In your opinion which of the following drugs should be legal?

[nickshepDEM]

Alcohol
LSD
GHB, Roofies, etc.
Cocaine
Marijuana
Extacy
Meth
Heroin
Anabolic Steroids


I say, Alcohol, Marijuana, and Steroids. All three should be legal, regulated, and taxed. My basic rule of thumb is... Can someone OD on the first try? If the answer is yes, I do not support legalising that particular drug. Of course there are exceptions (alcohol).

[YOY]

1. Just Marijuana

The others can cause long term physical or mental addiction and/or mental damage...but outlawing alchohol is just stupid at this point in time.

[Webster Green]

15. The fact that they are addicting shouldn't matter...

If the substances lose their black market status, and become readily available and cheap, then aquiring a habit isn't that big of a deal.

Who gives a shit if somebody wants to self medicate, as long as they aren't stealing your TeeVee?

[Zynx]

16. Why should we want cocaine to be readily available?

How does that help matters in this country?

[Webster Green]

22. Eliminates the black market...

Gone is the intrique, glamour, profit, and the absurd criminal penalties.

Harm reduction is what it's called. The real problems with drugs are the laws against them.

We would all be a lot better off if folks justlearned to mind their own beeswax!

[Zynx]

25. I would say it may be worth an experiment, but we only have one

population to experiment with. I am convinced that usage would increase because prices would drop so much and it would be so readily available since corporations would take advantage of the profit potential.

[bee]

91. I sincerely doubt that under gov't control, the prices of drugs

would drop. And its not like millions of people who dont do drugs now would suddenly be running out to buy a bag of coke. The drug culture is not a group of seedy city junkies as the gov't would like people to think. All that would increase is the "peoples" awareness of how popular and wide-reaching casual drug use already is.

[High Plains]

123. Uh, cocaine IS readily available in this country...

...and after decades of war on drugs, it is cheaper than ever.

Legalize it, regulate it, tax it. Expect to use some of the profits to deal with people who mess themselves up on it. Still better than making gangsters rich, corrupting our police forces, destroying our Constitution, imprisoning half a million people, and creating structural violence, all of which we get with prohibition.

[BlueCaliDem]

140. You Are SO Right...

...but I doubt the CIA will be happy with this since they make a helluva lot more with it being illegal!

My vote: Alcohol, Cocaine and Marijuana should be legalized, regulated, and taxed.

[YOY]

24. Th efew Cokeheads I've had the displeasure of knowing have no problem with

stealing a TV...I can't imagine legality making them any less of douchebags.

Addicts have problems. They deserve to be treated safely and with respect and not as criminals. Although we can say that they're not hurting anyone but themselves, abusers of certain chemicals are simply not responsible and would not become magically more responsible by suddenly having legal hobbies instead of illegal.

[Zynx]

26. Indeed. Addiction is one of the great human illnesses.

It is a sad and depressing aspect of human existence.

[Webster Green]

31. Um...Yeah, that's why harm reduction is a better solution than jail,

The drug wars you favor do not achieve the goals you seek. De-criminalization, de-mystification, de-glamorization, and education would yield better results, and this has been shown to be true where it's been tried.

[Zynx]

35. I don't favor jail for users. I favor MANDATORY rehab.

They have ruined their lives once and deserve a second chance. However, repeat offenses begin to try my patience. I have a very negative view of repeat addicts.

[High Plains]

125. Ah, the Soviet psychiatric model...

Mandatory rehab = forced treatment, no?

Are you talking about all drug users? The stockbroker who toots a few lines on Saturday night? The college kids puffing away on the bong?

I say no forced treatment except for people who have demonstrated an inability to handle their drugs, ie who have committed some sort of crime, kind of like making drunk drivers attend AA.

But as a general rule, forced treatment is a perversion of the medical profession.

[ProudDad]

137. You don't know what you're talking about.

[High Plains]

144. And you do?

Wow, that was a devastating critique of my position. Let me catch my breath.

[High Plains]

145. Oops, sorry proud dad...

Looks look I was taking umbrage when your comments weren't aimed at me.

[Webster Green]

28. Whatever, dude....but their numbers would surely decrease...

That's what happens when you de-criminalize the stuff. I would find some links to back that statement up, but I'm too fucking stoned. Google if you like.

[ProudDad]

136. You don't know what you're talking about.

[MercutioATC]

30. Marijuana doesn't carry the risk of mental addiction?

...news to me...

[Webster Green]

33. You can't be fucking serious...

Mental addiction my ass. That's just DEA bullshit.

Pot is as harmless as it gets.

Try some today kids...it's good for you!

[MercutioATC]

36. I have a few fried ex-friends that don't seem to have gotten off so easy..

The whole "evil pot" thing aside, ANYTHING you enjoy doing (especially things that alter brain chemistry) have a good potential for some type of mental addiction.

It's just a fact.

[Webster Green]

39. Well yeah, but who gives a shit?

I like it, it's harmless, I do it.

You can call anything that someone really, really, really likes, a mental addiction. The term is meaningless.

This is really about minding your own fucking business, and not feeling the need to police everyone's mental fucking addictions.

Don't you have a hobby or something.

[MercutioATC]

86. Seems the pot is making you a little defensive...

...or are you usually that way?

[renie408]

88. I thought pot was just supposed to give you the munchies....n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

92. It seems to be making you just a tad touchy.

Maybe you need to find some of the mellower stuff, or maybe some of that poppy tea.:shrug:

[renie408]

69. You are reaching

I don't think we should ban anything that people might find enjoyable.

[MercutioATC]

87. Some people enjoy pedophelia.

No, I'm not equating smoking pot with having sex with little kids, but "I don't think we should ban anything that people might find enjoyable." doesn't make a lot of sense.

[laugle]

160. Your post is right on the money,

like we really need more things to be addicted to.

Anyone who has had a friend or family member addicted, and I have, knows the dangers of all of the above.

But as they say "choose your own poison."

[Crunchy Frog]

58. Actually, I personally know two people (one of them my brother)

who were mentally addicted to pot and readily admitted it (at least in my brothers case, the other case was rather obvious). You can be mentally addicted to anything, even pot.

[YOY]

63. See the movie "Half Baked"

Yes, it's drug humor but it's actually rather insightful into potheads.

One scene that comes to mind is when the lead characher Thurgood (Dave Chapelle) goes to an Addicts Anonymous meeting and after hearing horror story after horror story of addiction to hard drugs introduces himself and says that he is addicted to pot.

The others laugh him out of the room. One character played by (believe it or not) Bob Saget shouts at him:

"Marijuana is not a drug. I used to suck d*** for coke. Now that's an addiction. You ever suck some d*** for marijuana?"

Assuming your brother is straight I'm pretty sure he and your other case have never gone to that level for his "addiction."

Now being stuck in a rut and feeling helpless...MJ doesn't really help that and it is not difficult to stop at all (been there myself.) The only thing someone "addicted to marijuana" needs to do is to get up off their ass and know when to smoke or when not to smoke. It's a easy judgement call and you don't get the shakes or hardcore cravings when you stop. You just stop.

Interestingly enough at the end of the movie Thurgood does just that...for a pretty good reason.

[Crunchy Frog]

75. I bet nobody ever sucked dick for a cigarette either,

but nicotine is still recognized as a highly physically addictive substance. Caffiene is too for that matter. My brother was plenty familiar with harder stuff too, and he did go to some sort of addicts anonymous group.

The real world isn't a movie. It has shades of grey in it, while movies tend to see things in black and white. Movies also tend to come from a particular belief system, which may or may not correlate completely with the real world.

My brother did eventually quit, and no, it wasn't easy. As for the other pot addict, he very definitely was an addict and it frankly wouldn't surprise me if he would have sucked dick for some pot. I know that he did get cravings and become very restless when he couldn't get it for awhile. Pot's not supposed to be physically addictive, but that guy kind of made me wonder. I don't know whether he eventually kicked it or not. I had another friend at the time who smoked almost as much, and I do not believe that he was addicted. He didn't seem to need it in the same way.

Anyway, thanks for the movie description but I'll probably go elsewhere for insights on dependency issues.

[YOY]

80. Actually the film's humor used is rather insightful...as humor often is

and I've seen more of the real world, foreign and domestic, than most would care to fathom. Just because I used a comedic film doesn't mean I cannot differentiate reality from fantasy. I am 31 one years old and live in the real world. Please don't insult me with an assumption that I don't because I used a comedic film as a source of insight to supplement both my personal experience as well as that I have witnessed.

I think there are a lot more to both of your stories that either you don't disclose (and I wouldn't ask you to) or don't know about. I highly doubt the second 'addict' would have sucked d*** for pot...unless he was bi/gay and the pot was a secondary motivation. It just sounds like he was a lazy bum who needed to get off his tail and do something worthwhile. There are plenty of escapists like that and they don't all use drugs.

As a smoker I know what addiction is. I have quit so many times only to come right back to the cornerstore to buy another pack. I, like several others I know, quit smoking pot rather easily. There were no cravings. I have know quite a few others like this.

and please ignore the other poster to your earlier thread. He has issues as far as I'm concerned.

[Telly Savalas]

131. Having quit both...

I can corroborate your argument that pot and nicotine aren't just apples and oranges, but more like elephants and Nerf footballs.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sendero]

74. Dude...

... the very definition of "additiction" is when you are using something to the extent it is messing with your life - and you can't stop.

If you've never known anyone who fits that description, with pot, then you must be a hermit.

Pot is definitely psychologically addicting. I've known hordes of folks addicted to it.

That said, it should be legal - making it illegal has done nothing to prevent those who get carried away with it.

[High Plains]

126. Yeah, I was "mentally addicted" to pot, too...

...then I quit smoking it. Not that tough to do. No withdrawls, no jonesing, nothing. So now, I smoke pot when I feel like it, and don't smoke pot when I don't feel like it.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think addiction is largely a crock. Ya don't wanna do drugs anymore? Stop doin' 'em.

[laugle]

161. Yea, but could you give it up totally?

[High Plains]

170. Well, I have for several extended periods of time...

so I suppose I could. I mean, I don't really notice any ill effects from not smoking it, no withdrawls, no great urgings to go out and mug somebody so I can score, nothing like that.

Not that I want to give it up totally. That's kind of the point. Drug use doesn't have to be an absolutist abstinence or junkiedom kind of thing. For most people it isn't.

[newspeak]

156. well for that matter

you can be mentally addicted to food. You can mentally addicted to a lot of things....television, video games, books.

[montana500]

149. Pot can be addicting

No quesiton about it. I think it should be legal, but lets not kid ourselves that it can't be hard to stop doing for some people.

[newspeak]

162. funny you should say that

everyone of my friends, and of course, Louie Armstrong, quit pot with no problem. unlike say cigarettes.

[newspeak]

163. okay psych 101

two drugs that don't cause degeneration in your brain-that actually enhance your synoptic connection-marijuana and morphine; however, morphine is physically addicting.

[YOY]

34. It's really not...at least not to me or anyone I know who has smoked it

I used to smoke a lot. I quit without a second thought. Then again I did not need it as a crutch, some may.

Acid isn't addicting at all. Tried it once, have no desire to ever try it again.

Cigarettes on the other hand...I smoke 1/2 a pack a day and have quit umpteen times. As much as I hate smoking and want to quit I keep going back to buy another pack. This is mental addiction...annoying mental addiction.

[Pepperbelly]

68. why would it be anyone else's business anyway?

Particularly a few jake-legged, corrupt Congressmen...

[mopinko]

104. my mental addiction to mj

i tried for 10 years to quit. relapsed, quit, relapsed, quit, yada yada. got extremely grumpy and edgy when i ran out. looked like an addict, thought like and addict. thought i was an addict.
then i found out that i had been sick with fibromyalgia for most of my adult life, and figured out that mj helped me sleep, and lessened my symptoms. got real medicine that actually made me mostly better, and nearly forgot to keep smoking.
it's a complicated herb. good for many things. and like all good meds, you feel bad when you don't take it. is that the same as addicted?

[lildreamer316]

44. WRONG.

X does not demonstrably cause long term damage to the brain and has not been proven without a doubt to be addictive(see below). They jury is still WAY out on that. And before you cite the "holes in the brain"theory, that scientist was discredited because he was injecting the test monkeys with methamphetamines instead of MDMA.
It was originally developed in 1912 as a psychoanalytical drug and was only classified Schedule one in the mid 1980's.
Peter Jennings did a very educational and balanced report last year about this called PETER JENNINGS - ECSTASY RISING. The erowid link leads to a description of it.Erowid states:" MDMA has the potential to be psychologically addicting. Individuals who use it regularly may find they have an increased desire to continue using it."http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_basics.shtml
Many studies alternately disagree and agree with this. I will peruse the web for the disagreeing info if you want me to back that up.In personal experience, the ppl I know who were "addicted" just happened to pick this drug for the moment. Most ppl I know who are into drugs (I'm a stripper; I do see a variety) eventually drop it for coke or something else. It never seems to be more that a year or so of straight addiction,and to be honest does a LOT less damage to their lives (emotionally) than coke & etc(IN THE LONG RUN). I have one girlfriend who has ruined her life on coke--she liked x for about 2 years on and off; but always came back to the coke addiction. THAT monkey never seems to leave anyone. I'll tell you why they can't stay on x either--you see the world too clearly; and yourself. Some ppl can't handle that much self knowledge. One of the best truth drugs I've ever seen.

http://www.ecstasy.org/
http://www.dancesafe.org/slideshow/
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_media1.shtml

The only problem with x is that it is cut with other things (NOT STRICK9 like the urban myth says!) and THAT can cause alot of problems...that we wouldn't have if it was LEGAL. The only deaths mainly associated with it is because some idiot raver dancers forgot to DRINK WATER when they were dancing and sweating. Duh. Of course, the moderation rule always applies. And,as with all drugs, some people just shouldn't do them. I personally don't like marijuana because 1) I don't smoke ANYTHING and 2)all it does is put me to sleep and make me slow. Oooh fun.
I have had friends who have had problems for a few months after they stopped doing x. But they were doing it every night or every weekend. Their mistake for misusing a drug (surprise surprise) and back to the fact that it was not pure. Both of these problems have a better chance of being eliminated or reduced if said drug was legal.
Please read Peter McWilliams "AIN'T NOBODY'S BUSINESS IF YOU DO
The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Country" sometime. Or just check out parts online for free: http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/
Not flaming or ranting, just thought I would offer a different point of view.I like to challenge propaganda wherever I find it.

[YOY]

46. I've heard some of that too...but have and want no experience with X

No need to be rude about it.

[lildreamer316]

49. Not trying to be rude

Please understand that this misconception is very very very rampant (think FOX news rampant) and can actually cause alot of problems within families and friends of people who use this drug or experiment with it. X is actually, for many, a very helpful drug. Many terminally ill patients have achieved a higher level of peace and understanding with their loved ones through this drug, as marijuana has helped many of the same. I so hate to see the quick dismissal of something that has helped me, and several others that I know, to a better understanding of myself, my ego, and motivations; and my love for others. It is a very personal thing for me.
Really, no offense to you intended; I would like to open a few minds--but not trying to convert! It is just so easy for many to view it negitively.
Peace

[YOY]

54. I understand and no offense taken

It's the ALL CAPS (aka shouting) that wounds...maybe I'm just too sensitive. :shrug:

I've never heard of an "X addict" per say or of any deaths related (other than dehydration) to X and being cut with other far more dangerous substances. I've also never heard of anyone assaulting another just to buy more X. I find that the more ridiculous the anti-drug ads the more harmless in reality is the substance...an the anti-X ones are fairly ridiculous.

There are destructive drugs and those that are less harmful than alcohol. If you can do it responsibly, go for it. Not my scene personally though.

[lildreamer316]

60. My bad

I get kina enthusiastic and also tired of having to repeatedly debunk some propaganda. You know how it is. Thanks for understanding; and I need to realize how I come off sometimes.

[renie408]

84. I am sorry, I don't understand

"Some people cannot handle that much self-knowledge"??

Wow. That just sounds...crazy to me. You are seriously trying to tell me that I must not be able to handle the grasp on myself that X would provide because I choose not to use it?? Or that using drugs gives you special insight into...what?

Again, I don't care if you use it or not, but PLEASE don't try to glorify its use. I don't think I am any better than anyone else because I don't use drugs. I have a KFC addiction which has left me overweight and underhealthy. It is my comfort drug of choice. I am not going around saying you are not capable of feeling real serenity until you indulge in the glory of Original Recipe and mashed potatoes and gravy. I am not trying to make myself feel better about my habits by glorifying them.

[lildreamer316]

133. No, I was not clear.

Whoa, Nelly. Either I was not clear or you misunderstood; I am sorry. This has nothing to do with people who have never tried the drug and do not want to.I was referring to the people(usually other drug users) who have tried it it and didn't like it. I have seen a consistent pattern of druggies who said they liked x for awhile (usually followed by tales of ridiculous overuse of the drug) and now don't like it. Why? "Well; I just don't." or " I didn't get anything off it."
Well, the point is not to "get something off it"; it is to open your awareness. To put it simply, you drop your ego. Therefore, you see things about yourself in a clear light. Many people who have been abusive of other drugs such as coke and alcohol are trying to run away from themselves. X won't let you do that after the first few times. Therefore it scares the shit out of them; and they don't like it. It is rare that you will find someone who has done x for any extended period of time that abuses any other drug (except the occasional weekend party drinks).
Is that clearer? Please calm down; I am NEVER advocating that anyone should try it. I just want you to understand the propoganda surrounding it.

[Nederland]

51. Not all would agree

I'm not definitively saying that X does cause long term brain damage, I'm just saying the jury is nowhere near out on the subject.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/MedAdv/99/NR-614b.html

<snip>

The designer drug "Ecstasy," or MDMA, causes long-lasting damage to brain areas that are critical for thought and memory, according to new research findings in the June 15 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience. In an experiment with red squirrel monkeys, researchers at The Johns Hopkins University demonstrated that 4 days of exposure to the drug caused damage that persisted 6 to 7 years later. These findings help to validate previous research by the Hopkins team in humans, showing that people who had taken MDMA scored lower on memory tests.

"The serotonin system, which is compromised by MDMA, is fundamental to the brain's integration of information and emotion," says Dr. Alan I. Leshner, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institutes of Health, which funded the research. "At the very least, people who take MDMA, even just a few times, are risking long-term, perhaps permanent, problems with learning and memory."

<snip>

[lildreamer316]

53. This study

is the one that I think was debunked. Let me do some research and I will get back to you.

On Edit: this is from the Peter Jennings report I referenced in above post. This scientist was debunked.

George Ricaurte & Johns Hopkins
One of the clearest losers in this story was Dr. George Ricaurte, who has had a really bad year. At the top of the NIDA-funded heap for ecstasy brain damage research until last year, he suffered a huge loss when it was discovered that his 2002 "single dose of ecstasy causes Parkinson's" paper was invalid because his lab gave methamphetamine to the primates instead of MDMA. Since the disclosure of this failure in fall 2003, Ricaurte and his lab have been criticized by dozens of newspapers and many of his previous findings have come under harsher scrutiny. The Peter Jennings special not only mentioned this failure, but also used a large segment to cover criticisms of past work from the Ricaurte lab.

After illustrating scientific problems with his work and making it clear that the expert scientific community no longer considers his early brain-damage scans valid, they showed stock footage of Ricaurte and said that he declined to comment or participate in the program. Evidence mounted through the show that the "holes in the brain" meme the government has been pushing for the last five years was based on faulty science and political motives. It seemed as if Ecstasy Rising signaled the beginning of the end of the ecstasy "holes in the brain" scare story.

[intheflow]

2. You forgot tobacco.

And what the hell is GHB? If it was GWB, then I'd say it should absolutely be prohibited. :evilgrin:

[YOY]

4. GBH is yet another rave drug

http://www.projectghb.org/what_is_ghb.htm

Also known as liquid acid.

[Webster Green]

13. Liquid acid?

That's LSD, the use of which should not only be legal, but mandatory.

[YOY]

20. Just a nickname I've heard

I've also heard liquid exctacy.

[nickshepDEM]

8. I think its a form of 'Date Rape Drug'.

[Angry Girl]

9. GHB is one of the date-rape drugs and VERY bad for you. n/t

[BuddhaGirl]

155. GHB can be bad if misused

like many other things. Used responsibly it can be a lot of fun, so I've heard ;-)

[GreenArrow]

3. probably all

except meth, which exists largely due to the illegality of the others.

What is GBH? NOt familiar with that, so can't say.

Coke is on the list twice.

[Clarkie1]

5. pot, alcohol. n/t

[Mend]

6. I would like them all decriminalized, with treatment

centers, free of course, in every town in America. High quality care plus extemely intense research into the causes and cures of addiciton, and all the mental illnesses that lead people to substance abuse.

[Zynx]

14. So people legally get destroyed on drugs and my tax dollars pay for

them to get better with no consequences for them upon repeat offenses? Am I understanding this correctly? I favor treatment for users, but it is legally mandated with consequences for repeat offenses in the form of monetary fines. Dealers, in my opinion, are the lowest form of life and should be jailed whenever found. When I think of the tens of thousands that die every year in the drug trade in this country and in the rest of the world I get very angry at the scum that distributes this junk.

[Webster Green]

19. Bull!

Most of the problems would disappear if all the idiotic laws were repealed. The crime and violence stem from the substances being black market items.

Drug overdoses would decrease with proper dosage control and education.

No attempt to control drugs ever works to diminish their use.

God gave us these various plants to use, and our brains are wired up with receptors to take advantage of the amazing capabilities of the psychotropic and narcotic substances.

We should thank God for these plants, and use them as much as possible.

[Zynx]

21. You have a fundamentally different philosophy than I do.

I have no confidence in the vast majority of people to treat drugs responsibly just as they don't treat alcohol responsibly now. The last thing we need is for people to be able to go down to their local pharmacy and buy cocaine and LSD for $20.00 and go out and "have a good time". Most of these drugs have their effects because they are varying grades of poison. Drug addicts are burdens on society and the last thing we need is for coke addicts to become as common as drunks.

Cocaine fields, if gone after heavily enough, would cease to exist and it would no longer be worth the risk of the drug cartels to produce it. The same goes for heroin. The others are nearly impossible to control in this method, but we could make a larger effort in some areas. It is not to society's benefit for more people to slump into addiction than already are.

[Webster Green]

27. That's ridiculous!

They aren't poison, though some are quite powerful, and deadly when abused.

You sound like a DEA agent with all that dis-information.

Got a nice shiny gold badge?

[Zynx]

32. Definition of poison:

"A substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means."

That could very easily describe a whole host of drugs in sufficient quantities.

[Webster Green]

37. That's exactly what I said...

Not sure why you pointed to that definition.

You are quite correct. Our philosophies are 180 degrees opposed. I find it hard to believe that you cannot differentiate between the actual effects of the drug, and the effects of the criminalization, and demonizing of the substances in question.

Badge number?

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. It's silly to ask Zynx for a badge number

Zynx's philosophy, while I disagree with it intensely, is perfectly reasonable, and is premised on the same idea that pro-legalization arguments should be based on: Reduce harm. I am for legalization primarily because I believe in harm reduction, and the current organization of chemicals in society is - in my estimation - more harmful than a modified regime would be. The ad hominems are unhelpful when we could work from an agreement about harm-reduction and hash out the details from there.

[Webster Green]

45. Oh yeah, I know that....the drug war deal is a hot button for me...

I hear more of the same old DEA bullshit, and I see red.

Sorry!

[IntravenousDemilo]

172. I see red when I toke.

Or maybe I just need some Visine.

[Zynx]

43. I am simply pointing out that drugs seem to simply be poisons taken

in small doses to avoid death, though some obviously take too large an amount. This pertains to alcohol as well. Alcohol is a low grade poison. I personally shun all uses of drugs except in the case of a LEGITIMATE medical purpose. I've had a little alcohol in my life and I personally don't like it one bit. I can't understand why people would ever get drunk. I have never even tried, or been offered for that matter, marijuana or any other drug.

My basic point is this: Drugs have a negative impact on people individually, making them into mentally and physically deficient addicts, and they also have a collective negative impact on society.

When I look at the incident that happened where I lived when people at an underage drinking party got drunk and then got high on LSD among other things and a girl got killed when a guy driving home from that party drove the car in the most erratic fashion I've ever seen and flipped it into a ditch, I don't need to be told whether drugs have a negative influence on society. We should do everything in our power to reduce people's addictions and the way to do that is to cut down on the supply available because people, given the opportunity, will turn to addictive substances. I don't want to run the risk that every drug becomes used as commonly as alcohol.

[Webster Green]

47. The drug war doesn't cut the supply...

It just doesn't work that way.

I disagree entirely with your basic point: "Drugs have a negative impact on people individually, making them into mentally and physically deficient addicts, and they also have a collective negative impact on society."

That's quite a broad brush, courtesy of the DEA.

I'll take the wonderful, God given plants, and reject the government approved bullshit everytime.

"High in the hills we are harvesting sweet sinsemilla
but, the law wants it all cuz they know that the wild weed can free 'ya...."
-From: 'The Free Mexican Air Force' by Peter Rowan

[Zynx]

57. What's with you trying to paint me as a DEA pawn?

These are my personal observations. I have seen drunks and druggies and I have formed the opinion that they are a societal evil. The drug war could, if properly structured, cripple supply while not enforcing on demand. The problem is that Republicans believe you crack down on demand and not supply.

[Webster Green]

59. The fucking drug war has never made a dent in the supply...

I know damn well you aren't an agent. I'm questioning why you are repeating the lies.

You point to the extreme, and paint everyone else in your little box with the same brush.

Societal evil my ass.

I think folks who can't keep their noses out of other peoples business are a societal evil.

[Zynx]

61. I don't care if you use coke necessarily. I just don't want you to have

access to it. If you are caught in public high, you should be sent to rehab. Drugs and alcohol destroy lives much more than they help people. THAT is why they are a societal evil. I'm interested in helping people beat the devil of addiction and then making sure people are not able to get that crap.

I realize we can't do a damn thing about the production and consumption of alcohol and marijuana(which is not as bad as alcohol imo) since they can be produced without massive facilities. However, cocaine and heroin require massive agricultural facilities in specific areas, these can be targeted and dealt with effectively with the right policy. My problem with the current drug war is that it targets users of low end drugs and does nothing to stop the supply flow. Make no mistake, I believe the current drug war is a failure, but for different reasons.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Webster Green]

48. I suppose water is poison too?...

Some frat boys here in California were charged with the death of a student in a hazing incident. He was forced to ingest a large quantity of water, and he died from it.

Is water poison too?

[Zynx]

56. There's a matter of degree. Enough of anything could kill someone.

However, a relatively small quantity of drugs affects the body very negatively.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. It's also quite possible that the negative

effects of drugs are themselves a consequence of the way we've organized drugs, including the prohibition.

We should be agreed on harm reduction, and skeptical about whether the current organization of human-chemical interaction is a harm reduction strategy.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

70. You've never tried pot?

Good lord.

You're taking extreme incidents like the one you just mentioned and painting all drug users with a broad brush. Millions of people have at least tried marijuana, for example, and society hasn't collapsed (not from marijuana, at least).

While I wouldn't do most drugs (cocaine, meth, etc.), I don't care if someone else does, providing that they are not harming anyone else or anyone's property.

Personally, I think the shitty dead-end jobs people work day in and day out impact society more negatively than any drug, but that's just me.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. Or our current regime of foods

;-)

[High Plains]

95. Uh, most people DO use alcohol responsibly...

and most people use other drugs responsibly as well. It seems like no matter the drug, maybe 10-20% of people who use it develop a dependency. The exception is tobacco, which has a much higher rate.

A regime where illegal drugs were no longer illegal, but regulated and controlled, would presumably result in some short-term increase in use--although no one really knows because it has never been tried. As to the degree of the increase, ask yourself: "If cocaine were legal tomorrow, would I start using it?"

We need to weigh the costs (social, financial, etc) of a legalized drug regime against the costs imposed by the drug prohibition regime. I would note that prohibition does not seem to have curtailed either drug availabity or drug use, but it has imposed huge costs: "Drug-related violence" (most of which is not biopharmacological, but related to prohibition), "drug-related crime" (if heroin is cheap, junkies don't need to steal your car stereo), the ungodly erosion of all our constitutional rights, the increase in paramilitarization of our society, half a million people in prison on drug charges (who neither harmed others or their property), oh, and the $40 billion annually we spend to wage this hideous war on drugs. And I hope you smile as your give your urine sample.

Under either regime, people are going to use drugs. Legalizing them removes all of the prohibition-related harms, but leaves in place the harms associated with drug abuse. But now, we get both.

You said you didn't want to pay for people in treatment. Well, how do you like paying 10 times as much to keep them in prison? I have a very serious problem with anyone who advocates imprisoning people who have not harmed others or their property. It stinks of fascism and authoritarianism. Drug users should be punished only if the commit real crimes, ie robbery, assault, murder, child neglect. And treatment should be available on demand (as part of a just national health care system), not by court order. The only people I would like to see ordered into drug treatment are those who have demonstrated they cannot use drugs responsibly, as in getting arrested for some real crime because of their drug use. Much like drunk drivers being forced to attend AA.

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe in personal responsibility. If you want to do drugs and can keep your act together, that is not my affair. It becomes my business when you commit crimes, if you commit crimes.

I also have a higher regard for my fellow citizens than you do. Please try to keep your paternalistic self out of my life and the lives of your fellow citizens.

You also advocate eradication of drug crops. Well, we've spent $4 billion in the last few years to eradicate cocaine in Colombia, and we have managed a minor reduction there. But, gee whiz, now it's popping up again in Peru and Bolivia. Do you think we're not trying hard enough? Should we just spray the whole region with pesticides? I know a few hundred thousand Andean peasants who might want to have a word with you about that.

And then there's Afghanistan, home of almost 90% of the global opium (and thus heroin) supply. I just got back from there. Opium is the driving force in the Afghan economy, providing more than half of GNP, and it provides incomes for about 2.5 million Afghanis. When you think of wiping it all out, consider the consequences: Massive alienation from the US, farmers by the thousands joining up with the Taliban, economic dislocation nationwide...It's not so simple.

[Chemical Bill]

107. In the '50s and '60s the CIA was handing out LSD...

all over the country, like candy. They were giving it to people without knowledge or consent. They were giving it to army troops, just to see what would happen. There's books on this, you could start with "Acid Dreams" by Lee and Shlain, or "The Search For the 'Manchurian Candidate'" by Marks. That's how Tim Leary got his start. Then in '67 the government made it illegal.

Bill

[ProudDad]

139. The worst poisins

are Alcohol and Cigarettes--they're already legal and available.

These are all Public Health problems NOT legal problems. The cops, courts and jails will NEVER be the right way to deal with addiction issues...

Anyone who thinks they are is delusional.

[renie408]

78. How is that working for you?

Invented anything great lately? What did you do with your first billion? Cured cancer? Come up with a unique philosophy which has positively impacted mankind?

How many of the truly GREAT people of the world, outside of the entertainment industry, have been stoners? How many people in this world go around saying, "Wow, thank god for that coke monkey on my back, my life is so much more full now!!"

You are fooling yourself. People who rely on street drugs for ANYTHING are weak. Period. I have friends who smoke pot to relax from the pressures of their daily lives. He manages the photo unit at a K-Mart and she works as an assistant pharmacist. Yeah, hectic, pressure-filled life. Right.

I don't care how anybody wants to fuck up their lives and ruin their health. That's on them. But PLEASE don't fool yourself or try to fool anybody else into thinking that your drug hazed ideas are in any form of 'accessing amazing capabilities'.

[Chemical Bill]

108. Why are you attacking the guy?

Nobody has cured cancer. I don't consider money to be a measure of success. He does, however, have a philosophy that can benifit millions: Stop arresting stoners.

Bill

[renie408]

113. First off

its "benefit" and secondly, it is not a philosophy. And I agree that marijuana should be legal.

I disagree, however, with pretending that drug use is great thing or even desirable. If that is what someone chooses to do, whatever. But just like being an alcoholic is not a life path to which most people aspire, neither is being a stoner.

[Chemical Bill]

115. benifit - sorry, freep moment.

But I take drugs every day, as I'm hypothyroid. I don't see drugs as evil. Cannibis has many benefits that you don't seem cognizant of. I use many herbal remedies, and wish that cannibis were available to me as a (legal) herb. That's all.

Bill

[renie408]

120. I am aware of the herbal uses of cannabis

I also have several stoner friends. They are NOT using pot for its medicinal...umm...benefits.

I just don't see it as any better or any worse than alcohol. I don't think it should be illegal, but I don't think it should be glorified either.

[Chemical Bill]

127. Maybe your friends aren't...

using it for medical reasons, but I was self medicating for depression. The pharmacutical industry hates that. Now I meditate instead. I have someone close to me that uses it for fybromyalgia. The drugs that a doctor gave her were terrible.

Bill

[SOS]

166. Not great? Weak?

W.B. Yeats, Carl Sagan, William F. Buckley, Steve Jobs, Margaret Mead, Louisa May Alcott, Jack London, Eugene Delacroix, Alexander Dumas, Victor Hugo and Queen Victoria are some of history's more prominent cannabis users.

[ret5hd]

171. the guy who invented polymerase chain reaction (pcr)...

the process that allows you to amplify copies of dna was a VERY regular ketamine user.

also, wasn't jonas salk (or one of the other famous vaccine inventors whose name i can't remember right now) a heroin addict?

[ProudDad]

138. You DO know what you're talking about

Webster Green has got it right.

The "war on drugs" is a greater evil than any of the drugs it's "Fighting" could possibly be. Check out the countries in Europe who have decriminalized drugs and setup treatment on demand. They don't have the phony "war on drugs" and they don't have the DRUG WARS that fill the streets of my town with fucking bullets!!!

The U.S. is 1000% wrong on this one!

[newspeak]

164. okay

your tax dollars pay for the so-called war on drugs that doesn't work and innocent people have been killed. Do you know why they overturned the forfeiture law in California? Because it was abused big time! I would rather spend my money on rehab, than have more repressive laws and people being killed. Prohibition doesn't work! It causes increased violence and black marketing-criminality. Now we got a bumper crop of poppies in Afghanistan and guess where that's going to wind up. It's already in Iraq! Very Very addicting. However, who is really making profits off of it? Ever read about Vietnam and the Golden Triangle? Got a lucrative business going here. Outlaw drugs, but certain parts of the government make profits off of it, then they make profits off of the prison system. How about Iran-Contra and drugs for guns?

[SOS]

167. and compounding the idiocy in Afghanistan

is this tidbit from Harper's: The total value of raw opium produced in Afghanistan is $600 million. The US (taxpayer) spends $780 million on poppy eradication in Afghanistan.
It would be cheaper to simply buy it and sell it to the pharmaceutical industry. But I guess there are no money laundering/mercenary opportunities in that.

[serryjw]

23. I 2nd that

The war on drugs has been as successful as the war in Iraq. I'm tired of sending entire generations of Black men to prison while whites get a hand slapped. I'm tired of building jails where Thugs get rich at the expense of someone whom needs medical help. Our Judicial system is overburdened with this bushit.

Ask yourself this questions:
IF all these drugs were decrimialized....Would you take them?

The argument that more people would get addicted is a foolish argument. IF you wanted to get any of these drugs, you could in less than 10 minutes on any street in America. You are NOT, NOT taking them BECAUSE they are illegal...you are just smarter
Let's save the money and give treatment when someone wants help, which is not available now.

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. That's questionable

The fact is that serious alcohol use went down significantly during prohibition, as measured from the effects of chronic use of the next several decades. Use shot up again after prohibition ended. I don't necessarily draw conclusions about this for the so-called Drug War, but the data for inferences is there.

[JimmyJazz]

124. Your "fact" is misleading at best and, most likely, incorrect.

Because people didn't pay taxes on alcohol during Prohibition, since it was illegal, there is no way to track whether or not alcohol consumption decreased during this time.

[alcibiades_mystery]

143. Perhaps...the decrease was measured off significant decreases

in long-term alcohol related symptoms (particularly cirrosis) in the years after prohibition. Whether that's a good measure is up to you, I suppose, but it's well-established.

[JimmyJazz]

146. I've got a link that disputes your argument:

http://econ.bu.edu/miron/images/cirrhosis.pdf

And again, without definitive proof of how much alcohol was purchased and/or consumed, there is no way to state unequivocally that Prohibition was effective at reducing the consumption of alcohol.

Besides, it so greatly increased corruption and organized crime, even if a "slight" decrease could be show, does it outweigh the overall effect on society?

[alcibiades_mystery]

148. No, it doesn't outweigh the overall effect on society

I am against drug prohibition policies for that reason.

But there is good evidence that prohibition reduces demand.

[greygandalf]

82. We have enough problems with alcohol

When we can better control drunk driving, i'll consider legalizing other drugs.

[Gato Moteado]

7. why should any of them be illegal?

you think the government should tell you what you can or can't put into your body?

you forgot the most addictive of them all: tobacco.

[Mr Rabble]

10. Legalize and tax them all. By the way, steroids are legal.

They are only available by prescription, however.

[nickshepDEM]

11. Question: Are shrooms even illegal?

Im not even sure I know exactly what they are. I was always under the impression they were just mushrooms that grew on cowshit?

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. The psychoactive compound in so-called "magic mushrooms" is illegal

And the mushrooms themselves are considered a delivery device, and therefore banned for growing and sale under the Controlled Substance Act. While a number of North American species do produce psychoactive effects, "shrooms" as we know them didn't enter Western culture until the mid-1950's, when mycologists managed to get invited to a mushroom ceremony in Zapotec region of Mexico. Their account was published in Life magazine under the title "http://www.imaginaria.org/wasson/life.htm">Seeking the Magic Mushroom," thus giving us the slang name for the "drug." (BTW: The uber-conservative founder and long-time CEO of Time-Life, Henry Luce, was rather fond of LSD, and experimented with it extensively in the early 1960's). Most of the mushrooms that circulate as hallucinogenics are not found just "growing in cow shit," but are derived from the Mexican species and grown specifically for sale. There has, of course, been significant dissemination of the species, but it is still very rare to find good quality psychoactive mushrooms just growing around. The trick of cultivating these mushrooms was a non-trivial discovery in mycology in the early 1960's.

[Zynx]

12. Alcohol and Marijuana

Only those two because they're easier to break people's addictions and provide excise tax revenue(Marijuana would if legalized).

The rest should be illegal to use and deal with usage being dealt with by mandatory rehab and distribution being dealt with very harshly. Those drugs are physically and mentally destructive and sometimes we have to protect people from their own stupidity. Having a bunch of crippled drug addicts sucking up societal resources is not in the public's interest. Now before you say "Alcohol is destructive too and many people's lives have been ruined by it." understand that if I thought we could make alcohol illegal successfully, I would do it. I personally am appalled at how people destroy their lives through the use of drugs and alcohol and believe it is one of the great societal ills we have today. I'm just interested in pragmatic policy on the issue.

[KTM]

66. OK, I've had enough

I tried to stay out... but you keep laying it on so thick with that ridiculously broad brush.

I got drunk in high school - I got a full scholarship to college.

I did coke in college, and never stole a thing or ended up a "crippled resource sucking addict."

I've lived with coke addicts, baseheads, meth fiends, and a veritable army of potheads and day trippers... the actual crimes committed by these people (other than the use) coiuld be counted on one hand. I knew honor-roll straight-as-a-whistle kids in high school who caused much more trouble.

I did a bunch of ecstacy back in the day... really, really, really good ecstacy. A bunch. No holes. NO "destroyed lives."

I still smoke pot occasionally, as does virtually everyone I know. Not just a cadre of stoners either - inventors, engineers, doctors, IT people (including the head IT guy at one of the worlds largest investment companies.) I honestly can say that of everyone I have ever met, it's the startling minority who DONT smoke.

For more than half of my life, I have been around or amongst drug users - good people, hard working, honest, decidedly un-stupid people. I got a degree, went to work, worked my ass off, and make good money now in a high-function, mentally challenging job. My coworkers respect me for my ability to do that job - I would argue to them I would never have learned how to do it were it not for pot.

You are WOFEULLY misinformed about drugs. Like anything, there are those who go too far, those who have latent issues that come forth, those that DO cause trouble.. but the same can be said for many, many other aspects of our society.

Having never tried any of these substances, having shunned those who use them and assumed that you were somehow better than they, that they were miscreants, losers on a downward spiral toward assured destruction, you clearly never KNEW them. Your perception of the evils of drugs is based on your (wrong) assumptions.

If I watched my TV for insight on auto travel, I'd be left with the assumption that it is deadly, that users of cars were dangerous to themselves and others, for the crashes and chases I see everyday. Yes, drugs hurt some people - so does driving to work. So does jumping out of airplanes, being a fisherman or logger, xtreme sports, lack of sleep, hunting, and, occasionally, crazy wild sex.

You live in fear of that which you've never known. I don't. Who are you to legislate to me what I may or may not do with my body ? s

[Asgaya Dihi]

67. Agreed

While most drugs can be dangerous and some probably are under most circumstances, the drug war itself has done little but to increase the damage. The United Nations estimated the illegal drug trade at somewhere around 8% of all international trade, and we could end it as quickly as we ended the ties between alcohol and organized crime by simply regulating the drugs ourselves. It's been tried, here's two examples, from a system and a personal perspective. The heroin park idea fails badly, but regulation doesn't.

http://www.dpft.org/heroin.htm
http://www.dpft.org/anaddictsstory.htm

The drug war itself has increased in cost year after year and failed to show any productive results, here's a set of pages that include most of the Governments own records on the subject. Charts are mostly clickable and lead to new pages, and there's quick links to popular subjects at the bottom of the page. What part of this was a success?

http://www.briancbennett.com/

This whole experiment has done nothing but to imprison our own people and promote and finance organized crime, terrorism, and the corruption of our police judiciary and Government. But don't take my word for that, ask some cops themselves.

http://www.leap.cc/

And what's the result of our efforts so far been? We're the most imprisoned nation in the world, bar none, by a long shot. And we've done that with racial disparities that would have shocked racist South Africa.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/1044.pdf
http://www.prisonsucks.com/

What part of this drug war has done anything but damage? If it costs so much and does so little good, it's about time to at least look at some options, we were better off before we did anything at all.

[Bridget Burke]

71. Not all drug users are hardworking pillars of the community.

But those guys do NOT make drugs more attractive. Knowing junkies, meth heads & coke freaks did NOT make me want to be like them. And I've known some "interesting" people since the 60's. Some of them got over it, some of them died.

Let those who want the "bad" drugs get a 'scrip & line up at the drugstore, along with the folks getting their high blood pressure meds. No glamour there; no huge profits for the producers. The consumers would be safer because they would be getting drugs of known strength & purity, without the need for malnutrition & living in squalor. Even junkies can "grow out" of the habit--if they live long enough.

As for the more "recreational" drugs? How much "acid" that was sold was really LSD? Not bloody much. Ecstasy was after my time but you've indicated that there's questionable stuff floating around out there.

As for pot? I wouldn't mind paying extra for some of that stuff in the High Times centerfolds. But herbs thrive in my garden & I'd love to move beyond basil & parsley.

[renie408]

79. I don't smoke pot and never have

I was a straight A student and was in the top 10% of my class. I have never caused any trouble that I can think of. None of my friends or family do any kind of street drugs. All are decent and upstanding people. Do I disprove your theory?

I think it is ridiculous to say that drug use is 'OK' because your personal set of friends are pot smokers and you smoke pot and you are a great guy.

That said, I don't give a shit WHAT you do with your body. You can kill yourself in any way you see fit.

[Chemical Bill]

109. I was in the top 3% of chem students nationwide while stoned. n/t

[renie408]

118. Too bad. Maybe you could have been #1 if you hadn't been.

I wonder how many alcoholics think they are doing just fine? Or that alcohol is actually good for them because it allows them to relax or be more chipper or whatever?

I think you should have the right to be a stoner. If alcohol is legal, so should pot be. I just don't think that representing it as anything other than your personal method of self-medication is accurate.

[High Plains]

128. Some marijuana smokers say it enhances their creative abilities

and who are you to argue, with absolutely no experience with the drug?

Drug use by its very nature is highly subjective. Just having seen somebody smoke pot doesn't mean you understand how it works.

Interesting position, though: Argue that pot should be legalized, but then take the drug czar's line on how much of a fuck-up it makes you.

[LiberalAmerican]

158. It doesn't make you more creative...

it makes you have to write things down just to remember them! ; )

[Chemical Bill]

129. Actually, I dropped several points...

when I stopped smoking pot.

Bill

[renie408]

85. Well, actually, car wrecks are the number one cause of death

in America. So, you would assume correctly that cars are dangerous.

So, I have a nine year old and a fourteen year old. All this time I have been telling them to avoid drugs. How unenlightened of me. I should probably supply the drugs for them at home...cause, hey, if they are going to do it and it is so good for them, I want them to be doing it at home.

Are you SERIOUSLY equating drug use to driving a car? Or extreme sports? I am sorry, but that does not appear to be the comment of someone capable of a 'mentally challenging job'.

If you choose to use drugs...GO TEAM!! But why not just say, "Hey, I have done drugs off and on all my life. I don't think it is particularly admirable and I know it may not be particularly smart, but it is what I choose to do. Some people enjoy scrapbooking, I enjoy being stoned." And you know what?? I would agree 100%. You are an adult and should be able to make your own decisions. And I do know that there are drug users who are not 'living on the streets'. But to pretend that it isn't any different from being addicted to Krispy
Kreme donuts or skateboarding is just ridiculous.

[KTM]

100. Well Renie

Certainly I wouldn't suggest all drug users are successful - but I would STRONGLY disagree that the majority are failed, crippled, drags on society.

We are shown images of poor, depraved drug users all the time, and most of the "never tried its" see that as the norm. The fact is, like MOST people dont kill people with their car on the way to work, and arent a daily threat to the community, neither are MOST drug users - but we only see the worst moments in our media.

I can honestly say marijuana had a dramatic positive effect on my life. So could Carl Sagan. So could many, many of the worlds artists and musicians.

LSD did good things to me. As it did for many creative minds and free-thinkers.

I'm not saying drugs are good across the board - heroin is evil, and meth is shit. I dont ever want to meet seomeone on PCP. Crack is a scourge of the poor. On the other hand, not every coke user devolves into Scarface, not every pot somker ends up a Spicoli, not every acid trip leads to the rubber room. MOST drug experiences are harmless, and the vast majority of people (in and out of our country) that have used drugs have moved on just fine. A small minority fall prey to addiction and lose themselves, but to blindly assume that to be the norm is simply incorrect.

[renie408]

111. Thinking about this

Jeez, talk about aggravating, I just wrote this huge post and got kicked offline and lost it. Now I have to start all over.

Ok…I remember reading on the net that many geniuses were/are bipolar. Which makes sense when you think about it. I wonder if there is something attached to being a genius which makes you more likely to self medicate? Also, many people with the type of genius you are talking about are either artistic or academics. Either lifestyle would offer more exposure to drugs and, perhaps, make someone more inclined to experiment. Maybe Carl Sagan is not a genius because he does drugs, but he does drugs because he is a genius. Its like saying that since 90% of delinquents chew gum, gum chewing causes delinquency. Perhaps the drugs are not the catalyst to brilliance, just …incidental?

I do not think that all drug users are crack whores or criminals or bad. I don’t think that drug use is an automatic “Go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200” card.

But I also do not buy that it is wholesome fun for geniuses and successful business people that allows them to better access…something. You enjoy getting high. Whatever. Why does it have to be a good thing? OR a bad thing? Why can’t it just be something you enjoy doing? And as long as you are not hurting anyone else, whatever. It would still be of concern to me if my close family members were involved in consistent drug use. I gotta tell you, increased intellect through dropping acid is not something to which I aspire for my children. While I still have influence, I am going to steer them away from drugs. I, personally, just don’t see the point.

But if it works for you…whatever. I honestly don’t care and neither do I judge the drug use or you for using drugs. I just happen to think trying to make it look better by saying things like “Carl Sagan does it!!” is not really a selling point and, honestly, sounds kind of silly. THAT was more what caught my attention in a lot of the pro-drug use posts; the attempt to turn it into something almost noble, which it most certainly is not.

[Chemical Bill]

110. Krispy Kreme donuts and skateboarding...

are pretty dangerous. But I support their being legal too.

Bill

[renie408]

114. Trust me on the Krispy Kremes....

they are lethal.

Look, I do not have a problem with many drugs being made legal. Especially marijuana. I think it is stupid, hypocritical and arbitrary for alcohol to be legal and pot to be illegal.

I just can't get past the idea that smoking pot is NO BETTER than drinking. And I don't promote either thing. If this were about alcohol, I would say the same thing. I am sure that there are plenty of famous people who were alcoholics. But nobody would pretend that being an alcoholic is what helped them to be great.

[Chemical Bill]

116. I liked it much more than drinking. n/t

[renie408]

121. And that is completely cool and should be your legal right.

Just like my husband likes to drink a few Heinies at night after a long day.

[bee]

93. bravo.

If only it could ever determined: the *real* percentage of pot smokers in this country, I would bet anything that the users outnumber the non by a large amount. And I would love to see the looks on the faces of all the people who are in the dark (or in denial) about who the smokers actually are.

[High Plains]

151. But who will protect us from our protectors? n/t

[tabasco]

17. Pot & alcohol.

Those are the ones I like.

[suneel112]

18. Anything "natural"...

...which would be Alcohol (of course reducing the age limit to 18), Marijuana (18 as well), Psilocybin "shrooms", Peyote, and maybe Opium, if it was grown in the United States (no money for Afghan Opium, no money for terrorists). Maybe Meth and Ecstasy as well.

However, keep all the rest illegal except under medical conditions.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. Alcohol, Cannabis, LSD, MDMA/Ecstasy

The first two over-the-counter with some age-restrictions, the second two by prescription and for experimentation.

[truthisfreedom]

52. all drugs should be legal (with this qualification:)

alcohol and cigarettes retain their original status.

all other recreational drugs should be available on a prescription-only basis, where the user must renew his/her prescription after having a checkup to see how their health is doing and an interview to examine whether they are becoming physically/mentally dependent. punishment for possession of the drugs without a prescription would be identical with present-day punishment to satisfy the right-wingers. anyone with a prescription for recreational drugs would have to have a specially-colored license plate and specially-marked driver's license.

[Crunchy Frog]

55. Alcohol and marijuana

although I've seen people badly messed up by both of them (my dad died of alcoholism). Steroids can be extremely dangerous, and corrupt competitive sports.

[CountDmoney]

62. Alochol and Pot

Pot for sure. I don't smoke, but hell...

[mrcheerful]

72. When are we going to learn?

You can't protect people from themselves end of story. That was tried, it was called Prohibition and all it did was make more alcoholics then before and put people like Al Capone in control of distribution. Want to get rid of inner city gangs? Stop drive bys and all the murder and theft going on? Legalize all drugs and not just the ones the drug companies put out.

[Catchawave]

73. As long as the powerful pharmaceutical

lobby wants to control our addictions, it's going to be a long hard battle for legalizing recreational drugs.

At the very least they should be decriminalized for use, regulated and taxed, then just let the laws apply to abusers and illegal sales and distribution.

[SteppingRazor]

76. All of'em.

The government shouldn't have the ability to tell me what to do with my body. Period.

Should I, under the influence of powerful narcotics, become a danger to others, then the government can step in (DUI laws, etc. -- though those are ridiculously out of hand as it is). But the gov't should have no say in whether or not I decide to get loaded, or what I decide to get loaded on.

[Asgaya Dihi]

77. An interesting point I thought

Most people seem to be under the impression that if drugs were legal use would shoot up and we'd be in some kind of trouble. If asked themselves though the only thing keeping a needle out of their arm isn't the laws, they just assume that must be the case for some mysterious group of "others". Why?

Drugs used to be legal. All of them. Right here in the United States, and for a larger part of our history than prohibition covers. You could find cannabis in your cough medicine, or perhaps opium, and certainly Bayer manufactured heroin right along side aspirin and coca cola used to contain cocaine. Some was properly labeled but much wasn't, the old "snake oil" salesman was the drug dealer of the day.

Back in 1906 the US passed the single most effective bit of anti-drug abuse legislation that we or to my knowledge anyone else has ever passed, the Pure Food and Drugs act of 1906 specified that a product be called "misbranded," "if the package fails to bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of any alcohol, morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis, chloral hydrate, or acetanilide."

With the passage of that act opiate use dropped from an estimated 3-5% in the nation to roughly 1% on no stronger urging than people being told what they were taking. With no threats, no prisons, nothing but a label. Remember, this in a population that in a large part knew what an opiate rush felt like. Between legal and illegal use that's about the same rate as today, we've gained nothing in the drug war that education alone didn't accomplish.

Assumptions in the early 1900s section
http://www.dpft.org/history.html

The only thing that's really changed is we're a bit more crowded today, and a bit more ignorant of our options, we assume it has to be this way. It doesn't. There are options that have been tried in other nations, free use tends to work out badly but a system of intelligent regulation shows a lot of hope.

[renie408]

81. More legalization and more education

I would use the same rule of thumb that you describe. If it can be mortally dangerous in a one shot/first time use basis, it needs to be illegal.

I don't care if something is addictive. Alcohol is addictive. So are cigarettes and both can kill you over the long term and both are legal. The only drugs I use are OTC cold and pain remedies. I avoid alcohol, don't smoke and have never used anything else. But I don't care if someone else does. My two best friends are big smokers and my husband enjoys a few beers every night. I don't care. I am teaching my children that cigarettes, alcohol and drugs are crutches for the weak of mind (personally, I also think religion falls under that category, but that's just me). I do not want them to get involved with anything that can take over their lives like that. My father was an alcoholic and so are all three of my siblings. Watching what addiction did to his life and relationships and what it is doing to my siblings has left me VERY leery of anything like drugs or alcohol.

But that is ME and what I think. Other people feel differently and should be able to make that decision for themselves. But with legalization should come education. People should know what this stuff can do to them. My son is in a program in school right now called "High School 101" which is a pilot program in our school system. It covers things a kid might need to know to navigate high school successfully. Everything from test taking and study skills to sex education, STD's, peer pressure, alcohol and drugs. It looks like it is being taught in a very kid friendly way using games and informal classroom discussion to get the information across. For rural SC, I am VERY impressed! Programs like this would need to be in place to help people understand the pitfalls of drug use so that they could make an educated decision about whether or not to get involved with drugs. Maybe if more drugs were made legal, the taxes from those drugs could be used to support education and rehab.

[Dr Fate]

83. Ex-lax. n/t

n/t

[DinahMoeHum]

89. Marijuana. If for nothing else, to allow growing of Hemp by USA farmers.

and finally get into a real money-making crop that will allow for production of biodiesel fuel, rope, clothing, paper, hempseed/oil for good health (rich in omega-3's) - and compete with the Canadians on the market.

IOW, legalizing hemp production will give a great boost to the economy and help save farms that would otherwise be swallowed up by development sprawl.

Yeah, yeah, I know, hemp and marijuana are 2 different plants, botanically speaking. However, given this mis-Administration's contempt for science, most people are too stupid to know the difference.

Just my 2 cents...

:shrug:

[bee]

90. all of them.

those who are going to do drugs are ALREADY doing them anyway. period. And all these drugs are readily available to anyone who knows where to look. Adults should be able to decide for themselves what they take in to their bodies or dont take in. As long as youre not hurting anybody else why the hell should it matter anyway. People can OD on Aspirin, Tylenol, cough syrup etc. etc. But its impossible to OD on mushrooms and theres never been a single death attributed to smoking pot. Current laws regarding intoxication would sufficiently apply to these drugs as well. They should ALL be legalized, regulated and taxed anything else is simply illogical. Cigarettes & Alcohol. Two of the largest killers in this county, are and always will be legal. The laws are not for public safety... they are simply a way to pursue a political agenda. The fact that Pot was made illegal to rid the US of Mexicans is a prime example. The fact is that drugs are going to be around and will be used no matter what. But can they accept it? No. Instead they make things like allergy pills "by prescription only". So me, without insurance, now I have to suffer and for what? So some blow-hard politician can fight an un-winnable war on drugs. You know, sunshine and dirt are required to grow pot. Maybe they'll make those illegal next. Consenting adults should be able to drink, take, and ingest whatever they want.

[MadHound]

94. Legalize, regulate, and tax all drugs, much like we do with alcohol now

This War on Drugs is restricting all of our civil liberties at an ever increasing rate. In addition, as has been shown in other countries, once the "euphoria" period is over, your usage and addiction rates will drop.

Also, but making all drugs legal, you will virtually wipe out the crime scourge that accompanies any black market.

This country got along fine for well over three hundred years with having all drugs legal, in fact better than now when many are illegal. It is more than time for all drugs to be legalized.

[kick_them_hard]

96. Alcohol and Marijuana but....

I want to see higher taxes on alcohol. More the merrier for me. I hate drunks and theyre too many around for this person. And marijuana for medicinal purposes and light usage is cool. All others who use these other drugs need heavy fines and enforced rehab, not jail time unless a serious crime has been commited.

[lessthanjake]

97. Hmmm

My general view is that if its physically addicting then it shouldnt be legal.

So that would leave Alcohol, LSD, and marijuana legal. I think that would leave steroids too.

The others i am not sure about because i dont know if they are physically addicting. Heroin is definetly a no though.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

98. All except meth, I would say. (nt)

[ChiciB1]

99. A Recent Article In Rolling Stone States That MJ Is #1 On

this administration's HIT list!! While meth runs rampant and doing MAJOR damage to many many people's brain, THEY are focusing of POT!!

As a Boomer, you can perhaps guess what I think!! I would MUCH rather spend and evening with a "mellowed" out pot head, than a fired up Alkie!! You can however die from alcohol poisoning. But you can die walking across the street too!

Personally, I think if more people would mellow with pot, road rage would diminish substantially!!!

If alcohol is legal, pot should be also! I'm not that informed about steroids, but have also seen quite a few programs saying that it has been "over-hyped!" I don't know????

So 3 for me, and they could be taxed which in turn could be used for ESSENTIAL Rehab as opposed to sending them to the POKEY!!

There was a time I thought perhaps that we should just legalize most of it, but I have problems with under-age kids getting it. If a person wants to waste his life on drugs, it's gonna happen! Sad but true! Teen-agers will be teen-agers and I don't think you can stop the "experimenting" all that much. METH DOES SCARE ME!!!

[TrogL]

101. Extacy used to be legal

back when it was known as MDHD.

[Red State Lib]

102. Weed

makes the world go round....

[wiley]

103. More teenagers and young adults

die from first time steroid use (usually high school sports related) than alcohol, although people do die from first time alcohol use as well. It's not like liver failure is immediately treatable.

[nickshepDEM]

105. Ive never heard of anyone dieing from Steroid use.

Not from the compound anyway. Sometimes people hit veins and what not, but IMO, with proper education regarding injection procedures, cycle lengths, compound info, and supporting supplements needed to keep cholesterol and BP levels in tact... Steroids are relatively safe. Oh yeah, proper Post Cycle Therapy is a must (clomid, nolva, etc).

[wiley]

141. Ask any hepatologist

I'm talking about people taking oral steroids, not injectables. Underground black market steroids, which are usually unfixed doses and sometimes contaminated, are especially dangerous and widely used. University of Pittsburgh can also tell you all about it.

I have to mention as well that I have encountered both short and long term side effects, some irreversible, in hundreds of patients. Insulin resistance and the development of frank diabetes, as well as carpal tunnel syndrome should also not be forgotten.

The risk/benefit equation is not nearly as simple as smoking untreated, clean pot.

So, be careful!

[Chemical Bill]

106. I think they all should be legal, but advertising them, no.

I think jail is worse than most drugs. I think treatment should be part of universal health care. Yes, I have friends who've overdosed (one girl OD'd on alcohol, drinking with her father). I've had friends who died in car crashes and we can still drive.

OTOH, don't let Madison Ave glamorize them. I think paid speech isn't the same as free speech anyway. If we have no Betty Crocker Hash Brownies, no Marlboro Crack Man, then the corporate world can't make more money off drugs than they already do.

Bill

[whatever4]

112. All legal

We hurt, maim, and kill more people than the drugs themselves would ever do, when we try to ban intoxicants. It's never worth it. It never works. Not now. Not anywhere.

How will we ever craft a fair way to enforce drug laws? How can you stop a victimless crime without invading the lives of the criminals? I mean, really, how? Does it make any sense to do that, when the problem is so pervasive, it seems to be an unwritten will of the majority? AND to continue doing it when we face so many other problems currently?

I have to ask anyone, what's the point? All we've really proven so far, empirically, is that with vast sums of money and millions of people in prison, we still have drug offenders, drug sellers, and drug use has not stopped AT ALL. That's where we're at: drug war 25+ years old and still going strong. Billions and I mean like 40 billion a year billions. They've recently begun scaling the money back.

We jail millions of people for drugs, but all for what? Morals? People are getting killed in the "war on drugs", how moral is that? When we stop to look at it, you realize that for all the damage done to persons, it hasn't helped one damn bit to stop harm from drugs. Not one bit.

Drug laws are moralistic.

It's not the way to help people, making drugs illegal.

If the people are what we care about in the first place.

No, I really don't think the law plays it's correct place in the area of pharmaceuticals.

[Chemical Bill]

117. I don't trust the government to regulate drugs fairly. n/t

[applegrove]

119. Alcohol & weed. But stricly enforced to not be available to teens.

[Catchawave]

152. Like cigarettes !

At least regulation takes alcohol and marijuana out of the hands of criminal distubtors, though teens will still have their "sources" to get ahold of such products, at least the taxes will benefit problems with addiction.

[DuaneBidoux]

122. ALL

[gulfcoastliberal]

130. Legalize all drugs.

Then you won't have overcrowded prisons, etc. People will do what they want whether a drug is legal or not.It's wrong for the government to dictate what an adult can and cannot consume. It boils down to freedom and personal responsibility (a fave saying of repukes).

[sakabatou]

132. Alchohol, Marijuana

[AJH032]

134. all of them

let people do to their bodies what they want to do. The government should only get involved if they're bothering other people with it.

[WillyT]

135. I Wanna Lick The Backs Of Psychedelic Toads !!!

Is that wrong... er, legal?

:shrug:

:rofl::hippie::rofl:

[ellisonz]

142. Drugs...

Alcohol
LSD
Marijuana

I'd also like to see opium, mushrooms, and peyote legalized.

[Skip Intro]

147. All should be legalized and regulated - its my body, not the govt's. n/t

[montana500]

150. hmm...

Alcohol - legal
LSD - legal
GHB, Roofies, etc. - illegal
Cocaine - illegal
Marijuana - legal
Extacy - illegal
Meth - illegal
Heroin - illegal
Anabolic Steroids - illegal
mushrooms - legal

[newsguyatl]

153. ghb and marijuana

[klyon]

154. my question is: Why should any of them be illegal?

Where in the constitution?

To make alcohol illegal it took a constitutional amendment and then a second to restore the right.

Steroids could be prohibited by private organizations like the NFL but our government does not have the power.

People have never been concerned with drug users rights because drugs are considered sub-human.

KL

[newspeak]

157. so let's hear some of the abuses of the war on drugs

while I lived in California, there was a story of the man in his sixties, monied, who owned land backing up to the LA forest. He just had eye surgery, someone was breaking in so he took his gun from the bedroom and before he could get to the door, the police shot him. They said that an aerial view showed marijuana on his property-oops mistake. However, the government wanted his property. Police busted into a house where a woman and her three year old child? and niece were in the house. Police had her kneeling on the floor in front of them asking them not to shoot her-oops the gun went off-no drugs found. An older student in my class in college told us of a nice experience; seems law enforcement found marijuana about 1/2 mile from his house (he lived in the country outside of Eureka), police came busted down his door, demolished his house and left without even an apology. I mean this guy looked like a Bush country guy and he was totally in shock. So how many innocent people have been killed for the so-called "war on drugs.?" And yet, my friend whose son had been approached near school to buy meth-she went to the cops and they told her they couldn't do nothing about it (this was a small town). Simply amazing!!!!

[wiley]

159. Pharmaceutical Grade Ecstasy (MDMA)

was available by prescription for many years. It had a remarkable good safety profile, but people were just too happy when they took it. It also deeply cut into the developing anti-depressant market. Thus, it was taken off the market under pressure from the pharmaceutical industry. Now it's a black market drug that is likely to contain impurities, some possible toxic, and an unquantifiable dose of the actual drug - if there is any in it at all.


Heroin was also legal and the most widely prescribed drug in the US for decades. But we all know what countries do to people who are addicted and in the way of development. Weren't nearly a million addicted people slaughtered when Taiwan became its' own country in the 1900's?

[tandoori]

165. I agree and add Viagra and Sialis to that list.

I mean Viagra should be available over the counter without having to pay a doctor. It is not right to have to pay a doctor to have good sex.

[Bridget Burke]

168. Those whose physical problems make them need Viagra....

Also need some medical supervision. Those elderly gentlemen can have other conditions that would contra-indicate use of the drug.

[tandoori]

169. I only need Viagra when having sex with my

wife. I never need it with my girl friend who is younger.
So why should my wife suffer if I can't afford to see a doctor
every time?

[IntravenousDemilo]

173. "God" wants us to use pot.

It's right there in Genesis 3:18: "Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou eat the herbs of the earth." You don't have to smoke the stuff if you're worried about lung disease. You can eat it and get just as baked. In short, if you don't consume hash brownies or space cake or a nice mary-jane lasagna, you're almost certainly going to "hell".

Not that I believe in either "god" or "hell", nor will I until I get some empirical evidence. So why do I mention the above? Well, it's simply because the same people who get all hot and bothered about weed seem to be really churchy, too.