How many people have to die before America legalizes drugs?

LSD is not safer. Alcohol is much, much safer. We know what to expect from it.

Heroin and Cocaine are far, far from what should be legal. They're incredibly addictive!

 

False.



This is a graphical representations of the findings of a 2007 Lancet metastudy. Please notice that alcohol is both more harmful and more addictive than both LSD and marijuana.

There is a significant corpus of information surrounding LSD, much of it generated during the 1960s.

Doesn't matter, you can't cherrypick as regards vices.

 

How many more people would die after the legalization of cannabis?

 

None, considering how practically no people die from cannabis usage as it stands.

 

Again, you are very incorrect, Warspite.

Most drug overdoses are caused by the addicts taking too large a dose to achieve his/her synthetic "high". We know this is true because the addicts come right out of their stupor and near-death experience when the EMTs give them a shot of a special drug to reverse the effects of drugs like heroine.

They are then taken to the closest hospital to recover for several days, courtesy of the tax-strapped U.S. taxpayers!

 

TIME

 

Based on your logic, alcohol does not cause death directly. So death caused by drunk driving or other alcohol related death should never existed too? You are not too smart.

 

Alcohol does in fact cause death directly by means of alcohol poisoning and GI issues like ulcers caused by ingesting alcohol on an empty stomach. It's almost impossible to overdose on THC without smoking ridiculous amounts and is in fact less prone to causing respiratory problems than nicotine.

 

You are very correct, zollen.

I don't want to be next to a driver on a busy, crowded freeway who is high on cannabis!

I would not want to be on a commercial airline flight with a pilot and co-pilot both high on cannabis!

Would you?



Liberals do not like you if you do not agree completely with their points of view! Especially when you challenge their core beliefs on much higher taxes, legalization of dangerous drugs and "cap and trade"!

 

You are aware methadone is derived from the same substance as heroin, correct? It doesn't "reverse" the effects, it simply blocks the receptors that heroin uses - essentially, mimicking the pharmacological effects of heroin with less danger and with less of a high. Furthermore, methadone and similar substances are often ineffective because they treat the heroin problem, but not the problems posed by dangerous additives.

Versus taxpayer money spent on helping victims of drunk driving recover, or people that suffer from respiratory problems due to smoking?

Don't cherrypick your vices.

 

I'd rather they smoke cannabis than drink alcohol in either of those situations.

Furthermore, what you are arguing against is driving under the influence. Which is in fact already a crime.

 

I'm opposed to almost all vices.

 

Case studies are not suitable for formulating policy. Since everyone that takes LSD doesn't axe murder their spouses it can be safely disregarded.

 

Unfortunate, but banning them is not the solution.

 

It presents a variable that cannot be predicted like alcohol. We know how the overwhelming majority will react to alcohol; we don't know how they'll react to LSD.

 

If you ingest cannabis enough, guess what, you could also die by overdose too. You are very good at flawed logic. Where did you go to school?

 

Exactly correct. While Warspite and I rarely agree politically, I would like to take this opportunity to say that he/she never talks out of his/her ass. Evidence is always accurate, conclusions be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed.

Why do you hate sex?

 

And in your mind, this means people will not do it?

The fact that drugs are illegal makes thier use much less acceptable and much less probable.

 

Okay, I'll bite: how much do you have to smoke/ingest before you die?

 

Sex isn't a vice.

 

I wish I could tell that to those pro-legalization pot heads whose are unable to think one step beyond what they can smoke.

 

You missed the point. It is the chemical effects do to a human body that worry me.

 

Of course not. However, if it is a crime people can be fined for it to foot the bill for their foolishness. Additionally, it's not so much driving under the influence that is a problem as much as driving under the influence on a public road. Same argument for making driving without a seatbelt illegal.

Absolutely not. Drugs being illegal in no way impacts their proliferation, and in fact makes them more desirable to use for some.

 

In which case the more ethical thing to do is to assume people will react harmlessly and deal with the issues as they come.

 

Assume people will react harmlessly when all indicators show that reactions are very varied? Seems a little too dangerous.