legalize all drugs - free money and freedom

Even if marijuana was legalized, IMHO, it would still be some gateway drug, because it would get people curious about some other ways to get high. I mean, drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco cigarettes doesn't really give somebody some intense euphoric highs, which is what both smoking marijuana and doing those hardcore drugs does to somebody.

Even if marijuana was legalized and there still was no illegal black market links, it would still get some people interested in seeking out some other highs.

- - - Updated - - -

You still didn't answer my specific questions. Should alcohol prohibition come back? Since you stated that alcohol should be some Schedule 1 drug, I strongly assume that you actually believe that.

 

The decriminalization of marijuana, which I strongly support, does not result in jail times.

Also, what defines somebody being psychologically addicted to marijuana? Surely, just because it's not physically addictive, that doesn't mean that somebody can't actually be addicted to this substance. Sex addictions is not some physical addictions, but it's still some sorts of addictions. So, which percentage of marijuana smokers actually will become dependent on this substance? 16-17%? Somewhere between 9-10%? I've heard somewhere that only 4% of marijuana smokers will even become dependent on this substance. Well, which statistics is true or not?

 

Any drug can be a "gateway" drug; what does being a "gateway" drug really mean if persons are not required to consume drugs if that is not what they want? It may merely be a consequence of Individual Liberty. Some people can get high and still do yoga.

People who want to seek out other drugs do so at their own risk and inclination, regardless of which gateway drug they use.

My rational position is that our federal Congress is no longer delegated any social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce among the several States, since the repeal of that only Delegated, social Power. Why are you in favor of Prohibition, for only some drugs?

 

Addiction is a seeking behavior. It is not physical. Dependence is a physical need for the substance in order to avoid symptoms of withdrawal. While addicts are often dependent, those who are dependent are not always, or even mostly, addicts. A good example of the difference is caffeine. Many are dependent on caffeine. I know that without some form of caffeine every day, I will have withdrawal symptoms, which is usually a headache. That will last a day and I can easily wean myself off of it. However, I am not addicted to caffeine. If I can't get ahold of any, I'll pop a tylenol to avoid the headache and not give another thought. An addict would go out of his way to obtain the substance and think about it incessantly until he does so.

 

Here is a problem that always annoys me. People that have never used marijuana try to equate it with alcohol because they don't have anything else they can compare it to. Alcohol and marijuana are completely different and there really isn't a comparison between the two.

For example here it mentions DUI and DWI but there is no comparison between alcohol and marijuana related to these. Alcohol leads to a suppression of logical thinking but marijuana does not. Alcohol typically leads to reckless driving (e.g. speeding and weaving in traffic) while marijuana typically leads to safer driving because the person knows their reaction times are slightly decreased (e.g. slowing down and not tailgating). A person on alcohol is less aware of of what is going around them while someone on marijuana is more aware of what's going on around them. Alcohols negative affects on driving are extensive and can last for hours after last use while marijuana's affects on driving are minimal (primarily reaction times that can increase from about 0.75 seconds to perhaps as slow as 1 second) and only last for less than 30 minutes after last use regardless of how much is used. If they only take a few "hits" it won't affect their driving at all.

My point being that using "alcohol" as a comparison to "marijuana" is worse than comparing apples and oranges and I don't know why people continue to do this.

 

I would like to point out the inconsistency of the position of those who subscribe to Prohibition for only some drugs, but then complain we need more restrictions on our rights due to the known historical problems of Prohibition.

 

Well, that's simply because some drugs are simply just way too popular and ingrained into our societies to get rid of, such as alcohol.

That's this major difference between the prohibition of alcohol and the prohibition of cannabis.

 

A drug is a drug; it should only be Regulated because that is what is specifically enumerated as Delegated to our federal Congress.

 

I can totally understand exactly why somebody would support the legalisation of marijuana, which is actually less harmful and it's also way less addictive than alcohol is, however, why would you support the legalisation of all of those other drugs? I mean, some drugs are simply just way too dangerous to be legalised. All illegal drugs, with this sole exceptions of possibly marijuana, should simply all stay illegal, and here's exactly why.

Esctasy, that drug is one of the hardest and most dangerous drugs out there, people can die simply from dehydrating themselves to death from one pill, and heroin can kill somebody just with one injection. Cocaine is one of the most strongest mind altering drugs, which always intoxicates somebody, which causes them to be so violent when they're high on cocaine. LSD is also one of the most riskiest drugs out there, one hit of that stuff can send somebody into some psych wards for the rest of their lives, or it can also make them suicidal and violent just from one hit of that stuff. At least alcohol, which is a legal drug, is nowhere near as dangerous as that stuff because a normal small dosage of alcohol does not get somebody intoxicated and violent, and small amounts of marijuana may simply get somebody "buzzed", but how can you justify legalising those hardcore drugs? Please, explain this to me.

 

This paragraph proves that you've believed all of the lies of the drug war propagandists. Pretty much everything you've written here is false.

 

You've believed all of those lies of those pro-drug fanatics. Do you have any evidence that refutes those claims that I had just made?

Are you just in denial? I would never, ever, legalise ecstasy. Even some small dosages of that horrible stuff can simply kill somebody by dehydration. Alcohol is way less riskier than some of those illegal drugs are. Is there any evidence that proves my claims false?

 

Ecstasy does not cause dehydration. Dancing for hours without drinking can, which is why smart people know to keep drinking water when on E. I've used it, my friends have used it, I've known literally hundreds of people who have, and not a single one of them had anything bad happen to them. Can a single dose of heroin kill? Sure, if it's big enough. But that's true of EVERY drug, including water! When drugs are legal, and sold be reputable businesses, they'll have dosage guidelines and known strengths. I've known a lot of people who use cocaine, as well, never seen a single act of violence, nor committed one when I used the drug. LSD simply opens your consciousness to a different data stream, which is a big reason TPTB want it banned, because they don't want the sheeple know that a higher reality exists.

Everything you think you know about "illegal" drugs is wrong.

 

Well, what about all of those people that took LSD and then they got thrown into some psych wards for the rests of their lives? What about all of those people that took LSD and then they hurt themselves and the other people that were around them, while they were having some bad LSD-induced trips?

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/loca...cle_371757a2-95b9-11df-8a0d-001cc4c002e0.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/lsd-hits-lead-to-stabbing-then-arrest

 

It all goes back to how the War on Drugs is way more costly than it's worth.

The damage caused by organized crime is far worse than anything caused by addiction.

As far as ecstasy goes, I used it once back in college without problems. It is true that some people dehydrate themselves on it, but honestly, you can't protect people from themselves.

If someone is careless or stupid enough to drink too much water while high on X, then frankly, they might be doing society a favor by checking out early.

I know that's harsh, but the world is getting too crowded to care.

 

I have never heard about some drug cartels killing over some black market LSD. LSD's illegal status does not cause that much violence and crime. However, LSD does cause lots of violence and psychosis in some people. Legalizing this drug will most likely cause the bad side effects that come from LSD to increase. So, how the hell could you possibly even justify legalising LSD?

 

In my opinion, it is merely one more reason why we need morals tests instead of drug tests.

 

Not as many people use some drugs. In my opinion, no longer indulging the abomination of hypocrisy regarding social Powers only Delegated would help the private sector come up with better products at lower prices, while reducing the deleterious effects of Prohibition.

 

What exactly do you mean by this statement? If somebody is on LSD, a moral test isn't going to stop them from being violent. Drugged people are not in their right state of mind.

 

We may not need drug tests if the right could pass morals tests.

 

Innocent people who don't become violent and psychotic don't deserve to be put into cages for using it.

 

If a person is psychotic LSD can trigger episodes of psychosis but LSD doesn't cause the psychosis. The person is already psychotic before ever taking LSD. LSD and other psychedelic drugs are very powerful drugs and should not be taken by those with even minor mental illness except in rare cases under a doctor's supervision (i.e. Psychedelic Therapy).

Typically I'd refer to psychedelic drugs of all kinds as being "amplifiers" in that they will take what a person is and "amplify" that. If the person is spiritual then a psychedelic drug will result in a highly spiritual experience. If they're "crazy" it will make them more crazy. It is the nature of the drugs to bring out the nature of the person regardless of whether it's "good" or "bad" because the drug doesn't care.

The point being that there are numerous cases of individuals taking LSD, such as noted in the two stories provided, that shouldn't have. They weren't mentally capable of taking LSD without having an adverse result. On the flip side there are also millions of people that have taken LSD and the experience has been wonderful and very positive for them. It all depends on the person.

By analogy its sort of like peanut butter where its good for a many people but will kill other people if they eat it.

 

Psychedelic drugs will not make a non-violent or non-psychotic person turn into a violent or psychotic person. That is not the nature of these drugs. They only amplify that which the person is already.

 

Well, I now know that you believe in the legalisation of these psychedelic drugs, but here's my questions to you. Do you believe in the legalization of ALL drugs, or just some drugs (such as marijuana and LSD)? Heroin and ecstasy seem to be way too dangerous to legalize, IMHO. For example, people with heroin can overdose just from one shot of that stuff, and people that take ecstasy often dehydrate and die even from some normal dosages of it (it's not even some overdose that kills them). Some drugs which carry just a high risk of short term death, even in low and normal dosages, should not be legalized, IMHO. At least somebody can use alcohol in moderation and not overdose or get drunk and hurt somebody or themselves, if they drink their alcohol in some moderate quantities. Drugs such as heroin and ecstasy are some really super dangerous substances because the short term usage of those specific substances carries such a high risk of short-term death. They should stay illegal.

 

Do you just copy and paste the same bull(*)(*)(*)(*) over and over again. I explained to you several days ago why this is disinformation. Do you lack reading comprehension skills?

 

How the hell is this even some disinformation? You've obviously never heard stories on the news of people dying from simply just injecting themselves with simply just ONE SHOT OF HEROIN.

You are the misinformed pro drug person, not me.