On June 02 2011 03:37 VIB wrote: ]I don't know how to answer that without just repeating what I already said. You just didn't understand what I said and is just saying that Wrong + Wrong = Right one more time
We allow tobacco to be legal. That doesn't mean we should allow any kind of crap to be illegal. Duh? There's plenty of people trying to slowly move tobacco to the same side as hard drugs. Would you be more satisfied then? Would that be "fair" to the unjusticed hard drugs who are being victim or racial double standard?
There are plenty of people who don't want tobacco to be illegal it's quite a radical notion to say it is wrong to smoke tobacco. It's unhealthy but we are allowed to have unhealthy things and we don't need to legislate that something is illegal for being unhealthy especially since making tobacco illegal wouldn't "solve" any problems but would create many new ones in the form of cigarette smuggling.
Also what on earth are you talking about when you say racial double standard.
On June 02 2011 04:58 xarthaz wrote: Regulation and decriminalization is one thing. But it is missing the bigger picture IMO. The picture that drugs need to be SUBSIDIZED. Do you know how expensive weed/MDMA is for an average college student. Damn hell it is. And the fact of the matter remains - for a lot of people, with the tough economic situation and corporate wage slavery & low living standards, drugs is the only way to escape the problems of reality, even if only temporarily. Hence, in the interest of public happiness, there need to be heavy subsidization programs and tax benefits for producers of drugs.
Dont let the UN get away by trying to move the issue onto another tangent, we must keep them focused on the REAL problem.
On June 01 2011 23:36 Deadlyfish wrote: There is another reason: it's dangerous. There is a reason tobacco is legal and ecstasy isnt.
I agree that some drugs shouldn't be just 'made legal' (coke, meth, heroin, you get the idea), but I can't take you seriously when you say tobacco isn't dangerous...
Ok, let me rephrase. Ecstasy is TOO dangerous. Obviously both are dangerous.
Stop lying please, that would be really respected.
I have stated earlier, and I'm sure others have as well, tobacco is MORE harmful than ecstasy. Pure MDMA is pretty harmless, as long as you're not doing it all the time (if you do you're stupid).
Oh ok, so my opinion = lying? What.
I think ecstasy is too dangerous. How is that lying?
Or is it lying saying that both ecstasy and tobacco are dangerous?
And no. I've never done any drug and never drank any alcohol. But that is irrelevant anyways. Unless you wanna go ask a junkie about medical science? :D
Edit: And thanks to the guy who linked the source
Hmm. According to him (professor Nutt, lol), alchohol is more dangerous than heroin. And cannabis is more dangerous than meth? I'm sorry, that makes zero sense to me : /
You didn't actually read anything did you? The graph shows harm to others (red) and harm to self (blue) and adds them together. Meth, Heroin and Crack have the largest blue bars, but their red bars are much smaller than alcohol because it does significantly more harm to people around the user than any other drug, which when you think about it makes perfect sense.
And you're right, you never having drunk alcohol or done drugs doesn't make your opinion irrelevant, but it makes it very likely that the majority of information you get about drugs is from the media. Its a two way street though.
Yea i know. He measures 2 different kinds of harm you could say. So in "total harm" alcohol is more dangerous than heroin, and cannabis is more dangerous than Meth, LSD, mushrooms and ecstasy.
I disagree with that. He did also say that this kind of measurement is subjective, so theres that.
But i really like this part:
“direct comparison of the scores for tobacco and alcohol with those of the other (illegal) drugs is not possible, since the fact that they are legal could affect their harms in various ways, especially through easier availability”
Which i think is a very good point.
Why are laws made prohibiting these substances? Because of how badly they harm the individual and more importantly how the harm the society around the individual. I think that's very important to take into account with any sort of legislation.
And yes, direct comparison isn't possible. But we know from countries like portugal, switzerland and to a small extent places like croatia that drug related crime/deaths/illnesses actually go down with de-criminalisation. Mainly because the drugs get made better as the market becomes open, and people are made more aware of the manner in which drugs should be taken and how to be safe without killing yourself.
I just think its disingenuous to say "marijuana is fine but you cross a line with those other drugs" when the scientific evidence is out there to say some of those "harder" drugs are not even as bad for you as pot. It's just opening you up to hypocrisy/a double standard. I speak as a person who hasn't tried anything but alcohol, so I have no bias to any particular drug.
In the end, the libertarian view of us being able to decide what goes in our bodies is the best one, along with the help of proper education and "dissuasion clinics". I always find it funny that when I ask a smoker what do they think about drug criminalization they're all for it, but when I say tobacco should be criminalized as well they say it's "nanny-state ism and against their rights".
Drugs do NOT harm any individual! That is a completely fallacious statement! Drugs are good, as expressed by demonstrated preference. People CHOOSE to use drugs, hence Drugs are GOOD for people!
I think it's hard to argue that things like extasy, meth, heroin etc. are not bad for you. Only a few weeks ago there was an article here in the news about a study which showed that extacy caused the hippocampus area of your brain, responsible for your memory, to shrink alarmingly.
I live in Holland so weed is 'legal' here but I still think anyone who does it is stupid.
Thats all corporatist propaganda to make people keep buying their "designer" drugs. Yeah pay the big corporations for their alcohol n tobacco and help fund their research to "prove" that other drugs are bad.
On June 02 2011 07:45 xarthaz wrote: Thats all corporatist propaganda to make people keep buying their "designer" drugs. Yeah pay the big corporations for their alcohol n tobacco and help fund their research to "prove" that other drugs are bad.
Yeah and 9/11 was and inside job and NASA faked the moon landing. Be my guest if you want to use that stuff but don't use that twisted logic to convince yourself you're not gonna get fucked up.
On June 02 2011 07:45 xarthaz wrote: Thats all corporatist propaganda to make people keep buying their "designer" drugs. Yeah pay the big corporations for their alcohol n tobacco and help fund their research to "prove" that other drugs are bad.
If you want to argue conspiracy theories, you need credible sources and decent arguments to back it up.
While pharmaceutical, tobacco, and alcohol corporations certainly do have a vice grip hold on the drug industry (in fact forms of illegal drugs are prescribed regularly), that doesn't mean heroin, meth, cocaine, and other such drugs aren't dangerous when mis-used:
What is really needed is debate and reason in the classroom. Not shoving facts and misinformation down children's throats; not scare tactics; teach them biology and chemistry, show them the drugs structure, give them case studies and peer-reviewed journals showing the truth behind these drugs. It needs to be taught that mis-use of drugs is bad;
I'm fairly this site does nothing except profit from these little "petition sign ups" and it counts for nothing, but I do agree with ending the war on drugs. In countries where drugs have become legalized their use has actually dropped and it is much easier to treat addicts and thousands of wrongly jailed citizens would be free to live their lives.
On June 01 2011 07:08 Voltaire wrote: Signed. It's time for governments to stop wasting billions of dollars on restricting our personal freedoms.
I agree with this man. Signed.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
What about Salvia or Cannabis or LSD? What about using drugs in the privacy of your own home?
What about that?
Well i'm not a doctor, and obviously there needs to be some drugs that are legal and some that arent, but about those 3...
I could list all the side effects of salvia/LSD but the list is probably too long. Basically you see stuff that isnt real. Would you want someone driving on LSD? Or or owning a gun?
No... what is your point? Do I want someone blackout drunk to drive a car? No. Is it legal? No. Would it be legal to drive on LSD? No. Is it more likely than someone driving blackout drunk? No.
I dont know what to say, as i said i'm not a doctor. But no, i dont want drugs that make people hallucinate made legal.
and yet you can't provide an argument as to why
And you cant make a law that says that "you can only use drugs in your own home". Either drugs are legal or they arent. I dont care if you use them at the parking lot or in your own house.
There already are laws like that. And even if there weren't, they certainly could be made. But there are. So you're wrong.
oh and btw, I would love to see this long list of salvia/LSD side effects. Or even a short list. Plz, inform me.
Ok, would you want heroin made legal? As in everyone could buy it, anytime, anywhere? No. (if you say yes then idk what to say).
no. I never said anything about heroin, afaik we were never talking about Heroin, I brought up specific other drugs.
It's the same reason i dont want LSD made legal. Everyone draws the line somewhere, i'm just a lot more apprehensive than you are.
What reason? You don't have one, that's why you aren't giving one. The reason to not make heroin legal would be that it's extremely harmful and addictive. LSD is not. So how does that reasoning apply to LSD
Sure it's illegal to drive drunk, but people still do it right? And it kills thousands of people each year. I wouldn't want the same to happen with LSD.
First of all, no one on LSD would want to drive. Secondly, if someone wanted to drive on LSD they can do it regardless of whether or not LSD is legal. Thirdly, no one would eeeeverrrr want to drive on LSD.
About the "using drugs in your home thing", we're talking about making it legal to buy drugs right? How does that have anything to do with "only do it in your own house"? There are already places where it's legal to use drugs, places that are setup by the government for that purpose.
Are you suppose to be refuting what I said? Yes, we are talking about making it legal to buy drugs. And if you were worried about people doing said drugs out in public, it could be made so it's only legal to do them in your homes. I don't know what you are talking about.
You can just google the side effects of LSD/salvia, but i can copy paste a few if you'd like...
I did google it just to make sure I was right that there were almost no known side effects that last after the usage. You're about to spout a bunch of unsourced B.S., and/or give me side effects that no one cares about because they happen DURING the trip. Everyone knows you can have bad trips, it's a risk oftaking the drug. But does it have lasting effects, that's what people care about. Salvia has NO known lasting effects, and the only known lasting effect of LSD is that some people can sometimes have flashbacks from strong trips.
It may be that in some very very rare cases hallucinogens can cause mental/psychotic breakdowns but I would expect that has more to do with the person taking it than the drug itself.
psychological or emotional effects such as anxiety, depression, dizziness, disorientation and paranoia.
physical effects such as dilated pupils, lowered body temperature, nausea, vomiting, profuse sweating, rapid heart rate; and convulsions
prolonged anxiety and depression after use of the drug is stopped
changes in mood and sensory perception
Ok. You say you dont want heroin legalized because it is harmful and addictive. That's why i dont want LSD legalized as well. (not addictive, just harmful). You say it isnt harmful, ok. I disagree. You want me to prove it's harmful? I cant. And you cant prove it's not harmful. I can list all the side effects but in the end it just comes down to that you disagree that the side effects arent harmful.What do you want me to say to that?
Under the influence of LSD, the ability to make sensible judgments and see common dangers is impaired
Some LSD users also experience severe, terrifying thoughts and feelings, fear of losing control, fear of insanity and death
From drugs.com/lsd
I think that these side effects is enough reason not to legalize it, you dont.
I dont know if you're gonna say that isnt a reliable source, looks legit to me
Anyways, i gotta sleep now, so i guess i'll just agree to disagree
Some LSD users also experience severe, terrifying thoughts and feelings, fear of losing control, fear of insanity and death
I'm afraid of death when I'm sober. Can we outlaw sobriety ?
On June 01 2011 20:40 methematics wrote: i signed, but i dont like the idea of the UN dictating policy . . .
better them then lobbies aka government. They're not dictating anything either merely suggesting.
On June 01 2011 20:14 JFKWT wrote:
On June 01 2011 19:18 TheSwamp wrote: It's sickening that people would rather sit back and let people die, then let drugs be legal and as safe as possible. This would end not only drugs wars, but also would end all the pointless killings over one crack rock or the dime bag of weed. I love how brainwashed people are. There are just as many legal drugs that are utterly terrible for your health and just as addictive. If you deny that fact, then you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on this subject.
Would you care to name a few?
I would like to see a limited area trial legalisation of such drugs to see the practical consequences.
Originally thought that it would be referring to the war in Iraq... sigh
Tobacco, Alcohol and Benzodiazepines (anti-depressants: Zanax etc..) are worse then allot of the street drugs.
We don't need localized trials, we have already seen it work in Switzerland, the Netherlands and other places.
I also originally tought it was about Iraq but i agree with OP that war on drugs is even more senseless.
Hmm, you got a source of that graph? I'd like to know what the numbers are based on.
Saying that tobacco is more dangerous than ecstasy is just... I dont know, plain wrong? Actually even though i'm not a doctor or anything, i KNOW that isnt true.
Would you be more willing to use ecstasy than to smoke? Do you think it would be better for your health?
I'm not a doctor either, but I KNOW that alcohol is worse than ecstasy. See what I did there ?
Also, yes, I like to take LSD and MDMA, but I never drink alcohol nor smoke anything. Sometimes I bake hash in cookies but I never smoke it.
You know what I love most about taking MDMA instead of smoking ? I can hike, run, climb, swim, bike, ski or work out and my lungs don't collapse after 15 seconds of exercise.
You know what I love most about taking LSD instead of alcohol ? My mind is still as sharp as it was when I was 20. Wanna take a guess what 10 years of alcohol does to your brain ?
On June 02 2011 07:45 xarthaz wrote: Thats all corporatist propaganda to make people keep buying their "designer" drugs. Yeah pay the big corporations for their alcohol n tobacco and help fund their research to "prove" that other drugs are bad.
If you want to argue conspiracy theories, you need credible sources and decent arguments to back it up.
While pharmaceutical, tobacco, and alcohol corporations certainly do have a vice grip hold on the drug industry (in fact forms of illegal drugs are prescribed regularly), that doesn't mean heroin, meth, cocaine, and other such drugs aren't dangerous when mis-used:
What is really needed is debate and reason in the classroom. Not shoving facts and misinformation down children's throats; not scare tactics; teach them biology and chemistry, show them the drugs structure, give them case studies and peer-reviewed journals showing the truth behind these drugs. It needs to be taught that mis-use of drugs is bad;
The war on drugs is perhaps the most ridiculous policy of our time. To be honest I'll miss it if it ends as it's such a crystal clear indicator of the complete corruption, lack of rational thought and short sightedness that it's a go to debate to find out if you're talking to a moron.
Moron: Drugs are bad and should be illegal, drug takers and dealers should be pursued and jailed.
Sanity: I'm done talking to you.
If you think the war on drugs is a good thing you should be denied the right to vote and possible be sterilised. Cruel, but fair.
The Global Commission on Drug Policy report calls for the legalisation of some drugs and an end to the criminalisation of drug users.
The panel includes former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the former leaders of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, and the entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson.
On June 01 2011 03:25 aloT wrote: I do not believe that any harm-minimisation approach to tackling drug issues is good. I guess that the liberal voice is stronger on the internet, but for me the images of failed drug regulation trials (such as free needle-exchanges and the resulting surge of dumps of used needles littering open streets) are much more saddening than anything else.
I am strongly in favour of taking increasingly punitive measurements to tackle drug use, and I do not encourage people to sign this unless you have spent an exhaustive amount of time studying this subject and have an imformed opinion. Harm-reduction stratagies. Do. Not. Work.
Please give me evidence that these strategies do not work. When I was a child I used to see needles laying around in alleyways in my city all the time. Since the advent of a needle exchange program nearly 10 years ago I have seen a drastic reduction in these, In fact I have yet to see a publicly disposed needle in the last 2+ years. Furthermore in Saskatoon Canada, Which has one of the greatest per capita HIV/AIDS infection rates in all of north america, there has been an almost 80% decrease in the number of new cases of HIV/AIDS reported per year since the introduction of needle exchanges. In Vancouver Canada, the introduction of safe inject sites where users are provided clean needles and inject under the supervision of trained nurses has reduced the number of overdoses and new HIV infections drastically in those neighborhoods.
Please don't talk out of your ass when you have no idea whatsoever about the facts of the situation, harm-reduction strategies have been overwhelmingly successful, regardless of the propaganda you spew. Please take your trash somewhere else.
Yeah, gosuMalicE is correct. While this specific article is a little old, it's still relevant: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2008/03/17/ot-needle-080317.html I've read many CBC articles reporting successful needle exchange programs all across Canada. aloT is simply spreading disinformation.
When a thread gets this long, oh how to reply to it all First off, i am a legalization supporter. The most basic essence of being alive is choice. You make good choices, you prosper. If people want to use things in their body, they will have to deal with the consequences. I don't approve of my 3 daughters being FORCED to be drug tested at school randomly. It makes my jaw clench personally.
The real trouble issue for me comes from the nature of prohibition, and the hypocracy it has spawned. Prohibition doesn't just work for criminals. It works for government as well.
Gov outlaws substance A. Intelligence agency and Military start production traffic ring Gov in essence outlaws which it sells so it profits better from sale of Sub A, gets to tax population to incarcerate it's own customers. I could elaborate better, but that's the reality of it in America.
Keywords: CIA drug Trafficing Micheal Ruppert, US Army/ Opium growing.
I find it hilarious that Ron Paul mentions John Kerry as 'heading the investigation'. No wonder it went nowhere. Heh
I did not sign
Edit: I found this for all you prohibition supporters... go BANANAS
The war on drugs is perhaps the most ridiculous policy of our time. To be honest I'll miss it if it ends as it's such a crystal clear indicator of the complete corruption, lack of rational thought and short sightedness that it's a go to debate to find out if you're talking to a moron.
BOOM holy shit most well said opinion on this ever. You win Dapper_Cad
On June 02 2011 10:14 Dapper_Cad wrote: The war on drugs is perhaps the most ridiculous policy of our time. To be honest I'll miss it if it ends as it's such a crystal clear indicator of the complete corruption, lack of rational thought and short sightedness that it's a go to debate to find out if you're talking to a moron.
Moron: Drugs are bad and should be illegal, drug takers and dealers should be pursued and jailed.
Sanity: I'm done talking to you.
If you think the war on drugs is a good thing you should be denied the right to vote and possible be sterilised. Cruel, but fair.
You're as closed minded as the people who you say shouldn't be able to vote and sterilized. Some people choose not to do drugs because they are illegal, can you blame them for being law abiding citizens? There is nothing wrong with either your opinion or the opinion of the "moron" you quote. Except the moron probably won't ask for you to be sterilized.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/publications/theglobe/globe201003/gl201003_p5f1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)
