Which drugs do you think should be legal for personal use?

[DownWithTheLeft]

I can't find any reason why any of these drugs should be illegal.  People you say otherwise obviously live in a fantasyland where making drugs illegal actually stops their consumption.

So, by that logic, you also support abortion rights?

No, making abortion illegal would signifigantly cut down on the number of abortions given the difficulty of obtaining and risk of obtaining one.  There is no difficulty or risk in obtaining drugs for personal use.

Right, who cares about the thousands of women who would die as a result. Their own fault right?

I fail to see how its not, just as the thousands of people who may die as a result of legalizing these drugs.  Doesn't mean we should stop them.  Think Oliver Wendell Holmes quote on forced sterilization here

[John Dibble]

     I would be fine with legalizing anything except the most dangerous drugs. So things like heroin, meth, & tobacco should be illegal.

That you put tabacco on the same level as heroin and meth is rather strange.

     I wouldn't put it at quite the same level, though I don't like it being legal all the same. After all, not only does it destroy your life (by causing lung cancer or heart attacks), but it also destroys the lives of others (secondhand smoke is a carcinogen).

     Thing is, the question doesn't ask about punishments or anything like that. It just asks whether they should be legal or illegal. I wouldn't put marijuana & cocaine on the same level, but I think they should be legal all the same.

It can only do that in the long term - years of regular use or exposure. Alcohol can be quite similar, if not worse in some ways. In the long term it can cause liver failure, among other lethal ailments including cancer. Also, unlike tobacco it can seriously affect one's judgement in both the short and the long term. I don't think anyone has ever come home and beat their family members because they are high on tobacco, but I know it's happened because of heavy drinking. Numerous people have destroyed and lost their own lives and destroyed the lives of others due to the influence of alcohol, so why should alcohol be legal and not tobacco?

[??????????]

The best way to solve the drug problem is to make drugs unnecessary by improving the economy and general standard of living; unfortunately many of the drug war's fiercest advocates oppose the very measures that would do this the best.

Even millionaires snort coke and smoke crack. (Amy Winehouse, e.g.)

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

All of it.

And if the government controlled it and taxed it - buh bye deficit.

[DownWithTheLeft]

All of it.

And if the government controlled it and taxed it - buh bye deficit.

Which is exactly why I feel this way (although I sense some sarcasm in your response???)

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I would be fine with legalizing anything except the most dangerous drugs. So things like heroin, meth, & tobacco should be illegal.

That you put tabacco on the same level as heroin and meth is rather strange.

     I wouldn't put it at quite the same level, though I don't like it being legal all the same. After all, not only does it destroy your life (by causing lung cancer or heart attacks), but it also destroys the lives of others (secondhand smoke is a carcinogen).

     Thing is, the question doesn't ask about punishments or anything like that. It just asks whether they should be legal or illegal. I wouldn't put marijuana & cocaine on the same level, but I think they should be legal all the same.

It can only do that in the long term - years of regular use or exposure. Alcohol can be quite similar, if not worse in some ways. In the long term it can cause liver failure, among other lethal ailments including cancer. Also, unlike tobacco it can seriously affect one's judgement in both the short and the long term. I don't think anyone has ever come home and beat their family members because they are high on tobacco, but I know it's happened because of heavy drinking. Numerous people have destroyed and lost their own lives and destroyed the lives of others due to the influence of alcohol, so why should alcohol be legal and not tobacco?

     That's a good point, though alcohol in moderation actually has positive effects, while smoking tobacco has only negative effects (actually, as I recall, it does have a slight high effect). Not only that, but tobacco is one of the most addictive drugs, due to its nicotine content, which helps aid it in the process of destroying one's life. Alcohol isn't as dangerous if other people behave responsibly when dealing with a drunk person (like not letting him/her drive), while tobacco is deadly for purely biological reasons.

     They're both very dangerous, though the important factor for me is that alcohol has redeeming qualities & largely negatable consequences whereas tobacco does not.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

All of it.

And if the government controlled it and taxed it - buh bye deficit.

Which is exactly why I feel this way (although I sense some sarcasm in your response???)

No, I'm serious.  The War on Drugs hasn't done sh**t.  Let's tax it and regulate it and when some junkie wants a fix he can go to a 7-11 and use his Visa card instead of shooting up half the neighborhood trying to rip off some dealer for a quick fix.

[SPC]

All of the above.

[DownWithTheLeft]

All of it.

And if the government controlled it and taxed it - buh bye deficit.

Which is exactly why I feel this way (although I sense some sarcasm in your response???)

No, I'm serious.  The War on Drugs hasn't done sh**t.  Let's tax it and regulate it and when some junkie wants a fix he can go to a 7-11 and use his Visa card instead of shooting up half the neighborhood trying to rip off some dealer for a quick fix.

Exactly, many people fail to realize that these drugs at a conveince store or pharmacy would cost about 2% of what they do on the street (cite Buckley)

[Flying Dog]

Eh, it really wouldn't get much in the way of reducing the deficit, more like expand it. For example, MI Tobacco taxes only compensate for 10-20% of the health care costs incurred for Tobacco-related illnesses.

[dead0man]

Eh, it really wouldn't get much in the way of reducing the deficit, more like expand it. For example, MI Tobacco taxes only compensate for 10-20% of the health care costs incurred for Tobacco-related illnesses.

cite?

[CultureKing]

If drugs like crack and meth were legalized it would be one of the few things that would drive me out of the country. Thank god the american populice and our politicians aren't idiots.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Eh, it really wouldn't get much in the way of reducing the deficit, more like expand it. For example, MI Tobacco taxes only compensate for 10-20% of the health care costs incurred for Tobacco-related illnesses.

cite?

He got that information from me.. and I am, of course, the source of all knowledge that was, is, or ever will be. 

[Flying Dog]

Eh, it really wouldn't get much in the way of reducing the deficit, more like expand it. For example, MI Tobacco taxes only compensate for 10-20% of the health care costs incurred for Tobacco-related illnesses.

cite?

He got that information from me.. and I am, of course, the source of all knowledge that was, is, or ever will be. 

Eh, I'm trying to find it now. I saw it when I was in that argument with Tweed over banning Tobacco.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Stop socializing the costs for medicine so much and costs for smokers wouldn't be so much. Instead of our current neither fish nor fowl system where the feds pay the bills for HMOS put in something like the swiss system of UHC(compulsory insurance)./

[Franzl]

All except Meth and Crack.

^^^^^^

we agree on something!!!

[dead0man]

As for the people voting for all but crack/meth, etc., I do wonder why you would allow barbiturates, which are considerably more dangerous, addictive, and completely useless since the advent of benzodiazepines.

Ignorance.  It's the same thing that made some of them illegal in the first place.

[specific_name]

All of the above, and whatever else isn't listed.

The discrepancy in the poll between votes for meth and votes for amphetamines is funny. I can't believe so many people believe dextroamphetamine should be okay for personal use but not methylamphetamine. In just a small sample, you can see the effect of buzz words like "meth" "crack" etc...

[Lunar]

All of the above, and whatever else isn't listed.

The discrepancy in the poll between votes for meth and votes for amphetamines is funny. I can't believe so many people believe dextroamphetamine should be okay for personal use but not methylamphetamine. In just a small sample, you can see the effect of buzz words like "meth" "crack" etc...

Well, both of those drugs have the same classification, although dextroamphetamine is a lot more prescribed.  I think there is a legitimate medical view that amphetamine does everything meth does but more safely.  It's like comparing ethanol alcohol to rubbing alcohol - very similar chemicals and both are unsafe, but with one you don't and won't need the other.

At this junction in time, I'd vote for all of the chemicals that have less serious negative effects than alcohol, basically everything but crack, meth, and possibly standard cocaine.

This poll oddly does not include prescription drugs besides amphetamine, meth, cocaine, and in some states, marijuana.  It just includes "street" and "hippie" drugs, but excludes other popular drugs like Vicodin, Oxycontin, DXM cough syrup, etc.

[specific_name]

All of the above, and whatever else isn't listed.

The discrepancy in the poll between votes for meth and votes for amphetamines is funny. I can't believe so many people believe dextroamphetamine should be okay for personal use but not methylamphetamine. In just a small sample, you can see the effect of buzz words like "meth" "crack" etc...

Well, both of those drugs have the same classification, although dextroamphetamine is a lot more prescribed.  I think there is a legitimate medical view that amphetamine does everything meth does but more safely.  It's like comparing ethanol alcohol to rubbing alcohol - very similar chemicals and both are unsafe, but with one you don't and won't need the other.

Meth and d-amphetamine (as well as benzoamphetamine) are truly under the same umbrella. The popular adhd drugs use d-amphetamine, so it can be had much more purely, whereas methylamphetamine is usually homemade and has obvious drawbacks because of this. On the other hand, methanol is very different than ethanol, it can cause permanent physical damage or death in low doses. Methanol is simply toxic in its pure form. Methylamphetamine in its pure form is safe, but a much stronger stimulant than d-amphetamine. It's used for adhd as well, though more rarely. My point was simply that people are swayed in a very emotional way about drugs. A way that isn't necessarily proportional to their particular qualities.

[Earth]

All of the above. I would like to see all drugs become legal.

[RosettaStoned]

Just curious, who here has done any of these drugs?

[Franzl]

Just curious, who here has done any of these drugs?

probably almost everyone?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Just curious, who here has done any of these drugs?

probably almost everyone?

Yea, this forum is filled with a lot of idiots

[specific_name]

Just curious, who here has done any of these drugs?

I've used quite a few on the list. I believe there is a thread on here that asks that question specifically, from a few months ago. I'm not sure which sub-forum it was posted in, maybe off topic or forum community.

Oh yes, I suppose you're a Tool fan. I am as well. Welcome to the forum.