Which drugs do you think should be legal for personal use?

[Earth]

Let’s talk about some stats on availability:

The percentage of high school seniors reporting they could very easily obtain these drugs. (2007)

Marijuana 83%

Cocaine  47%

Crack 38%




meth 25%

Herion 29%

-According to Bureau of Justice Statistics

This is telling you what % of teens say they can gain access to these drugs.  Here again you’ve never explained should teenagers be able to use drugs under your ideal?
 There’s an age limit for beer and tobacco should we also have one for hard drugs if made legal? The numbers are telling because add your “free society” and I guess access would be in the 90% range of most hard drugs right?

I've said before, a sensible way of legislating drugs is to create a similar age system that we now use for alcohol. Because drugs can be legal, it doesn't mean we let kids buy them.

These numbers are important in a significant way, but not because it supports your argument. It's significant because it reveals the very important point that people, no matter what the law, will still want to use drugs.

Once again you rely on ad hominem crap to cover over your lack of a sound argument. How could any of us possibly know the percentage of access in "my free society" if it's never been implimented, or even argued for?

Like I’ve pointed out you have never gave a clear plan of how to go about this, other than flower power  talk and looking for me to oppose, so you and the gang can team up on my view because  you serious backing on this site.  It’s not a knock on anybody, but let’s face it, my view isn’t in the popular. I don’t really mind it because I’m standing for what I believe in. Enough of my jabber  ... let’s get back to more argument.

You know, I was once kissed by a chimpanzee, she was a very cool. Stop playing the victim and focus, thanks.

Another one of my points is on jobs and the workforce and how making drugs legal would hurt those in the lower paying occupations.   Some more interesting stats that back up my claim.
USEAGEThe Most prevalent is in food preparation jobs_  17.4%
Construction and extraction jobs _ 15%
-According to the US dept of health services-
The lowest oddly enough was protective services

This highlights what I mentioned… the cooks and single mom working at the local food joint will be more affected/ tested for use of drugs then any white collier type job that a highly educated college kid working at a firm never has to worry about.   The construction jobs ( and trust me when I say this, they don’t ing play if you test +) I know many people who have been walked to the gate after failing drug tests.  How does this tie to our debate?  Simple you advocate that we should let people be free to do what they feel and drugs should be up to the individual to decide.

Show me where I said people should do "what the feel", as if I expect peace and love to rain down if legalization becomes reality.

You added almost nothing of worth by including labor in this talk. It's just another distraction. Legalization doesn't mean labor will become lax, or suffer. What person in their right mind goes to work high? Even alcohol, while being legal, doesn't mean that white and blue collar workers show up to their jobs drunk. Some do, and they'll have to answer for that. It's irrelevant to the discussion.

Well just because you make drugs legal the construction company isn’t going to throw safety away for your ideals of a “free society”.

Good, because I don't expect companies to stop drug testing even if it were legal. They go overboard, especially in the service sector, but I don't expect them to change. Moving on.

I once worked at a Basf plant and they are very strict and for good reason.   I agree with you that our war on drugs is a total mess and needs  that big “R” word, but making hard dangerous drugs legal will not be the solution you want.   In grade school we were taught that theres a reaction to every action – cause and effect.  I wish you would think about the effects of making hard drugs acceptable to the public.  This is America and it’s not a utopia of free ideals, theres rules, regulations and limits.  Government shouldn’t violate your rights, but they should look after the public’s best interests. You may disagree, but I’m a strong believer in good Government.  There’s no need to dismiss my views at trollage because you disagree on my views.

I don't expect drug legalization to be a solution, only to a certain number of problems that plague this country. Now you're condescending enough that it's funny.

[dead0man]

My favorite part is the use of "secular" as an insult.

[Associate Justice PiT]

My favorite part is the use of "secular" as an insult.

     Same here.

[Matt Damon™]

Indeed. That sort of mindset from them is why we need a party for the rest of us aligned against evangelicals of either race and mormons. Basically it'd be a party focused on opposing those two groups and marginalizing them politically. They want to play the 'real americans' game? Two can play it.

[MK]

The older you get and more experiences you have in life, the more Conservative you become.

[Matt Damon™]

The older you get and more experiences you have in life, the more Conservative you become.

No, not really. I used to be a generic liberal but I've become more independent-minded and free-spirited.

[Хahar 🤔]

The older you get and more experiences you have in life, the more Conservative you become.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mint]

Besides being an irrelevant generalization, if your point were true a lot of people would still have the same racial, sexual, etc. attitudes that they had in the '50s. By and large that has not turned out to be the case, even if we've seen the 'right' have a brief revival the last few decades. People tend to mellow out with age instead of turning more ideological.

[Matt Damon™]

If you're anyone besides a millionaire, WASP, boston brahmin/texas oilman and you trust the federal or for that matter state government's dominance on social matters you are ill informed as to the history of the US. This goes double if you're anything besides WASP.

[Mint]

The older you get and more experiences you have in life, the more Conservative you become.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah I also find it bizarre how Mike is acting like he's 40 years older than he actually is.

[MK]

The older you get and more experiences you have in life, the more Conservative you become.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah I also find it bizarre how Mike is acting like he's 40 years older than he actually is.

Better then acting like I'm  8 years younger.

My Pm score just shows while liberal on econmics, i'm in the middle on social issues. 

Yeah, I guess I have been the Sprio Agnew on atlas as of late.

[MK]

Looks like the drug debate is dead?

One last question though.   What role would the FDA play when and if drugs are legalised?

[Alcon]

One last question though.   What role would the FDA play when and if drugs are legalised?

I think you're confusing the FDA with the DEA.

[Sbane]

Looks like the drug debate is dead?

One last question though.   What role would the FDA play when and if drugs are legalised?

Drugs will still need to be controlled in some fashion and that is what the DEA will do. Enforcing laws on selling drugs to minors etc etc.

[MK]

One last question though.   What role would the FDA play when and if drugs are legalised?

I think you're confusing the FDA with the DEA.

Nope I'm talking about the Food and Drug administration.

[tik 🪀✨]

One last question though.   What role would the FDA play when and if drugs are legalised?

I think you're confusing the FDA with the DEA.

Nope I'm talking about the Food and Drug administration.

That's a much more interesting thought than the DEA's role, which would transition to something obvious as was stated assuming there was a blanket change towards legality towards both use AND production (both commercially and personally). The FDA's role would probably be relegated to overseeing that a certain company's product was genuine, and setting standards for packaging and warnings in much the same way as is done with tobacco and alcohol.

What intriuges me more is a state in which actual large-scale commercial development and sale of many drugs (especially naturally occuring ones like marijuana, mushrooms, salvia, DMT) is legal and fully regulated while the current illicit production and sale remains illegal. I suppose the difference would lie mainly in having some sort of permit to produce and distribute a substance, pay income taxes on it, etc etc.

[Matt Damon™]

Honestly, I see all regulation on alcohol and tobacco or hypothetically legalized drugs beyond making sure the product is what it says on the tin and preventing people from legally selling unlawful alterations of product(meth/crack as examples) as pointless and a waste of state power. I'd have zero problem with advertisement of them and I most definately wouldn't fund state propaganda against using them(If people use it that's their choice/problem).

[MK]

One last question though.   What role would the FDA play when and if drugs are legalised?

I think you're confusing the FDA with the DEA.

Nope I'm talking about the Food and Drug administration.

That's a much more interesting thought than the DEA's role, which would transition to something obvious as was stated assuming there was a blanket change towards legality towards both use AND production (both commercially and personally). The FDA's role would probably be relegated to overseeing that a certain company's product was genuine, and setting standards for packaging and warnings in much the same way as is done with tobacco and alcohol.

What intriuges me more is a state in which actual large-scale commercial development and sale of many drugs (especially naturally occuring ones like marijuana, mushrooms, salvia, DMT) is legal and fully regulated while the current illicit production and sale remains illegal. I suppose the difference would lie mainly in having some sort of permit to produce and distribute a substance, pay income taxes on it, etc etc.

I'm giving ground and actually looking at it from your view point and lets say we make them legal.

What I wanna know is how will this be managed?  I rode thru a black part of a city today, and man it looks bad. People selling dope right on the side of the streets. I couldn't help but think what message would it send to the old black woman who looks out her window everyday watching crack heads buy the stuff that's killing them.  And now united states Gov is aiding in the sell of the very same stuff publicly.

It's like you are just rode past the old woman on the side of the road needing a tire change in your nice new BMW, and splashing her with mud as you zoom by.

There are things not being took into consideration when it comes to pro drug legalzition.  The FDA would have to now over see this whole process because thats their current job on drugs being sold legal.  The first person who wants a law suit hows this going to be handled?

[Matt Damon™]

It'd be managed the same as any other product you could buy from vending machines/stores/licensed street vendors.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

I think Marijuana and tabacco. We should inform people what happens if you use them and the risks. But it is their choice in the end.

[tik 🪀✨]

I'm giving ground and actually looking at it from your view point and lets say we make them legal.

Wow, thanks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By this point I'm not even sure this was meant to be a serious reply. You began by saying you'd explain how legalised drugs would be managed and then immediately derail that train of thought into what's happening on the streets. For one thing, the one with the worries is not immediatly the poor old woman, it's the addict. The addicts are the most direct victims of the current system and I shouldn't have to explain why. Everyone else has a stake in his recovery as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While I have no doubt that this sort of thing occurs, it's a result of current drug regulation and enforcement policies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really? Because, to me, classifying the addicts themselves as something besides criminals might do the whole community better. And if they are able to get what they are addicted to safely and cheaper they wouldn't have nearly as negative of an impact to those around them. In fact, opening the doors to legalisation may help bring these kinds of things off of the streets and may bankrupt the people and dark organisations who are funded through it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the same fashion anything else of its kind is.

I imagine drugs would be evaluated on several scales for their dangers to health and that regulations would be enacted accordingly. I don't even necessarily agree that all drugs should be legalised. But the current system is all kinds of awful for the users, the taxpayers, and the communities themselves.

[Scam of God]

Any hypothetically 'liberaltarian' Democrat that ran on a traditionally Democratic platform, with the exception of the drug issue (coming out in favor of at least decriminalization of typically 'controversial' drugs like mushrooms, weed, heroin, etc.) would win in a massive landslide victory. Every ex-hippie in the nation would come out in huge margins for such a candidate.

For that reason alone I support decriminalization efforts, not just my own personal pro-freedom preferences.

[k-onmmunist]

All of these. Angel dust is pretty much the only drug I would have reservations about legalising.

[Alexander Hamilton]

All but crack, heroin and meth.

[Mint]

All of these. Angel dust is pretty much the only drug I would have reservations about legalising.

Pretty much although obviously meth labs and things of that nature should be illegal.