major liability
Active member
If it was the government's job to protect people from themselves, the police would knock you to the ground and handcuff you for running with scissors...
Legalize soft-drugs yes or no.
godofthunder9010
Active member
That's an excellent case in point. Running with scissors or overdosing on heroine are both very clear cases of somebody doing something that is potentially very self-destructive. So why are they treated differently?major liability said:
I have to assume that the Governments out there feel that everyday people are smart enough to not endanger themselves with things like running with scissors or things like that. The various Governments of the world (with the notable exception of the Netherlands) have apparently determined that people cannot be trusted to use good judgement with regards to those drugs they have made illegal. Some are extremely addictive, and their point can be seen in cases of Cocaine and Heroine. Marajuana does not have the same highly addictive characteristics though. So it makes one wonder.
I think this has been discussed long time before my little self put a nose to this thread, but I think legalizing (or decriminalising, at least) of some drugs *could* bring some benefits to the governments. I've heard the thing about Cofee shops in Netherlands for example (well, walked around, but one trip to Netherlands doesn't count, does it?), I think if you have something that's widely used among some nation and wouldn't be stopped to be used, it's better when government can put some tax on it and profit...... at least for the state's economy better. Otherwise they're just missing the money people who use such substances could put to *their* hands and put it to the hands of dealers instead... if the using of such and such substance were legal (or at least not illegal), then people could go to regular shops with the stuff.
Just my $ 0.02
(sorry, felt the stupid temptation to engage in the discussions on the social topics.. I know it's been here before.)
Just my $ 0.02
(sorry, felt the stupid temptation to engage in the discussions on the social topics.. I know it's been here before.)
sven hassell
Active member
For once I have to agree with my government.
Don't legalise soft drugs, decriminalise the soft drugs.
You will never stop people doing what they want no matter how harsh the penalties. i.e. Ya-Bar in Thailand, possession =death penalty but still rapidly expanding number of addicts.
However you shouldn't give the green light to increase the number of potential users by making it legal.
I know Doctors, engineers, police officers, lawyers, soldiers, one special forces soldier, teachers, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers who all use cannabis(or marijuana for you U.S. citizens) responsibly, in moderation and NOT while working.
Why?
Because its illegal, keep it that way.
Also make alcohol illegal, but decriminalised, then we can all enjoy a bottle of wine at home feeling naughty with no drunken yobs terrorising the streets.
Don't legalise soft drugs, decriminalise the soft drugs.
You will never stop people doing what they want no matter how harsh the penalties. i.e. Ya-Bar in Thailand, possession =death penalty but still rapidly expanding number of addicts.
However you shouldn't give the green light to increase the number of potential users by making it legal.
I know Doctors, engineers, police officers, lawyers, soldiers, one special forces soldier, teachers, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers who all use cannabis(or marijuana for you U.S. citizens) responsibly, in moderation and NOT while working.
Why?
Because its illegal, keep it that way.
Also make alcohol illegal, but decriminalised, then we can all enjoy a bottle of wine at home feeling naughty with no drunken yobs terrorising the streets.
sven hassell
Active member
Alright I lied.sven hassell said:
I don't know any candlestick makers I was just trying to rhyme.
major liability
Active member
LeEnfield said:
Yeah, if it was pot and they weren't high at the moment.
Marinerhodes
Active member
major liability said:
Scenario: You are in your barracks, hootch, whatever place you are living at for that time period. Sitting back, enjoying a joint. All of a sudden your base comes under heavy fire. You are stoned or otherwise high, they call all hands to the fighting stations.
Scenario: You are in the rear in your abode. Friday night and you expect a few days off. You kick back after supper with a joint and smoke you some. You get a phone call saying muster at the flightline within the next 30 minutes. Now you are driving high, as well as reporting high.
So, at what point would you want that servicemember covering your back in either of those scenarios? He or his skills are needed right then at that very moment. Not after he has come down off his high.
Of course the same can be said for alchohol.
Insomniac
~resident nutcase
yes, money would be a big partin it,but to legalize means to control, to set out guidelines!Rabs said:
we would be able to sink big drug dealers, andstop people going into debt!:bang:
apparently our governments dontlike it, and they think its wrong... a well, more fool them!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm
HELL NO!!!!
'Nuff Said STUPID HIPPIES
And we don't hand out guns to twisted kids. That's the most stupid comment I have ever read. That's like me saying Communist China allows it's people to live free.
but it does....
Last edited:
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
What a crock of shit - China definitely DOES NOT allow it's people to live free or have you forgotten Tiananmen Square..hardcore_idiot said:
C/2nd Lt Robot
Active member
I say no. The U.S. Government has it's reasons for making most drugs (with exceptions) illegal. So any self respecting citizen would stay away from illegal drug use.
I don't think that soft drugs should be legalized because:
1.) How do you make the distinction between soft and hard drugs? E.g. why are opiates worse than marihuana? Clearly opiates are physically addictive, but marihuana can be habit-forming too. On the other hand from what I know many arab and iranian businessmen here in Germany are habitual opium users and it doesn't seem to impair them much in any way. So why put those iranian guys into jail while tolerating pot smokers? Once you start legalizing you have to legalize all drugs.
2.) I do think that prohibition of drugs stops certain people from developing a drug problem. At least here in Germany, outside of big cities (where there are open drug scenes) its not that easy to get access to hard drugs.
On the other hand I think that legislation should aim for comparativeness of punishment. I think thats a Jimmy Carter quote but anyway: Punishment for drug abuse should not do more harm than the drug abuse itself. In most EU-countries (with the exception of France), posession of small amounts (personal use) aren't punished. Drugs are confiscated and that's it. Anyone involved with drug trade is put to jail. I think thats sensible.
The drug policy in the U.S. seems incoherent to me. Someone who takes (illegal) drugs is put to jail, but your doctors readily prescribe loads and loads of amphetamine and Ritalin, and Hydrocodone is the most-often prescribed drug of all. Maybe you have already introduced what is discussed here: anyone may get all the drugs he wants, as long as they are taxed ones from the local pharmacy.
1.) How do you make the distinction between soft and hard drugs? E.g. why are opiates worse than marihuana? Clearly opiates are physically addictive, but marihuana can be habit-forming too. On the other hand from what I know many arab and iranian businessmen here in Germany are habitual opium users and it doesn't seem to impair them much in any way. So why put those iranian guys into jail while tolerating pot smokers? Once you start legalizing you have to legalize all drugs.
2.) I do think that prohibition of drugs stops certain people from developing a drug problem. At least here in Germany, outside of big cities (where there are open drug scenes) its not that easy to get access to hard drugs.
On the other hand I think that legislation should aim for comparativeness of punishment. I think thats a Jimmy Carter quote but anyway: Punishment for drug abuse should not do more harm than the drug abuse itself. In most EU-countries (with the exception of France), posession of small amounts (personal use) aren't punished. Drugs are confiscated and that's it. Anyone involved with drug trade is put to jail. I think thats sensible.
The drug policy in the U.S. seems incoherent to me. Someone who takes (illegal) drugs is put to jail, but your doctors readily prescribe loads and loads of amphetamine and Ritalin, and Hydrocodone is the most-often prescribed drug of all. Maybe you have already introduced what is discussed here: anyone may get all the drugs he wants, as long as they are taxed ones from the local pharmacy.
You can obviously make the distinction based on a few qualifications like; the way you take it, the ingredients of the drug (is it chemical or natural), and the price (5 grams of weed costs next to nothing compared to 5 grams of coke/ crack/ speed etc) You could put the effect amongst there as well.
And your point two; the people you talk about develop their addiction on the other side of the border in Holland
I used to live in Rotterdam and it was always crowded with German, Belgian and French druggies. They develop their addiction at home, their government officials steal the show with their "tough on drugs-approach" and leave them to rot. Then they come to Holland to get free methadon, which is supposed to be for our druggies so that they don't have to steal in order to pay. Finally we have found a way to get our junkies off drugs but then all the foreign junks come like a hord of locusts. The program goes down the drain and government leaders call us the drug dealers of Europe..... (Sorry for my rantings, but I have that every so often)
And your point two; the people you talk about develop their addiction on the other side of the border in Holland
I used to live in Rotterdam and it was always crowded with German, Belgian and French druggies. They develop their addiction at home, their government officials steal the show with their "tough on drugs-approach" and leave them to rot. Then they come to Holland to get free methadon, which is supposed to be for our druggies so that they don't have to steal in order to pay. Finally we have found a way to get our junkies off drugs but then all the foreign junks come like a hord of locusts. The program goes down the drain and government leaders call us the drug dealers of Europe..... (Sorry for my rantings, but I have that every so often)I think the only sensible criterium might be effects/sideeffects. The others don't work, e.g. natural vs. chemical: opium is a natural as marihuana, cocaine too is essentially an alkaloid. Same with way of consumption: marihuana is commonly smoked, but so are crack and heroin.
As for point two: I think what you say is right for a certain type of people, but I think there are also those that would try it if it was easily available but are held off by fear of the police and the hassle of having to do with drug dealers, etc. BTW we have a methadone propram too. Dunno why some folks come scrounge your precious dutch methadone :mrgreen: - Maybe its mainly the french, they dont have a methadone program afaik.
As for point two: I think what you say is right for a certain type of people, but I think there are also those that would try it if it was easily available but are held off by fear of the police and the hassle of having to do with drug dealers, etc. BTW we have a methadone propram too. Dunno why some folks come scrounge your precious dutch methadone :mrgreen: - Maybe its mainly the french, they dont have a methadone program afaik.
chinese-canadian
Banned
ai....you can never stop it (the soft drug problem is actually increasing dramatically despite harsher punishment and wutever other measures), so why not legalize it and create some tax dollar for the bankrupted government budget