Should Congress Legalize ALL Drugs, Including Meth?

[PatekPhilippe]

(((yawn)))

 

[Shogun]

that's what I said after reading your post too, tough guy.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

(((pfffffaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrtttttt))) (((Belch)))

 

[Shogun]

Is that the reaction you are used to seeing after you participate in a thread? Can't say that I'm shocked.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

that's what I said after reading your post too, tough guy.

Lighten up...stop trying to pick an eFight....it's quite childish.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Is that the reaction you are used to seeing after you participate in a thread? Can't say that I'm shocked.

You mean this reaction?

I would bet a pinky toe that you are not, yourself, totally drug free. Bravo on your e-thug reaction though. I know I'M impressed by the tough guy act.

No...it's not entirely unexpected from someone like you....I've seen some of your posts pal....and you are no saint.

 

[Shogun]

yea.... I know.. I call for the deaths of people all the time for activity such as smoking a bowl of marijuana.




sure thing, kid.

 

[Bern80]

I am definitely of two minds on this subject.

On the one hand I totally agree with Kevin and the argument for self determination in regards to ones own body.

But on the other hand, as a person who struggled with nicotine addiction, I know first hand how difficult it was to break the cycle of addiction.

But as a smoker, I could still function as a productive member of society.

Addiction to the harder drugs often impairs a persons ability to function in society, causing their lives to spiral out of control.

Unemployed but still addicted, these people often turn to crime to feed their addiction.

And that is where there personal freedom interferes with my rights.

So, while I would be open to legalizing marijuana and some prescription drugs, we'll need to find a way to negate the effects of addiction before I can in good conscience endorse the legalization of all drugs.

This is exactly where the entire concept of freedom comes into play. One could argue, (not that I am here neccessarily) that if you can't except the negative consequences or will only accept it with some caveats, then you aren't really for freedom in the first place.

The argument we shouldn't legalize the hard drugs because of what an addict might do while he's high just doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider the laws for analogous things. We don't ban all guns because of what someone MIGHT do to someone else with one (though many argue we should ban them for that reason). We punish the PERSON when they behave irresponsibly with one. I don't know why we wouldn't do the same where drugs are concerned. Just like guns people will know there are consequences to misusing them. The health risks, the legal risks, etc.

When you shoot a gun, bern, do you physically fiend to shoot another bullet? Seriously, all this talk from people who don't know about the subject they are talking about cracks me up. I mean, really dude. When you go hunting do feel physically compelled to keep killing after your first blood? I can assure you that after snorting your first line of good coke you WILL scheme for more. Your analogies need some work.

I understand there is an addiction component to drugs not inherent to guns. But doesn't that go back to my orginal point (which you agreed with)? Why should we make laws protecting people from their own stupid behavior? Doing meth is a stupid behavior, a likely consequence of which is addiction. Yes I understand an addiction can get to the point where it's barely even a choice anymore to keep using. But it sure as hell is a choice to start in the first place. AND as you alluded to before everyone is going to be afected differently by the use of those drugs. Some have more addictive personalities than others. The best way I can say it is sometimes you can't choose to break an addiction, but you sure as hell can choose to start one.

 

[Shogun]

This is exactly where the entire concept of freedom comes into play. One could argue, (not that I am here neccessarily) that if you can't except the negative consequences or will only accept it with some caveats, then you aren't really for freedom in the first place.

The argument we shouldn't legalize the hard drugs because of what an addict might do while he's high just doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider the laws for analogous things. We don't ban all guns because of what someone MIGHT do to someone else with one (though many argue we should ban them for that reason). We punish the PERSON when they behave irresponsibly with one. I don't know why we wouldn't do the same where drugs are concerned. Just like guns people will know there are consequences to misusing them. The health risks, the legal risks, etc.

When you shoot a gun, bern, do you physically fiend to shoot another bullet? Seriously, all this talk from people who don't know about the subject they are talking about cracks me up. I mean, really dude. When you go hunting do feel physically compelled to keep killing after your first blood? I can assure you that after snorting your first line of good coke you WILL scheme for more. Your analogies need some work.

I understand there is an addiction component to drugs not inherent to guns. But doesn't that go back to my orginal point (which you agreed with)? Why should we make laws protecting people from their own stupid behavior? Doing meth is a stupid behavior, a likely consequence of which is addiction. Yes I understand an addiction can get to the point where it's barely even a choice anymore to keep using. But it sure as hell is a choice to start in the first place. AND as you alluded to before everyone is going to be afected differently by the use of those drugs. Some have more addictive personalities than others. The best way I can say it is sometimes you can't choose to break an addiction, but you sure as hell can choose to start one.

because that very addictive behavior equates to a broader social reaction. Again, I don't care if a coke head is in his house fiending for coke. But, until you've sold coke to fiending cokeheads who knock at your door at 4am trying to score another gram after stealing money for it.. well... My concern is the social manifestations of coke and how they would reflect on pot's legalization even though it's not pot heads out robbing grannies for coke money. I bring up the physical component to illustrate the differences between both substances AND THE SOCIAL REACTIONS OF THEIR USERS, respectively. Again, I don't care about a fiending coke fiend who stays his ass in his own house and doesn't actively search for more coke come hell or high water. But, I've dealt with enough coked out motherfuckers to know that this is not the reaction, generally, to being out of coke... nor the desperate options a coke fiend will take in order to score more coke. The illegal nature of crack is not what makes crack such a horrible drug. AND, when comparing it to pot via some generalized "legalize all drugs" talking point there is not clarification between the broader social results of legalization. I have no doubt that a society where coke and meth are legal would degrade. The same cannot be said for pot.

enjoy some levity.
Master Debaters: Pot vs Meth // Current

 

[Wry Catcher]

Some thoughts on Marijauan and the law...
Marijuana is a schedule I drug. Schedule I drugs are deemed (by Federal Law) to have no medicinal value and, therefore, may not be legally prescribed, possessed, used, etc. in the United States.
If Marijuana were to be removed from Schedule I, and the possession, growth, use, sale, etc. is left to the seveal states, revenue used for enforcement would go down, and revenue in terms of taxes or licenses would increase.
Much as alcohol is restricted by the several states, so might Marijuana.
Health risks are associated with the use of alcohol and tobacco; health risks exist for the smoking of marijuana too. I've read no studies on how brownies seasoned with Marijuana effect ones long term health.
Ask any cop if he would rather deal with a drunk or a stoner (100% will say the stoner).
Testing for the use of THC (the active element in marijuana) is as accurate today as testing for alcohol.
Why is tobacco not a schedule I drug?

 

[Missourian]

I am definitely of two minds on this subject.

On the one hand I totally agree with Kevin and the argument for self determination in regards to ones own body.

But on the other hand, as a person who struggled with nicotine addiction, I know first hand how difficult it was to break the cycle of addiction.

But as a smoker, I could still function as a productive member of society.

Addiction to the harder drugs often impairs a persons ability to function in society, causing their lives to spiral out of control.

Unemployed but still addicted, these people often turn to crime to feed their addiction.

And that is where there personal freedom interferes with my rights.

So, while I would be open to legalizing marijuana and some prescription drugs, we'll need to find a way to negate the effects of addiction before I can in good conscience endorse the legalization of all drugs.

But isn't this kind of like the gun argument? If we outlaw guns, outlaws will be the only ones with guns because they will still find a way to get them.

Drugs being illegal certainly isn't stopping those who want them, from obtaining them.

That's a very astute analogy Paulie...carried a step further, guns like drugs have been misused by a minority of citizens to cause harm to society.

That misused plagues the conscience of those that support gun rights, but at the same time you cannot legislate based on the exception, to the detriment of law abiding citizens.

I'll have to give your observation some serious thought, but already I am leaning towards changing my vote.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

yea.... I know.. I call for the deaths of people all the time for activity such as smoking a bowl of marijuana.




sure thing, kid.

Thanks for proving my point. Your intelligence is evidenced by your immature reply...perhaps you should put down the bong now and step back into reality.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Anyone who actively seeks out drugs for a "high" has got other issues they need to be dealing with. Personally I could care less if they removed pot from the schedule 1 drug list. If kids want to smoke it let them...they will end up dying from it one way or another.

 

[Bern80]

When you shoot a gun, bern, do you physically fiend to shoot another bullet? Seriously, all this talk from people who don't know about the subject they are talking about cracks me up. I mean, really dude. When you go hunting do feel physically compelled to keep killing after your first blood? I can assure you that after snorting your first line of good coke you WILL scheme for more. Your analogies need some work.

I understand there is an addiction component to drugs not inherent to guns. But doesn't that go back to my orginal point (which you agreed with)? Why should we make laws protecting people from their own stupid behavior? Doing meth is a stupid behavior, a likely consequence of which is addiction. Yes I understand an addiction can get to the point where it's barely even a choice anymore to keep using. But it sure as hell is a choice to start in the first place. AND as you alluded to before everyone is going to be afected differently by the use of those drugs. Some have more addictive personalities than others. The best way I can say it is sometimes you can't choose to break an addiction, but you sure as hell can choose to start one.

because that very addictive behavior equates to a broader social reaction. Again, I don't care if a coke head is in his house fiending for coke. But, until you've sold coke to fiending cokeheads who knock at your door at 4am trying to score another gram after stealing money for it.. well... My concern is the social manifestations of coke and how they would reflect on pot's legalization even though it's not pot heads out robbing grannies for coke money. I bring up the physical component to illustrate the differences between both substances AND THE SOCIAL REACTIONS OF THEIR USERS, respectively. Again, I don't care about a fiending coke fiend who stays his ass in his own house and doesn't actively search for more coke come hell or high water. But, I've dealt with enough coked out motherfuckers to know that this is not the reaction, generally, to being out of coke... nor the desperate options a coke fiend will take in order to score more coke. The illegal nature of crack is not what makes crack such a horrible drug. AND, when comparing it to pot via some generalized "legalize all drugs" talking point there is not clarification between the broader social results of legalization. I have no doubt that a society where coke and meth are legal would degrade. The same cannot be said for pot.

enjoy some levity.
Master Debaters: Pot vs Meth // Current

Undoublty instances like that will occur. Will their be more of that type of societal impact if said drugs were legal? Probablly not much if at all because an awful lot of people commit those acts on society already when the drugs are illegal. To believe that there would be a drastic increase in that type of societal impact woud require a belief that the only thing keeping an awful lot of people from using drugs is the legality of it. I just don't buy that. I just don't think a lot of people are on the fence about drug use because they fear getting caught. Despite these hard drugs being illegal they remain fairly easy to acquire in terms of avoiding the law.

 

[Shogun]

indeed, cocaine feels GREAT. If it were legal, more people would use it. Likewise, we saw more people use alcohol after prohibition was lifted. The assumption that drug users are already using on par with use after legalization is absurd. What kept Joe Blow from drinking a beer after work during prohibition? the legality. Once legal, the door to the stall opens and more people use than those willing to leap through black market hoops to use. You think the majority of binge drinking college kids WONT snort a legal line before going to the bar and conveying how responsible they are with legal alcohol? Come on, dude. And thats just one example. Every time you see the growing market trend of energy drinks go ahead and remind yourself that this is exactly the pattern that would happen were coke legal.

 

[Oddball]

Deliberately deceptive wording of the question.

The feds no longer prosecuting their stupid and failed "war" on (some) drugs would not be defacto legalization....That decision would be left to the several states.

Even though there is no federal policy prohibiting the sales of liquor, there are still dry counties. Also, you still cannot drink without ordering food unless you're in a "private club" in the whole state of Utah.

 

[Luissa]

Anyone who actively seeks out drugs for a "high" has got other issues they need to be dealing with. Personally I could care less if they removed pot from the schedule 1 drug list. If kids want to smoke it let them...they will end up dying from it one way or another.

besides maybe causing a car accident while stoned, tell me one way someone will die from marijuana?

 

[DiamondDave]

It doesn't matter what the substance is, or what the reactions to that substance are. If it's your body you should be able to do whatever you want to it.

Nothing is stopping you from doing them now.. you want to, go for it... however, you get caught you pay the piper with society's price...

I like the status quo... no legalizing other bad substances/drugs that are currently illegal...

What right does "society" have to tell me I can't do drugs?

No one is saying you can't, even if it is illegal.. except that if you are caught, you pay society's punishment for an action that is detrimental to society.. and yes, the use of drugs by you individually has more of a scope than someone just sitting and smoking their pot while whacking off into a cheetos bag in mommy's basement

 

[DiamondDave]

Anyone who actively seeks out drugs for a "high" has got other issues they need to be dealing with. Personally I could care less if they removed pot from the schedule 1 drug list. If kids want to smoke it let them...they will end up dying from it one way or another.

besides maybe causing a car accident while stoned, tell me one way someone will die from marijuana?

Then tell me ways people will die from cigarettes? Funny, laws against smoking them in public now... and ways someone will die from drinking 4 beers, oh wait, illegal to drive after that many beers now...

The fact is that you can hinder the freedoms of others, like with cigarettes if you smoke in public... the fact is that you can also become impaired as much or more-so than people using alcohol...

Besides you or someone else wanting to get high.. there is no reason to legalize this drug (and don't give me the debunked medicinal argument.. when we have nebulized and ingested drugs such as Marinol that already give the beneficial effects that are sought after without having the high or the smoking delivery system that is never approved by the FDA)

 

[Paulie]

This whole debate is moot.

Heroin is already legal. It's called opioids.

Meth is already legal. It's called Adderall.

Oh yeah, that's different though, because some pharmaceutical company gets to sell it as a pill to 'treat' you.

Drugs aren't illegal because they hurt you. They're illegal because the street forms are competition.

Not to invoke Godwin's law, but you make a great point Paulie. Heroin without the high is legal as you said, it's called Methadone for example.

Just to give everyone a idea, it was developed by Nazi Germany and they use to test it on people then not give it to them to see the withdrawal effect which is brutal.

You don't understand. Opioids are opium-derived pain killing medications.

Percocet, Vicodin, etc.

They're basically heroin in a pill, with a little acetaminophen added.

And Adderall is an amphetamine based pill given to little kids who have "ADD". I've taken them before. The effects are the exact same thing as taking speed.