The right to use drugs?

[nemafakei]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4737994.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-5637797,00.html

Should religious beliefs ever be a reason to break or alter the law?

Personally, I think not. If your religion demands that you kill, then must we permit killing? What if it's just willing believers? I'm rather cynical.

[Acriku]

Just like the government allowed natives to smoke peyote, it's hypocritical lawmaking. I'm against it, even if native americans "were here first."

[Khan]

I agree they should just let everyone smoke peyote ;)

[Mihail]

I think controlled use of drugs for religious purposes is fine. Of course, there would also be a limit on how "hard" the drugs can be, but I think that this hallucinogenic tea and marijuana should be allowed to be used in small quantities say once every two weeks.

interesting fact: nobody has died from marijuana. Although it may make you a stoner and be the gateway for "harder" drugs like cocaine, crack, methamphetamine, and others, nobody has died from it. :)

[GUNWOUNDS]

if someone lost depth perception and died in a car accident after smoking weed then its the weed's fault even if the cause of death was vehicle collision.  So yea... i think weed has killed people.

[Khan]

But it can severly mess up your brain and lead to psychological problems such as schizophrenia.

[Mihail]

But it can severly mess up your brain and lead to psychological problems such as schizophrenia.

True, but I think that applies more to the stoners who smoke an ounce of weed every day, people who have nothing better to do than do drugs.

if someone lost depth perception and died in a car accident after smoking weed then its the weed's fault even if the cause of death was vehicle collision.  So yea... i think weed has killed people.

Also true, but they shouldn't be driving after smoking pot. But yeah, I suppose it has killed people indirectly.

[exatreide]

But not directly

[Mihail]

But not directly.

Ex, you've smoked weed before, how is it when you're stoned off of it? Is it that bad to the degree that you can't even walk normally and everything you see is in doubles, or does everything just become more...surreal?

[Dude_Doc]

If weed is a potential killer, than alcohol is a mass-murderer. Thousands of people die every year in cancer out of smoking tobacco. Should these two also be banned? Weed doesn't even come close to any of these two. Besides, weed is not addicting, while alcohol and tobbaco are. I know all this because I have a friend who has tried it many times (which doesn't mean every day, week or month).

So I believe the Netherlands did right when they legalized it: there simply is not a strong reason for it to be illegal. And if it can become dangerous later in life (like psychological damage), well, then people have to be aware of this - just like they are aware of contracting cancer and becoming an alcoholist.

[Edric O]

Ideally, drugs should be eliminated from society.

Unfortunately, that's not a realistic option, so the best we can do is try to reduce their use as much as possible. And this task, in turn, is by no means as simple as banning them. Banning a drug will reduce the number of people who use it, but it will also create black markets, organized crime, and generally make things a lot worse for the people who do take the drug in spite of the ban.

Keeping drugs illegal is not very effective, but legalizing them won't do a lot of good either. I really don't know what a good solution would be.

[Edric O]

If weed is a potential killer, than alcohol is a mass-murderer. Thousands of people die every year in cancer out of smoking tobacco. Should these two also be banned?

Like I said, ideally, alcohol and tobacco should be eliminated from society.

But banning them won't help you do that. Alcohol and tobacco are legal not because they are "harmless", but because it would be futile to outlaw them.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Alcohol actually has a nutritional value (calories) and can be enjoyed in moderation as well ... its made from food and it is basically a food as you ingest and digest it. Also the alcohol itself is just an ingredient in a drink or food.  Wine is just grape juice with alcohol.  Meats can be cooked in alcohol for added flavor.  Its also illegal to operate machinery or drive while drunk.  So it is regulated.

Tobacco on the other hand is pretty worthless... its nothing but a toxin.  But that is all tobacco is.... a toxin.  Its not illegal to willfully poison yourself i suppose.

Weed is different tho... its not a food and its not just a toxin.... it is a mind altering drug.  Its basically a sedative.  To be honest i think weed is over-hyped as you probably can get more of a high from overdoses of Day-quil.... or inhale some keyboard cleaner.

If they do legalize weed just treat it like alcohol i guess and make it so you cant smoke and drive.  But then imagine police officers trying to differentiate the difference between  marijuana cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes visually from a distance.  It would be a nightmare.  They wouldnt know who was smoking pot and who was smoking tobacco unless they pulled over each and every person.  Thats why you'll never see it legalized.  Plus its something the government can bust you on and fine you for.... they love doing that.  

[GUNWOUNDS]

Like I said, ideally, alcohol and tobacco should be eliminated from society.

But banning them won't help you do that. Alcohol and tobacco are legal not because they are "harmless", but because it would be futile to outlaw them.

Tobacco is legal becuz its a huge cash crop of many states.... alcohol is legal becuz its basically a food and/or food ingredient that has legitimate purposes.  Small consumption of alcohol can also be good for your heart (1 beer a day or glass of wine).  No amount of Tobacco is good for you.  Weed has medicinal value and is used according by doctors.... cocaine also has medicinal value and is used accordingly by doctors.  When people get nose jobs they coat the interior of the nose with a paste that has cocaine derivative.  Also Morphine is an opiate.  So yes many drugs have uses ....but honestly Tobacco is pretty worthless IMO, they arent banning tobacco but they are doing the next best thing... restricting people's use of it.  Right now it is a federal regulation that you cannot smoke in any federal or state building and most restaurants are adopting it as well.  There are even many smoke-less bars.

So you said you dont know what to do Edrico?... well its simple... restrict the use of the substance without making it illegal altogether, and then tax the hell out of it.

Its what they do with Tobacco and its great.  People pay massive amounts of tax on cigarette packs and there is no place for them to smoke it except for their own house or car.  Brilliant I think.  People buy an overpriced item and have nowhere to use it.  Hehehe.

[Andrew]

Gambling is also very profitable. Especially the VLT. Some stores (at bars and such) make like $50,000 each a year on them. Those things are a big drag on society. Governments are addicted to their revenue.

Smokes are pointless, unless you want to die of cancer. Or you could wait until you see others die of cancer then decide to quit smoking.

Weed is also pointless, but I'll admit smoking a joint a day is better than smoking a pack of smokes a day health wise. Hmm, although now that I think of it, they would both be of similar price which would still be a drain on finances. I laugh to myself when a married couple that smokes a pack a day each complain about not having money to pay the bills or to get other stuff. Like I said in another thread:

Forgot to add:

The fact that if you smoke a pack of cigs a day @ $10 CAD a pack, and do so for 30 years and assume a discount rate of 10%, you would have $600,000 after 30 years. And the fact that you would be dieing after 30 years anyway...

Same as Getting Tims coffee/donught, say $2 a day 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, assume 10% discount, 30 years, you'd have $82,247 after 30 years.

Now assume you drink alcohol or go to bars often. Say $10 a week for 50 weeks, 15 years, 10% discount. $15,886 (after 15 more years, with no payments, although getting interest, it would be $66,000)

I'd hate to see the smokers that go to Tim's every morning and then spend a minimum of $10 on alcohol/bar (bar cover maybe).

~$750,000... gone. What a waste. Retiring after those 30 years (say aged 50 assuming you started when 20), and you plan on living until 75. You could withdraw ~$83,000 a year until death. (your pension on top of that would be make it top $100,000)

Quite simple to be rich :P

Now add the amount spent on drugs...

Big waste of money, and for the most part (when not used in moderation ie a glass of wine a day) bad for your health.

[Megashrap]

Sad thing is, nowadays it's really not so much the pot/coke/heroin issue, it's now evolved into people that get hardcore opiate type prescriptions and just sell the hell out of them. Unless they are directly caught selling, it is very hard to arrest someone when they have a written on the bottle prescription to validate thier use of it. It's really crazy here in Florida the selling of prescription drugs such as Oxycontin,MScontin etc, etc.

However, it is a different story if your driving around all f***ed up on your RX.

[Andrew]

Actually, from where I went to school they now have "coke parties" so I hear. They didn't have them back when I was in highschool.

And I would say that drug use has increased (ritalin etc). And drugs lead to crime. People have to feed their habits somehow.

[nemafakei]

Gunwounds...

"it [cannabis] is a mind altering drug"

So is tobacco (stimulant), caffeine (likewise) and alcohol (depressant). There's no difference in that respect; but yes, tobacco (and the tar that comes with it) and alcohol are also toxic and caffeine had very minor side effects.

Smoking and driving should not be legal (I'd be astounded if it was in the UK, but I'm not sure). Asides from the obvious question of what happens at the petrol station, having one hand occupied while driving is a ridiculous handicap!

[exatreide]

Ex, you've smoked weed before, how is it when you're stoned off of it? Is it that bad to the degree that you can't even walk normally and everything you see is in doubles, or does everything just become more...surreal?

No, Motor functions are generaly not affected, after smoking weed you sit back, watch T.V, talk to friends have a soda. Then well thats about it, even mixed with alcohol it's effects are nothing like the Media puts it?

Remember how the media protrayed Japanease people and Germans in World war two? turning them into evil villens, thats what they have done with weed. While it may not be healthy, it's no Pol Pot. (Har har)

[Megashrap]

No, Motor functions are generaly not affected, after smoking weed you sit back, watch T.V, talk to friends have a soda. Then well thats about it, even mixed with alcohol it's effects are nothing like the Media puts it?

Well, I don't agree with all the media over-dramatic productions of the side effects. However, most potheads I ever knew, and I mean all of em, tend to have a vocabulary consisting mainly of words and phrases such as ummm, lemme think for a second, I don't remember that, Dunno, oh yeah, etc.  ;D

[exatreide]

Well, I know alot of non pot heads with the same time of vocab!

[Acriku]

Well, I know alot of non pot heads with the same time of vocab!

And they would simply lose their knowledge of the english language if they became pot heads  ;)

I think the best (out of what is possible) option is to legalize the non-potent (at least short-term) drugs and raise the prices of them so high yet not so high that they might as well be illegal. Not only does the government get more money to help fund other things, but it slows down the addicts from buying too much.

In my country, we have saying: Moderation is key, but many do not hold the combination :)

[Egeides]

Case seems clear to me. I guess I have a modified version of Locke's liberalisme.

Hypothetical golden rule (to be applied by pragmaticism though):

A law is there to protect society from abuse on each other's personal decisions. Each one, in society, as 100 coins to spend and he spends them depending on the importance he gives to each thing.

1- If the law against drugs is to start with based on other purposes, it should be abolished altogether or reformated as to not infringe.

2- If the law is formed as to satisfy the golden rule, then:

a) The religious purposes are of enough importance to go over others' liberties (others will be given more decision power elsewhere).

b) Not so, or any partial situation with its partial solution.

As a sidenote about medias and general public:

I do think that they overemphasize, partially by lack of knowledge I fear that it might backlash wildly. I prefer to bring people to think, not dumb them until some wake up and jump on anything "not orthodox". And I hate propaganda-style ads which are off-topic and sophistic for example. "This seal is cute! Save the seals!" What shall we do for eaten fishies? Not cute enough? Against pot, www.gamespy.com has a good example of this.

[Megashrap]

So you said you dont know what to do Edrico?... well its simple... restrict the use of the substance without making it illegal altogether, and then tax the hell out of it.

Its what they do with Tobacco and its great.  People pay massive amounts of tax on cigarette packs and there is no place for them to smoke it except for their own house or car.  Brilliant I think.  People buy an overpriced item and have nowhere to use it.  Hehehe.

I once had a Boss that had some very strange ideas about the US gov. and it's dealing with illegal drugs. Now one thing he came up with, which I really thought was a not so bad of an idea was to make drugs legal, I know I know are you insane? Well his idea was to make them legal,but to obtain them you would have to go to a special center (gov. controlled) and fill out mega paperwork on what your gettting,taking and the likes. Then this paper work would be available to all employers and law enforcement via databases that are accessable at anytime,anywhere. And tax the bejesus out of it. There is no doubt that it would cut the street selling big time, when you can legally obtain whatever you want. All the while retaining all the legal penalties of using them in public today.  I say it would cut down on the street selling factor in a major way alone, and importing them. I know it's far fetched, but it has SOME reasonable good points to it I thought. And I know this will never come about seeing as how the Pharmacutical companies make Microsoft look like a 7-11 franchise in comparison.  ;)

[nemafakei]

"However, most potheads I ever knew, and I mean all of em, tend to have a vocabulary consisting mainly of words and phrases such as ummm, lemme think for a second, I don't remember that, Dunno, oh yeah, etc"

Is that representative of the effects of the stuff or of the linguistic tendencies of people who are more disposed to become users?