WEED

[Michael]

That's funny lol. but I'm talking about those idiots that are all "Hur dur, this is so funny because [9]"

[sth]

[Photekq]

I dislike those annoying kids that have to tell you they smoke and how high they are. Like everybody on r/trees. It's no longer cool and rebellious. It's common and you are not special.

too relevant for me to not post it..
http://i.imgur.com/x07sYz3.png

[KangarooZombies]

I dislike those annoying kids that have to tell you they smoke and how high they are. Like everybody on r/trees. It's no longer cool and rebellious. It's common and you are not special.

too relevant for me to not post it..
http://i.imgur.com/x07sYz3.png

gold.

pure gold.

[Dubsgalore]

I dislike those annoying kids that have to tell you they smoke and how high they are. Like everybody on r/trees. It's no longer cool and rebellious. It's common and you are not special.

too relevant for me to not post it..
http://i.imgur.com/x07sYz3.png

hahahhahah

[demik]

Somebody sold rarar oregano

[KangarooZombies]

Somebody sold rarar oregano

wow, so flavor.

[Dubsgalore]

das some dank ass kush son

i believe he told irc that he was very high 

[KangarooZombies]

hahaha oh rarar.

Serious though, yesterday someone taught me a neat trick for all of you growers out there.

Right now is just before blooming season, start adding a little bit of molasses to your top soil before you water.

This will make for denser, sweeter tasting buds.

Kangaroo~

[Michael]

[noisyturtle]

Yeah, weed is fine(great even?) but the pothead culture is annoying and incredibly immature to me. Best to raise your own, avoid human contact that way 

[Findecanor]

California jails are filled with people that dabbled in pot, which seems ridiculous.

Jails in the USA being overflowing with people who dabbled in $DRUG is less because of $DRUG and more because of rich people in power fearing and hating the poor and the coloured.

... grown adults should be able to make their own decisions.

Yet another classic stupid argument, an argument you hear from drug addicts in denial and from libertarians who do not know any better.

Tobacco addiction spreads when people are subjected to second-hand smoke. That's it.
Becoming an addict is never your decision, it is a decision that the drug made for you. It feels like you made a choice, but you did not know it because the drug had tampered with your mind, literally!
While you don't have a choice of becoming an addict, you do have the choice of not actively spreading addiction to other people.
However, many drug addicts refuse to actively do anything that would restrict their drug own use, and that is why I think that there needs to be laws against smoking.

It is physically impossible to overdose on THC.

Some people suffer extremely ill effects because of THC while others are fine from the same dose. Just saying.

BTW, I think that medicinal marijuana should be sold in pill or drink form, in pharmacies, on prescription, like any other medicine. Any other way, and you are not really serious about it being used as medicine.

Note, I am not anti-marijuana. I don't use it, nor do I know anyone who does. It is not so common over here. I would probably have tried if when I was in Amsterdam a month ago if I had not been on medication at the time. I don't want to end up like Heath Ledger or Brittany Murphy, you know.

[Melvang]

California jails are filled with people that dabbled in pot, which seems ridiculous.

Jails in the USA being overflowing with people who dabbled in $DRUG is less because of $DRUG and more because of rich people in power fearing and hating the poor and the coloured.

... grown adults should be able to make their own decisions.

Yet another classic stupid argument, an argument you hear from drug addicts in denial and from libertarians who do not know any better.

Tobacco addiction spreads when people are subjected to second-hand smoke. That's it.
Becoming an addict is never your decision, it is a decision that the drug made for you. It feels like you made a choice, but you did not know it because the drug had tampered with your mind, literally!
While you don't have a choice of becoming an addict, you do have the choice of not actively spreading addiction to other people.
However, many drug addicts refuse to actively do anything that would restrict their drug own use, and that is why I think that there needs to be laws against smoking.

So it is the drugs choice for the human to use it?  Like a bud of marijuana crawled itself into a bowl, magically floated up to someones lips and just spontanously cumbusted and forced said individual to inhale?  What kind of a delusion is this?  Also in the case of marijuana there is ZERO physical addiction.  There may be a small mental addiction to it in some people but still ZERO physical addiction.

So choosing not to use the drug in the first place apparently doesn't qualify as choosing not to become an addict anymore.

It is physically impossible to overdose on THC.

Some people suffer extremely ill effects because of THC while others are fine from the same dose. Just saying.

BTW, I think that medicinal marijuana should be sold in pill or drink form, in pharmacies, on prescription, like any other medicine. Any other way, and you are not really serious about it being used as medicine.

Note, I am not anti-marijuana. I don't use it, nor do I know anyone who does. It is not so common over here. I would probably have tried if when I was in Amsterdam a month ago if I had not been on medication at the time. I don't want to end up like Heath Ledger or Brittany Murphy, you know.

The ill effects are that some people feel are whats called an allergic reaction. This is not the same as overdosing.   Not a result of THC in most people.  However, even adding in the amount of people that are allergic to marijuana it still has a lower rate of adverse effects than 99% of the other drugs that it is prescribed for.  And on the topic of medical marijuana in pill or drink for it already exist in pill form that I know of.  Problem is it is a synthesized form and has a very reduced effect from the smoked version. 

And on your last comment you would be safer mixing other prescriptions with marijuana than you are mixing it with alcohol.

[turtle]

 

  Ll
P

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

It would be nice if the federal government legalized it, but Congress is about as productive as a bunch of potheads so I doubt it'll happen for quite some time...

[turtle]

Sorry pocket post while I was reading up on it.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Relevant:

[Grim Fandango]

 I live in Holland. Though ironically, when I studied in dorms in the US and Canada, I did more weed than I ever did in my life or ever have since.

[Malphas]

... grown adults should be able to make their own decisions.

Yet another classic stupid argument, an argument you hear from drug addicts in denial and from libertarians who do not know any better.

Tobacco addiction spreads when people are subjected to second-hand smoke. That's it.
Becoming an addict is never your decision, it is a decision that the drug made for you. It feels like you made a choice, but you did not know it because the drug had tampered with your mind, literally!
While you don't have a choice of becoming an addict, you do have the choice of not actively spreading addiction to other people.
However, many drug addicts refuse to actively do anything that would restrict their drug own use, and that is why I think that there needs to be laws against smoking.

"Tobacco addiction spreads when people are subjected to second-hand smoke. That's it." - biggest load of horse**** I've read in a long time. No-one in their right mind would believe something as idiotic as that except for the most fanatical and deluded of the anti-smoking brigade.

Your point on addiction is moot. The individual should have the right on whether or not to take an addictive substance, the repercussions of that decision are that individuals responsibility. Some people handle addictive substances badly, others handle them are fairly well. Not only that but half of the illegal drugs list aren't even additive, e.g. cannabis, MDMA, LSD, whilst many legal drugs like nicotine or prescribed medications are. Why is it acceptable to decide to take an addictive drug for treatment of a minor illness, but wrong to take an illegal drug for recreation? The principle is the same, your analysis of whether or not the benefits outweigh the risks is an subjective opinion, not an objective fact.

[microsoft windows]

PEOPLE GET ADDICTED TO TOBACCO BECAUSE THEY STOP SMOKIING WEED

[cactux]

It could be anything else food, tabaco, light drugs, etc. They need to fillup that hole some how.

[microsoft windows]

Any more thoughts on the legality of weed? Seems that the movement has been gaining stream recently.

[Binge]

Any more thoughts on the legality of weed? Seems that the movement has been gaining stream recently.

I know a lot of people who use windows and apple products who smoke weed.  This obviously means it's fine and both operating systems are as good as one another.

[microsoft windows]

Any more thoughts on the legality of weed? Seems that the movement has been gaining stream recently.

I know a lot of people who use windows and apple products who smoke weed.  This obviously means it's fine and both operating systems are as good as one another.

You are wrong. Just because somebody smokes weed doesn't mean that they're smart. If they use Macs, than they are stupid. If they use Windows, then they are smart. It's just common sense--the science is already settled.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Any more thoughts on the legality of weed? Seems that the movement has been gaining stream recently.

Connecticut voters apparently support legalization: http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2014/05/12/connecticut-is-latest-state-where-a-majority-back-marijuana-legalization/

[Malphas]

Making laws against what substances people are allowed to injest/inhale/inject is asinine. All recreational drugs should be de-criminalised immediately.

[baldgye]

Making laws against what substances people are allowed to injest/inhale/inject is asinine. All recreational drugs should be de-criminalised immediately.

While I don't really understand your reasoning or logic I'm not sure I really agree too much.
As animals go, we are a pretty ****ed up species and many of us can't last without gambling, drinking, fighting etc etc... drugs are just another problem with our ****ed up species.
While I'm more than aware that 90% of drug caused deaths that arn't Heroin or some other insane drug are mostly made up by the media and that if drugs where legalised and then controlled so that people didn't die from some retard cutting rat poison with E, it would also have pretty sad results.

We are (at least in Europe) moving away from Smoking being acceptable and the insanely massively powerful smoking companies are feeling the pain, with drugs legalised new drug companies would sprout up and replace them, people who once smoked would slowly move onto drugs as people with addiction problems have addiction problems, and by legalising it you'd essentially be saying, yeah its safe and good now, no worries.
This would cause more fallout and Hospitals and AA-type places would be over-run and under funded thanks to the lobbying powers of the drug companies.


I'm personally not sure where I stand on the matter, I've done a wide range of drugs myself and have had some pretty good times, but as a society trying to bring something that alters your state of mind so quickly and drastically and make it 'safe' would probably do more harm than good.
Employment and the economy are still trying to get back on track and with more young people going to uni getting jobs after that is becoming more and more difficult, having the allure of legal drugs would only make the situation worse.


If you want a good example of how a legal drug can cause huge economic and social problems you only have to look at alcohol and its effects... and that's been around for thousands of years...

[Malphas]

Making laws against what substances people are allowed to injest/inhale/inject is asinine. All recreational drugs should be de-criminalised immediately.

While I don't really understand your reasoning or logic I'm not sure I really agree too much.
As animals go, we are a pretty ****ed up species and many of us can't last without gambling, drinking, fighting etc etc... drugs are just another problem with our ****ed up species.
While I'm more than aware that 90% of drug caused deaths that arn't Heroin or some other insane drug are mostly made up by the media and that if drugs where legalised and then controlled so that people didn't die from some retard cutting rat poison with E, it would also have pretty sad results.

We are (at least in Europe) moving away from Smoking being acceptable and the insanely massively powerful smoking companies are feeling the pain, with drugs legalised new drug companies would sprout up and replace them, people who once smoked would slowly move onto drugs as people with addiction problems have addiction problems, and by legalising it you'd essentially be saying, yeah its safe and good now, no worries.
This would cause more fallout and Hospitals and AA-type places would be over-run and under funded thanks to the lobbying powers of the drug companies.


I'm personally not sure where I stand on the matter, I've done a wide range of drugs myself and have had some pretty good times, but as a society trying to bring something that alters your state of mind so quickly and drastically and make it 'safe' would probably do more harm than good.
Employment and the economy are still trying to get back on track and with more young people going to uni getting jobs after that is becoming more and more difficult, having the allure of legal drugs would only make the situation worse.


If you want a good example of how a legal drug can cause huge economic and social problems you only have to look at alcohol and its effects... and that's been around for thousands of years...

It's ideological. If you're of the opinion that authority should have the power to dictate the behavior of individuals based on collective effect, then that's one particular standpoint - although not one I can agree with even slightly - that means there would be zero point in us debating it and we'd have to leave it at that.

I believe strongly in individual liberty, and that the only behavior that should be dictated is where it has direct effect (or where there's a contract - legal or social - in place, as an aside). i.e. I think it's permissible for authority to forbid me from punching someone in the face - for instance, because I'm causing direct harm to that person as a result of my actions. However what when it comes to things like which recreational drugs I choose to use, the government should have no say whatsoever, regardless of the collective effect.

[sth]

who is weed? why is she illegal? i oppose immigration regulation.

[Novus]

who is weed? why is she illegal? i oppose immigration regulation.

She and her kind are too erotic.
Will cause Western Society to collapse.
It'll lead to the events of Starcraft 1.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

who is weed? why is she illegal? i oppose immigration regulation.

She doesn't have her GREEN card.

[baldgye]

Making laws against what substances people are allowed to injest/inhale/inject is asinine. All recreational drugs should be de-criminalised immediately.

While I don't really understand your reasoning or logic I'm not sure I really agree too much.
As animals go, we are a pretty ****ed up species and many of us can't last without gambling, drinking, fighting etc etc... drugs are just another problem with our ****ed up species.
While I'm more than aware that 90% of drug caused deaths that arn't Heroin or some other insane drug are mostly made up by the media and that if drugs where legalised and then controlled so that people didn't die from some retard cutting rat poison with E, it would also have pretty sad results.

We are (at least in Europe) moving away from Smoking being acceptable and the insanely massively powerful smoking companies are feeling the pain, with drugs legalised new drug companies would sprout up and replace them, people who once smoked would slowly move onto drugs as people with addiction problems have addiction problems, and by legalising it you'd essentially be saying, yeah its safe and good now, no worries.
This would cause more fallout and Hospitals and AA-type places would be over-run and under funded thanks to the lobbying powers of the drug companies.


I'm personally not sure where I stand on the matter, I've done a wide range of drugs myself and have had some pretty good times, but as a society trying to bring something that alters your state of mind so quickly and drastically and make it 'safe' would probably do more harm than good.
Employment and the economy are still trying to get back on track and with more young people going to uni getting jobs after that is becoming more and more difficult, having the allure of legal drugs would only make the situation worse.


If you want a good example of how a legal drug can cause huge economic and social problems you only have to look at alcohol and its effects... and that's been around for thousands of years...

It's ideological. If you're of the opinion that authority should have the power to dictate the behavior of individuals based on collective effect, then that's one particular standpoint - although not one I can agree with even slightly - that means there would be zero point in us debating it and we'd have to leave it at that.

I believe strongly in individual liberty, and that the only behavior that should be dictated is where it has direct effect (or where there's a contract - legal or social - in place, as an aside). i.e. I think it's permissible for authority to forbid me from punching someone in the face - for instance, because I'm causing direct harm to that person as a result of my actions. However what when it comes to things like which recreational drugs I choose to use, the government should have no say whatsoever, regardless of the collective effect.

Having a job that forces me to deal with a fairly wide range of different people, I've come to the conclusion that 99% of people, are total ****ing idiots and that they are incapable of rational thought about even fairly basic human up keep.

For example, take a place like America (for example), America has enjoyed amazing wealth for a very long period and as such has access to all kinds of foods, activities etc etc... yet instead of people having the best food possible (becasue they have a great economy) they eat poorly which gives them horrible international obese %'s.

If people where smarter and able to say, you know what, today I'm going to have a McDonald's as a treat. But tomorrow I'll make up for it by going for a run and make a pasta salad which I can put in the fridge and have for lunch the following day. But instead people tend to just go to fast food places and never learn how to cook or diet properly.

That's just an easy example, but there are many that range to many things all resulting in the same conclusion, by in large most people are total ****ing idiots.



Like Socialism is great, its a fantastic idea... only it doesn't work with humans lol... at least not yet...

[Novus]

who is weed? why is she illegal? i oppose immigration regulation.

She doesn't have her GREEN card.

She will after I'm done with her.

Making laws against what substances people are allowed to injest/inhale/inject is asinine. All recreational drugs should be de-criminalised immediately.

While I don't really understand your reasoning or logic I'm not sure I really agree too much.
As animals go, we are a pretty ****ed up species and many of us can't last without gambling, drinking, fighting etc etc... drugs are just another problem with our ****ed up species.
While I'm more than aware that 90% of drug caused deaths that arn't Heroin or some other insane drug are mostly made up by the media and that if drugs where legalised and then controlled so that people didn't die from some retard cutting rat poison with E, it would also have pretty sad results.

We are (at least in Europe) moving away from Smoking being acceptable and the insanely massively powerful smoking companies are feeling the pain, with drugs legalised new drug companies would sprout up and replace them, people who once smoked would slowly move onto drugs as people with addiction problems have addiction problems, and by legalising it you'd essentially be saying, yeah its safe and good now, no worries.
This would cause more fallout and Hospitals and AA-type places would be over-run and under funded thanks to the lobbying powers of the drug companies.


I'm personally not sure where I stand on the matter, I've done a wide range of drugs myself and have had some pretty good times, but as a society trying to bring something that alters your state of mind so quickly and drastically and make it 'safe' would probably do more harm than good.
Employment and the economy are still trying to get back on track and with more young people going to uni getting jobs after that is becoming more and more difficult, having the allure of legal drugs would only make the situation worse.


If you want a good example of how a legal drug can cause huge economic and social problems you only have to look at alcohol and its effects... and that's been around for thousands of years...

It's ideological. If you're of the opinion that authority should have the power to dictate the behavior of individuals based on collective effect, then that's one particular standpoint - although not one I can agree with even slightly - that means there would be zero point in us debating it and we'd have to leave it at that.

I believe strongly in individual liberty, and that the only behavior that should be dictated is where it has direct effect (or where there's a contract - legal or social - in place, as an aside). i.e. I think it's permissible for authority to forbid me from punching someone in the face - for instance, because I'm causing direct harm to that person as a result of my actions. However what when it comes to things like which recreational drugs I choose to use, the government should have no say whatsoever, regardless of the collective effect.

Having a job that forces me to deal with a fairly wide range of different people, I've come to the conclusion that 99% of people, are total ****ing idiots and that they are incapable of rational thought about even fairly basic human up keep.

For example, take a place like America (for example), America has enjoyed amazing wealth for a very long period and as such has access to all kinds of foods, activities etc etc... yet instead of people having the best food possible (becasue they have a great economy) they eat poorly which gives them horrible international obese %'s.

If people where smarter and able to say, you know what, today I'm going to have a McDonald's as a treat. But tomorrow I'll make up for it by going for a run and make a pasta salad which I can put in the fridge and have for lunch the following day. But instead people tend to just go to fast food places and never learn how to cook or diet properly.

That's just an easy example, but there are many that range to many things all resulting in the same conclusion, by in large most people are total ****ing idiots.



Like Socialism is great, its a fantastic idea... only it doesn't work with humans lol... at least not yet...

Oh for **** sakes.
You liberals.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

who is weed? why is she illegal? i oppose immigration regulation.

She doesn't have her GREEN card.

She will after I'm done with her.

So you're going to marry her???

[Malphas]

Having a job that forces me to deal with a fairly wide range of different people, I've come to the conclusion that 99% of people, are total ****ing idiots and that they are incapable of rational thought about even fairly basic human up keep.

For example, take a place like America (for example), America has enjoyed amazing wealth for a very long period and as such has access to all kinds of foods, activities etc etc... yet instead of people having the best food possible (becasue they have a great economy) they eat poorly which gives them horrible international obese %'s.

If people where smarter and able to say, you know what, today I'm going to have a McDonald's as a treat. But tomorrow I'll make up for it by going for a run and make a pasta salad which I can put in the fridge and have for lunch the following day. But instead people tend to just go to fast food places and never learn how to cook or diet properly.

That's just an easy example, but there are many that range to many things all resulting in the same conclusion, by in large most people are total ****ing idiots.



Like Socialism is great, its a fantastic idea... only it doesn't work with humans lol... at least not yet...

I'm not sure what you mean by socialism. What we're talking about doesn't really fall under the umbrella of socialism. In fact, the opposite - trying to dictate people's behavior - has more in common with practical socialism than what I'm talking about, which is more like libertarianism (although I hate to be associated with people who label themselves that).

I would agree that a large proportion of people are irresponsible idiots, not the majority, but a large proportion, which is evident from obesity rates, alcohol-related violence/crime/medical emergencies, etc. But I still don't believe that justifies curtailing the personal liberty of the population as a whole. Not only that, but I think creating a nanny-state to try and combat these collective issues, just makes it worse. The UK is an atrocious example of that, to be honest. There's definitely a mood here amongst a lot of people that the government is there to solve every single social problem.

For instance, in the last few years kids have been dying occasionally from using new "legal-high" drugs, which are formulated and released so quickly, the government can't respond and ban them in time for them to already be in wide circulation. Every time one of these kids dies, there's a big outcry in the tabloids and such, about what the government should be doing, how this is being allowed to happen etc. Well, my response to that is why is that even the government's problem? How about putting the responsibility with the parents or the kids themselves? One of the reasons this happens is because we've created this idiotic nanny state where anything remotely bad for you is legislated against, so when something that's legal comes along, people just go ahead and assume it's perfectly safe, rather than actually weighing the risks and taking responsibility for their actions - which is what they should be doing.

[baldgye]

I'm not sure what you mean by socialism. What we're talking about doesn't really fall under the umbrella of socialism. In fact, the opposite - trying to dictate people's behavior - has more in common with practical socialism than what I'm talking about, which is more like libertarianism (although I hate to be associated with people who label themselves that).

I would agree that a large proportion of people are irresponsible idiots, not the majority, but a large proportion, which is evident from obesity rates, alcohol-related violence/crime/medical emergencies, etc. But I still don't believe that justifies curtailing the personal liberty of the population as a whole. Not only that, but I think creating a nanny-state to try and combat these collective issues, just makes it worse. The UK is an atrocious example of that, to be honest. There's definitely a mood here amongst a lot of people that the government is there to solve every single social problem.

For instance, in the last few years kids have been dying occasionally from using new "legal-high" drugs, which are formulated and released so quickly, the government can't respond and ban them in time for them to already be in wide circulation. Every time one of these kids dies, there's a big outcry in the tabloids and such, about what the government should be doing, how this is being allowed to happen etc. Well, my response to that is why is that even the government's problem? How about putting the responsibility with the parents or the kids themselves? One of the reasons this happens is because we've created this idiotic nanny state where anything remotely bad for you is legislated against, so when something that's legal comes along, people just go ahead and assume it's perfectly safe, rather than actually weighing the risks and taking responsibility for their actions - which is what they should be doing.

Ah so your from the UK too??

Yeah my bit about Socialism was to highlight that having good ideas and good intentions for society is good, but not always practical.
Though I would say the sheer majority of people, on the planet are idiots. I would even go as far as to say that most people who have the legal right to vote, don't possess the brain power to be able to even make an informed decision on how to vote, let alone be pushed into it come election time.
I think the UK is pretty good on the whole, it's not perfect and it's pretty ****ed up in alot of places but this 'nanny state' has come becasue people have wanted it and brought it in, and for the most part its pretty good and helps people alot.

The part about legal highs is also bull****, like total bull****. The last two people to die of legal highs didn't die from any legal high they took, in fact the last kid who 'died' from it at uni died from an overdose on another illegal drug he was taking as well as the legal high. But legalising drugs won't stop people from making there own cheap nasty drugs, if anything it might spur it on.
Legalising it would mean that more people try it, becasue hey its ok now its legal right?
This would in turn raise the % of addicts to any particular type of drug, and we all know how that ends.


Like I said I'm not sure where I stand, I think there are drugs like LSD, MDMA and some others that should be legalised as they are non-toxic and totally safe, but others like Heroin and Cocaine shouldn't probably be ever legalised.

[Malphas]

I'm not sure what you mean by socialism. What we're talking about doesn't really fall under the umbrella of socialism. In fact, the opposite - trying to dictate people's behavior - has more in common with practical socialism than what I'm talking about, which is more like libertarianism (although I hate to be associated with people who label themselves that).

I would agree that a large proportion of people are irresponsible idiots, not the majority, but a large proportion, which is evident from obesity rates, alcohol-related violence/crime/medical emergencies, etc. But I still don't believe that justifies curtailing the personal liberty of the population as a whole. Not only that, but I think creating a nanny-state to try and combat these collective issues, just makes it worse. The UK is an atrocious example of that, to be honest. There's definitely a mood here amongst a lot of people that the government is there to solve every single social problem.

For instance, in the last few years kids have been dying occasionally from using new "legal-high" drugs, which are formulated and released so quickly, the government can't respond and ban them in time for them to already be in wide circulation. Every time one of these kids dies, there's a big outcry in the tabloids and such, about what the government should be doing, how this is being allowed to happen etc. Well, my response to that is why is that even the government's problem? How about putting the responsibility with the parents or the kids themselves? One of the reasons this happens is because we've created this idiotic nanny state where anything remotely bad for you is legislated against, so when something that's legal comes along, people just go ahead and assume it's perfectly safe, rather than actually weighing the risks and taking responsibility for their actions - which is what they should be doing.

Ah so your from the UK too??

Yeah my bit about Socialism was to highlight that having good ideas and good intentions for society is good, but not always practical.
Though I would say the sheer majority of people, on the planet are idiots. I would even go as far as to say that most people who have the legal right to vote, don't possess the brain power to be able to even make an informed decision on how to vote, let alone be pushed into it come election time.
I think the UK is pretty good on the whole, it's not perfect and it's pretty ****ed up in alot of places but this 'nanny state' has come becasue people have wanted it and brought it in, and for the most part its pretty good and helps people alot.

The part about legal highs is also bull****, like total bull****. The last two people to die of legal highs didn't die from any legal high they took, in fact the last kid who 'died' from it at uni died from an overdose on another illegal drug he was taking as well as the legal high. But legalising drugs won't stop people from making there own cheap nasty drugs, if anything it might spur it on.
Legalising it would mean that more people try it, becasue hey its ok now its legal right?
This would in turn raise the % of addicts to any particular type of drug, and we all know how that ends.


Like I said I'm not sure where I stand, I think there are drugs like LSD, MDMA and some others that should be legalised as they are non-toxic and totally safe, but others like Heroin and Cocaine shouldn't probably be ever legalised.

Cocaine is fairly harmless, frankly. Also I've know recreational heroin users, but it's always seemed like a knife edge of becoming a habit, still up them though. Even with heroin addicts, 90% of the problems they have are due to the exorbitant prices, the fillers the heroin is cut with, and poor administration - all of which are largely the fault of prohibition. If you legalised heroin tomorrow, and sold it for say £1 a gram (which is easily doable, whilst still making a profit, if it was legal), pure, and in pre-loaded syringes with instructions included you would see crime figures and drug-related deaths drop massively overnight.

[baldgye]

I'm not sure what you mean by socialism. What we're talking about doesn't really fall under the umbrella of socialism. In fact, the opposite - trying to dictate people's behavior - has more in common with practical socialism than what I'm talking about, which is more like libertarianism (although I hate to be associated with people who label themselves that).

I would agree that a large proportion of people are irresponsible idiots, not the majority, but a large proportion, which is evident from obesity rates, alcohol-related violence/crime/medical emergencies, etc. But I still don't believe that justifies curtailing the personal liberty of the population as a whole. Not only that, but I think creating a nanny-state to try and combat these collective issues, just makes it worse. The UK is an atrocious example of that, to be honest. There's definitely a mood here amongst a lot of people that the government is there to solve every single social problem.

For instance, in the last few years kids have been dying occasionally from using new "legal-high" drugs, which are formulated and released so quickly, the government can't respond and ban them in time for them to already be in wide circulation. Every time one of these kids dies, there's a big outcry in the tabloids and such, about what the government should be doing, how this is being allowed to happen etc. Well, my response to that is why is that even the government's problem? How about putting the responsibility with the parents or the kids themselves? One of the reasons this happens is because we've created this idiotic nanny state where anything remotely bad for you is legislated against, so when something that's legal comes along, people just go ahead and assume it's perfectly safe, rather than actually weighing the risks and taking responsibility for their actions - which is what they should be doing.

Ah so your from the UK too??

Yeah my bit about Socialism was to highlight that having good ideas and good intentions for society is good, but not always practical.
Though I would say the sheer majority of people, on the planet are idiots. I would even go as far as to say that most people who have the legal right to vote, don't possess the brain power to be able to even make an informed decision on how to vote, let alone be pushed into it come election time.
I think the UK is pretty good on the whole, it's not perfect and it's pretty ****ed up in alot of places but this 'nanny state' has come becasue people have wanted it and brought it in, and for the most part its pretty good and helps people alot.

The part about legal highs is also bull****, like total bull****. The last two people to die of legal highs didn't die from any legal high they took, in fact the last kid who 'died' from it at uni died from an overdose on another illegal drug he was taking as well as the legal high. But legalising drugs won't stop people from making there own cheap nasty drugs, if anything it might spur it on.
Legalising it would mean that more people try it, becasue hey its ok now its legal right?
This would in turn raise the % of addicts to any particular type of drug, and we all know how that ends.


Like I said I'm not sure where I stand, I think there are drugs like LSD, MDMA and some others that should be legalised as they are non-toxic and totally safe, but others like Heroin and Cocaine shouldn't probably be ever legalised.

Cocaine is fairly harmless, frankly. Also I've know recreational heroin users, but it's always seemed like a knife edge of becoming a habit, still up them though. Even with heroin addicts, 90% of the problems they have are due to the exorbitant prices, the fillers the heroin is cut with, and poor administration - all of which are largely the fault of prohibition. If you legalised heroin tomorrow, and sold it for say £1 a gram (which is easily doable, whilst still making a profit, if it was legal), pure, and in pre-loaded syringes with instructions included you would see crime figures and drug-related deaths drop massively overnight.

You got any facts to back up your claims?
Most of my knowledge comes from personal experience but also Horizon did a really good program about it and they re-classified drugs (including smoking and drinking) by how deadly they actually are in there purest form, Heroin and Cocaine where highest on there list as you can take either and die from a single usage and you wouldn't know your tolerance to it until you had taken it.

But I doubt leagalising drugs would solve drug related crime...

[Malphas]

I've done massive amounts of cocaine with zero ill effects.

Also you doubt legalising drugs would reduce drug related crime? I can't really fathom this statement. If that was the case then why aren't there moonshiners brewing up deadly swill in homemade stills and gangs murdering each other with tommy guns over the distribution of alcohol? Could it be because alcohol is legal and therefore produced in a sanitary and controlled manner by accountable manufacturers and distributed through supermarkets and off-licenses? Similarly, I doubt many heroin addicts are going to be mugging people or breaking into houses to fund their habit when the cost of it drops from hundreds of pounds (£) a day to less than £1 (which is perfectly possible if it was legal).

[sth]

I've done massive amounts of cocaine with zero ill effects.

oohhhhhhhhhhh...

ok i get it now.

[katushkin]

Saying someone is a recreational heroin user is a strange claim. It's one of the most addictive substances on the planet, and I really don't see how someone can ever claim that they only use it for recreation.

As for deaths from cocaine, the same thing can happen with ecstacy. One badly mixed pill, or one person's adverse reaction can mean death, and it's happened a couple of times where people have literally drowned themselves after taking ecstacy. But yeah, heroin is like stupidly easy to kill yourself from an overdose it would seem. Take Peaches Geldof and whats-his-name this year.

With drug related crime disappearing overnight, that;s a tricky one. With prohibition, crime shot up in America with the mafia and others doing bootlegging and stuff like that, but then that part of the constitution was repealed, and the bootlegging stopped for obvious reasons. However then the mafia just moved into other things. Crime figures in general would drop, and depending on the distributors of drugs and the prices, if there was MASSIVE regulation, then *maybe* the deaths would drop. Although if it was more readily available, the strain on the health service would enter crisis mode.

[baldgye]

I've done massive amounts of cocaine with zero ill effects.

Also you doubt legalising drugs would reduce drug related crime? I can't really fathom this statement. If that was the case then why aren't there moonshiners brewing up deadly swill in homemade stills and gangs murdering each other with tommy guns over the distribution of alcohol? Could it be because alcohol is legal and therefore produced in a sanitary and controlled manner by accountable manufacturers and distributed through supermarkets and off-licenses? Similarly, I doubt many heroin addicts are going to be mugging people or breaking into houses to fund their habit when the cost of it drops from hundreds of pounds (£) a day to less than £1 (which is perfectly possible if it was legal).

So because you have done lots of coke (and are fine?), everyone can?

So there is no crime related to alcohol? Sure the types of crime would change, but the amount of crime would grow due to the increased number of people taking drugs.
Alcohol related crimes are a huge problem in the UK as your probably more than aware off and the increase of pubs and bars in towns and cities in the UK has made alot of places really ****ing dangerous to go out in becasue of the number of people who go out to drink so they can fight without feeling pain or without thinking. Adding drugs on top of that would only add to the problem which would achieve?

Plus the fact that you could never sell drugs that cheaply, for it to be sustainable it would have to be taxed like ***s are, making them expensive and as time goes on more and more expensive becasue again, there  would be more people taking them and thus the strain on the NHS would be even greater.

As for deaths from cocaine, the same thing can happen with ecstacy. One badly mixed pillhs would drop

That's my point though, if MDMA was legalised there would be no problem with what it is cut with and no one would die... as of 2008 (?) no person has ever died of MDMA poising in the UK, they die from the nasty **** that it cut with. Cocaine on the other hand can just out right kill you.

[Malphas]

I was being facetious, but really cocaine isn't that harmful.

The kind of alcohol-related crime you're talking about - i.e. people getting into a scrape on a friday night are absolutely nothing compared to prohibition crime from alcohol being illegal, with gangs, y'know, going out and shooting each other, murdering police, etc.

And of course you can sell drugs that cheaply, especially one as simple as heroin. Most generic drugs cost pennies. As I've already said, most of the harm caused by recreational drug use is the byproduct of prohibition, not the drugs themselves.

Every single place this has been tried (e.g. Portugal) goes completely against your assumptions, and the rates of crime, harm - even usage have all dropped as a result of decriminalisation.

[Malphas]

Saying someone is a recreational heroin user is a strange claim. It's one of the most addictive substances on the planet, and I really don't see how someone can ever claim that they only use it for recreation.

Where do you actually get your information from though? Is it the media or is it real life? How many heroin users have you personally known?

[noisyturtle]

The biggest negative effect cocaine has on an individual is on their wallet.

As for heroine, I've only known one user closely. His name was Will, and he died in his car in a Target parking lot at the age of 19 with his less than one year old daughter in the back. I am not kidding.

[baldgye]

I was being facetious, but really cocaine isn't that harmful.

The kind of alcohol-related crime you're talking about - i.e. people getting into a scrape on a friday night are absolutely nothing compared to prohibition crime from alcohol being illegal, with gangs, y'know, going out and shooting each other, murdering police, etc.

And of course you can sell drugs that cheaply, especially one as simple as heroin. Most generic drugs cost pennies. As I've already said, most of the harm caused by recreational drug use is the byproduct of prohibition, not the drugs themselves.

Every single place this has been tried (e.g. Portugal) goes completely against your assumptions, and the rates of crime, harm - even usage have all dropped as a result of decriminalisation.

You might be able to make drugs cheaply but they wouldn't be able to sell them at that price becasue of taxation... like I said.

And your example of Portugal isn't that good, drugs where 'legalised' in a move to help combat the insanely high % of people with HIV largely due in part to drug users sharing needles. No formal studies have been completed on the effects of the period (looking at the wiki page on it).

I'm not sure how you can really come up with any correlation between Portugal and the UK as in the UK the biggest cause of HIV is unprotected sex...

The biggest negative effect cocaine has on an individual is on their wallet.

As for heroine, I've only known one user closely. His name was Will, and he died in his car in a Target parking lot at the age of 19 with his less than one year old daughter in the back. I am not kidding.

But if it was legalised that child would get an insurance payout!!!!!

[baldgye]

Like I said, I don't know how I personally stand as I'm not a doctor a sociologist or someone who's put a lot of time into researching it. I have no agenda other than knowledge gathering and debating.

[katushkin]

Saying someone is a recreational heroin user is a strange claim. It's one of the most addictive substances on the planet, and I really don't see how someone can ever claim that they only use it for recreation.

Where do you actually get your information from though? Is it the media or is it real life? How many heroin users have you personally known?

None. Because doing heroin is a ****ing stupid idea. And if you are going to do something seriously harmful, on a regular basis, that wastes a stupid amount of money, most of which goes to Afghan drug barons (who I HAVE met, not nice people if I'm honest), and carries a large prison sentence, then no offence, but I don't want to be associated with you.

Drugs are about supply and demand. It's basic capitalism. Something in high demand? Put the price up. Why is the price of heroin so expensive if you say it's so cheap to make? Because the demand is high. BECAUSE IT'S ****ING ADDICTIVE. If it wasn't addictive, if people weren't stealing morphine to try and get rid of their heroin cravings, then why would people be prepared to pay hundreds of pounds for a fix?

[HoffmanMyster]

Saying someone is a recreational heroin user is a strange claim. It's one of the most addictive substances on the planet, and I really don't see how someone can ever claim that they only use it for recreation.

Where do you actually get your information from though? Is it the media or is it real life? How many heroin users have you personally known?

None. Because doing heroin is a ****ing stupid idea. And if you are going to do something seriously harmful, on a regular basis, that wastes a stupid amount of money, most of which goes to Afghan drug barons (who I HAVE met, not nice people if I'm honest), and carries a large prison sentence, then no offence, but I don't want to be associated with you.

Drugs are about supply and demand. It's basic capitalism. Something in high demand? Put the price up. Why is the price of heroin so expensive if you say it's so cheap to make? Because the demand is high. BECAUSE IT'S ****ING ADDICTIVE. If it wasn't addictive, if people weren't stealing morphine to try and get rid of their heroin cravings, then why would people be prepared to pay hundreds of pounds for a fix?

The problem is that you're only covering the demand side of things.  If it weren't illegal, the supply would increase (since it's no longer life-threatening to supply it) and the price would go down.  Demand won't change much if it's legalised, as you say.

[Malphas]

You might be able to make drugs cheaply but they wouldn't be able to sell them at that price becasue of taxation... like I said.

You did mention taxation but it basically made zero sense. There's no reason to tax cigarettes either, so I'm not sure why you think that's a prerequisite to it being sustainable. Besides, they could still tax them as they do with cigarettes and have them be vastly cheaper than present. Cigarettes are just as addictive as heroin, but it doesn't have the associated crime.

And your example of Portugal isn't that good, drugs where 'legalised' in a move to help combat the insanely high % of people with HIV largely due in part to drug users sharing needles. No formal studies have been completed on the effects of the period (looking at the wiki page on it).

I'm not sure how you can really come up with any correlation between Portugal and the UK as in the UK the biggest cause of HIV is unprotected sex...

I'm not sure why you think the reason for triggering legalisation (which you only just discovered in the last five minutes, I'm assuming) makes the rest of the benefits it's shown to have produced somehow redundant. Portugal is just one example, the point is you keep claiming that legalisation of drugs would cause a) more users, b) more related crime and c) more negative heath effects when every example in reality has shown the exact opposite happens.

None. Because doing heroin is a ****ing stupid idea. And if you are going to do something seriously harmful, on a regular basis, that wastes a stupid amount of money, most of which goes to Afghan drug barons (who I HAVE met, not nice people if I'm honest), and carries a large prison sentence, then no offence, but I don't want to be associated with you.

Exactly my point then. You claim recreational heroin use is somehow impossible, whilst admitting you have zero first hand experience of users. So I'm assuming you're going off media stereotypes.

Drugs are about supply and demand. It's basic capitalism. Something in high demand? Put the price up. Why is the price of heroin so expensive if you say it's so cheap to make? Because the demand is high. BECAUSE IT'S ****ING ADDICTIVE. If it wasn't addictive, if people weren't stealing morphine to try and get rid of their heroin cravings, then why would people be prepared to pay hundreds of pounds for a fix?

Of course heroin is addictive, I would never claim otherwise. Not sure where you got that idea from. Also, you're only really half-grasping supply and demand there. Plenty of things are in much higher demand that heroin, like milk for instance, but milk doesn't cost £40 a ml due to arbitrary prohibition laws trying to seize milk entering the country, smuggled in condoms inside people's stomachs as is the case with heroin.