Yes they should be, all of them. But you'd have to do it carefully.
I think simply legalising all drugs would be a net gain for having people in less harmful situations, but a more comprehensive strategy would look something like this:
Would have to be 18 or older to possess or purchase drugs.
No criminal penalties for possessing any drug amongst adults.
Treat drug related problems as health problems and not criminal.
The most harmless drugs such as cannabis and psyclobin should be regulated in the same way as alcohol or tobacco.
Harder drugs would have to be purchased through a chemist or perscription (pharmacist, doctor) and would require an information and consulting session.
All drugs would be regulated for purity and dose.
Harsh penalties for those who operate vehicles under the influence.
Harsh penalties for anyone supplying drugs to minors.
Drugging someone against their will would be considered an assault.
Money saved by legalisation would be put towards affordable and accessible rehabilitation clinics, treatment centres, safe-injection sites as well as drug education.
Drug education in schools would be reformed to be science and health based with harm reduction as its key idea.
This was our Debate topic last year. I wrote 4 page speeches on both the Affirmative (Yes) and Negative (No) sides and can honestly say I believe they should be decriminalized, not legalized. I'm to lazy to find my papers, but the benefits of decrimalization far outweigh the negative effects. Also, the difference between decriminalization and legalization is that decriminalization requires regulations, an example being that if prostitution were decriminalized, prostitutes would have to be tested for any diseases. Legalization gives free reign with no regulations. So, Yes, but decriminalized, not legalized.
Yes they should be, all of them. But you'd have to do it carefully.
I think simply legalising all drugs would be a net gain for having people in less harmful situations, but a more comprehensive strategy would look something like this:
Would have to be 18 or older to possess or purchase drugs.
No criminal penalties for possessing any drug amongst adults.
Treat drug related problems as health problems and not criminal.
The most harmless drugs such as cannabis and psyclobin should be regulated in the same way as alcohol or tobacco.
Harder drugs would have to be purchased through a chemist or perscription (pharmacist, doctor) and would require an information and consulting session.
All drugs would be regulated for purity and dose.
Harsh penalties for those who operate vehicles under the influence.
Harsh penalties for anyone supplying drugs to minors.
Drugging someone against their will would be considered an assault.
Money saved by legalisation would be put towards affordable and accessible rehabilitation clinics, treatment centres, safe-injection sites as well as drug education.
Drug education in schools would be reformed to be science and health based with harm reduction as its key idea.
_BlueDuck_
This is good. I was asking for some sort of plan, earlier. Though, the whole situation reminds me of a post-apocalyptic world.
drugs always hurt human body it might kill youNadoori
Many, many, many things negatively effect the human body and might kill you--in fact, the list is so comprehensive, I could write a book about it. Does that mean we should just live in fear?
Any time somebody has tried to tell me that drugs should be legalized they're used the dumbest arguments (eg 'alcohol is addictive too!'), but I would say legalize them - if only in hopes that it might kill off some of the dregs of society we've all been secretly hoping would kill each other anyway...
Any time somebody has tried to tell me that drugs should be legalized they're used the dumbest arguments (eg 'alcohol is addictive too!'), but I would say legalize them - if only in hopes that it might kill off some of the dregs of society we've all been secretly hoping would kill each other anyway...
JusticeFromSeed
I'm not sure how thats a dumb argument since alcohol is much more addictive than a lot of illegal drugs and it ruins thousands of lives.
Any time somebody has tried to tell me that drugs should be legalized they're used the dumbest arguments (eg 'alcohol is addictive too!'), but I would say legalize them - if only in hopes that it might kill off some of the dregs of society we've all been secretly hoping would kill each other anyway...
toast_burner
I'm not sure how thats a dumb argument since alcohol is much more addictive than a lot of illegal drugs and it ruins thousands of lives. The reason it is dumb is because any argument of that sort is an argument AGAINST booze, not FOR pot.
Any time somebody has tried to tell me that drugs should be legalized they're used the dumbest arguments (eg 'alcohol is addictive too!'), but I would say legalize them - if only in hopes that it might kill off some of the dregs of society we've all been secretly hoping would kill each other anyway...
toast_burner
I'm not sure how thats a dumb argument since alcohol is much more addictive than a lot of illegal drugs and it ruins thousands of lives. Addiction isn't the only thing about drugs.
[QUOTE="PunkAntiHero"]They should never be legalized.thegerg
I hate to break it to you, but most drugs are already legalized. Not the recreational kind. There is only ONE reason that most want pot to be legalized, and that is because they like to get high. They can bring up glaucoma all they want, as if it afflicted half the population. But I'd have more respect at least if legalization advocates just admitted what we all know: they don't want it for medicinal purposes, they want it to get high, and THAT is ultimately a failing argument.
All drugs should be legal, if you commit a crime due to being high fine, then you are a criminal....but if you are using drugs and causing nobody else harm that doesn't make you a criminal.KlownMaster
Not every law exists to stop us from harming others. Some laws are to protect us from ourselves... think seat belt laws.
Is this a joke? Legalizing all those drugs for the sake of people getting high is stupid. Too addicting and the withdrawls turn people crazy.CleanPlayer
And making them illegal stops them from being addictive? I don't see your point
[QUOTE="CleanPlayer"]Is this a joke? Legalizing all those drugs for the sake of people getting high is stupid. Too addicting and the withdrawls turn people crazy.toast_burner
And making them illegal stops them from being addictive? I don't see your point I think he means that making them more widely available, in view of their ill effects, is unwise.
[QUOTE="KlownMaster"]All drugs should be legal, if you commit a crime due to being high fine, then you are a criminal....but if you are using drugs and causing nobody else harm that doesn't make you a criminal.dsmccracken
Not every law exists to stop us from harming others. Some laws are to protect us from ourselves... think seat belt laws. and there shouldnt be seat belt laws....(except for buckling your young kids). cant protect people from themselves. if someone is stupid enough to not use a seat belt, they probably arent going very far in life
[QUOTE="CleanPlayer"]Is this a joke? Legalizing all those drugs for the sake of people getting high is stupid. Too addicting and the withdrawls turn people crazy.dsmccracken
And making them illegal stops them from being addictive? I don't see your point I think he means that making them more widely available, in view of their ill effects, is unwise.They already are widely available. Making them legal won't change much (other than lowering the amount of people in prison and saving police time/money)
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="KlownMaster"]All drugs should be legal, if you commit a crime due to being high fine, then you are a criminal....but if you are using drugs and causing nobody else harm that doesn't make you a criminal.mingmao3046
Not every law exists to stop us from harming others. Some laws are to protect us from ourselves... think seat belt laws. and there shouldnt be seat belt laws....(except for buckling your young kids). cant protect people from themselves. if someone is stupid enough to not use a seat belt, they probably arent going very far in life So no seat belt laws. Ok. How about regulations mandating hardhats for construction workers? If a guy doesn't want his do mussed, should he be allowed to work without basic safety equipment? You have no idea how many laws exist to protect us from ourselves.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] Not every law exists to stop us from harming others. Some laws are to protect us from ourselves... think seat belt laws. and there shouldnt be seat belt laws....(except for buckling your young kids). cant protect people from themselves. if someone is stupid enough to not use a seat belt, they probably arent going very far in life So no seat belt laws. Ok. How about regulations mandating hardhats for construction workers? If a guy doesn't want his do mussed, should he be allowed to work without basic safety equipment? You have no idea how many laws exist to protect us from ourselves.uhh sure? im arguing that these laws are stupid. im aware that there are many.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]And making them illegal stops them from being addictive? I don't see your point
toast_burner
I think he means that making them more widely available, in view of their ill effects, is unwise.They already are widely available. Making them legal won't change much (other than lowering the amount of people in prison and saving police time/money) There's widely available, and then there's WIDELY AVAILABLE. Someone who isn't into drugs can spend most of their life pretty much oblivious to their existence. I don't think that a legally available product would maintain that limiting existence in the shadows.
[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"] and there shouldnt be seat belt laws....(except for buckling your young kids). cant protect people from themselves. if someone is stupid enough to not use a seat belt, they probably arent going very far in life So no seat belt laws. Ok. How about regulations mandating hardhats for construction workers? If a guy doesn't want his do mussed, should he be allowed to work without basic safety equipment? You have no idea how many laws exist to protect us from ourselves.uhh sure? im arguing that these laws are stupid. im aware that there are many. If that is your argument, then I reject that argument as absurd.
All drugs should be legal, if you commit a crime due to being high fine, then you are a criminal....but if you are using drugs and causing nobody else harm that doesn't make you a criminal.KlownMaster
Our laws bear some responsibility in trying to mitigate damages, trying to preempt (for instance) people under the influence BEFORE they hurt others, not just punish them AFTER it's too late.
[QUOTE="KlownMaster"]All drugs should be legal, if you commit a crime due to being high fine, then you are a criminal....but if you are using drugs and causing nobody else harm that doesn't make you a criminal.dsmccracken
Our laws bear some responsibility in trying to mitigate damages, trying to preempt (for instance) people under the influence BEFORE they hurt others, not just punish them AFTER it's too late. but then at the same time your punishing the majority of those who would simply get high and infringe the rights of no one else...
[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"]uhh sure? im arguing that these laws are stupid. im aware that there are many.KlownMaster
If that is your argument, then I reject that argument as absurd. Why is that absurd? It's this simple: people are dumb. REALLY dumb. Maybe you're not, and you think everyone is sensible like yourself, resulting in this belief of yours. But I assure you, the general population requires SOME protection through legislation against harming themselves and others, because they surely will if not restrained.
[QUOTE="KlownMaster"]All drugs should be legal, if you commit a crime due to being high fine, then you are a criminal....but if you are using drugs and causing nobody else harm that doesn't make you a criminal.dsmccracken
Our laws bear some responsibility in trying to mitigate damages, trying to preempt (for instance) people under the influence BEFORE they hurt others, not just punish them AFTER it's too late.this is why I bring up alcohol in these debates. I've never done anything bad when on drugs, but I have smashed quite a few things when drunk. Where's the logic in allowing alcohol but not other drugs?
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="KlownMaster"]All drugs should be legal, if you commit a crime due to being high fine, then you are a criminal....but if you are using drugs and causing nobody else harm that doesn't make you a criminal.mingmao3046
Our laws bear some responsibility in trying to mitigate damages, trying to preempt (for instance) people under the influence BEFORE they hurt others, not just punish them AFTER it's too late. but then at the same time your punishing the majority of those who would simply get high and infringe the rights of no one else... Raise your hand if you think that 100 people getting high is worth one person getting hurt. Is your own personal pleasure worth that? Because the majority don't smoke pot for medical reasons, they smoke it for pure pleasure. Seems pretty selfish to me that they or you would find it a worthwhile tradeoff that some would suffer just so they can get high.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="KlownMaster"]All drugs should be legal, if you commit a crime due to being high fine, then you are a criminal....but if you are using drugs and causing nobody else harm that doesn't make you a criminal.toast_burner
Our laws bear some responsibility in trying to mitigate damages, trying to preempt (for instance) people under the influence BEFORE they hurt others, not just punish them AFTER it's too late.this is why I bring up alcohol in these debates. I've never done anything bad when on drugs, but I have smashed quite a few things when drunk That is an argument AGAINST alcohol, not FOR pot.
[QUOTE="KlownMaster"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="KlownMaster"] Why is that absurd? It's this simple: people are dumb. REALLY dumb. Maybe you're not, and you think everyone is sensible like yourself, resulting in this belief of yours. But I assure you, the general population requires SOME protection through legislation against harming themselves and others, because they surely will if not restrained. If they surely are that dumb then they will quickly rid themselves from society, and I'm not talking people with disabilities, I'm talking everyday people So screw stupid people so some can get high? That is beyond absurd, it's borderline sociopathic.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"] Our laws bear some responsibility in trying to mitigate damages, trying to preempt (for instance) people under the influence BEFORE they hurt others, not just punish them AFTER it's too late.dsmccracken
this is why I bring up alcohol in these debates. I've never done anything bad when on drugs, but I have smashed quite a few things when drunk That is an argument AGAINST alcohol, not FOR pot.Pot? I was think more along the lines of coke, LSD, Ecstasy, MDMA. Pot is weak, no way could it cause you to do anything harmful.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]this is why I bring up alcohol in these debates. I've never done anything bad when on drugs, but I have smashed quite a few things when drunk
toast_burner
That is an argument AGAINST alcohol, not FOR pot.Pot? I was think more along the lines of coke, LSD, Ecstasy, MDMA. Pot is weak, no way could it cause you to do anything harmful.
I'm just ponting out how flawed your arguement is
No way, huh? Think again: http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=5341224&sponsor=escapes.ca
[QUOTE="KlownMaster"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"] but then at the same time your punishing the majority of those who would simply get high and infringe the rights of no one else... Raise your hand if you think that 100 people getting high is worth one person getting hurt. Is your own personal pleasure worth that? Because the majority don't smoke pot for medical reasons, they smoke it for pure pleasure. Seems pretty selfish to me that they or you would find it a worthwhile tradeoff that some would suffer just so they can get high. Why would someone else suffer from them getting high lol? If they're not over indulging like anything in life, it will be ok, ie sex addicts, drunks, chain smokers, liars, etc, they all can hurt other people but it's not illegal. No one suffers? http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=5341224&sponsor=escapes.ca
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"] That is an argument AGAINST alcohol, not FOR pot.dsmccracken
Pot? I was think more along the lines of coke, LSD, Ecstasy, MDMA. Pot is weak, no way could it cause you to do anything harmful.
I'm just ponting out how flawed your arguement is
No way, huh? Think again: http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=5341224&sponsor=escapes.caI'm sure the bus driver was also wearing underwear. Should we ban boxer shorts while we're at it?
also from the article you posted:"The TTC found no evidence of impairment on the part of the operator," the transit commission stated.
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"] but then at the same time your punishing the majority of those who would simply get high and infringe the rights of no one else... Raise your hand if you think that 100 people getting high is worth one person getting hurt. Is your own personal pleasure worth that? Because the majority don't smoke pot for medical reasons, they smoke it for pure pleasure. Seems pretty selfish to me that they or you would find it a worthwhile tradeoff that some would suffer just so they can get high. Raise your hand if you think 100 people playing basketball is worth one getting hurt. Should we outlaw basketball, many people are injured playing that sport. It's quite selfish not to do so. Because basketball and using drugs is equatable.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]Pot? I was think more along the lines of coke, LSD, Ecstasy, MDMA. Pot is weak, no way could it cause you to do anything harmful.
I'm just ponting out how flawed your arguement is
toast_burner
No way, huh? Think again: http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=5341224&sponsor=escapes.caI'm sure the bus driver was also wearing underwear. Should we ban boxer shorts while we're at it?
also from the article you posted:"The TTC found no evidence of impairment on the part of the operator," the transit commission stated.
Yes. Because underwear is just as likely as an intoxicant is to cause impaired driving. That is an early article just after the incident. Things have progressed: http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-toronto/toronto-bus-driver-charged-fatal-crash
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] Raise your hand if you think that 100 people getting high is worth one person getting hurt. Is your own personal pleasure worth that? Because the majority don't smoke pot for medical reasons, they smoke it for pure pleasure. Seems pretty selfish to me that they or you would find it a worthwhile tradeoff that some would suffer just so they can get high.BranKetra
Raise your hand if you think 100 people playing basketball is worth one getting hurt. Should we outlaw basketball, many people are injured playing that sport. It's quite selfish not to do so. Because basketball and using drugs is equatable.Withdsmccracken's logic it is. Basketball is just a game for fun, is one person getting harmed really worth it just so you can play a game?
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"] but then at the same time your punishing the majority of those who would simply get high and infringe the rights of no one else... Raise your hand if you think that 100 people getting high is worth one person getting hurt. Is your own personal pleasure worth that? Because the majority don't smoke pot for medical reasons, they smoke it for pure pleasure. Seems pretty selfish to me that they or you would find it a worthwhile tradeoff that some would suffer just so they can get high. Raise your hand if you think 100 people playing basketball is worth one getting hurt. Should we outlaw basketball, many people are injured playing that sport. It's quite selfish not to do so. Everyone playing a game knows the risks. I doubt someone injured in a traffic incident related to impairment was a willing or knowing participant like a ball player is.
Log in to comment