i just want to know what your philosophy is for drugs...i mean like for weed, its a mild thing that makes you happy for a few hours. but i just wonder if you think of the dangers. or is it really safe, and the government just lies like they do for weed? just curious what you guys think.
I wouldn't say all of them should be legal, things like heroin, meth, crack, coke. The shit that destroys peoples live should be illegal i think, other than that i think it should be all legal for the most part
all legal, with really long ass surgeons general warnings, they are tools of self realization, though some tend more twards tests of self denial(opiates, tweak, coke), still through which the self is defined
hm... i dunno why but damn, that's a tough question. like, i can't think of anything that you could really call a philosophy. but the dangers are minimal, especially if you don't smoke it, and the government lies. lol...
Imho, all drugs should be legal. Let me explain, why I think so: 1. If all drugs were legal, no black market could exist any more. Organized crime would loose one of its mayor income resources. 2. If all drugs were legal, they could be sold for reasonable prices. For a gram of coke (pure!), this would be approx. 5-10 bucks. One of the biggest problems for addictives is the high price of drugs. Nobody can afford this for a longer time with an ordinary job, so they have to get the money in an illegal way. If drugs were legal, this wouldn´t happen any more. 3. If all drugs were legal, nobody would have to panic, when a drug incident happens. Although physicians have to stick to professional secrecy, it often happens, that nobody wants to call an ambulance in case of a drug incident, because they want to avaoid unpleasant questions. Lots of drug-related deaths could have been avoided if people had called the ambulance earlier. 4. If all drugs were legal, they would of course have to be sold only by qualified personnel in special shops (somehow alike pharmacies). You wouldn´t be allowed to "just buy" them, but would have to sign, that you´ve been informed about all aspects of the use of the drug and how to react in case of an emergency. Lots of incidents happen, because people haven´t done enough research; this could be avoided. 5. If all drugs were legal and were sold in special shops, they´d be almost completely pure. Especially when it comes to coke and heroin, lots of problems are cause by the changing purity. The purity of heroin here in Germany normally is 10-25%. If - for whatever reason - heroin with a purity of - let´s say - 80% comes to the market, the number of drug deaths rises dramatically for weeks (or even months). With a reliable purity, this problem could be avoided. 6. No political instrument has ever really avoided drug (ab)use. During the prohibition in the US, the amount of alcohol that was consumed wasn´t much lowered. The stuff only became much more expensive (which was a benefit for the mafia only). And some people switched to other drugs (coke was still legal then and quite popular!). When weed became semi-legal in the Netherlands, the sales of THC products increased indeed - but the alcohol sales decreased dramatically! Making a drug illegal doesn´t prevent drug abuse in general, it only makes the people switch to other substances (we all know this effect: whenever an RC becomes illegal, it only takes a couple of days until 2 new chemicals are available on the internet). I hope, this makes it clear, why scheduling drugs is in no way a solution to any kind of drug problem (if there ever was one).
Thanks, man! During the last years I´ve been thinking about the idea of going into politics with that concept. The idea was, first to form a "hemp party", running for our national parliament at an election. The only aim of this party would be to legalize THC in Germany. We have approx. 2,5 - 3,5 million (more or less regularly) users here, to get into parliament, you either need 5% of all votes (approx. 2,2 million votes) or have to win 3 districts directly. Both were not impossible. If we came so far, we could claim the post of the federal secretary for drug purposes. Once in this position, one could allow/schedule every drug by decree (no need to go to parliament with this decision... just beat the system with its own weapons!). This was the plan until last spring. The election was thought to take place in fall 2006. Unfortunately, our chancellor chose to retreat after 7 years of desastrous politics, so we already had the election in Sept. 2005. Not enough time to make the plan become reality. I guess, I´ll have to wait until 2009 now...
I think pot and most psychedelics should be decriminalized, and the only penalty for blatant (and stupid) use and sale of them should be therapy. Harder drugs (heroin, coke, crack, meth, etc) should remain illegal, and the dealers should get much time because they are essentially selling slavery. Users should get treatment. Its absolutely retarded to make drugs like meth and crack legal. There is no such thing as moderate or social meth/crack use. They are illegal and should stay illegal for the same reason we don't sell nuclear weapons at the corner store (they cause mass destruction for many innocent people--even the people not using).
I know folks who take coke or meth in very moderate, once per month tops. Therefore I think it is possible to avoid being addicted when using this stuff but obviously it is far more difficult.
Drug philosophy...."drugs are messengers, when one has recieved the message, it's time to hang up the phone."
The FLow, fantastic post!! Another point that has been argued here in the states, with legalization abuse and crime resulting from harder drugs would decrease. You cannot show up to work drunk. Similarly, you couldn't show up to work all tweaked. Thus it allows those of us who use hard drugs on a regular basis to once again become "normal" societal members; opposed to the outcasts the status quo makes us out to be.Thus addicts would need to seek help with their problem; the same system for alcoholics, AA.
i still don't think people should be able to go to a store and buy enough angel dust to get them through a bank robbery or shootout with the SWAT teams. there have to be limits. doing LOTS of meth or coke produces a psychotic state that is no different from schizophrenia. how do you deal with these people when they begin committing violent crimes because their brain is damaged and they're irreversibly paranoid and jump at the slightest provocation? i'm tempted to also say we should NOT legalize the dangerous drugs, but at the same time there is so much crime involved with obtaining those drugs illegally. so which would be better? i don't know. with marijuana the answer is clear--legalize it. but with dangerous opiates like heroin..... hmmm...
I have some close friends of mine who are recoverd drug addicts. One of them, did meth for almost a year, and now two years later, he still tells me he is just as addicted to it, as the first time hes tried it. As he puts it, the worst thing about meth is that the first hoot, is just as good as the last hoot, so you never want to stop. Tolorance builds, but in the mind, to tend to the addiction, its just as sweet.
Gee, how about ... prescription drugs? Look at morphine. Your doctor can prescribe and administer it, but it's illegal otherwise. It generally does not get abused often. Look at heroin. The chemical formula for heroin is 4-acetyl-morphine. It's just a morphine molecule with 4 acetyl groups tacked on to help it cross the brain/blood barrier faster and in higher quantity. The effects aren't even significantly different. But it gets abused LOTS. So how about prescription heroin, prescription cocaine, prescription methamphetamine (not that we already don't have presciption amphetamines), prescription MDMA? Why do they have to be Schedule I? Scheduling something as schedule I will lead to massive nationwide abuse. Schedule II isn't much better, but at least it can be prescribed legally, perhaps in ever-decreasing doses for addicts?
