Like its name implies, users fell happy, relaxed and loving while under this drug's influence. This euphoric effect can last for between three and five hours."
    Calling ecstasy addictive is like calling happiness addictive. The body enjoys pleasurable activity and wants more of it, this is normal and does not usually present a problem. The logical conclusion of this type of thinking is that we should ban all pleasurable activity IN CASE we get psychologically addicted.

    Same as above.

    "Mushrooms are not physically addictive and you wouldn’t want to take them on a regular basis"
    How is one addicted to something they DON'T ever want to take on a regular basis. The scope for addictive use is minimal.

    Nice article, even the headline has "addiction" in inverted commas. Let me quote it.
    "The reason there is still some debate is that most chemical dependencies have severe withdrawal symptoms. In cannabis they tend to be quite mild."

    Shock horror.

    The article is only commenting on the rise of people attending addiction therapy centres, probably forced to by concerned relatives or government programmes convinced they are suffering from some terrible addiction. It does not comment at all whether there is any SCIENTIFIC evidence that cannabis is addictive.

    The truth is, people with addictive personalities can get addicted to anything, whether it is chocolate, sugar, coffee, tea, shopping, sex, sport, work. Even studying.

    Some people might be addicted to TSR but this only presents a problem if it start to negatively impact on their life.

    ANYTHING pleasurable can cause psychological addiction. It is a NATURAL response to the brain's reward system. Sometimes psychological addictions can cause harm, but most drug use doesn't get to this stage so what is the problem?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm, I always thought those drugs were illegal cause they can lead to serious psychological problems like extreme paranoia and depression, when other drugs don't tend to have such intense risks associated with them...

    I'm thinking it's maybe a mixture of factors, rather than just a stigma against people who get high on its own.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Wow you post sources to prove your argument, which you don't read.


    "LSD has zero physical addiction potential. It is not physically addictive and it is not a drug that you will want to immediately do again. This is not the type of drug where a user experiences withdrawal if another dose isn't ingested within a relatively short period of time."


    "Rather than creating a physical addiction, Kit Kat is a drug that creates a psychological dependency on it. After taking ketamine for awhile, you will start to associate the drug with pleasurable experiences."
    But
    "Chronic users develop something close to permanent tolerance so, after months of use, are unable to experience the psychedelic effects ever again." Making prolonged use pointless.



    "Call 1-800-468-6933 Now!

    Start a Narconon recovery plan
    for you or someone you love
    TODAY!"

    This is a website trying to sell a program aimed at family and friends of people concerned with someones ecstasy use, very unbiased source you've got there if they are trying to convince concerned family to buy their product with the false idea that ecstasy users are addicted.

    Let's look at the good drugs guide which you are usually so keen to cite.

    http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/ecstasy/addiction.htm
    "Ecstasy is not physically addictive in the way that drugs like cocaine, nicotine and heroin are. Many users are, however, addicted to the emotional state they reach on the drug. Like its name implies, users fell happy, relaxed and loving while under this drug's influence. This euphoric effect can last for between three and five hours."
    Calling ecstasy addictive is like calling happiness addictive. The body enjoys pleasurable activity and wants more of it, this is normal and does not usually present a problem. The logical conclusion of this type of thinking is that we should ban all pleasurable activity IN CASE we get psychologically addicted.


    Same as above.


    "Mushrooms are not physically addictive and you wouldn’t want to take them on a regular basis"
    How is one addicted to something they DON'T ever want to take on a regular basis. The scope for addictive use is minimal.



    Nice article, even the headline has "addiction" in inverted commas. Let me quote it.
    "The reason there is still some debate is that most chemical dependencies have severe withdrawal symptoms. In cannabis they tend to be quite mild."

    Shock horror.

    The article is only commenting on the rise of people attending addiction therapy centres, probably forced to by concerned relatives or government programmes convinced they are suffering from some terrible addiction. It does not comment at all whether there is any SCIENTIFIC evidence that cannabis is addictive.

    The truth is, people with addictive personalities can get addicted to anything, whether it is chocolate, sugar, coffee, tea, shopping, sex, sport, work. Even studying.

    Some people might be addicted to TSR but this only presents a problem if it start to negatively impact on their life.

    ANYTHING pleasurable can cause psychological addiction. It is a NATURAL response to the brain's reward system. Sometimes psychological addictions can cause harm, but most drug use doesn't get to this stage so what is the problem?
    Yet these drugs are however severely psychologically addictive, much more so than the other substances that you quoted to illustrate your facile little point.

    Psychologically substances, cause psychological harm with sudden withdrawn such as severe anxiety, depression, even drug educed schizophrenia type symptoms. These psychological symptoms can often manifest themselves as physical problems like shaking, sweating, panic attacks, irritable bowel syndrome and there is even the potential for death from sudden withdrawal.

    Such physical manifestation symptoms make psychologically addicted users believe their addiction is physical with the adverse effects of withdrawal on the body quickly prompting the user to satisfy the body's need for further drug intake.

    Both types of addiction are caused by similar mechanisms. Addiction occurs when one suddenly abstains from taking a certain exogenous substance (drugs) for a long period of time. While the person is on the drug, that person will slow down, or stop the body from producing some endogenous chemicals, or severely decrease the effectiveness of natural bodily chemicals. This causes distress because your body needs these chemicals to be present in natural quantities and act effectively on the body and mind.

    My point is, if you hadn't already figured the obvious out, is that whether the addiction is physical or psychological it is incredibly fallacious to claim that the substances are not addictive as you did earlier. Also the point about any substance being addictive is neither here nor there as I'm sure even you can acknowledge that some substances have more potential toward causing addictive dependencies that others; the drugs you mentioned all are severely psychologically addictive, denying that would be ridiculous really.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Christ, you are so IGNORANT. It actually amazes me you actually think you may be qualified in any respect to have an opinion on this subject.
    Have you stopped to think about what I might think of you? You come across as very ignorant to me, you've taken a few drugs and haven't experienced any problems and now assume that drugs are brilliant and the government are big meanies for not letting you take them.

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    First of all you perpetrate the myth that cannabis is a gateway drug. Well done, another drug myth which is backed up by NO scientific evidence.
    Its not a myth, its a theory. There is scientific evidence both ways. I base my belief that in the "gateway effect" on my personal experience however.

    That said, i attribute the gateway effect to contacts rather than a medical reason. i.e people having drug dealers in their phone-book are more likely to try herder drugs. legalizing this would make this not happen.

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    You are using alcohol, which is associated with anti-social behaviour, alcoholism and physical harm, to say that drugs which don't cause anti-social behaviour, aren't addictive, and don't cause harm should stay illegal. Yet alcohol is illegal.
    1) I disagree that these drugs aren't addictive. Some may not be medically addictive but they are very highly physiologically addictive. Take a look at the other guys post on support groups.

    2) anti-social behavior and physical harm are not the only bad things in the world.

    Some symptoms blatantly copped from Wikipedia of amphetamine: aggression, psychosomatic disorders, psychomotor agitation, grandiosity, excessive feelings of power and superiority, repetitive and obsessive behaviors, paranoia, and with chronic and/or high doses, amphetamine psychosis can occur.

    Not to mention the comedown.

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    If you cannot see the illogicality of your thought processes then there is no point in continuing this argument until you go and educate yourself further.
    This is what I say to you: If you cannot see the illogicality of your thought processes then there is no point in continuing this argument until you go and educate yourself further.

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    How on earth are there going to be addicts stealing cars and robbing old ladies when the drugs AREN'T addictive?
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    How on earth are there going to be fights and violence in the streets with drugs which DON'T cause anti-social behaviour? And in fact decrease it. MDMA makes you friendly and sociable, cannabis makes you friendly and sociable, ketamine, lsd, mushrooms make you enjoy sitting in a room doing nothing just laughing, where does this "theory of violence" come into play?
    I never mentioned a "theory of violence". I have seen people be violent on speed though.

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Now you are saying they should be illegal because people are in prison because of it. Why did you even bother saying that? Can you not see that is completely CIRCULAR? Okay I'm convinced, you are definitely trolling. Nobody is this stupid.
    WTF is wrong with you, most people who are in prison because of drugs were not arrested because they had drugs on them, they were arrested because it f*cks up their lives and the commit other crimes. Or their parents were high all their f*cking childhood so they are seriously messed up.

    When I said this I obviously didn't mean the people who were arrested for having the dugs you want to make legal.

    I am not a troll, I just have a different opinion on how drugs affect peoples lives.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sherlllll)
    Yet these drugs are however severely psychologically addictive, much more so than the other substances that you quoted to illustrate your facile little point.

    Psychologically substances, cause psychological harm with sudden withdrawn such as severe anxiety, depression, even drug educed schizophrenia type symptoms. These psychological symptoms can often manifest themselves as physical problems like shaking, sweating, panic attacks, irritable bowel syndrome and there is even the potential for death from sudden withdrawal.

    Such physical manifestation symptoms make psychologically addicted users believe their addiction is physical with the adverse effects of withdrawal on the body quickly prompting the user to satisfy the body's need for further drug intake.

    Both types of addiction are caused by similar mechanisms. Addiction occurs when one suddenly abstains from taking a certain exogenous substance (drugs) for a long period of time. While the person is on the drug, that person will slow down, or stop the body from producing some endogenous chemicals, or severely decrease the effectiveness of natural bodily chemicals. This causes distress because your body needs these chemicals to be present in natural quantities and act effectively on the body and mind.

    My point is, if you hadn't already figured the obvious out, is that whether the addiction is physical or psychological it is incredibly fallacious to claim that the substances are not addictive as you did earlier. Also the point about any substance being addictive is neither here nor there as I'm sure even you can acknowledge that some substances have more potential toward causing addictive dependencies that others; the drugs you mentioned all are severely psychologically addictive, denying that would be ridiculous really.
    I can honestly not think of anything with less potential for addiction than magic mushrooms. In the unlikely event that after eating magic mushrooms you immediately want more, you're screwed because they simply wont work.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    ...
    You point out in your post a few times that people think their family and friends are addicted.

    They are worried because they have seen behavioral changes and often see their loved-ones and friends getting do dependent on said drug, using it too often - spending too much money on it and neglecting the rest of their damn life.

    But hey, there is not physical addiction, so they just don't like their loved-ones being happy, cos - like the government - they hate people to be happy!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    I can honestly not think of anything with less potential for addiction than magic mushrooms. In the unlikely event that after eating magic mushrooms you immediately want more, you're screwed because they simply wont work.
    lol

    reminds me of my friend who got some kind of bizarre Peruvian cacti, which was supposedly a very potent hallucinogenic. On all accounts it was the most discussing thing that anyone ever tried, and didn't do anything.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sherlllll)
    My point is, if you hadn't already figured the obvious out, is that whether the addiction is physical or psychological it is incredibly fallacious to claim that the substances are not addictive as you did earlier. Also the point about any substance being addictive is neither here nor there as I'm sure even you can acknowledge that some substances have more potential toward causing addictive dependencies that others; the drugs you mentioned all are severely psychologically addictive, denying that would be ridiculous really.
    :facepalm: No they are not "severely psychologically addictive". I've never heard so much utter tosh in my life.

    There is little chance of even getting psychologically addicted to cannabis, mdma, ketamine, mushrooms or lsd, your very own sources agree that those drugs are not ones which anyone can take frequently (bar maybe cannabis) and like ketamine you develop a strong tolerance quickly making addiction impossible. You might as well say chocolate is "severely addictive".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    There are some people that support the spread of raw bull**** in here.

    I'm in favour of legalising all drugs. Let people choose. It is very often that drugs are not the problem with deaths, it is the people who abuse them. Many people abuse things every day things like chocolate and fast food; you need to teach responsible and moderate use of drugs and people will be fine.

    It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that a dose of pure MDMA could overdose somebody, it is almost always because somebody hasn't a clue what they're doing due to lack of govt info and usually drink themselves to death with water. It's so stupid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thompsonbassman)
    There are some people that support the spread of raw bull**** in here.

    I'm in favour of legalising all drugs. Let people choose. It is very often that drugs are not the problem with deaths, it is the people who abuse them. Many people abuse things every day things like chocolate and fast food; you need to teach responsible and moderate use of drugs and people will be fine.

    It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that a dose of pure MDMA could overdose somebody, it is almost always because somebody hasn't a clue what they're doing due to lack of govt info and usually drink themselves to death with water. It's so stupid.
    The illegality of drugs is one of the main problems with deaths. For example heroin, which yes can be extemely addictive, in it's pure form is arguably one of the safest drugs known to man. The fact that it's illegal means that it is cut with harmful substances, and is injected as it is cheaper to do so. I think people have died from just being allergic to MDMA, however I think most deaths can be attributed to misinformation, caused by prohibition.

    Research also shows how "the war on drugs" has increased violence and provides more evidence that it's a complete failure and argues that a way of regulating and controlling drugs would be a better alternative.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thompsonbassman)
    It is very often that drugs are not the problem with deaths, it is the people who abuse them. Many people abuse things every day things like chocolate and fast food; you need to teach responsible and moderate use of drugs and people will be fine.
    Err, the bold is a kind of given. People are always going to abuse drugs, helping them by making drugs more readily available is a good thing how? Some people can take drugs responsibly, but a lot of people don't. If people are abusing chocolate and fast food (look at obesity levels in society) then giving them a ready supply of drugs is going to cripple said society.

    Schools teach a hell of a lot about drugs to kids already, which is a good thing (pretty much everyone tries drugs when they are growing up), but there is still a problem with abuse...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sherlllll)
    These seem to be all the drugs you mentioned should be legalised:

    http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/lsd/addiction.htm (LSD)

    http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/ketamine/addiction.htm (KETAMINE)

    http://www.ecstasyaddiction.com/ (MDMA is Ecstasy...)

    http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/mus.../addiction.htm (MUSHROOMS)

    http://www.cannabisaddiction.co.uk/

    Another on cannabises addictive capacity;

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...dalcohol.drugs

    You idiotically claimed that none were addictive and that addiction related crime wouldn't really be an issue.

    So basically...you're completely wrong and talking utter bull****. Most of what you've argued is simply speculative crap...
    You probably should have read your sources before posting them. Now you look like an idiot. Oops.

    I will concede cannabis, though. I don't think any regular cannabis user would deny its potential for addiction.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    Have you stopped to think about what I might think of you? You come across as very ignorant to me, you've taken a few drugs and haven't experienced any problems and now assume that drugs are brilliant and the government are big meanies for not letting you take them.



    Its not a myth, its a theory. There is scientific evidence both ways. I base my belief that in the "gateway effect" on my personal experience however.

    That said, i attribute the gateway effect to contacts rather than a medical reason. i.e people having drug dealers in their phone-book are more likely to try herder drugs. legalizing this would make this not happen.



    1) I disagree that these drugs aren't addictive. Some may not be medically addictive but they are very highly physiologically addictive. Take a look at the other guys post on support groups.

    2) anti-social behavior and physical harm are not the only bad things in the world.

    Some symptoms blatantly copped from Wikipedia of amphetamine: aggression, psychosomatic disorders, psychomotor agitation, grandiosity, excessive feelings of power and superiority, repetitive and obsessive behaviors, paranoia, and with chronic and/or high doses, amphetamine psychosis can occur.

    Not to mention the comedown.



    This is what I say to you: If you cannot see the illogicality of your thought processes then there is no point in continuing this argument until you go and educate yourself further.





    I never mentioned a "theory of violence". I have seen people be violent on speed though.



    WTF is wrong with you, most people who are in prison because of drugs were not arrested because they had drugs on them, they were arrested because it f*cks up their lives and the commit other crimes. Or their parents were high all their f*cking childhood so they are seriously messed up.

    When I said this I obviously didn't mean the people who were arrested for having the dugs you want to make legal.

    I am not a troll, I just have a different opinion on how drugs affect peoples lives.
    The gateway effect has been thoroughly disproven. Mostly by the fact that almost half of people try cannabis, and fewer than quarter a percent of all people try smack. Even less than 10% of the original amount of people who try cannabis go onto try ecstasy too. There isn't even a correlation there to base your assumption of soft drugs leading to harder drugs on. I mean I could claim that milk creates a gateway effect to smack, because every single smack head drank milk at some point in their childhood. Lets ban milk! O wait... 99.9% of people who drink milk never take smack.

    Furthermore making drugs illegal has failed to stop increases in their use, and has driven down quality. Were they to be legalised we could actually tackle the problems you list rather than exacerbating them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    You probably should have read your sources before posting them. Now you look like an idiot. Oops.

    I will concede cannabis, though. I don't think any regular cannabis user would deny its potential for addiction.
    I thought I was addicted to pot. Then I realised it was just the tobacco I rolled spliffs with. The problem with the psychological addiction of it is that once you stop you instantly gain however many hours you smoke a day to fill, and life becomes super boring. I've always been easily bored though, I was bored all the way up to the point of starting to smoke pot and i'm bored after. The life time prevalence for something that is supposedly addictive are too low. Most people I know have tapered off their daily usage to none, and whenever they try and start using it again it just makes them ill.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    The gateway effect has been thoroughly disproven. Mostly by the fact that almost half of people try cannabis, and fewer than quarter a percent of all people try smack. Even less than 10% of the original amount of people who try cannabis go onto try ecstasy too. There isn't even a correlation there to base your assumption of soft drugs leading to harder drugs on. I mean I could claim that milk creates a gateway effect to smack, because every single smack head drank milk at some point in their childhood. Lets ban milk! O wait... 99.9% of people who drink milk never take smack.
    Maybe its not a large causal factor but to deny the trend is just ignoring the data. People who have tried smack will most likely have tried cannabis.This is where your milk argument falls down, if 90% of people who tried milk took smack and 10% of people who didn't try milk tried smack, there is a correlation between milk and smack. Doesn't mean milk is the cause, maybe milk tastes horrible so only abusive parents got their kids milk - the abusive parents are the more likely cause, not the milk. Can't deny the correlation though.

    There has been some convincing research that its these common factors that cause the correlation. I am sceptical because I have seen people without these factors that use cannabis and within a few years are snorting coke and doing nothing with their lives. ( I also know a lot of people who haven't done that, but I know no one who has taken hard drugs without first taking soft drugs) I may have only observed a small sample, but its easier to believe what you see.

    Anyway I mentioned earlier in the thread that I attribute the majority of this effect to the fact that people who take soft drugs know drug dealers, and drug takers, and are thus more likley to take hard-drugs. Making drugs legal would probably solve this issue as you wouldn't be introduced to that environment ect ect

    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Furthermore making drugs illegal has failed to stop increases in their use, and has driven down quality. Were they to be legalised we could actually tackle the problems you list rather than exacerbating them.
    Considering how much people get fat and unhealthy by eating too much, when eating is possibly the safest thing you could ever do - I don't think society could handle drugs being easier to get. That's just my opinion. Having them illegal is pretty sh*tty because they get cut with stuff, which is dangerous, and trafficking funds organised crime, which is not good. But I just don't think people are responsible enough (when most of the population can't even stop eating to excess) to manage being able to go get some speed from the corner shop.



    To be honest I really can't be arsed with this argument anymore. No one is going to change their opinion on the matter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    Maybe its not a large causal factor but to deny the trend is just ignoring the data. People who have tried smack will most likely have tried cannabis.This is where your milk argument falls down, if 90% of people who tried milk took smack and 10% of people who didn't try milk tried smack, there is a correlation between milk and smack. Doesn't mean milk is the cause, maybe milk tastes horrible so only abusive parents got their kids milk - the abusive parents are the more likely cause, not the milk. Can't deny the correlation though.

    There has been some convincing research that its these common factors that cause the correlation. I am sceptical because I have seen people without these factors that use cannabis and within a few years are snorting coke and doing nothing with their lives. ( I also know a lot of people who haven't done that, but I know no one who has taken hard drugs without first taking soft drugs) I may have only observed a small sample, but its easier to believe what you see.

    Anyway I mentioned earlier in the thread that I attribute the majority of this effect to the fact that people who take soft drugs know drug dealers, and drug takers, and are thus more likley to take hard-drugs. Making drugs legal would probably solve this issue as you wouldn't be introduced to that environment ect ect



    Considering how much people get fat and unhealthy by eating too much, when eating is possibly the safest thing you could ever do - I don't think society could handle drugs being easier to get. That's just my opinion. Having them illegal is pretty sh*tty because they get cut with stuff, which is dangerous, and trafficking funds organised crime, which is not good. But I just don't think people are responsible enough (when most of the population can't even stop eating to excess) to manage being able to go get some speed from the corner shop.



    To be honest I really can't be arsed with this argument anymore. No one is going to change their opinion on the matter.
    But only 5-10% of people having tried weed ever go on to use another drug at max. And that is because they have the mindset that they want to try 'xyz' drugs before they begin. Weed is the easiest to get hold of, so that is where most begin. But there is also a sizeable amount of people that go directly to harder drugs. The dealers who sell weed more often than not do not sell heroin, and may at a stretch have some coke in occasionally. But it's not like you go for your 20 bag and they're like 'hey man wanna try some coke?' You make the decision to try it and then you contact your people.

    I know you don't think that society could handle legal drugs. However, all empirical data suggests the opposite is true. In every area of the world that cannabis has been decriminalised, or legalised to a certain extent, the prevalence of use is far lower than the UK. Even state by state in the US the highest rates of cannabis usage are in NY where they clamp down on it hard, and the lowest usage rates are around the state of Oregon where you can get it with relative ease and anything below an oz isn't penalised. About 20% of the youth in Holland have tried weed, compared to over 40% here. Anyone who wants any drug can get it easily. I have perhaps 10-15 different numbers for people who will deliver weed to my door at any time of the night or day. Now, when I can get weed easier and quicker than I can get a pizza delivered to my door you have to wonder if your methods of criminalisation will ever work.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd guess (and only mentioning this because a large amount of uni students use this forum!) a large amount of uni students will try drugs 'harder' than weed whilst there, but I hightly doubt many continue regularly or after they leave? Same with those who smoke weed going onto harder drugs, i doubt that many do. I don't know if I think they should be legalised or not, as they are easy to get hold of as it is
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    Err, the bold is a kind of given. People are always going to abuse drugs, helping them by making drugs more readily available is a good thing how? Some people can take drugs responsibly, but a lot of people don't. If people are abusing chocolate and fast food (look at obesity levels in society) then giving them a ready supply of drugs is going to cripple said society.

    Schools teach a hell of a lot about drugs to kids already, which is a good thing (pretty much everyone tries drugs when they are growing up), but there is still a problem with abuse...
    Yeah you obviously didn't take my point did you. People abuse things all the time, but it doesn't mean the majority of people aren't responsible users. If I want to use drugs responsibly, nobody is stopping me - the law has no moral right to this, there is no natural law against drugs. It's all *******s!

    Also, regarding the gateway thing... if people are curious and want to try drugs then they will, but it doesn't mean that the first one they took caused them to take the others. If anything, that would mean that alcohol or tobacco were the gateway drugs!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    All good arguments and I was thinking if there will ever be a solution, and I don't think there will be. The reason is because it is hard to control human behaviour. You could legailse most drugs if you said purely in moderation or for medicinal use.Alcohol is a classic example, when used evry now and then it is a great job, but too many people take it too far! The same with other drugs, people will always want more and abuse their bodies with it, whether they are legal or not.
    They key then is to try and limit the extreme cases with education, legal control etc....
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

930

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.