Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

should drugs be legalized?


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

Poll: should drugs be legalized? (36 member(s) have cast votes)

should drugs be legalized?

  1. no. (8 votes [22.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

  2. yes. only to help people get off drugs such as crack, heroin. (1 votes [2.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.78%

  3. yes. just legalize everything and allow people to take what they want. (16 votes [44.44%])

    Percentage of vote: 44.44%

  4. yes. only soft drugs such as cannabis (5 votes [13.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.89%

  5. yes. but have some sort of regulations put in place, legalize cannabis but don't legalize really hard drugs. (6 votes [16.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.67%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#31    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,438 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 March 2013 - 04:32 AM

I voted yes to legalize all drugs and let people decide, but I understand and fully support the admission that it will be up to more local authorities to decide, that is, authorities closer to their own communities and their own people, sub-federal authorities at the very least (i.e. Welsh, Scottish, or English law as opposed to the entire UK).   Here in the US, we leave Texas and Oregon to decide whether their own citizens should be put to death.   As well, we should leave it up to Texas and Oregon to decide what substances people are allowed to put in their own bodies.   There are many valid concerns regarding this, of course.  And many of the most profound concerns should be determined by what the substance in question happens to be.  Case law is taken on a case-by-case basis, over matters far graver and more dangerous than this one (e.g. deliberate killing vs. accidental), so I see no good reason why this issue should be any different.

Cannabis is going to be the key that unlocks the cure to cancer, it's going to be the key to cure Alzheimers, it's going to heal the disorders of the brain.  It's going to be the hero of the 21st century of medicine, throwing down the greatest plagues modern medicine has still not been able to cure. Let's put the old myths away and stop hobbling our progress over politics and corporate interests, let us embrace the science today.

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/25509

Edited by Yamato, 01 March 2013 - 04:38 AM.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#32    faraway

faraway

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2008

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:16 AM

I voted yes, let people take what they want.

This way there can be rules and regulations in place to ensure that drugs are 'safe' (as safe as can be), taxed, and regulated.


#33    Queen in the North

Queen in the North

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,509 posts
  • Joined:04 May 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • We're more Ceefax people.

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:14 PM

Ooh goody, I can use my favourite drugs graph again! :D

Posted Image
Clearly shows alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than ecstasy, cannabis, LSD. So it makes little sense for them to be so widely available and other drugs to have such harsh penalties. I'd vote decriminalisation over legalisation, as in Portugal, where the drug user is treated as a patient not a criminal, the aim being to get people off drugs, not lock them up.

Posted Image

#34    Bonecrusher

Bonecrusher

    Facebook Fiend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Joined:25 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Middleton,Greater Manchester,UK

  • Your blood's worth bottling!

Posted 03 March 2013 - 06:52 PM

View PostQueen in the North, on 03 March 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

Ooh goody, I can use my favourite drugs graph again! :D

Posted Image
Clearly shows alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than ecstasy, cannabis, LSD. So it makes little sense for them to be so widely available and other drugs to have such harsh penalties. I'd vote decriminalisation over legalisation, as in Portugal, where the drug user is treated as a patient not a criminal, the aim being to get people off drugs, not lock them up.
Quoted for truthery.
If you look at Yamato's final paragraph he might have even found a possible cure for cancer.
And here's me thinking cannabis was a poor man's cigarette with a bit of a whiff.
While ecstasy without something less dangerous than alcohol is as harmless as a smartie.
Though LSD does have you experiencing some really wild trips and hallucinating.
I've got a funny feeling that you omitted crystal meth because you know in your heart of hearts it's even more dangerous.
Even the handling and preparation of the stuff is a hazard within itself.
It's little graphs like this that make me more determined to criminalise alcohol.
Despite all this possible out- patient care for junkies do you believe that methadone can wean you off heroin?
I still think though it's a pretty good  idea legalising cannabis because they are not a load of hopeless cases.
My cousin has many bouts of clear thinking because of it.

Edited by Medium Brown, 03 March 2013 - 06:57 PM.

Swindon Town:  Division Two Champions 2011-12.
Proud member of Macdonald's Red Army since 1989.
Up the Robins!

#35    Queen in the North

Queen in the North

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,509 posts
  • Joined:04 May 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • We're more Ceefax people.

Posted 03 March 2013 - 07:17 PM

View PostMedium Brown, on 03 March 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

Quoted for truthery.
If you look at Yamato's final paragraph he might have even found a possible cure for cancer.
And here's me thinking cannabis was a poor man's cigarette with a bit of a whiff.
While ecstasy without something less dangerous than alcohol is as harmless as a smartie.
Though LSD does have you experiencing some really wild trips and hallucinating.
I've got a funny feeling that you omitted crystal meth because you know in your heart of hearts it's even more dangerous.
Even the handling and preparation of the stuff is a hazard within itself.
It's little graphs like this that make me more determined to criminalise alcohol.
Despite all this possible out- patient care for junkies do you believe that methadone can wean you off heroin?
I still think though it's a pretty good  idea legalising cannabis because they are not a load of hopeless cases.
My cousin has many bouts of clear thinking because of it.
As far as I'm aware, crystal meth IS methamphetamine, which IS on the graph. Fourth from the left.

Posted Image

#36    Bonecrusher

Bonecrusher

    Facebook Fiend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Joined:25 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Middleton,Greater Manchester,UK

  • Your blood's worth bottling!

Posted 03 March 2013 - 07:37 PM

View PostQueen in the North, on 03 March 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:


As far as I'm aware, crystal meth IS methamphetamine, which IS on the graph. Fourth from the left.
Got ya! But I can't believe it's floundering behind alcohol.
In my honest opinion I thought that would be the most evil substance.
With alcohol coming a close second followed by crack cocaine and heroin.
Still the tried and tested system of using a graph can confound even the deepest of suspicions.
It's just all those " before and after" photos showing crystal meth addicts old before their time.
However you can easily get a liver infection in your early twenties from alcohol poisoning.
Some of these guys are even younger than some of the " afters" photos from the meth addicts.
And they are just about alive and kicking.
Tbh I wouldn't touch both of them with a bargepole not even for recreational purposes.
But I'm quite partial to a drink at a social occasion still.

Edited by Medium Brown, 03 March 2013 - 07:40 PM.

Swindon Town:  Division Two Champions 2011-12.
Proud member of Macdonald's Red Army since 1989.
Up the Robins!

#37    Queen in the North

Queen in the North

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,509 posts
  • Joined:04 May 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • We're more Ceefax people.

Posted 03 March 2013 - 08:04 PM

View PostMedium Brown, on 03 March 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Got ya! But I can't believe it's floundering behind alcohol.
In my honest opinion I thought that would be the most evil substance.
With alcohol coming a close second followed by crack cocaine and heroin.
Still the tried and tested system of using a graph can confound even the deepest of suspicions.
It's just all those " before and after" photos showing crystal meth addicts old before their time.
However you can easily get a liver infection in your early twenties from alcohol poisoning.
Some of these guys are even younger than some of the " afters" photos from the meth addicts.
And they are just about alive and kicking.
Tbh I wouldn't touch both of them with a bargepole not even for recreational purposes.
But I'm quite partial to a drink at a social occasion still.
The study is here, if you're interested. Alcohol scores highly on both harm to the user and harm to others, whereas meth scores highly on harm to the user, but much lower on harm to others.
Posted Image
Edited to add: I like graphs :w00t:

Edited by Queen in the North, 03 March 2013 - 08:08 PM.

Posted Image

#38    Bonecrusher

Bonecrusher

    Facebook Fiend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Joined:25 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Middleton,Greater Manchester,UK

  • Your blood's worth bottling!

Posted 03 March 2013 - 08:11 PM

View PostQueen in the North, on 03 March 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:


The study is here, if you're interested. Alcohol scores highly on both harm to the user and harm to others, whereas meth scores highly on harm to the user, but much lower on harm to others.
Posted Image
Edited to add: I like graphs :w00t:
I'll bring in the proposal to criminalise alcohol to Jim Dobbin tomorrow.

Swindon Town:  Division Two Champions 2011-12.
Proud member of Macdonald's Red Army since 1989.
Up the Robins!

#39    Queen in the North

Queen in the North

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,509 posts
  • Joined:04 May 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • We're more Ceefax people.

Posted 03 March 2013 - 08:13 PM

View PostMedium Brown, on 03 March 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

I'll bring in the proposal to criminalise alcohol to Jim Dobbin tomorrow.
B-but.. you cannae take away my alcohol! It's socially acceptable, not like them nasty life ruining drugs!

Posted Image

#40    Bonecrusher

Bonecrusher

    Facebook Fiend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Joined:25 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Middleton,Greater Manchester,UK

  • Your blood's worth bottling!

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:29 PM

View PostQueen in the North, on 03 March 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:


B-but.. you cannae take away my alcohol! It's socially acceptable, not like them nasty life ruining drugs!
It's just crying out for a thread but I won't...
We've got enough redundancies without adding breweries and pubs to the pot.
So your little graph is going to be gathering cobwebs until this thorny issue rears it's ugly head again.
But that won't stop me agonising over binge drinkers and drunk drivers.
While some of them under the influence have this sudden urge to fight everybody.
But according to the Government cigarette smoking is the bigger problem.
I'm sorry but that dosn't strike me as a home wrecker...
Btw I'm stil going with my original gut feeling about Cannabis.

Swindon Town:  Division Two Champions 2011-12.
Proud member of Macdonald's Red Army since 1989.
Up the Robins!

#41    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,007 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 04 March 2013 - 06:28 PM

View PostMedium Brown, on 03 March 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Got ya! But I can't believe it's floundering behind alcohol.
In my honest opinion I thought that would be the most evil substance.
With alcohol coming a close second followed by crack cocaine and heroin.
Still the tried and tested system of using a graph can confound even the deepest of suspicions.
It's just all those " before and after" photos showing crystal meth addicts old before their time.
However you can easily get a liver infection in your early twenties from alcohol poisoning.
Some of these guys are even younger than some of the " afters" photos from the meth addicts.
And they are just about alive and kicking.
Tbh I wouldn't touch both of them with a bargepole not even for recreational purposes.
But I'm quite partial to a drink at a social occasion still.

The almighty graph does not lie! ;)

But seriously though I have known people who were doing a lot of crystal meth, and none of them look like the people you see in those pictures, a few of them did do some prison time, and all of them to my knowledge do not touch the stuff anymore. Many of the dangers and early aging that comes from meth, comes not from the chemical itself, but from other chemicals that are present as impurities in the stuff as a result of shoddy manufacturing processes. Methamphetamine is still a schedule II drug, ranked lower on the federal scale than cannibus, heroin, lsd, and others. It can and still is prescribed to certain people for treating various medical conditions. One of which is weight loss (as a diet drug) although I doubt any respectable doctor still prescribes it for this use.

And it still baffles me that we give out amphetamines to kids like candy for 'ADHD' which I believe is WAY over-diagnosed and wrongfully diagnosed much of the time. In highschool the second most easily available drug was amphetamine right behind alcohol, kids who were prescribed to it would just not take it and sell it at school. You want to know the real gateway drug? Just look in your medicine cabinet. Legal prescription drugs, had they been included on that graph, would be right behind alcohol.


#42    Bonecrusher

Bonecrusher

    Facebook Fiend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Joined:25 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Middleton,Greater Manchester,UK

  • Your blood's worth bottling!

Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:24 AM

View PostEinsteinium, on 04 March 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:



The almighty graph does not lie! ;)

But seriously though I have known people who were doing a lot of crystal meth, and none of them look like the people you see in those pictures, a few of them did do some prison time, and all of them to my knowledge do not touch the stuff anymore. Many of the dangers and early aging that comes from meth, comes not from the chemical itself, but from other chemicals that are present as impurities in the stuff as a result of shoddy manufacturing processes. Methamphetamine is still a schedule II drug, ranked lower on the federal scale than cannibus, heroin, lsd, and others. It can and still is prescribed to certain people for treating various medical conditions. One of which is weight loss (as a diet drug) although I doubt any respectable doctor still prescribes it for this use.

You want to know the real gateway drug? Just look in your medicine cabinet. Legal prescription drugs, had they been included on that graph, would be right behind alcohol.
So basically these " before and after" photos were just used for shock and awe?
To really hammer home the message that crystal meth is really,really bad.
But in reality they used the addicts that just took a really dodgy batch.
It's just like heroin if the manufacturers like to make their product on the cheap.
It still feels like Russian Roulette with both drugs if you want my honest opinion.
But I'm still encouraged by the fact that you can lose weight as a consquence.
Tbh all these crystal meth addicts do have thin,emancated bodies.
But yet again that and the cracks in their face could be again due to a dodgy batch.
I actually crossed swords with Riyeh over prescription drugs.
Now he's out of the picture I feel quite vindicated that I wasn't fighting a hopeless cause.
I just knew there was something not quite right about them despite them easing pain.
It's not too hard to overdose from an aspirin.
But they should have the instructions on how to take them on the outside rather than the inside.
It's makes we wonder what source that graph actually comes from.
Maybe some government think- tank or a pharmaceutical company.
It's still pretty accurate despite that glaring omission.

Edited by Medium Brown, 05 March 2013 - 08:26 AM.

Swindon Town:  Division Two Champions 2011-12.
Proud member of Macdonald's Red Army since 1989.
Up the Robins!

#43    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 13,987 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:37 AM

Putting someone in jail is taking away their liberty and therefore wrong.  You do it then only to prevent some worse wrong -- to protect society.  There are very few cases where use of drugs requires such action to protect society.


#44    cultanorak

cultanorak

    Alien Embryo

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 103 posts
  • Joined:07 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male

  • I imagine you have orders to destroy me?

Posted 05 March 2013 - 10:37 AM

If soft drugs where legalised then someone such as myself who doesn't associate with scumbags would have the chance to try cannabis instead of having to look for them on the floor. :yes:

Even though I only voted for the legalisation of soft drugs I would like to see LSD and other drugs with hallucinogenic properties freely available as well at chemists.

Edited by yearofthehater, 05 March 2013 - 10:38 AM.


#45    Queen in the North

Queen in the North

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,509 posts
  • Joined:04 May 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • We're more Ceefax people.

Posted 05 March 2013 - 11:10 AM

View PostMedium Brown, on 05 March 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

It's makes we wonder what source that graph actually comes from.
Maybe some government think- tank or a pharmaceutical company.
It's still pretty accurate despite that glaring omission.
I gave you the link to where it came from.

Quote

David J Nutt, Leslie A King, Lawrence D Phillips, on behalf of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs
The ISCD was formed to investigate drug harm free from political pressure to say DRUGS ARE BAD, YO.

And:

Quote

Funding Centre for Crime and Justice Studies UK
which is a charity. So, not the government or a pharmaceutical company :tu:

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users