What would you laws would change concering drugs?

Would you legalise them all, or leave out the opiates, meth & crack.

I would definatley legalise alot of physcoactives but that leaves the problem of how old you'd have to buy them the types and strengths.

As well of all the different effects they have on certain people, such as bad trips and experiences but then again people act strangly on alcohol.

p.s meta thank you very much for the help I hope more than anything she proves what you say wrong.

i would legalize EVERY illegal substance hahahahahahaha

id legalize all of it, but make it mail order or something so pharmacies and shit wouldn't get robbed on a daily.

[This message has been edited by 40ozTOfreedom (edited 10-07-2002).]

i would legalize evrything but the oiates beacuse they are so addicting and dangerous and probably put the age limit at 18 like tobbaco. i think this would be safer because the government would conrol the substance and it would be more pure which would decrease the danger

everything, your body your choice. maybe a class on drugs tho would be required, hmm sorta intrsting, well the class would be rather short and pretty cheap but it will show all the negative effects of drugs, graphically, especially opiates. just to let people know what they are fucking with. no one can take drugs away from you, completely wrong.

I'd legalize it all. If you want to do it, do it, who am I to tell you that you shouldn't do something if has nothing to do with me?

Legalize everything!

Agreed Legalize Drugs! It's bullshit most of these drugs are illegal anyhow. America is supposed to be about FREEDOM, I guess the government just wants money. All these people claim that if you legalize drugs, you will have a bunch of addicts. That isn't the case however, because before 1907 most all of the drugs were legal and there were few addicts.

socail parasite when the majority of drugs were legal there was a large amount of addiction.

Especially with the discovery of coca paste that could be shipped to Europe for examination and reverted back to cocaine hydrcholride (before the coca leaves would often rot before reaching its destination, losing much of the cocaine in the leaves)

Thanks to signum Freud and a large amount of the medical community, cocaine was promoted as the wonder drug, they used it as a cure for morphine addiction to stuffy noses.

This wasn't a small amount of coaine either it often contained up to %80 cocaine in the ingredients.

There were alot of addicts the majority of them being rich upper class white americans, who always had a good job, rehab to fall back on.

Something similar also happened with amphetamines.

Funnily enough the coca trade was forced underground, when coco-cola wanted themselves to be the only soft drink company to be able to use coca leaves for the flavouring of there drink (they remove the cocaine first, something they didn't do before it was banned)

I would say probably only weed because it is less intense even then alcohol, as well as less harmful.

Maybe a few physicadelics possibly shrooms/acid would be fairly safe, although this will probably NEVER happen... imagine all those drunk drivers fucked up on shrooms or acid instead...they wouldn't even make it out of their drive way, haha.

I'm assuming you mean opiates.

Interesting that you should not want them legal as they are one group that has a legit non-recreational use: control of pain.

I think all Drs should be free to prescribe any opiate he felt was needed, without having to wonder if the Government was going to pull his license to write prescriptions.


Then a lot more people who need them would be able to live a better quality of life.


As for the whole drug laws talk, I will repeat something I wrote a while back, since it has been a while and there are now many who weren't here then.


While I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to say that racism was a driving force in making [certain] drugs illegal, but let's examine a few things and you can decide how you want to call it.

Now this isn't something I came up with; I learned about it during my study of drugs and drug laws and related subjects over the years.

Through out history - and I'm sure long before it - every society has had a substance or substances that was used to alter the conscience. Every society.

It's true today and it was true in the early part of the 20th century [when the drug laws were first being made]. Each culture or ethnic group in our society each has their main drug or drugs of choice.

Up until about the mid 60's if you look at what drugs were made illegal and which were not, what do we have?

The only substances that were not made illegal are alcohol and tobacco [well, there was prohibition, but that didn't last, did it?].

Now, by and large, those two are the drug of choice for which ethnic group?

If you said 'White Males', give yourself 10 culture points.

[Just about] the only drugs that are still legal today are those of white males, who also just happen to be the main group holding power. The drug[s] of choice by any other ethnic group is illegal.

One thing that anybody studying drug use will tell you is that no matter what the laws are, people are going to do their drug of choice [remember, I'm speaking in general terms]; despite the fact that it's illegal.

So, what is the point of this? Just plain old meanness on the part of white males?

No [for the most part]. The actual reason is because it's a way to help control the other ethnic groups and keep then down and or off balance.

How?

Well now the person, in doing their drug of choice, is breaking the law. With the stroke of a pen a whole group of people have now become criminals. And it not just the enforcement of the laws that allows the control, but those in power can say to society at large: 'Look at the XXX's; they do such and such drug which is illegal. So they are breaking the law which shows they have no respect for it'.

All the other parts of society looks down on the other parts, while thinking themselves oppressed because their drug of choice is illegal.

It was done with Blacks and cocaine, Mexicans and marijuana [remember still: generalities, I'm speaking in generalities]. They even did it to the hippies with LSD.

At the start [or somewhere up there] I said up until the mid 60's that this is what helped drive thing.

SO what's different now?

Well now the government make illegal anything they find someone using to have fun - except alcohol & tobacco.


[You know, I think I did a terrible job in explaining this this time around; I think I'm not really making things clear.

If anyone agrees, say so.

In the mean time I will go back later and reread it and probably change it]

I meant for recreational uses. I definatley agree opiates and mary-jane should be legalised for medicinal purposes, at the very least.

I get you meta how, C.I.A and the contras are linked to Ricky Ross the crack dealer who stared a crack epidemic, whilst he was a free man.

I can understand why they won't legalise cannabis, imagine the industrys that would loose money? Textiles, pharmacuticle corporations would loose out big time on a natural, abundant easy to grow plant, that cured a range of problems.

And the huge range of industrys that would lose money from marijuana's thousadns of other uses.

like they always say money=power, power=money

for sure. i have to say that now there are not many "drug/race stereotypes" anymore...except the white male one..alcohol and tobacco. i can't wait until the lawmakers realize how stupid the war on drugs is (especially concerning marijuana). in a few hundred years we'll look back at this whole drug thing and just say "why did we make drugs illegal?". Sort of like abolitionism at the time it seemed so radical but now it only seems right.

first off, i'd legalize everything and sell it at a nation-wide convenience store chain called "Nickel & Dime". there is no purpose to prohibition. ask a pro-prohibitionist, and they'll tell you that drugs are evil and bad for your body, but fail to make a valid logical step from there to prohibition. yes, drugs are bad for your body (generaliztion) and a bunch of religious fucks think it's immoral, but since when does making something illegal stop its practice? do you break the speed limit? don't even pretend you come to a complete stop at stop signs. and, if you have any contact with the outside world, you know that people still fucking kill people. no matter how immoral something is, a law won't change the fact that you do it.

America is about freedom, the freedom to choose your own morals and ideals, to choose what we want for ourselves. things like murder are illegal and should be because one does NOT have the freedom to make that choice (live or die) for someone else. it follows reason, then, that it should be illegal for someone else, i.e. the "g", to make a choice about my lifestyle (healthy or unhealthy).

it infuriates me to see people who are pro-choice support prohibition. they recognize one's right to choice, and they realize that making abortion illegal will only result in 16 year old girls doing it themselves in an alley with a hanger. how can it be justified, then, that prohibitting heroin use will result in anything more than the use of dirty needles and crude, adulterated products? there is a precise, direct parallel here.

i agree with meta that racism had a lot to do with prohibition originally. if you look at the environment in which drug laws were passed, it's not hard to see why people bought it. articles spoke of cocaine crazed negroes raping your wife, stealing your shit, and killing you and the cops you called.

all in all, it's a war of folly. absolute folly. i have NO idea why we didn't learn our lesson after alcohol prohibition created tainted bathtub booze and mob giants like al capone. i can't believe we didn't learn our lesson when drug prohibition created exploding meth labs and cartel giants like pablo escobar. no, these things, despite being direct effects of prohibition, only demonized drugs further in the public view.

i have to stop writing now. i just keep getting more and more pissed off when i talk about prohibition. it really infuriates me, as you can see. anyway, hope that wasn't too boring.

I would support the legalization of marijuana and all of the hallucinogens. LSD Mush, all of that. But I would have a stipulation. No one is to profit from the sale or free (promotional)distribution of drugs. That means if you want it you make it or get it from a friend. Trafficing is still illegal but personal possesion and production is not. This means that little will change except that we are free to put stuff into our bodies provided we know what we are doing. Also we wouldn't have to fear getting our lives destroyed by legislation designed to protect the ignorant many that can't be trusted with hot coffee. I don't think we should be able to enslave people to a corporation that sells drugs either thats why I would keep the sale of drugs illegal. I would like to add tobacco to this as well, even though taxes would be lost. So if you want to smoke your pack a day you'd better be able to grow a substantial amount of tobacco. How many 16 year olds would start smoking if they had to learn how to farm to support their habit? How cool and grown up would that be?

Other potent narcotics are should not be legalized as they are extremely dangerous. Many lives would be wasted if anyone could just pick up the glass bat or syringe. However a doctor should have free reign to perscribe anything they think is neccisary. This is the way it is in europe and it works very well, we should have the same attitude over here, I mean why put someone through uneccisary pain.

all respect to ya tryp, but i must contend:

quote:

---

Other potent narcotics are should not be legalized as they are extremely dangerous. Many lives would be wasted if anyone could just pick up the glass bat or syringe.

---

yes, potent narcotics are dangerous, and that is a problem, but it is clearly not one that is solved by prohibition. many lives are still wasted, but i would argue that many MORE are actually wasted due to the creation of an unreliable and unregulated black market by prohibition itself and rampant misinformation. A certain portion of addicts and OD "victims" have their lives ruined because prohibition made it impossible for them to find clean product and needles. Another portion would have ruined their lives by themselves anyway, and they woulld continue to do so even if their habit was legal, but you must understand that these people still exist in no lesser numbers with our current drug laws in effect. back before prohibition, it wasn't looked at as a good thing if one was a heroin addict. it was well acknowledged that one could be ruining his or her life. these attitudes will continue to deter more conservative persons than myself from using drugs; the day that legalization takes place, i guarantee your grandmother won't run out like "oh, i guess it's okay now!" and buy a packet or two. it will always be taboo.

in addition, under a legal regime, REAL drug education can be given, allowing americans to make informed decisions about drugs. this will not prevent people from becoming junkies or ruining their lives, but quite obviously, making laws about it don't help much either.

id agree with tryptamine.
very much so.

Legalize everything, sell to anyone 16 or older.

While I agree with most what was said above, I have some stuff to add.

Drugs could be packaged with instructions and health warnings ("WARNING: This substance is a highly addictive neurotoxin", for example). Sanitary packaging material would keep adulturants out of drugs, and doses could be easily measured.
Marketing of drugs would be highly restricted and would be text-only, to avoid glamourization. Misleading advertising would be prohibited.

Accurate, educational info about drugs would be promoted in pamphlets, tv commercials, and in classrooms, in much the same way that people are brainwashed with anti-drug propaganda today.

Last but not least, you would be able to take responsibility for what you put into your body. You would have the power to decide whether or not to consume something labeled "Highly addictive and neurotoxic".

BTW...this would never actually happen in reality, so don't get your hopes up

I would legalize everything. I want to start an organization like NORML to promote heroin decriminalization.

One thing to note on drug decriminalization is that we need a way to figure out who is driving on shrooms, weed, PCP, etc. Before we can seriously look at legalization we need an quick objective test to let police know whether someone is currently intoxicated on a substance that impairs driving ability.

LEGALIZE EVERYTHING!

All legal, no restrictions except the stuff has to have its purity and any other ingredients labelled. Also, I would leave it up to the individual storekeepers as to who to sell to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by beatmeofficer:

One thing to note on drug decriminalization is that we need a way to figure out who is driving on shrooms, weed, PCP, etc. Before we can seriously look at legalization we need an quick objective test to let police know whether someone is currently intoxicated on a substance that impairs driving ability.

---

Pupil check(shrooms make my pupils like dinner plates) and walk on the white line. You could also have them try to read a complex sentence.

education is the key
The government owes its people the safety of removing drugs from the black market.

quote:

---

Originally posted by beatmeofficer:

we need an quick objective test to let police know whether someone is currently intoxicated on a substance that impairs driving ability.

---

Oh I think that wouldn't be all to hard. Imagine:

A cop pull someone over who the suspect might be tripping.

They go talk to the person. And making sure to keep an absolute straight face, inject funny noises into the conversation, switch to a funny voice, have various colored lights in their uniform that will flash on and off all over at random intervals.

Then if the person can't keep it together, he's taking in for tripping.

if he passes then he's experienced enough to be able to drive.

Of course this is off the top of my head and could use some refinement...