Drug Legalisation (2 Viewers)

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

i strongly believe that drugs should be decriminalised, if not legalised. i strongly support harm reduction.
for example, most risks associated with MDMA is impurity, and death from the so-called ecstasy is mostly not caused by MDMA. legalising it means testing kit will be legal (i think it's illegal to sell testing kit in NSW right now?)
besides, drugs just like any other mind-altering substances, i see no need to differentiate between them. if people want to screw up their life with drugs, i don't think it's the government's role to stop them (not that it can of course)
however, education is the key, the potential effects of drugs must be made available to all who is thinking of taking it, a bit like tobacco and alcohol.

-MDMA in the pure form damages clusters of seratonagic neurons

people will get depression and anxiety + other mental illness from that, this adds burden to the public health cost. Drugs lik tobacco and alcohol costs quite a bit of money (cant remember the exact costs but its in the couple of millions) from lung diseases, cancer and liver damage.
Cause of the effect there will be more user both casual and long term.

- Testing kits are not definative. You run the risk of people still being poisoned because there is a masking agent to hide the filler or something similar

- Harm minimisation is all good but legalising or decriming it would kill our health system.

 

[withoutaface]

-MDMA in the pure form damages clusters of seratonagic neurons

people will get depression and anxiety + other mental illness from that, this adds burden to the public health cost. Drugs lik tobacco and alcohol costs quite a bit of money (cant remember the exact costs but its in the couple of millions) from lung diseases, cancer and liver damage.
Cause of the effect there will be more user both casual and long term.

- Testing kits are not definative. You run the risk of people still being poisoned because there is a masking agent to hide the filler or something similar

- Harm minimisation is all good but legalising or decriming it would kill our health system.

That's why we tax the shit out of it. More money = more beds + doctors.

 

[davin]

i saw a study that did indicate smoking saves money in the u.s., at least, because people that smoke just die off faster so gov't doens't have to support them as long. don't know if this would apply for australia's health care system as well

 

[withoutaface]

It's all a Jewish conspiracy, I tell you.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

i saw a study that did indicate smoking saves money in the u.s., at least, because people that smoke just die off faster so gov't doens't have to support them as long. don't know if this would apply for australia's health care system as well

That depends.. because the smoking related illnesses are cancers, COPD and heart disease.

they arent quick killers so u have ppl who live on high co-morbidities and in turn cost us.. cos they survive multiple hospital admissions, low productivity, more sick days, PBS and medicare associated health costs.. and its not like we can "put them to sleep"..

in australia we have a more taxpayer subsidiesed health system and in turn more ppl of lower socio-economic levels who smoke place high burden on the system compared to if they were healthy.

In the US there is very little merit in being poor and expecting to survive a major illness.

 

[davin]

yeah, but many people spend plenty of time in the hospital when older, anyway....just for things related to aging.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I don't see how u can support alcohol and not pot... its crazy.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

pot is also... so non-toxic :/

 

[wheredanton]

pot is also... so non-toxic :/

Repeated servings of pot isn't going to make you the sharpest. It will probably make you want to move to Byron Bay, start surfing and grow organic vegies.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Repeated servings of pot isn't going to make you the sharpest.

Um, medical evidence please?

 

[wheredanton]

Um, medical evidence please?

That's right. Smoking pot and getting drunk every night are activities that are to be encouraged as it in no way impacts on your physical or mental health and therefore your ability to be an upstanding socially adjusted taxpaying member of society.

I'm sure there is plenty of medical evidence out there that suggests that smoking, let alone smoking psychotropic substances, is not good for your health.

But libertarian nutcases are allowed to present their cases for letting morons and morons alike put whatever crap into their body. Be it deep fried whatever or ice.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

That's right. Smoking pot and getting drunk every nightare activities that are to be encouraged as it in no way impacts on your physical or mental health and therefore your ability to be an upstanding socially adjusted taxpaying member of society.

Oh ok, while i'm sure smoking pot isn't exactly awesome for your memory skills (neither is alcohol), I don't see the need to ban it (at least in the world that we live in) given that it also has good social side-effects.

Anti-Mathmite - you're an absolute tool.

Yeh, so that addicts have to break into 3 times as many houses to feed their addictions (that is, if they didn't get the cheaper stuff off the black market first. Great idea!

Chances are the drugs would be cheaper even if they were taxed, people would also be much more inclined to take the more expensive / advertised legal market stuff over the cheaper/non-advertised... much more dangerous illegal stuff - Do you see many smokers buying smokes on the black market?

The government should be concerned with stopping all drugs, not just bad batches (though, all are bad batches really).

Impossible task based on a stupid premise - that all drugs are bad.

Who cares? The scum taking them aren't worth educating generally, and they sure aren't the kind of people who care about their own lives, nor anyone or anything else.

You have an odd perception of who a drug user is.

<civil libertarian>
The government has no business telling me that i can't rape my wife!
</civil libertarian>

No you absolute fucking moron - that's one persons right totally impinging on anothers!

Besides, if the government took such measures it would be accepting that drugs aren't as lethal as they really are.

They're not - find me a peer reviewed paper that shows of one death directly linked to pot.

 

[wheredanton]

I don't see the need to ban it (at least in the world that we live in) given that it also has good social side-effects.

Ban? No. Legal infringements yes. Well at least thats the case in most states. I dont really understanding the aura that surrounds pot smoking. It's just as bad or worse than drinking alcohol.

Of course the solutuon isnt prohibition. Rather it should be something along the lines of education (telling kids its not something that should be aspired to) and minor fines for infringements for the idiots that smoke it often and get caught. Its much better that society chooses to limit its use of pot rather than the state having to get all nanny like. Sadly people often cant help themselves. Whether more education should be heaped on or whether tougher legal penalties put on is the question.


I don't think its very healthy to tell teenage kids that pot has no side affects.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

pot has affects but it's safer than alcohol / cigarettes.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

So is stopping rape and murder. Quickly! lets decriminalise it.. Teh Easy waY OuT!!!!

Rape and murder are crimes that produce victims... the only victim of someone doing a drug is the people they steal shit off - which would be aleviated if legalised.

No my dad has viewed PLENTY (appeal to authority warning! Re: Moonlight's sticky) and i have heard enough stories from him about the horrors. They aren't exactly the most classy people... Naturally.

Cgrats.

No! The state has no right to stop men from rapping their wives!!!

Idiot.

Skitzophrenia, lung cancer, the increased chance of being led onto harsher drugs etc.

Skitz: Rarely - need better proof for causation.
Lung cancer: wtf no you idiot.
Increased chance of being led onto harsher drugs: Actually alcohol/smoking are greater gateway drugs than pot

 

[crazyhomo]

AND, as consumers, the people buying the drugs would be able to sue who ever they bought them off if they overdosed, were in a crash etc..

has anyone used an alcohol company because they were in a drink driving accident? or because they passed out from drinking too much?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

No victims of drugs? The persons families? The police who have to clean these people up off the streets? Their children? The hospital system? Innocent bystanders who fall victim to accidents? Little kids who step on HIV infected needles in their play ground? The peoples houses who would be burgled

Funny that most of those problems are fixed up when u make drugs legal - idiot.

Yes, you idiot. The only reason it isn't widely known is because the amount of people getting lung cancer from pot is dwarfed by the amount of people getting it from Tobacco.

Dickhead... the main things causing lung cancer with cigarettes are the poisonous chemicals... as i've explained pot is very non-toxic, and there is no one example of anyone dying from pot in the medical literature - NOT ONE.

People very rarely start out on harder drugs such as heroin. They take pot, then when they don't get the same kick the move onto harder and harder drugs untill their life is well and truly shit.

The most common drugs that are a gateway to heavier drug use are alcohol and cigarettes...

Pot also does this: Let x be the mood of someone before ever trying pot. When they take pot, x increases by 80%. After they've finished, it doesn't go back down to x, it goes to x - 20%.. Then they take some pot again.. Then it goes up 80%.. but back down 20% AGAIN. Untill it totally doesn't work for them.

Very scientific!

 

[crazyhomo]

Pot also does this: Let x be the mood of someone before ever trying pot. When they take pot, x increases by 80%. After they've finished, it doesn't go back down to x, it goes to x - 20%.. Then they take some pot again.. Then it goes up 80%.. but then it goes back down to the all time low that it was before.. minus ANOTHER 20% AGAIN. Untill it totally doesn't work for them. Because it makes them feel so shit they develop a dependance on it just to get by.

since this is obviously very scientific, do you have a citation for this formula?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It's never going to happen NTB. And if it did, the problems wouldn't be fixed, they would be exacerbated. Drug addicts would not approach such a program with a level head, and when we are talking about drug users, there WOULD be abuses of the system.. It WOULD back fire.

How would it back fire?

Coal can cause lung cancer and it is not a complex chemical.. Its about irritating lung tissues so that there is an abnormality in tissue growth.

Oh yeah well breathing in anything like that can be quite hazardous to yourself (i.e. living in a city), however it's really not that bad... the main problem is with the toxic chemicals within cigarettes.

They aren't drugs in the harsh meaning of it (you know what i mean).

Ok they might not be drugs... in the harsh social bs term that's been created, but they're still drugs and they are much heavier than pot

 

[crazyhomo]

yes. Pp 202-204, S. 28 II, My ASS, Vol XX, 2006 edition.

you're not even a funny troll