Drugs and their illegality

[thushan]

I think all drugs should be banned.

Making them legal would just make Australia or other countries go crazy.

Look at China during the Opium War.

s.

+1

Drugs should be banned. Full stop.
Make exceptions and the whole thing could get out of hand... its already bad enough as it is...

Hmm, slippery slope argument. It'd be great if all drugs could be banned, but given their prevalence and entrenchment in society (eg. alcohol) this is not humanly possible. So I'd say the other option - harm minimisation - is the better one. So, legalise cannabis I would say - and hope that the stigma () attached to smoking cannabis is enough to deter people from doing so.

Just my two cents.

[Panicmode]

Ok, who here has actually done any drugs before? (Besides the obvious alcohol + cigarettes). I by no means a druggie (I haven't tried smoking), but some of the statements here seem to be overly naive and misinformed. Has anyone here ever read High Society by Ben Elton? (It's an excellent read I suggest you do) It makes possibly the most substantiated and reasonable argument for the legalisation of ALL drugs I have ever seen. I won't go into it right now but here is a (very) brief summary:



- Hard drugs are currently dealt with by criminals; forces non-criminals to associate with hardened thugs.

- The police and government waste an exceptional amount of time/money/resources on drug related issues
.
- In maintaining the illegality of drugs, we insure that criminals aren't going out of business.

- As there is no age restriction, it can sometimes be easier for a minor to come into possession of illicit drugs, than legal ones.

- If drugs were legalised, they could be safely manufactured. Currently, places used as meth-labs must undergo intense decontamination and cannot be built upon/inhabited for years (much like petrol stations) 

- If all drugs were legalised, they could be properly taxed. This could be used to finance rehabilitation services/clinics and take the burden off the tax payer.

- Legalising drugs also allows us the power to restrict their access (like we currently do with alcohol/cigarettes). This would make it harder for minors to obtain illicit drugs.

[nubs]

You'd need to smoke over 900 Columbian strength joints within 20 minutes to reach a 'toxic' level, and even then it would be the Carbon Monoxide poisoning responsible, not the THC

[nubs]

By keeping ALL drugs illegal, some pot dealers will often also sell 'harder' drugs like heroin and meth
This means when a pot smoker tries to get a bit of bud they have a greater chance of coming into contact with the harder substances
This is the theory behind Amsterdam's system of controlling drug use, and it's working really well

What Panicmode is saying is completely correct

If drugs became legal tomorrow, how many of you are going to start shooting H? Or drop a couple of stigs the next time you go out to a bit of a rave?

Not many, just because it's legal doesn't mean everyone is going to start doing meth

These people who choose to do drugs are going to do it regardless of the legal status, we may as well make it safer for them to do so

Tell them about proper dosage

God knows what kind of shit you're going to find in ecstasy tablets
Marijuana really isn't that harmful compared to most drugs, but every now and then someone might sell you marijuana laced with PCP without your knowledge - which makes it so much more dangerous
If drugs are sold legally then you know exactly what you're buying

Just look at the crisis in Mexico and the drug war
People are being decapitated and having their heads littered across the street, with 15273 people being butchered in 2010 alone. A fair few of these victims were innocent bystanders slaughtered in an effort to 'prove a point' to the DEA

Legalise drugs --> lower value --> not worth killing over
Plus, these drug cartels wouldn't be able to compete with proper drug manufacturers so they'd be shut down automatically

[paulsterio]

It's a good read regarding the topic

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Legalization_of_Marijuana

[nubs]

A big issue here is the one regarding an individual's freedom
If countries like Australia - and American in particular - want to pride themselves as being 'free countries', then it his highly hypocritical to disallow the use of a substance
It is an individual's own choice to use drugs. With the proper education, one would hope that they would not make that choice, but again, it is their decision to make. If they aren't going to harm anyone as a direct result of using that drug, then they should be allowed to make that decision.
They should be well within their rights to do something that causes little if any harm to others around them.

One of the biggest flaws in the education system is the constant preaching of the 'dangers of drugs'. What good does this form of education pose to those who are going to use anyway? An alternate and optional form of education should be made available to these people, one where the individual is taught how to use 'safely' and with the 'correct' dosage while simultaneously stressing the potential dangers.

One more thing, the over exaggerations must stop. Once people find out their being lied to, there is a lot of trust being lost.

There was a study conducted in America and the following was discovered.

Children who were exposed to the DARE program were significantly more likely to end up using illicit drugs than those who weren't.
The DARE program is pretty much a scare tactic where they say 'Cocaine will kill you, meth will kill you, marijuana will kill you, it will ruin your life' etc etc. Just a lot of ridiculous statements in an effort to discourage kids from using anything.

Alot of the children who weren't exposed to DARE were exposed to a different program called harm prevention or harm reduction. This was pretty much about saying stuff like 'marijuana probably won't kill you, but we still don't know all the potential long term effects, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it may be pretty dangerous for kids to use in particular, so why risk it? Why not wait until your older and until there is enough evidence for someone to make an educated decision?'
These children were much less likely to go on to using drugs, the harder drugs in particular

What the study is suggesting is: once they figure out they've been lied to they're less likely to believe anything else that is preached by the 'anti-drug' group, and perhaps even in an effort to spite those who lied to them, they are compelled to do drugs

Probably not the most conclusive of studies but yeah thought I might share it

[paulsterio]

But you've also got to consider that those who are using drugs aren't only harming themselves, but are also harming others as well! Like if it was if they were only harming themselves then it's fine I guess, but by using drugs they're setting a bad image for others (especially impressionable teenagers) and hence, they are doing harm to society

And yes, I agree with presenting the information rather than threatening the kids

[JellyDonut]

Coffee induced death? How the fuck did people manage that?

I'm pretty sure people inject it as well as conventional drinking of large quantities by people with a weak heart. It is very hard to do, it demonstrates how safe Cannabis is considering there are 0 deaths to it and there are many to a substance that is drunk by people on a daily basis.

I disagree. I think it is really easy to shoot up coffee. If homeless Joe can shoot meth while drunk on whiskey and high on pot, I think anyone could do coffee sober.

[giveup]

A big issue here is the one regarding an individual's freedom
If countries like Australia - and American in particular - want to pride themselves as being 'free countries', then it his highly hypocritical to disallow the use of a substance
It is an individual's own choice to use drugs. With the proper education, one would hope that they would not make that choice, but again, it is their decision to make. If they aren't going to harm anyone as a direct result of using that drug, then they should be allowed to make that decision.
They should be well within their rights to do something that causes little if any harm to others around them.

One of the biggest flaws in the education system is the constant preaching of the 'dangers of drugs'. What good does this form of education pose to those who are going to use anyway? An alternate and optional form of education should be made available to these people, one where the individual is taught how to use 'safely' and with the 'correct' dosage while simultaneously stressing the potential dangers.

One more thing, the over exaggerations must stop. Once people find out their being lied to, there is a lot of trust being lost.

There was a study conducted in America and the following was discovered.

Children who were exposed to the DARE program were significantly more likely to end up using illicit drugs than those who weren't.
The DARE program is pretty much a scare tactic where they say 'Cocaine will kill you, meth will kill you, marijuana will kill you, it will ruin your life' etc etc. Just a lot of ridiculous statements in an effort to discourage kids from using anything.

Alot of the children who weren't exposed to DARE were exposed to a different program called harm prevention or harm reduction. This was pretty much about saying stuff like 'marijuana probably won't kill you, but we still don't know all the potential long term effects, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it may be pretty dangerous for kids to use in particular, so why risk it? Why not wait until your older and until there is enough evidence for someone to make an educated decision?'
These children were much less likely to go on to using drugs, the harder drugs in particular

What the study is suggesting is: once they figure out they've been lied to they're less likely to believe anything else that is preached by the 'anti-drug' group, and perhaps even in an effort to spite those who lied to them, they are compelled to do drugs

Probably not the most conclusive of studies but yeah thought I might share it

...Australia is more libertarian than America

I don't see the difference between the two programs, one is giving more warning and was found to be ineffective. Is that to say the less people know of the harmful effects, the less they want to do the drug? or that the more rationalized the effects are the less they want to do the drug?
 

 

[nubs]

One program was over exaggerating extremely and telling lies. The DARE program was saying if you do weed you WILL become brain dead, you WILL destroy your lungs, you WILL move on to more dangerous drugs

All the kid needs to do is look at guys like Carl Sagan, Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps and so many other prominent members of society to realise that DARE was talking shit
They get a feeling that they weren't being respected and the theory is that because of this, they are compelled to actually go out and do drugs

The other program is being completely truthful and not over exaggerating in the slightest. So this way, the trust and the mutual respect remains

EDIT:

...Australia is more libertarian than America
 

Really? Cause I know Australia doesn't allow a Nazi party and things like that while America does
I also thought that America is much more hardcore about the freedom of speech

[nubs]

But you've also got to consider that those who are using drugs aren't only harming themselves, but are also harming others as well! Like if it was if they were only harming themselves then it's fine I guess, but by using drugs they're setting a bad image for others (especially impressionable teenagers) and hence, they are doing harm to society

And yes, I agree with presenting the information rather than threatening the kids

How are they setting a bad example? If they are using it responsibly, then no, they are not. Take Michael Phelps for example. As soon as a photo was released of him hitting a bong the media went apeshit and started saying how terrible a role model he was. But if he had a bit of wine in the privacy of his own home it would have been a completely different story...

There should be no difference - he wasn't going around and saying weed is good for you and that everyone should do it. He was doing it privately in his own home.

If you're saying that doing drugs privately is 'harming' 'impressionable teenagers' then you should also believe that drinking any amount of alcohol is doing the exact same thing

If you want to compare alcohol with marijuana specifically in terms of the 'direct' danger that is posed to society, consider this:

Alcohol related violence is on the up, you see it every on the news, or perhaps even right in front of you
People get a bit too drunk and end up in fights
Do you ever hear any news of violent acts committed under the influence of marijuana? Have you ever heard of someone smoking too much weed and beating their children or physically abusing their spouses like you do with alcohol?
I'm not saying there is no such case, but it would occur only rarely due to the nature of marijuana -  it makes a pacifist of its user

What about drinking and driving?
Drivers who drive under the influence of marijuana have been found to drive much, much slower
I am not condoning driving while stoned - I am simply providing a contrast between the dangers posed to society by the users of alcohol and the users of marijuana

[paulsterio]

Firstly, you can't compare with alcohol, because that would be making the "me too" flaw (there's a technical name, just can't remember it) - just because something similar (or worse) is ok, doesn't make this ok as well. It's two separate issues, and I never said that I supported alcohol now did I?

With regards to Phelps, the issue wasn't the weed, it was the fact that he was doing something illegal. If weed was legal, what he did would be fine (like what you said with alcohol) - he's a bad example not because he takes weed, but because he breaks the law

Now onto the next part, using a drug, whether responsibly or not is setting a bad example. Just because something is legal and responsible does not make it a good example, we don't want a society dependent on weed now do we? You can't deny that the more people taking weed, the more it will spread, because it is available, it will spread to others.

[paulsterio]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)

That's the fallacy I was talking about

[funkyducky]

What's wrong with comparing to alcohol? It's a drug, it's legal - when debating the validity of outlawing certain drugs, we should first ask what the logic is behind the current bans, and why it makes any sense to have marijuana banned but not alcohol and nicotine/tobacco. If cannabis is illegal because of the harm it causes to individuals and society, then by the same logic, the validity of alcohol, caffeine and tobacco being legal should be called into question. Laws exist (or ideallly, should exist) to benefit society - we need concrete, clear-cut rules that are in place to benefit the community and the individual citizen.

[nubs]

Ok, fair enough, I agree with what you said about Phelps

I don't think the 'cherry picking fallacy' is relevant here, because I'm not exactly ignoring anything that could be contradictory to my original claim

You're saying that due to the availability, more people will use weed? Look at the alcohol prohibition back in the day. Some sources indicate alcohol use went up 60-70 percent, but as soon as alcohol was re-legalised, alcohol consumption went back down to normal (pre-prohibition) levels. (The cherry picking fallacy could apply here 'cause I might be ignoring other factors at work during the prohibition period - unintentional though)

If you, at the very least, decriminalise weed, history has shown that use will not go up

Portugal did it for all drugs, and drug use actually decreased (significantly!)
Every state in the US that has decriminalised marijuana has not seen a significant increase in use at all, with most states claiming that the use has remained constant


Dependence on marijuana? I certainly hope you're not talking about physical dependence or chemical addiction, but rather psychological addiction
Again, a contrast can be made with other substances without 'cherry picking'
It's fair less addictive than nicotine and caffeine, even less so than alcohol
It is quite difficult to become 'dependent' on marijuana
But if you do form some sort of psychological dependence, it's ridiculously easier to overcome than heroin of cocaine addiction

It is extremely hard to form any sort of dependence on marijuana, although it does happen from time to time