Jump to content

Legends Alliance Forums

Photo

Legalizing Street Drugs


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Hypnotic13

Hypnotic13

    Master

  • Members
  • 852 posts
  • Location:Alberta
  • Gender:Female
  • Canada

Posted 14 June 2012 - 01:32 PM

Ok, so I read this article today about the possibility for MDMA (Street name Ecstasy) to be legalized, as it is not an 'addictive' drug, and when used in its purest form by responsible adults is no worse than alcohol. I have also read many articles on the legalization of marijuana.

I personally think most illicit drugs, and street drugs should be government regulated. A lot of overdoses and deaths come from miss use or other chemicals being cut into the drug. Look at the prohibition, people were using chemicals to increase the amount of alcohol they could make and then distribute. This killed many people, and still does in places like India where proper alcohol is too costly for much of the population. This would also cut down on the amount of illegal activity for the drug being regulated, which would in turn eventually cause a decline in the drug’s use. There are so many positives for the legalization and regulation of street drugs, and I really don't see too many negatives. The government would make a killing in taxing them as well.

Just wanted your opinions in the matter.


#2 J-Roc

J-Roc

    "I'm the microphone assassin, beats blastin!"

  • Members
  • 3,525 posts
  • Location:Sunnyvale Trailer Park
  • Gender:Male
  • Canada

Posted 14 June 2012 - 01:53 PM

I'm of the opinion that we should just legalise everything. Roughly the same number of people are going to die of these drugs, although you will probably see an increase in violent crimes as unemployed drug dealers get desperate.

But cigarettes and alcohol already create a great need for medical assistance, throwing on top of it the rest of the illicit drugs we have now isn't much to add, and the increased revenue to assist in actually treating these people might mean they get better.

However, I disgaree that MDMA is less or equally as harmful as alcohol, I'd like to see some proof supporting that.

#3 Hypnotic13

Hypnotic13

    Master

  • Members
  • 852 posts
  • Location:Alberta
  • Gender:Female
  • Canada

Posted 14 June 2012 - 02:00 PM

MDMA in it's purest form is non addictive, according to studies. If taken responibly it has little to no side effects short term, and long term side effects are also very minimal.

Usually short term includes:

Increased sweating (Due to a slight body temperature increase)
teeth grinding
increased blood pressure and heart rate
anxiety
blurred vision
nausea, vomiting and convulsions can occur if you do not drink water, as with an increased body temperature, you can become dehydrated quickly.

Some mental side effects are feelings of confusion, irritability, anxiety, paranoia and depression, and people may experience memory loss or sleep problems.

If not taken responisbly, jaundice or liver damage can occur.

Explain to me how alcohol can do better than this?

#4 Crimson Lego

Crimson Lego

    Dumpling-er

  • Members
  • 12,460 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Canada

Posted 14 June 2012 - 09:55 PM

I agree with Hyp in regards to having what are currently illegal drugs government regualted sometime in the future. There are 2 main benefits to this that I see (at least in Canada):

1. More money for the government to use, hopefully on good stuff.
2. Less illegal cash going around.

The same thing kinda happened with alcohol in the 1910-20's. The Canadian and US governments, if I remember right, had to re-legalize it because so many money were making dirty money of off smuggling it in from Mexico and the such. In Canada at least, we have provincial boards that sell alcohol, and not in excess. The same idea can probably be applied to drugs.

#5 Kisseena

Kisseena

    my lesbff

  • Members
  • 8,900 posts
  • Location:sweg
  • Gender:Female
  • Puerto Rico

Posted 14 June 2012 - 10:43 PM

I think a few drugs can be made legal, but I think Heroin, Meth, and other extreme drugs like that should stay illegal.
But like being drunk in public, being high in public should be illegal too, since it can impair your judgement and stuff.

I just don't like the idea of drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol. But just as long as people aren't doing that around me, I'm fine.

#6 wisp

wisp

    Boobie Administrator

  • Admin
  • 13,535 posts
  • Location:in ur base killin ur mans
  • Gender:Knarrarbringa
  • South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

Posted 15 June 2012 - 01:02 AM

I think hard drugs should probably stay illegal. But I am completely in favour of legalizing pot for recreational use by adults. And as long as you aren't causing a public disturbance or behaving recklessly, I don't think there should be any penalty for simply being high in public (I feel the same way about being drunk). If they legalized it, they could stop wasting resources locking up nonviolent offenders for a victimless crime (and they could stop ruining people's lives over something petty, while they're at it). Regulate it and sell it in stores and they could ensure that people aren't getting pot that's laced with anything nasty, and they could probably use the taxes they'd make on it for something good. Not to mention that the many people who use it medicinally could then do so without fear. I don't know why they're still fighting this; I'm pretty confident that a majority of citizens want this legalized even if they don't want to use it personally. The government already acknowledged that Prohibition didn't work with alcohol; it doesn't work with this either. And I don't see any evidence to suggest that it's any more hazardous than alcohol or tobacco, so that's not really cutting it as an excuse for keeping it illegal in my book.

#7 J-Roc

J-Roc

    "I'm the microphone assassin, beats blastin!"

  • Members
  • 3,525 posts
  • Location:Sunnyvale Trailer Park
  • Gender:Male
  • Canada

Posted 15 June 2012 - 01:16 AM



Listen to the prophet speak.

#8 Sir Deimos

Sir Deimos

    Harbinger of the Fall.

  • Members
  • 10,203 posts
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Gender:Male
  • Swaziland

Posted 15 June 2012 - 11:11 PM

MDMA back in the day wasn't illegal at all. In fact, psychologists would use it to help them better sympathize with their patients. It wouldn't be all too surprising to see it come down a peg or two on the controlled substances list.


That being said I am definitely against legalizing street drugs. Legalize marijuana. That makes sense. MDMA makes sense to a degree. And it would make sense if laws were less harsh for things like LSD, and mushrooms.

#9 JRPomazon

JRPomazon

    Selfish, Arrogant Bastard

  • Moderators
  • 15,311 posts
  • Location:Beverly, Massachusetts
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 16 June 2012 - 12:54 AM

Legal, Illegal. You keep it under contraband then at least a couple more cops can stay out of the unemployment line.

Also, Pot smells terrible. It's like burning B.O. If anything, it should be illegal for offending the senses.

#10 J-Roc

J-Roc

    "I'm the microphone assassin, beats blastin!"

  • Members
  • 3,525 posts
  • Location:Sunnyvale Trailer Park
  • Gender:Male
  • Canada

Posted 16 June 2012 - 01:04 AM

One should also note that heroine was once thought the more humane alternative to morphine.

#11 Sir Deimos

Sir Deimos

    Harbinger of the Fall.

  • Members
  • 10,203 posts
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Gender:Male
  • Swaziland

Posted 16 June 2012 - 01:25 AM

Heroin, morphine, oxycodone, hydrocodone, hydromorphone. All that shit has very similar effects on the body. They all break down into morphine in your body (especially the morphine I guess ;d) I think it was heroin that was initially a cough medicine. xD Either way, ALL of that shit is highly addictive. AND THE BEST PART:the stronger it is, the better chance you have of ACCIDENTALLY TAKING TOO MUCH. The fun part is when it depresses breathing! Maybe that's why the shit is mostly illegal. CAUSE IT TURNS YOUR LUNGS OFF.

#12 Stew

Stew

    Legendary

  • Members
  • 2,859 posts
  • Location:Awesometown
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 June 2012 - 06:56 AM

Regulating and supplying drugs would take way way way too much infrastructure to accomplish. Especially for a country with a low population like Canada. We'd have to have it outsourced to the United States or something. Which would also be a clusterfuck of managing and overseeing production and transportation to ensure that it met Canadian health standards. Even for something as simple as pot.

And then the police would still have to investigate illegal growth, development and selling of drugs. The whole things would create so many new problems that it's just not feasible.

#13 J-Roc

J-Roc

    "I'm the microphone assassin, beats blastin!"

  • Members
  • 3,525 posts
  • Location:Sunnyvale Trailer Park
  • Gender:Male
  • Canada

Posted 18 June 2012 - 09:01 AM

Regulating and supplying drugs would take way way way too much infrastructure to accomplish. Especially for a country with a low population like Canada. We'd have to have it outsourced to the United States or something. Which would also be a clusterfuck of managing and overseeing production and transportation to ensure that it met Canadian health standards. Even for something as simple as pot.

And then the police would still have to investigate illegal growth, development and selling of drugs. The whole things would create so many new problems that it's just not feasible.


We currently have enough grow-ops to supply demand. I don't know what population has to do with being able to provide the service? We somehow came out of alcohol prohibition without burning the country to the ground like oh so many predicted.

I think unfounded opinions like this are the only thing holding this back, and hopefully once we poke enough holes in them we'll finally be able to show how well it would work.

#14 arunma

arunma

    Physics and math maniac

  • Moderators
  • 3,615 posts
  • Location:University of Minnesota
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 June 2012 - 10:37 PM

I guess the question of legalizing any drug comes down to a question of how much control you want the government to have in public life. Historically, governments have existed largely to protect peoples' rights, i.e. to safety, property, and such. You can make an argument that some drugs like heroin and meth are cause people to be harmful to others and should be banned. With other drugs like marijuana it's more of a gray area. Honestly I'd say that alcohol causes the user to be more dangerous to others than pot (after all, who ever heard of an angry stoner?). And this sort of sucks because I like my scotch every night, but would never do pot. In the case of drugs I'd say there's no absolute standard that can be applied to all governments. I'm not even remotely libertarian, but this might be best left for states to decide.

So the real question for me is: does ecstasy cause the user to be harmful to others? If it truly does not, then perhaps the possibility should be opened up for its legalization.

#15 Stew

Stew

    Legendary

  • Members
  • 2,859 posts
  • Location:Awesometown
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 June 2012 - 05:15 PM

We currently have enough grow-ops to supply demand.


Wrong, drugs are not in excess supply. That’s why they’re so expensive. MDMA, for example (The drug mentioned in the OPs post, which is actually the pure form of the active ingredient in Ecstasy. They are similar but different) MDMA is super hard for dealers to come by right now in North America. In fact, the market has been almost completely dried up for months. So, instead of MDMA, the dealers have been lacing pills with opiates, household chemicals, and other drugs. Mainly methamphetamine. There is very little, if any, MDMA in a MDMA pill from North America.

I don't know what population has to do with being able to provide the service? We somehow came out of alcohol prohibition without burning the country to the ground like oh so many predicted.


You don’t know what population has to do with being able to provide a service? Are you serious? If a population can’t produce enough workers for an industry to manufacture and regulate a product, then it cannot produce the product in any feasible way. Canadian lumber is processed in the United States. Not because it saves us money (it actually costs us a shitload of money and we make very little from the raw material) but because Canada doesn’t have the industry to do so.
But you think we would have the infrastructure (that means the people, money, equipment, technology, and space by the way) to produce, manufacture, inspect, regulate, and sell drugs? All while maintaining a police service to prevent the illegal production and importing of drugs?
The short answer is ‘no’.

Prohibition was a completely different situation. Potheads that keep bringing that up are ignorant beyond belief and it really shows. The infrastructure was already in place when alcohol was banned. When it was legalized again, guess what? They already knew how the system worked because it already existed.

I think unfounded opinions like this are the only thing holding this back, and hopefully once we poke enough holes in them we'll finally be able to show how well it would work.

Yeah, because a fucking comedian is an ideal argument. What’s next? Are you going to link to a Linkin Park song to convince people what political party to vote for?

#16 Oberon Storm

Oberon Storm

    Are you my mummy?

  • Members
  • 3,196 posts
  • Location:San Marcos, TX
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 19 June 2012 - 06:25 PM

I would agree trying to regulate pot in any significant way isn't really going to work. It is just to easy to grow in a basement. For pot I would say just legalize it with minimal regulation such as age restrictions and not driving. This would also mean you can't really tax it, but there would still be a decrease in nonviolent crimes. No more tax money wasted on potheads in prisons. I guess the same could be said for MDMA and ecstasy,

#17 J-Roc

J-Roc

    "I'm the microphone assassin, beats blastin!"

  • Members
  • 3,525 posts
  • Location:Sunnyvale Trailer Park
  • Gender:Male
  • Canada

Posted 20 June 2012 - 10:30 AM

First off, you were going after the wrong statements there, man. I was talking about grow-ops for pot, MDMA is of no use to me. And the charcterization of calling us all potheads is a little rich, I use marijuna to treat clincial depression that I was diagonised with years ago. No I don't have a script, but I'm not just some asshole.

And potheads aren't just pulling the ideas of these systems out of their ass. They actually are actively work in a number of countries right now. Former politicans, memebers of the DEA, etc, etc, etc. they aren't stoners, but they agree with me. Thats good enough for me, convincing people like you is obviously an excersize in futility. Are you actually content with the world as it is right now? I sure as shit am not, we're going to need more money to ever improve our lot so that is what I mean when I say its a "no-brainer".

And comparing Bill Hicks to Linkin Park... thats just stupid.

#18 arunma

arunma

    Physics and math maniac

  • Moderators
  • 3,615 posts
  • Location:University of Minnesota
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 June 2012 - 12:45 AM

Dude, Stew...calm down and don't make me close an otherwise good topic, OK?

(You guys haven't really done anything wrong quite yet, but I've been doing Contro long enough to know how it starts. Sorry for being preemptive.)

#19 ninja kitten

ninja kitten

    the kiss of death

  • Members
  • 11,124 posts
  • Location:sleeping
  • Gender:Female
  • United States

Posted 21 June 2012 - 01:53 PM

Legalizing drugs won't stop the illegal activity. Look at the abuse prescription drugs have taken. They're legal drugs gained through legal channels, but they end up in the hands of dealers anyways. It will be the same with pot. Just cuz you can buy it with your cigarettes doesn't mean that your neighbor isn't going to stop growing some in his basement. There's no perfect solution to any of it.

That said, they should legalize and regulate everything! The more tax money they gain from sales is less money that gets taken out of my paycheck. Win-Win.

#20 Sir Deimos

Sir Deimos

    Harbinger of the Fall.

  • Members
  • 10,203 posts
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Gender:Male
  • Swaziland

Posted 21 June 2012 - 04:23 PM

I had a huge diatribe posted but my phone deleted it.

When people say legalize weed they mean buy it like alcohol or cigarettes. Opiates are a controlled substance. Saying they're legal is wrong. You can't just get opiates without a prescription.

Weed: mostly harmless.

Opiates: addictive. And can KILL you.


You simply cannot compare the two.

#21 J-Roc

J-Roc

    "I'm the microphone assassin, beats blastin!"

  • Members
  • 3,525 posts
  • Location:Sunnyvale Trailer Park
  • Gender:Male
  • Canada

Posted 21 June 2012 - 06:50 PM

I had a huge diatribe posted but my phone deleted it.

When people say legalize weed they mean buy it like alcohol or cigarettes. Opiates are a controlled substance. Saying they're legal is wrong. You can't just get opiates without a prescription.

Weed: mostly harmless.

Opiates: addictive. And can KILL you.


You simply cannot compare the two.


What about sleeping pills?

#22 Hypnotic13

Hypnotic13

    Master

  • Members
  • 852 posts
  • Location:Alberta
  • Gender:Female
  • Canada

Posted 22 June 2012 - 09:21 AM

Sleeping pills are addictive. They can be very addictive. Thats why you aren't supposed to take them all the time, or in a regular pattern. They are best taken at random and on a serverely needed basis. Thats why they are regulated via prescription.

#23 J-Roc

J-Roc

    "I'm the microphone assassin, beats blastin!"

  • Members
  • 3,525 posts
  • Location:Sunnyvale Trailer Park
  • Gender:Male
  • Canada

Posted 22 June 2012 - 06:17 PM

Sleeping pills are addictive. They can be very addictive. Thats why you aren't supposed to take them all the time, or in a regular pattern. They are best taken at random and on a serverely needed basis. Thats why they are regulated via prescription.


Thats not true. That was my point, you can get them over the counter. No prescription needed. Its not like we regulate these things because we care about people, its all about dollars and cents.

#24 arunma

arunma

    Physics and math maniac

  • Moderators
  • 3,615 posts
  • Location:University of Minnesota
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 June 2012 - 01:00 AM

That said, they should legalize and regulate everything! The more tax money they gain from sales is less money that gets taken out of my paycheck. Win-Win.


Well, I can see how legalization would work with pot or even ecstasy. But, to use an extreme example to make my point, what about heroin? There's basically no safe way to use that. Now, I'm all for legalizing drugs that are reasonably safe. But how do you legalize something that's never safe?

Thats not true. That was my point, you can get them over the counter. No prescription needed. Its not like we regulate these things because we care about people, its all about dollars and cents.


But...if it were about money, wouldn't the pharmaceutical companies be lobbying for sleeping pills to be over the counter? Maybe I'm wrong here; do you have any example of how someone profits from making sleeping pills prescription-only? I don't know much about the pharmacy industry (which is weird, since I know a lot about the medical industry), but as far as I can tell doctors and the FDA really do care about people and tend to do what's in our best interest. Consider this: doctors get paid shittons of money no matter what position they take on these issues. Doctors are probably the most important people in society since they directly save lives, and we're not about to stop paying them, lest they sit a round out the next time one of us goes into cardiac arrest. As such, they're in a position to act in a reasonably ethical manner without catering to special interests (after all, what do they care what anyone thinks?). The closest thing doctors have to "lobbyists" is pharmaceutical salesmen. And if doctors are still resisting pressure to make sleeping pills OTC, it suggests to me that they do so for medical reasons rather than financial ones.

Am I missing something? At the moment I think it's a bit presumptuous for us to charge the medical industry with profiteering. When you're already filthy rich, it seems a bit pointless to sell out.

#25 J-Roc

J-Roc

    "I'm the microphone assassin, beats blastin!"

  • Members
  • 3,525 posts
  • Location:Sunnyvale Trailer Park
  • Gender:Male
  • Canada

Posted 23 June 2012 - 05:23 AM

Am I missing something? At the moment I think it's a bit presumptuous for us to charge the medical industry with profiteering. When you're already filthy rich, it seems a bit pointless to sell out.


I'd be damn ignorant to argue with someone like you, a geniune expert in the field, about whether or not this could be construed as profiteering or anything remotely immoral. But then again, I also believe that some shit is so out there that you can't even make it up. Perhaps its just my stupid paranoia of a capitalist pig-fucker world but it wouldn't be the first time such an act occured in the field of medicine.

#26 arunma

arunma

    Physics and math maniac

  • Moderators
  • 3,615 posts
  • Location:University of Minnesota
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 June 2012 - 06:18 PM

I'd be damn ignorant to argue with someone like you, a geniune expert in the field, about whether or not this could be construed as profiteering or anything remotely immoral. But then again, I also believe that some shit is so out there that you can't even make it up. Perhaps its just my stupid paranoia of a capitalist pig-fucker world but it wouldn't be the first time such an act occured in the field of medicine.


Heh, well I'm no expert. OK I am, but not in medicine. What I know basically comes from the time I spent in undergrad as a premed, working in labs, that sort of thing. As for the morality of these sorts of things, I guess that's what we keep the philosophers around for.

About the cheerleader getting dystonia from a flu shot, I think that attribution is a bit suspect. She exhibited symptoms ten days after the shot, and thus correlates it with geting the vaccine. Maybe this is the first time she got a flu shot. But even so, it may also happen to be the first time she went to an away game in San Francisco and got exposed to a pathogen in the drinking water (I don't know anything about football, so forgive me if the Redskins don't play the 49ers), or maybe she tried a bananna smoothie for the first time. There's any number of things that could have happened to her body. Or, she may have hit her head and forgotten about it (the article says head trauma can cause the onset of symptoms). Again, one would be presumptuous to attribute dystonia to the flu vaccine.

I know that's a bit off topic, but I do think it's important to point out that these treatments are both safe and necessary. A flu shot is no big deal, but people who eschew all vaccines are putting themselves at serious risk for all kinds of deadly illnesses. There's a reason life expectancy used to be lower before the advent of modern medicine.