So i plan to arrest myself immediately because I drank not one, not two, but three cups of coffe yesterday, countless number of teas, a paracetamol and LAST FRIDAY i even drank half a bottle of wine...

Obviously I'm not just a user, but persistant long term user, and technically a supplier because I have bought a friend ciggarettes when he didnt have his ID on him...

...

Anyway, my point? Not all drugs are bad, but personally I'd rather not legalise things which arent at the moment, it's all a big fuss over nothing.
I dont have a problem with them legallissing it, but GOD i get SO FED UP with the CAMPAIGNS that I just WISH one side would cave in so they could all just SHUT UP

I don't do drugs, but I know quite a few people who do. And while I don't agree with using them, I don't really care if they do. It's their own business if they want to slowly kill themselves just to experience the ultimate high of sitting around doing nothing.

Should they be legalized? In my opinion, no--but people are going to do them anyway, so I don't really think it would matter if they were legal or not. There would only be less arrests because of it. Legal for medical use, sure--but that doesn't mean it'll end up in civilian hands, like some of these people supporting it are probably hoping.

From a biochemical point of view, drugs are bad. Many drugs cause brain damage. Marijuana has been demonstrated to damage memory function.

Definately should not be legal like alcohol and caffiene. For terminally ill patients making marijuana a Schedule 2 drug makes a lot of sense. At the end of life it makes sense to provide aid and comfort.

Jimro

I would suggest you view it as drug abuse, rather than drug use. If you object to drug use, then you are going to have fun when getting treated for various illnesses, not to mention things such as caffiene and alcohol.

Others in the thread have already nicely summed up the problems with legalising certain illegal drugs, especially considering the problems that legal drugs have caused. While some drugs are useful, "recreational" drugs are generally not worth the risk - there's plenty of other ways to entertain yourself, and at far less risk to your own personal well-being. Generally better to leave them alone, and mostly illegal.

However, I think the key for drugs, even things like alcohol and caffiene, is to be aware of what they do - at least to a certain extent - so that you can make sure you use them sensibly if you use them at all. For example, if I am feeling sleepy when I want to get more work done, or want to be alert for some reason, or am just physically tired after some exercise, I will sometimes consume something with caffiene in in order to help with the short-term unwanted symptoms, but make sure that I do not remain dependent on caffiene for too long (eg. get more sleep the next day, drink some additional water, etc.)

Just my opinion.

Before I answer the main question, let me make a (hopefully) brief tangent, and allow me to present an idea that one of my friends from college had. It has to do with winning the "War on Drugs."

The government legalizes drugs. But then it goes further. The drugs are regulated by the government, and available only at facilities that serve as both distribution and rehabilitation centers, and before you can get any to begin with, you must mark some kind of disclaimer stating essentially, I know that by taking these, Im screwing up my own life, and potentially other peoples lives, and I dont care.

How does this solve the problem? Simple. Government regulation enacts nation-wide standards, as well as price capping. The government-issue drugs are consistently higher quality at far lower prices. In other words, capitalism wins the War on Drugs by putting the drug lords out of business by outselling them.

Okay, so thats basically the idea he told me in a nutshell. Ignoring any government-control-through-drugs, Brave New World soma-esque scenarios, do you consider it a feasible idea?

I think that in theory, it would work. In reality, though, Im not so sure. There are too many variables present in our overly paranoid society that would get in the way. The biggest of which is whether or not the disclaimer would be enough protection for the inevitable lawsuit attempts in our sue-crazy culture. Anonymity would be a consideration, but I doubt any lawyer wouldnt leap at the opportunity to say, You cant prove my client checked that box, thus the facility could have given him the drugs regardless, and thus, its the governments fault he killed that person while high.

However, if the disclaimer were something that involved a signature, or any form of identification, anonymity goes right out the door and discrimination takes over. I see no reason why businesses that have them should get rid of drug-free workplace screenings before and during employment, but if a person went to a facility once years ago only to find they didnt like the experience, they might still be denied employment because they have a record of trying drugs once, even though their test comes back clean. If, god forbid, the record ever got out, there would be discrimination on a massive scale: Denial of loans, medical services, et cetera.

Going away from disclaimer problems, lets not forget good ol fashioned retaliation. I dont think its too much a stretch to say the drug lords wouldnt appreciate being put out of business. Options? Either attack the facilities, or try to use corrupt government officials to buy/force their way into the operations, thus nullifying the intended effect of the facilities.

Speaking of corruption, whos to say the workers there wouldnt occasionally help themselves to the stock? Then, there's the question of security for the facilities.

So, no, I think its a good idea, but it wouldnt work in practice. Anyone think otherwise? I did say I think it could theoretically work, after all.

Now that the tangents done, lets move on to the original question of the topic. I dont think that all drugs should be legalized, but if its something that can relieve the pain of a terminal patient, sure, why not, as long as the hospitals understand their responsibility in distribution and control.

(Hopefully that wasn't too rambling and unitelligent for my first Marble Garden post).

China won the "war on drugs" by forcibly rehabilitating drug users and killing drug distributors simultaneously with a public awareness campaign that only bad, unpatriotic people used drugs.

Worked pretty well.

As far as a government monopoly on drugs, I just don't see that working. The purpose of government is not to medicate the populace.

Jimro

From a strictly economic standpoint, I think Canada would do well to legalize pot and tax the hell out of it. Various discussions as to the medical consequences or lack thereof of the use of cannabis as a drug aside (I'm hung over and don't feel like discussing that at the moment), the sheer market potential is staggering.

I mean, ignoring the fact that cannabis the narcotic is a simply gigantic industry in Canada (it is literally the most profitable agricultural product in the country), there are plenty of other reasons to legalize pot entirely. The plant is hardy and can be grown just about anywhere. The "hurd" or woody inner core, which makes up 70% of the cannabis plant's total weight, is THC free and can be used in housing construction. The silica leached from soil by the plant combined with unslaked lime forms a chemical bond similar to cement which is both fire and waterproof.

30-35% of the weight of hempseed is oil containing 80% of the unsaturated essential fatty acids (EFAs), linoleic acid (LA, 55%) and linolenic acid (LNA, 21-25%). These are not manufactured by the body and must be supplied by food. The proportions of linoleic acid and linolenic acid in hempseed oil are perfectly balanced to meet human requirements for EFAs, including gamma-linoleic acid (GLA). Unlike flax oil and others, hempseed oil can be used continuously without developing a deficiency or other imbalance of EFAs. Hemp also contains 31% complete and highly-digestible protein, 1/3 as edestin protein and 2/3 as albumin protein. This protein profile is second only to raw uncooked soybeans (35% vs. 31%), and the amino acid profile is superior to soybean, human milk, and cow's milk, and similar to egg whites.

Cannabis can be used to relieve the symptoms of many physical ailments including asthma, high blood pressure, glaucoma, tumors, nausea, epilepsy, MS, depression, muscle spasms, arthritis, rheumatism, emphysema, stress, and even migraine headache relief.

Hemp is an important natural fibre that is strong, durable and unaffected by water. It can be used in rope, sacking, carpet, clothing and more. It can even be used in paper manufacturing.

Finally, the oils in the seeds and stalk of the hemp can be used as biodiesel, and that's always useful.

Also, I think it's hilarious how mushrooms are 100% legal, as is eating them, even if they're the toxic kind, unless they just so happen to be the kind that have hallucinogenic properties. This fact makes it abundantly clear to me that bans on narcotics are based entirely on ideology, rather than health concerns.

Cannabis is a useful plant, but I would like to see a couple decades of Canadian legalization before recommending the same for the US. The permanent loss of memory function associated with marijuana use makes me leary of unrestricted distribution. Once again you can poison yourself to death with alcohol, but that is a serious case of abuse rather than use. I don't know if the long term habitual use of marijuana leading to memory loss is the same sort of "abuse".

In WWII one of the "war crops" that needed to be grown was hemp. At the time the US imported hemp and didn't have a large domestic production capacity.

Jimro

Quote:

---

The permanent loss of memory function associated with marijuana use makes me leary of unrestricted distribution.

---

Source? I've read a few news articles lately stating that memory loss from marijuana use declines when the user ceases smoking the drug. I'm guessing memory function and memory loss are not interchangable terms though, no?

I honestly don't want pot to be legalized, which is going to be a suprise if you're aware of the fact that I've become a bit of a dirty hippie or whatever. Legalization often entails government regulation and taxation. I don't know that people would buy the government regulated pot if they could still get it cheaper (and/or better quality) from individual dealers. I don't know that government regulation would necessarily lead to a reduction in laced marijuana. I've seen the price of my old cigarettes go up almost $2 in the last year because of tax increases. I imagine the tax that would be laid on marijuana to be huge.

I think that instead of legalizing it for those without medical reasons, just decrease the punishment for carrying it or selling it. No ridiculous jail time. No "drug awareness classes". No large fines. It should be less than a speeding ticket.

I have some problems with people who use cocaine or any meth based stimulant. They always eventually or immediately become violent and manipulative. I don't have any qualms with marijuana, acid, x or schrooms.

Here are links to a few of the abstracts of primary literature on marijuana and memory loss.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entr...med_docsum
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entr...med_docsum
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entr...med_docsum
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entr...med_DocSum
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entr...med_DocSum
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entr...med_DocSum

Jimro

When you've seen people on of some of these other drugs floating around first hand. Mary jane doesn't look too bad. It's still bad, I'm sure it has its permanate factors. But then again so does aspirin.

People hear "drug" and instantly think grass, ice, x, etc. But those are just the illegal heavily abused ones. Any drug is harmful if abused. You have seen the warning on most painkillers about not driving while taking them? You think shooting a needle full of aspirin into your bloodstream is good because aspirin is legal?

Personally I don't have an issue with it, people are going to screw up their lives regardless so you may as well regulate it. Plus if its not "breakin da law" it might just keep a few kids off of it. You don't see many high schoolers popping ibuprofen in the bathroom.

Do I approve of drug use? Sure.
Do I use drugs? Of course, what do you think sudefed, tylenol, etc are?
Do I approve of drug abuse? No way.
Do I abuse them? No.

<i>You don't see many high schoolers popping ibuprofen in the bathroom.</i>
As a general rule ibuprofen will just make you sleepy, if anything. It's not going to make you stupid and euphoric.

Overdosing on Aspirin robs your liver of sulfur (a sulfate is tacked on to the aspirin for excretion through the kidneys) and basically the only way to save that persons life is a liver transplant. Obviously there is a world of difference between use and abuse. And people can take two aspirin every day of their adult life for heart health and never damage their liver.

However, there is a large difference between NSAIDS and oxycontin. This is why aspirin is available OTC, and oxycontin is not. Drugs that produce a euphoric feelings are incredibly addictive. When was the last time you heard of someone being addicted to aspirin?

The reason why we give people morphine who are in serious pain, is because that morphine is a serious drug. When I was in the burn ward at Harborview, an aspirin wouldn't cut it to stop the pain. Marijuana is also a serious drug, and I'm all for making it a schedule 2 drug so that it can be used by terminally ill patients, or anorexic teenagers who need to put on weight, or anyone else a doctor thinks the benefits will outweigh the negatives.

Using drugs for pleasure is stupid from a medicinal standpoint. Recreational drug users as a class are generally incredibly difficult to treat for pain.

Jimro