Legalize soft-drugs yes or no.

Should we legalize softdrugs?

  • yes

    Votes: 18 33.3%

  • no

    Votes: 36 66.7%
  • Total voters
    54
Mohmar Deathstrike said:
Exactly. Our own body produces substances our brains feed on that can be classified as drugs.
Click to expand...

Right, but those substances are generally not life threatening nor in sufficient quantities long enough to cause an addiction.


Ted:
Being a fanatic unwilling to change their point of view is not a bad thing. Look at people that are religious, are they fanatics because they do not wish to change their thinking? Not in my opinion.

Pretty much everyone that has a view has expressed their opinion. There are those that will come away from reading this with a different opinion and those that will not.

Personally, I can see no benefits to legalizing drugs in the US.
 
I'm not a fanatical person. I do not go and automatically start WWIII in Amsterdam. You want to fry you mind there. Go right ahead, I'm not going to stop you. But the moment you step foot in my neighborhood. You better walk on egg shells cause I'm not someone that's nice when it comes to someone breaking the law.

I will not change my position on drugs. If the FDA and a ton of doctors said that cocaine is good for me and should be taken daily. THan maybe I'll change my mind. But untill that happens and untill the drug cartels stop psuhing their crap in America and people stop getting killed over this crap and drug related crime stops. Than I'll change my mind. Untill then. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

I've lost three friends to drugs during my high school days.
One was killed while riding in a car. He was the passenger. The driver was stoned stupid.
Another overdosed on crack cocaine.
And the last got himself killed while trying to rob a store for drug money. What was he on? Marijuana and Cocaine.
 
I've lost three friends to drugs during my high school days.
One was killed while riding in a car. He was the passenger. The driver was stoned stupid.
Another overdosed on crack cocaine.
And the last got himself killed while trying to rob a store for drug money. What was he on? Marijuana and Cocaine.
Click to expand...

All of the above are things I don't want to see legalized! So we agree on that one and I'm sorry for the loss of the lives of your friends.

Secondly...... well it has been said before. I reckon that this legalization business is not yet at a ready for the US. The views of many, the lack of good logistics and infrastructure and the frame of mind are all absent. So I'll heed the point that this should not be done in the US or many other nations. I do however think that the Netherlands and some others are ready for it.
Maybe you'll have some sociologists, criminologists and other scientists do research here. If it is working, I just hope you guys can work to a better systems and not just reject it because you are not willing to change over it. We'll see how it works out......
 
I voted No because:

1. All the hard-drug addicts that I have dealt with and helped started with "soft-drugs." Some are now dead from the drug abuse (RIP all of them)

2. I accept the research that concludes soft-drugs can impair mental faculties - driving vehicles, operating machinery and weapons, etc. That we may allow, albeit within limits, other mind-affecting substances such as wine, beer, spirits, caffine, tobacco is beside the point. Several wrongs don't make a right.

3. Legalisation of an activity endorses the activity and encourages participation in that activity. We don't need to send such messages to the most vulnerable - our youth, with respect to "soft" drugs.

4. I agree that legalisation would actually take such an industry out of the hands of the criminal under-world and hurt its evil sub-economy that is also tied to hard-drugs, crime, etc, but for me 1 to 3 above out-weighs the advantage of this aspect.

5. I endorse everything said above by the N0 case, especially Bulldogg
 
Padre said:
I voted No because:

1. All the hard-drug addicts that I have dealt with and helped started with "soft-drugs." Some are now dead from the drug abuse (RIP all of them)

2. I accept the research that concludes soft-drugs can impair mental faculties - driving vehicles, operating machinery and weapons, etc. That we may allow, albeit within limits, other mind-affecting substances such as wine, beer, spirits, caffine, tobacco is beside the point. Several wrongs don't make a right.

3. Legalisation of an activity endorses the activity and encourages participation in that activity. We don't need to send such messages to the most vulnerable - our youth, with respect to "soft" drugs.

4. I agree that legalisation would actually take such an industry out of the hands of the criminal under-world and hurt its evil sub-economy that is also tied to hard-drugs, crime, etc, but for me 1 to 3 above out-weighs the advantage of this aspect.

5. I endorse everything said above by the N0 case, especially Bulldogg
Click to expand...

Point 1 disqualifies itself in this discussion because all hard drugs should remain illegal.

Point 2 I don't get. You let 5 things which are bad for you unbothered but pick it this specific one. This is what I'd call inconsistent. Ban them all or none would be fairer, wouldn't you say. If you plead the historical approach then it is a matter of time. In ten years soft drugs would be part of the furniture.

Point 3 might be the only soild point you have. Then again, we inform our youth about this and we see a decline by girls and a small rise by boys. This levels out after a little while and we have only a small percentage of addicted. But you might is a well founded guess, but no certainty.

Point 4 I agree with you wholeheartedly.
 
Ted said:
Point 1 disqualifies itself in this discussion because all hard drugs should remain illegal.

Point 2 I don't get. You let 5 things which are bad for you unbothered but pick it this specific one. This is what I'd call inconsistent. Ban them all or none would be fairer, wouldn't you say. If you plead the historical approach then it is a matter of time. In ten years soft drugs would be part of the furniture.

Point 3 might be the only soild point you have. Then again, we inform our youth about this and we see a decline by girls and a small rise by boys. This levels out after a little while and we have only a small percentage of addicted. But you might is a well founded guess, but no certainty.

Point 4 I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Click to expand...

You may want to reread his point 1 and 2.

Point 1 can not be dismissed out of hand as he said they started with soft drugs.

Point 2 qualifies itself. Several wrongs do not make a right.

Point 3 I agree with. Look at the rate of underage drinker. You can almost always add several % points as many will not admit that they do drink under age. Now add in a mix of drugs readily available as well.

Point 4 I disagree. (Except in regards to hurting their economy. See a previous post above for my take on that) You will always have those trying to get in under the radar. If "soft drugs" become legal then how do you plan on stopping a flood of it across the borders from illegal sources? It does not work even 75% now, imagine the apathy created when the DEA finds it has been undermined and set to pasture in various aspects of their job.

I like to kick back and have a few beers from time to time. Since one particular event in my life when I was about 22 I always have a DD or I call a taxi. How many people the world over can say that they always do that?

One thing I see no one mentioning is how many people do you think will mix Alchohol and Drugs? I would be willing to bet many of them. That in itself can be a lethal combination.

P.S. I only agree on 3 of them as being classified as "mind altering" to the extent that they will impair your ability to function normally.
 
Last edited:
You can almost always add several % points as many will not admit that they do drink under age.
Click to expand...

I disagree, its cooler to say that you DO drink underage now than you dont so i think you could decrease a few.
 
Okay Marinerhodes, good and valid points. But I just don't like the inconsistency of point two. A law should be straight as an arrow, enforcable and logical. Allowing 5 out of 6 is non of the above. That is why I said what I said. I do however agree that it is open to debate!

Point 4 I disagree. (Except in regards to hurting their economy. See a previous post above for my take on that) You will always have those trying to get in under the radar. If "soft drugs" become legal then how do you plan on stopping a flood of it across the borders from illegal sources? It does not work even 75% now, imagine the apathy created when the DEA finds it has been undermined and set to pasture in various aspects of their job.
Click to expand...

As I said before: our entire infrastructure and logistics are different than yours. I prevent it from pooring in because we already grow a high quality, affordable, local cannabis variant. We have no need for some poor quality from abroad.
If it becomes legal we can re-assign our DEA officers to more urgent business. Now they do a lot of paper work when they bust some local producer. And it is a load of paper work! If you get the checking done by other administrative workers (the need for agents has disappeared) you have these agents free to do the real hunting on the hard drugs.

You made me doubt with point one. I however reckon that criminality starts with poverty. The steps from using soft drugs to criminal are shaky in the Netherlands. It might be true in the States, but I dare to say it is a "no go" overhere. Of course you have the statistical few, but I reckon it is almost negligeable overhere....
 
Got tipped very well tonight by a couple of dope dealers. By the wad of cash he pulled out from the night's take, they don't seem to be hurting too much from the laws.
 
Marinerhodes said:
Right, but those substances are generally not life threatening nor in sufficient quantities long enough to cause an addiction.
Click to expand...

But if you inform people that they are life-threatening, and they still take those substances, it means they accept the fact that their life is threatened by taking the substance. The "right to live" is not a "duty to live", remember?

The substances the brain produces may well cause addiction. Think about some bike-stunt guy who gets an adrenaline-high by doing dangerous bike stunts. He'll do them again and again, because he's addicted to them.

Footnote: You probably know this, but just to be on the safe side. There hasn't been a single case of lethal cannabis overdose reported anywhere, ever. I don't know about your standing on alcohol legality, but alcohol can be lethal if an "overdose" is drunken.

Also, there's multiple drugs that are illegal although they are not known to cause addiction: LSD, Extacy, Shrooms (not sure if they're illegal in the US, but they are in Belgium and recently became illegal in Britain).
 
Like said before, even if the legel age is 21 people still will have others buy the drug for them.

Combine alchohol with a drug (especially LSD, Shoorms, Extasy) and you have the potential for a combination that can be lethal. Many people tend to lose their minds when drinking, now add in alchohol.

But LSD, Extasy Shoorms etc etc can be lethal even if not addictive. Depends on how they are prepared right?

As for those chasing the adrenaline high, that is as much psychological as it is physical addiction.
 
Hahahahaha exactly my thought as well Bulldogg! Marinrhodes and I already came to something of an agreement on this. We coupled it to the the society. Legalization in Holland and the US are two totally different exercises and almost not comparable...
 
Marinerhodes said:
Like said before, even if the legel age is 21 people still will have others buy the drug for them.

Combine alchohol with a drug (especially LSD, Shoorms, Extasy) and you have the potential for a combination that can be lethal. Many people tend to lose their minds when drinking, now add in alchohol.

But LSD, Extasy Shoorms etc etc can be lethal even if not addictive. Depends on how they are prepared right?

As for those chasing the adrenaline high, that is as much psychological as it is physical addiction.
Click to expand...

How about making a regulation that says that LSD, shroom, extacy need to be sold with a manual stating that they can be lethal if prepared in some or other manner, if ingested in some or other dosage, if combined with some other drug. Remember, many legal medicinals can be lethal if used incorrectly. Note: I know several people who mixed alcohol and extacy on multiple occasions and they were fine the next day. of course, this isn't necessarily true for everybody.
 
Mohmar Deathstrike said:
How about making a regulation that says that LSD, shroom, extacy need to be sold with a manual stating that they can be lethal if prepared in some or other manner, if ingested in some or other dosage, if combined with some other drug. Remember, many legal medicinals can be lethal if used incorrectly. Note: I know several people who mixed alcohol and extacy on multiple occasions and they were fine the next day. of course, this isn't necessarily true for everybody.
Click to expand...

Not all extacy has the same ingredients in the same quantities. The same can be said for LSD and shrooms. I have not nor ever will manufacture drugs. I know very little about the process but what I do know is that there is no fixed ingredient ratio. Add too much of one thing and you have lethality in a pill and no one knows until someone dies.

Anyway, bulldogg has a point. I am going to let this topic go. I have said all I feel I need to say.
 
No on making it legal in the US of A. We are not Europe, nor do we want to turn out like Europe.

'Nuff Said...

Luis (5.56X45MM)
 
Marinerhodes said:
Not all extacy has the same ingredients in the same quantities. The same can be said for LSD and shrooms. I have not nor ever will manufacture drugs. I know very little about the process but what I do know is that there is no fixed ingredient ratio. Add too much of one thing and you have lethality in a pill and no one knows until someone dies.

Anyway, bulldogg has a point. I am going to let this topic go. I have said all I feel I need to say.
Click to expand...

Indeed the label "extasy" actually contains a large number of possible substances.

5.56X45mm said:
No on making it legal in the US of A. We are not Europe, nor do we want to turn out like Europe.

'Nuff Said...

Luis (5.56X45MM)
Click to expand...

Great! Because we don't wanna turn out like the USA.
 
Now now Mohmar.... shall we just say: no exactly like the US? We'll take their fast food, films and celebs.... and we have drinking binges, mushrooms and all the little things that make life fun (once in a while :))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top