Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GruffyBears]

Here's something for you to stew over.

First, I don't do drugs and I never have.

Recently here in Ireland a mild altermative to hash, whose name escsapes me, has been banned. There was no real justification behind the ban other than "It's a drug!!! OH SHIT!!!"

Now, on the subject on drugs as a whole, I think it's ridiculious that a government can ban any kind of drug. Banning a drug only gives it a "forbidden fruit" kind of appeal, that many will fall victim to. I think that it is an infringement on our liberal rights that the government can remove one drug and keep another, for reason other than a link to a more dangerous drug or a bad reputation.Cigarettes remain legal because of their heavy taxation that brings government profit, so why not follow suit with other drugs?

My idea for drugs is:
1:Make all recreational drugs legal. Heavily tax them.
2:Use additional funds to setup helplines for any who become addicted. It's easier to admit to an addiction when the substance is legal. Ads to help quit smoking are broadcast on television, for example.
3:PROFIT!

I wait for your opinions.

[Heron TSG]

Barbarossa supports GruffyBears' sentiments.

[GruffyBears]

Barbarossa supports GruffyBears' sentiments.

This is acceptable.

[Wiles]

Then you can dump all the profits back into rehab programs and the medical system to deal with the sharp increase of 12 year old methheads. Great idea!

[Heron TSG]

You mean the sharp increase that's been going on for YEARS?

[Aqizzar]

And so the camelnose arguments show themselves already.  Awesome!

Ironically, I just capped off a public speaking class with an appeal for legalizing marijuana.  Not because I have any love of the stuff, but because I think the United States has better things to do with 250 billion dollars a year besides shutting down dispensaries and incarcerating 3% of the population.

[GruffyBears]

Then you can dump all the profits back into rehab programs and the medical system to deal with the sharp increase of 12 year old methheads. Great idea!

Thanks!

First of all, you clearly did not read stage two of Operation:Lucy in a pie with spices.

Second: Like legalised drugs at the moment, there will be age restrictions, and yes this goes back to "forbidden fruit" blah blah, but it's easier to deal with because of more help.

And if someone is addicted to an illegal drug, it's legal status will mean little to them. Wouldn't you rather the government had the money, rather than drug lords?

[Wiles]

Age restrictions don't help a lot. How many kids do you see smoking just off school property? How many kids sneak out to the woods to drink the beer they payed an older guy to buy? How often do you see little Jimmy doing lines of coke in the boys locker room? I'd say the first two happen a lot more often. Increasing the accessibility of dangerous drugs is a very bad idea. And I don't think the "drug lords" would be very happy with the government cutting into their profits and would operate illegally regardless, but since the drug has been legalized it makes the process for them just that much easier. For example; cigarettes are legal, yet there are still people selling cigarettes illegally all over the place.

[LegoLord]

For marijuana, I can understand legalisation.  But with cocaine, crack, heroin, LSD, ecstasy, methamphetamine, and just about every other controlled substance, not really.  That stuff will, to put it very bluntly, fuck you up.  Most of it is horribly addictive from its chemical - much more addictive than cigarettes.  Marijuana is only addictive in the same way TV can be, in that you don't get withdrawal without taking it again.  Cocaine, on the other hand, can get you hooked after just a few doses, and heroin, I think it is, gets you hooked the moment it gets in your system.

Seriously, marijuana is the odd man out as far as illegal recreational drugs go.  It's the only one that doesn't screw with you too badly.  At worst (which is when it is smoked), it gives you the same toxins as cigarettes and messes with your short term memory, if you smoke it with great frequency, which you wouldn't because it has no chemicals that are addictive by nature.

Every thing else on the US list of illegal recreational drugs truly belongs there.

[inaluct]

Idea: ban meth and angel dust and heroin and all that shit. Legalize things like LSD and pot. LSD users don't even display signs of addiction and dependency and all that.

[LegoLord]

Idea: ban meth and angel dust and heroin and all that shit. Legalize things like LSD and pot.

Bold:  That stuff is actually pretty bad for you.  It'll stay in your system for pretty much your whole life, occasionally causing flashbacks of trips, including bad trips.  Like I said, marijuana's the only thing that doesn't deserve it's status.

[GruffyBears]

Age restrictions don't help a lot. How many kids do you see smoking just off school property? How many kids sneak out to the woods to drink the beer they payed an older guy to buy? How often do you see little Jimmy doing lines of coke in the boys locker room? I'd say the first two happen a lot more often. Increasing the accessibility of dangerous drugs is a very bad idea. And I don't think the "drug lords" would be very happy with the government cutting into their profits and would operate illegally regardless, but since the drug has been legalized it makes the process for them just that much easier. For example; cigarettes are legal, yet there are still people selling cigarettes illegally all over the place.

No there aren't. I have quite literally never ever seen that. "doing lines of coke in the locker room"? Cocaine is a Class-A drug. I wouldn't legalise that. Smoking and the beer are both from "some older guy" or irresponsible parents. Thats "the human factor" in action. It's the reason communism struggles and crashes most of the time.
No plan is infallible because its enacted by a fallible species. And the drug lords would sell their produce to pharmaceutical companies for legal profit, so there'd be no need for illegal trading.

[LegoLord]

And the drug lords would sell their produce to pharmaceutical companies for legal profit, so there'd be no need for illegal trading.

Tax evasion.

[GruffyBears]

Every time I comment, 3 other replies have popped up. It's very hard to stay on top of.

[GruffyBears]

And the drug lords would sell their produce to pharmaceutical companies for legal profit, so there'd be no need for illegal trading.

Tax evasion.

Dammit, Man! ( Sorry, not about the question, just the pile up.)

It'd be a lot easier to track though, as they'd have more information on the drug lords, as they'd want to appear to be paying taxes. Also they wouldn't pay very many taxes.