People Against Prohibition

[curiositykilledthecat]

I don't advocate drug use of any kind, however the 'war on drugs' is a costly failure.

The only drugs that should be legal on the free market are the same ones prior to prohibition, i.e. Weed, opium and cocaine. I'm going to add any drug that is naturally occurring or harvested from nature should be legal. Any drug that is a chemical cocktil made in any sort of 'lab' should not be. I also believe that if you are high on a drug and kill someone, you should be murdered on the spot. If we're going to allow the use of said substances and you inconvenience the life of another then you have exercised an inability to be a productive member of society. As it stands I think the lighter sentences for vehicular manslaughter on drunks is bullshit. If you're behind the wheel drunk or high and are caught, your license should be revoked permanently.

[curiositykilledthecat]

so you are saying it is unacceptable to drive a car while under the influence of ANY substance. hhmmmm.. so you think people who use tobacco, caffeine, blood-pressure medicine, any sort of heart, diabetic, or psych drug, or any other drug should not be aloud to drive while under the influence of that drug. wow you must want the whole road to yourself. the fact of the matter is that medicine effects people differently. if you know you can handle a car while on a cirtan medicine then you should be aloud to. some people are shitty drivers sober let alone intoxicated and they are still aloud to drive.

Way to jump on the logic fail train there buddy. Not every substance or medication causes an individual to become inebriated or experience a high. I take metformin and it doesn't make me high, it just makes me shit. I rather it made me high but it doesn't. If any individual is a big enough of an asshole to drive while intoxicated on any type of drug then shame on them.

[SilverIce]

Okay then, I won't. I'll cite 'medical' methamphetamine instead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine_%28medical%29

The funny thing is that they even give amphetamine to children, because it's just that safe when you take it in the proper doses.

Oh and that heroin stuff? Well, heroin is just a brand name. That's right, it heroin was a product marketed by Bayer at one point. The actual name of the drug is diacetylmorphine, and it's almost identical to morphine. In fact, it is still prescribed by competent doctors for pain in many developed countries to this very day under the name of diamorphine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin

There you have it, the two most evil drugs in the world are both used for medical purposes in several developed nations. I fail to understand why any substance is fully prohibited when there are superior systems already in place that would enable regulation.

Alright, im going to sound rather shallow but here goes. First, there are plenty of other stuff availible for kids with ADHD, i know, i grew up with it when i was a kid. Now, even if you are still looking at the other version of treatment which would be for a form of obesity... Thats easily regulated considering its clear if someone is suffering from the condition and therefore not an issue. So, if you really... really want to be nitpicky, i can see legalization with strict implacations like monitering the amount and dates of the perscription etc.

Either way alot of this would need to be answered by somebody in a legal field with a high level of medical education etc. Like, literally your reaming out a person with a police officers level of education for the creation of laws. My opinion is basic and on a base line perspective and i am far from a specailist on the matter.

Just sayin.

Oh, and dont get into the habbit of citing wikipedia.

[Conatus]

Way to jump on the logic fail train there buddy. Not every substance or medication causes an individual to become inebriated or experience a high. I take metformin and it doesn't make me high, it just makes me shit. I rather it made me high but it doesn't. If any individual is a big enough of an asshole to drive while intoxicated on any type of drug then shame on them.

the point i am trying to make is that you can give two people the same dose of the same drug and one might go out in la la land and the other may stay bone sober. it has a lot to do with body weight and tolerance.

[curiositykilledthecat]

the point i am trying to make is that you can give two people the same dose of the same drug and one might go out in la la land and the other may stay bone sober. it has a lot to do with body weight and tolerance.

Okay, that makes a little more sense.

[SilverIce]

the point i am trying to make is that you can give two people the same dose of the same drug and one might go out in la la land and the other may stay bone sober. it has a lot to do with body weight and tolerance.

Exactly, thats why we have tests to determine if you are physically capable. If you have ever been pulled over for a possible DUI in virtually any modern country i am quiet sure you have experienced some of them. xD

[WallaWalla]

Either way alot of this would need to be answered by somebody in a legal field with a high level of medical education etc.

That makes sense, given that I'm a graduate student specializing in biochemistry.

But you know, speaking of asking people in the legal field:

In the U.S., MDMA was legal and unregulated until May 31, 1985, at which time it was emergency scheduled to DEA Schedule I, for drugs deemed to have no medical uses and a high potential for abuse. During DEA hearings to schedule MDMA, most experts recommended DEA Schedule III prescription status for the drug, due to beneficial usage of MDMA in psychotherapy. The judge overseeing the hearings, Francis Young, also recommended that MDMA be placed in Schedule III. Nevertheless, the DEA classified MDMA as Schedule I.[74][75]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA

The evidence of record does not establish that, in the context of $ 812, MDMA has a "high potential for abuse." Accordingly, it cannot be placed in Schedule II. (We have already seen that it cannot be placed in Schedule I, because it does have "a currently accepted medical use in treatment" and it does not "lack . . . accepted safety for use . . . under medical supervision.")

No one has argued here that the evidence establishes that MDMA "may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence," another requirement for Schedule II placement. The evidence does not so establish. For this reason, also, MDMA cannot be placed in Schedule II.

Mr. Ehrnstein argues that MDMA cannot be scheduled at all because HHS has not performed such a scientific and medical evaluation as the CSA calls for. He asserts that this failure deprives DEA of "jurisdiction" to schedule the drug. The administrative law judge rejects this argument. The statute requires DEA to "request" an evaluation from HHS. DEA did so. HHS did send a recommendation to DEA. DEA is considering that recommendation. The minimum statutory requirements have been met in this case.

Mr. Ehrnstein also argues that the evidence establishes no abuse potential sufficient to place MDMA in any of the five schedules. Ihe administrative law judge agrees, and accepts this argument, as to Schedule II. The judge disagrees with, and rejects, the remainder of the argument. There is ample evidence of some abuse potential in the record.

Drs. Grinspoon, et al., argue that sufficient evidence of abuse potential has been shown to warrant placing of MDMA in Schedule III. The administrative law judge agrees, concluding that the evidence does establish MDMA to have "potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in Schedules I and II," and to establish that abuse of MDMA "may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence." 21 U.S.C. $ 812((3).

The administrative law judge concludes that the evidence of record requires MDMA to be placed in Schedule III.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_law2.shtml <--- That's a first hand document.

Oh, and dont get into the habbit of citing wikipedia.

I appreciate your concern for my sense of academic rigor.

There's an agenda behind prohibition policies, and it has everything to do with private interests from what I have witnessed. If it had anything to do with justice, then the executive branch would stop reaching over the head of the judicial branch at every turn possible.

[SilverIce]

That makes sense, given that I'm a graduate student specializing in biochemistry.

But you know, speaking of asking people in the legal field:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_law2.shtml <--- That's a first hand document.

I appreciate your concern for my sense of academic rigor.

There's an agenda behind prohibition policies, and it has everything to do with private interests from what I have witnessed. If it had anything to do with justice, then the executive branch would stop reaching over the head of the judicial branch at every turn possible.

Except your quoting american laws to a canadian criminal justice student. =o

and i was just teasing you about the wikipedia part XD.

[messyman]

The funny thing is that they even give amphetamine to children, because it's just that safe when you take it in the proper doses.

It's debatable how safe that is. Kids on amphetamines grow up to have heart disease at a higher rate than normal. And giving the same doses of the same drugs to adults has been a factor in many friendly fire incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Canadian army that orders soldiers to take anti malaria drugs that can cause psychosis and then hands them a machine gun won't issue Adderal.

[curiositykilledthecat]

I'm more worried about the stuff in our food then the drugs we give the kids.

[WallaWalla]

It's debatable how safe that is. Kids on amphetamines grow up to have heart disease at a higher rate than normal. And giving the same doses of the same drugs to adults has been a factor in many friendly fire incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I will agree with all of that, and was being somewhat facetious. I can understand why you might have not picked that up. My reference to the use of amphetamines in children is to highlight the hypocrisy of many anti-drug arguments that 'they are illegal because they are not fit for human use, and we all agree on that as a society.' The fact is, we don't. The reasons that they are illegal go far beyond public safety.

[ldatsea]

its really hard to answer the poll correctly as i agree that SOME drugs should be legal things like heroin,meth etc are nothing but distructive drugs and can not be compared to drugs like marajuana,acholol, and some other with medical uses, so some drugs should never be available for use..... so some drugs should be regulated to who use's and how much some can be taxed like tabacco and acholol some need to stay banned....

my 2 cents

[froggy]

The poll does not have answers that suit my need. The abuse of alcohol, legal drugs, or illegal drugs is a problem. I do not want to be on the roads, in the workplace, or living near those who are likely to cause harm to themselves or others because of drug abuse. We are only as free as we do not harm others. Freedom is not limitless. Personally, I could go along with the legalization of marijuana as long as there are limits on impared driving, etc. I cannot see legalizing the others.

[SilverIce]

The poll does not have answers that suit my need. The abuse of alcohol, legal drugs, or illegal drugs is a problem. I do not want to be on the roads, in the workplace, or living near those who are likely to cause harm to themselves or others because of drug abuse. We are only as free as we do not harm others. Freedom is not limitless. Personally, I could go along with the legalization of marijuana as long as there are limits on impared driving, etc. I cannot see legalizing the others.

Thats a big bingo in my books too from a personal perspective. ^^)b

[TheMagicDragon]

Marijuana/ THC is a gateway drug. Dope!

[loopy]

Marijuana/ THC is a gateway drug. Dope!

No it isn't.

The only way its a gateway is because you have to buy it off dodgy street dealers who always try to get you to buy other stuff, which makes them more money.

[leery]

I always crack up at the thought of people going to jail because of a silly herb.

[Darkfinn]

Personally I think all drugs should be legal. If someone wants to go out and destroy their brain on drugs then it is one less person I have to compete with for a job.

[Guest Wetnmessy247]

All drugs should NOT be legalized. Imagine a society strung out on heroine.

Pot should be legalized. Safe, has medicinal value, and takes the edge off.

If alcohol is legal, why isn't pot?

[Darkfinn]

It's all about personal freedoms. If you want to destroy your brain and ruin your life, who should stop you? I would certainly have all the crack heads out there be able to legally get what they need rather than have them break into my house and steal my stuff to try and get some cash.

Call it natural selection. What do governments do? They prevent natural selection from happening. The general public gets less intelligent (on average) with each generation b/c the government is too busy trying to protect us from ourselves.

As long as you don't harm another human being while in the act, why should anyone care what you do on your time and with your money?

[Guest Wetnmessy247]

California legalized it in small amounts and you can actually GROW the damn stuff and not be arrested for it if it's like 5 plants and under.

I'm moving to California.

[Lil Fox Scotty 91]

I think pot should be legal but treated the same as alcohol. For 21 and older only.

[rusty pins]

You want to fuc up your mind with pot, drugs and alcohol, go ahead.  As far as I'm concerned, unless it's for medical use to control pain, it's stupid.  My opinion and I'm entitled to it.

[Warmwetandcozy]

Here is my radical and would be fully funional opinon/idea/solution to controlled substances of all types it is as follows the DRUGS ARE NOT the problem THE LAWS ARE NOT the problem THE PEOPLE WHOM irresponsibly USE them ARE the problem it is 100 percent possible  to get drunk or high SAFELY but first you should do the following 1. Find a willing responsible and sober  trip/drunk sitter 2. Give Him or her your car keys firearms and anything else that does not go well with drugs or alcohol 3 make sure your dependents are  fed and taken care of while your messed up 4 pay off all debts and bills before getting messed up 5 make sure you are an isolated place where away from anyone who does not want to be with drunks OR dopeys 6 make sure you have plenty of time to sober up before going back to your daily responsibilities example if your work week is Monday thru Friday get drunk on Friday night after you get your stuff done enjoy being wasted Saturday but don't  drink any more Sunday sober up!!! Monday be at work 30 minute early and one hundred percent sober do your job till friday and repeat the before mentioned steps im not asking you to do any thing that I myself would not do when me  or my girlfriend get drunk we follow all the aforementioned steps and we do not end up with DUIs or disorderly conduct charges I don't go drive my cab wasted or go to the firing range while I've still under the influence my girlfriend doesn't show up to wait tables at the diner hungover because we drink responsibly the reason why things like cocaine opiates and meth are ILLEGAL is because 1 they take a long time to wear off 2 the people that use them to get high instead of using common sense decide to leave there kids unattended to get hurt or worse stay with there kids while messed up and get them into trouble 3 they decide instead of providing clothes food and shelter for there family's they buy drugs 4 the vast majority of the time they don't have a sober trip sitter or don't give up there car key or guns while messed up and end up  injuring or killing themselves or someone else

NOW as I said there is away for people to get high and none of those things happen it is as follows make specialized places for people to pay to be locked up while high so for those whom want to get high instead of going to the beach for vacation you could pay to spend your 2 weeks off locked up in a place where you will have zero access to vehicles flamables or firearms and the people that work there are trained in how to take care of people whom are high on drugs so you can stay there and enjoy being high and play video games watch tv or what ever other safe activitys that are available without being a hazard to your self or others thank you all for reading I'm not trying to insult any one I'm just writhing an idea which I strongly believe would work if ever implemented DISCLAIMER I AM NOT ENCOURAGING THE USE OR ABUSE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS OR OTHER COUNTROLED SUBSTANCES I AM JUST POSTING HOW TO USE THEM RESPONSIBLY AND WHAT COULD AND HAS HAPPENED BEFORE WHEN SUBSTANCES ARE ABUSED

 

THANK YOU FOR READING HAVE NICE DAY 

 

 

[Elbs]

On 2/23/2010 at 8:26 AM, ~Skitty~ said:

now anti-smokers, have the dangers of tobacco over hyped and over propagandad.

ive been smoking for 2 years, and i havent had any negative affects yet. so why are people freakingg out about second hand smoke when its only like a .1% that i ingest on a daily basis?

its bullshit. plain and simple :l

Most of the negative effects of smoking come after decades of exposure, not just two years. Things like lung cancer, COPD, emphysema, all develop after decades of regular exposure. A regular smoker has an average life expectancy 14 years shorter than a non-smoker.

Secondhand smoke is an issue for two reasons:

a) people like me, who have pre-existing conditions - cigarette smoke sets off my asthma. If you want to set off my medical condition because you can't be bothered to find somewhere private to smoke, then you're just an asshole

b) people who are exposed on a regular basis, such as family members of smokers or people who work in places where lots of people smoke