Drug poll

[jsharmon7]

We've had a lot of discussions on this site about drug legalization and I'm curious to know what people think of when they hear the term "drugs." So when somebody mentions drug use or legalization, what kind of "drugs" are you picturing? EDIT: I was going to add an actual poll, but I can't figure out a way to do it how I want. Just add your answers in the thread instead and blame me for being stupid.

This isn't part of the poll, but if you are in support of legalizing some drugs, but not all drugs, go ahead and post those opinions in this thread as well. I think sometimes we're not all on the same page as far as what we mean when we say "drugs," so this could get interesting.

This is all for my own interest, but I'd appreciate it if people could take a moment to give their thoughts.

 

[Garb]

I think all drugs should be legalized, but marijuana is a no-brainer. It has less negative effects than alcohol. If it were legalized, I think that would take most of the wind out of the sails of both sides on the war on drugs.

 

[jsharmon7]

I think all drugs should be legalized, but marijuana is a no-brainer. It has less negative effects than alcohol. If it were legalized, I think that would take most of the wind out of the sails of both sides on the war on drugs.

Now when you say marijuana, are you referring to average, run-of-the-mill stuff, or all marijuana including high potency stuff like BC Bud?

 

[Libertarian01]

JSharmon7,

I believe that any human being who is competent has the right to ingest any chemical into his/her own body - providing they are fully informed about what the exact makeup of the chemical is! Except for one type of "drug."

The only exception I would keep removed from the general public save by prescription would be any/all antibiotics.

Say I take heroin in my own living room to get high. I am stoned, I stay stoned in my own home, I go to sleep in my own home. This is no different from I get drunk in my own home, I stay drunk in my own home, I go to sleep in my own home. The chemical used to escape reality is irrelevant to the question: so long as we can agree that there is some chemical I can use legally to enhance my calm or escape reality than all chemicals should be allowed - providing I am fully informed about the range of effects the chosen chemical has.

Should I become "stoned" on any chemical and do something that is illegal beyond "just being stoned" then all laws should apply. It should not matter if I am operating a vehicle while impaired on alcohol or methamphetamine, the act of operating a vehicle while impaired should be the crime itself.

In the case of antibiotics should I just take any antibiotic I want when I want without acting responsibly this can have a direct impact on others. By misusing antibiotics I can contribute to the creation of highly resistant strains of bacteria that can kill other human beings. Thus, such abuse should be limited by controlling this substance.

I could also make some sort of exception for a drug that can produce an "echo effect" like LSD. If I ingest LSD on Jan 1st and stop the chemical can remain the the liver and come out on March 15th without my ever taken any more, thus my own control of said drug is not 100%. I don't know that I would make LSD 100% legal, but I think some sort of modification to my resistance of the nanny state could be ameliorated by reasonable thought.

All that said I believe taking chemicals especially "hard drugs" is a damn stupid thing to do and people shouldn't do it. I just believe we have right to do stupid things so long as we don't hurt other people directly.

Answer the question?

Regards,

Doug

 

[justjoe]

All drugs, of a recreational nature. should be legalized and distribution handles by the government of the states. Give the users all they want, whenever they want it. Have you ever seen an old drug user? This would solve many social and economic problems.

 

[NYFelon]

For the record, I am for the phased legalization of drugs. Roadside ready, objective detection methods akin to a breathalyzer becomes available as a tool to determine NCC (Nasal Cocaine Content), blow's legal. If you want to sit in your house buried in a ton of bolivian marching powder wearing a hole in the carpet between your pile of blow and the window blinds, I don't care. Get behind the wheel of a car, or other such behavior which is putting other citizens at risk, prison.

Posted from another thread of similar intent.

 

[jsharmon7]

@Libertarian: Do you think there should be an age limit like with tobacco or alcohol? Are you satisfied with the current punishments for some of the issues that come along with drug use such as theft, child neglect, OWI, etc. or would you make them more harsh/less harsh? Do you think affordable drug addiction treatment should be available to help those who want to quit?

@justjoe: What do you mean when you refer to "recreational" drugs? I'm sure you understand that there are many drugs that can cause intense addiction very quickly. At what point does a little "recreational" crystal meth use become an uncontrollable need?

@NYFelon: Several people on this board think that OWI should be perfectly legal. If you happen to injure someone else though you're responsible. Do you think this brings us back to "blame the person not the intoxicant?"

 

[Sylvain]

For me a drug is something that will make you addicted to it, no matter how powerful their are.
Alcohol, Coffee, Tobacco are some of the more common drugs.
Alcohol and Tobacco are some of the worst because most people dont see them as drugs, but lots of people die every year of those two drugs alone.
Since they are legal I dont see why others should not be.

 

[Libertarian01]

JSharmon7,

Regarding the age limit my answer is: Yes. This would be covered under my "competent person" limitation.

Regarding "current punishments" I am overall ignorant and cannot form an intelligent answer without specifics. I will say that as a bailbondsman in Ft. Wayne I think we in Allen County are way too easy on drunk drivers and believe that initial penalties should be much more severe than they are.

Regarding drug treatment: Do I want to see some sort of taxpayer funded program to pay for stupid people? My answer is: NO. Am I willing to suffer a taxpayer funded program to pay for stupid people as an alternative to LE capture, judicial processing, and incarceration? My answer is, reluctantly: Yes (grumbling to self for a long time...)

Regards,

Doug

 

[NYFelon]

JS7, DWI, what you in IN call OWI, is a reckless behavior. While I personally think that DWI with no victim is by definition a victimless crime, I am agreeable to it's being a criminal act in and of itself. To use a term I learned on this forum, It is mala prohibita. The act itself is not inherently evil, but the greatly heightened likelihood of causing harm to other human beings is a justifiable cause of action to file criminal charges. So in essence, DWI, or OWI, is blaming the person and not the intoxicant.

However, since I don't beieve the act is evil in and of itself, I do not believe that DWI without a discernable victim should be a felony, regardless of number of convictions. If you have a person who has been 4 times arrested for DWI/OWI, whom has never hurt anyone I feel the highest charge he should face would be an A misdemeanor. I you catch this person, and successfully prosecute him, lock him up for a year. If this person injures a human being, he should be punished adequately. We must move away from the idea of punishing possibilities, and confine ourselves to punishing behaviors. As heartless and cold as that may sound (As I know you have probably seen in person the ugly side of DWI/OWI infractions), I think that is the only way for a free and fair justice system to operate.

Now, back to the idea of drugs. the same standard should apply. The government should not be in the business of regulating what citizens ingest. It should be in the business of punishing persons who cause harm to others through reckless behaviors. So, we research and develop methods by which to accurately and objectively discern levels of intoxication by currently illicit substances. As these means become available to LE, the substances themselves are legalized. In this way we help our society in more ways than one. Firstly, as drugs are legalized, we move the business of selling, and the administration of "justice" and "debt collection" out of the blackened world of illcit trade. Simultaneously we end the drug war, and realize enormous savings to the American taxpayer. A portion of these savings could be used, though in principle I oppose the notion, to institute counseling and rehabilitation methods for those helplessly addicted who wish to reform themselves. Finally, we remove harmless persons from the prison environment, and make room for those who TRULY pose a danger to the public. The d*****bag sibling bank robbers in GA for example.

A slow, moderted and phased approach to legalizing what are currently illicit substances in our country would be of much greater benefit to it, than has been the 30+ year long drug war which has yielded little to no tangible result. Sure, we'll be removing the employment of agencies like the DEA, since they'll no longer have a job, but then they can go home and be cops, and ease the burden on what in some areas are already overstrained departments to combat real crime with real victims.

 

[TopDog]

What do I think of as drugs? All of it illegal and legal - alcohol, tobacco, pot, cocaine crack all of it. I have seen alcohol and tobacco destroy more lives and wreak absolute havoc on peoples health than I have seen from what is commonly attributed to "drug abuse".

You can not regulate peoples desire to destroy themselves and those around them. Self destructive abuse of drugs both those allowed by law currently and those prohibited is going to happen regardless of how many laws you have in place. Have we really learned NOTHING from the prohibition disaster? I think we all did learn from it, especially those in postitions to profit from drugs staying illegal.

I am for legalization, it will cut down on crime and will not add to the problem. The government can also make money off of it by taxing it like they do just about everything else.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I am not for legalization. I am for decriminalization. We don't have a law "legalizing" caffeine. To be clear, what I'm saying is that I want nothing less than the full repeal of laws that make ingestion of some substances a criminal act. No tax, no regulation other than perhaps on the basis of self-responsibility... but much as you must be over 18 (I think) to purchase pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) now, you can still legally use it under that age. You just have to have a responsible adult purchase it for you. If I decide to allow my kid to smoke, whether tobacco or pot, that should be my choice. I do think a good education on what the effects and side effects of those drugs are would be a wise thing to support.

and no, I wouldn't use them. I can smoke and drink now, if I choose, and I choose not to do so. Personal decision, personal responsibility.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[J_Wales]

Drugs?

Inject them.

Eat them.

Smoke them.

Snort them.

Choose to do whatever the heck you want to do to yourself.

But when you OD, when you are trying to "cure" your addiction, when you are seeking "treatment", when you "ruin your life", do not force me to bail you out.

Further, if you ever peddle the stuff to any of the minor members of my family I assure you that you will never need your drugs to feel no pain again.

 

[lashicoN]

Now when you say marijuana, are you referring to average, run-of-the-mill stuff, or all marijuana including high potency stuff like BC Bud?

I had to look up BC Bud, because I've never heard of it and thought maybe there was some sort of super, not run-of-the-mill Cannabis.

So anyway, what I found out is that BC Bud is Cannabis grown in British Colombia indoors, under grow lights. Cannabis grows naturally outside, in clusters of male and female plants. Female flowers are sticky and male plants release pollen and the female flowers catch the pollen and grow smokable flowers packed with seeds for future generations.

Since Cannabis is illegal, a lot of people grow it indoors. BC Bud and other "high potency" Cannabis is grown in only clusters of female plants. Male plants are not there to supply pollen, therefore seeds are never created and the energy and nutrients used to traditionally form seeds instead builds up more THC, making it more potent.

From my understanding, you're essentially asking, "Should we just legalize run-of-the-mill beer or also legalize the super potent Vodka?".

Learn something new every day. I love the internet.

 

[turnandshoot4]

I am for the legalization of all drugs. ALL of them.

Even meth, heroin, marijuana, cocaine, crack, etc. etc. I feel no sorrow for someone who has liver failure after drinking a life away. Same for smokers, the obese, etc. etc. If you are not harming anyone else the go for it.

I am for making drugs legal for consenting adults at 18. The fact Americans don't want 18 year olds having a beer but they will let them die to protect their rights sickens me. If they don't have the decision making skills at 18 to drink they shouldn't be allowed into the military either.

It is not the job of the police to protect me from these "drug induced crazed maniacs." It is my responsibility to protect my family and myself. I am really tired of hearing the MSM spin that people will be getting killed in the streets like some zombie plague. Heroin addicts will do the same as they always have done. Except now they buy it from the marathon, not the drug dealer.

Freedom is more important than a life.

 

[EM45HP]

Safety of marijuana...

SAFER - Alcohol vs. Marijuana

 

[public servant]

For those that favor legalizing drugs... Would "dealing" still be a criminal act?

 

[NYFelon]

The act of dealing would be replaced with "salesmanship".

 

[ATOMonkey]

Legalize it all and remove all government safety nets.

 

[RoyalTenenbaum]

Generally when someone says drugs, I think of something the provides for temporary palliative effect. Mainly, stuff you get at Walgreens. Illegal drugs conjures up just that. So you could say I assume legitimacy until given a reason to think otherwise.