Drugs

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:11 am

taking drugs. how does it relate to freedom?
some drugs are banned, others are accepted.

it's kinda branching off from the 'western values' thread. so re-post your opinions here.

but if you're new, then hey that's cool too. slam yer opinion down on the table.

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:23 am

I strongly believe in decriminalization of all drugs. I mean really, does anyone NOT know that crack or heroin addiction will destroy your life? Does anyone really believe that if cocaine sales and use became legal tomorrow that there would be a sudden and dramatic upsurge in cocaine use?

Legalize it all and use the money saved from cessation of the war on drugs for PSAs. Educate the public about the dangers of drug use; the intelligent folks will make intelligent decisions and the idiots will die from overdose. Sometimes the State just needs to step back and let Darwin's theories run their course.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:26 am

WEll, the Govt likes to protect us from ourselves for our own benefit, or they just like getting all the money from the drug sales that they are a part of. they make more with it being illegal than legal, otherwise they would be legal.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:33 am

Ya, there's no way the gov will let go of drugs. It's an easy siphon of billions from you.

Regarding freedom, it's just blatant oppression disguised as 'preventive measures'. Depending on the area and circumstance, you can lose your car, house, job, wife and kids...with no victim to justify it.
It's used as an excuse by the police to pull you over, search you, detain you, and of course, take your money. Cops love it. They can pull over any kid they want. They need a reason? "I thought he was high". Well, by the time you can make a complaint, who's to know if you were or not, it's the cop's word against yours.
Most kids I grew up with have been taught since they were 16 that cops are their enemy. (I'm talking honor students) They know the police can do whatever they want, and they've learned to fear them. Isn't that nice? The biggest crime that's happened around here is..jaywalking, or something. Rap isn't even popular here. I can't count how many times I've been stared down, or followed, pulled over and demanded to succumb to search. Why? Was I speeding? No. Was I weaving? No. Is my car visibly deformed to violate safety standards? No. Then why? Because I was in my teens.

Oops, I wandered from drugs to police..never should have smoked that joint

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:46 pm

the thing is that decriminalising drugs will actually reducec overdoses.

overdoses are caused by people not knowning how strong their drug is. alcohol poisoning, that's an overdose, generally caused by kids not knowning their own alcohol tollerence (it's not the fault of the alcohol companys, they print the % alcohol, and '#no. of standard drinks' label on the side for all to see. it's industry enforced!)
how many people went blind in USA in the 1920s from accidentally drinking METHYL alcohol? this was because alcohol was illegal, there were no safeguards, there was no legal obligation to make sure your product ment any safety criteria because you were already breaking the law by making it in the first place.

ok, we all know you can't overdose on pot. so that's a non-issue.

you get heroin from some dealer. you don't know how strong it is. if you underestimate it's purity, you may overdose. there is no industry enforced standard. this is purely because it's illegal, and forced underground. if it were legal, then there may be purity standards printed on the product. and if this safety wasn't enough heroin could be sold on the shelf next to other safety products such as that stuff that you inject and it INSTANTLY nullifies opiates in your system (bringing you instantly outof any possible overdose, i bet you wish there were a hangover cure like THAT for alcohol eh?), or that other drug that when taken just once will permanently cure your heroin addiction.

what's funny is that this drug, is illegal. because it itself is a hulucinagen. what happens is you take it, spin out mildly for a few hours (it's no-where near as hulucinagenicly powerful as LSD), have a sleep. then when you wake up, you will have no more craving for opiates. it works, it's amazing, and it's illegal. yes even when used by doctors (that's how stupid many drugs laws are ppl).

making drugs legal, would free up many billions of dollars every year that are currently being given to the DEA and related organisations. these organisations are of course happy for drug laws to be kept the way they are, or increased.

we have legal cigarettes, coffee, alcohol. these things are controlable and make our lives diverse.
they have problems, but those problems are small compared to the cost it would take to make possesion of them an illegal offence.

can you imagine that? even one of them: coffee, cigarettes, or alcohol, being illegal. think of the cost it would take to enforce that. you couldn't even grow a coffee tree in your backyard. the DEA would be flying around in helicopters with 'forward facing heat sensing cameras' looking for "hotspots" in citizen's roofs, that points to there being an illegal coffee being grown in secret in there.

take alcohol as an example. how much money does alcohol cost us (society) from it's problems. we take precautions (as i said in the first paragraph) but still alcohol causes problems. if you ignore the drug laws and focus on the pure unadulterated drugs, alcohol is one of, if not THE MOST dangerous drug we have. that's including drugs that are currently illegal (assuming they were pure). alcohol is one of the only drugs where it's withdrawl itself can easily KILL you (alcoholics shaking? this is a sign of withdrawl: delerium tremens. next worse thing is seisures, and if bad enough it can and does kill).

alcohol has been deemed by study and comparison with other drugs, as the most addictive drug we have. strange i know. i didn't believe it at first either.
but the results show that outof the amount of people who regularly drink alcohol, a higher percentage of those people are considered ADDICTS (alcoholics, of varying degrees) than the ratios for other drugs. With other drugs, incl heroin, the ratio of people who recreationally take them vs the amount of people whom are addicted; is LESS than that for alcohol.
also as i already stated above, the withdrawl for alcohol is dangerous as well, which the study takes into account.

scary no? there is a LOT of alcoholics out there.
they are dangerous, they fuel the majority of violent offences out there on the streets, and household violence. alcohol is culturally known for it's violence inducing behavior in certain predisposed people.

the store shelf cost of alcohol is somewhat high. for people whom are addicted this will keep them poor, and probably on the street. being enibriated on alcohol constantly doesn't allow you to hold much of a job anyway, but with other drugs this is quite different. someone whom is dependant on heroin can take heroin regularly thoughout the day, for your ENTIRE LIFE#. and no-one will be the wiser.
the guy who invented local anasthetic (by injecting coccaine subcutaneously) and put forward medical surgery techniques by leaps and bounds. was actually regularly self injecting heroin (to treat his coccaine addiction, long story) all the way until his natural old age death, no-one knew until they read his journal decades later. this guy was a seriously respected medical genius, with amazing skill. #point proven yes?

back to alcohol: now all of this, all the costs of this. how much do you think it would be, on society? pretty high yes? i mean, all that violence. (it should be noted that alcohol is kindof on it's own for violence encouraging behaviour, most drugs don't cause this kindof behavior, alcohol however DOES).

now imagine the cost that it would take to BAN alcohol. yeah that's right, it would take BILLIONS of dollars a year. what do you think is a better idea to do with billions of dollars a year? it codl pay for all of teh problems associated with alcohol a few times over for a start.
if only society actually HAD billions of dollars every year to spend not on banning alcohol, but specifically on combatting the effects of alcohol, encouraging proper responsible use of it, and educating people on it's effects and howto deal with them. especially for alcoholics. think of that. billions $.

billions of dollars are being spent every year, right now, on trying to keep you away from relatively HARMLESS drugs. i mean drugs that don't cause liver disease, heart disease, and countless acts of violence. what the money is doing is keeping these drugs away from public debate, public knowledge beyond the stupid "drugs are bad, but this drug alcohol is fine" approach.*

Coffee can kill you. drink too much coffee, or too many too strong coffees and you will have a heart attack, just like any stimulent. ever had a caffine tablet? very easy to manufacture, or cut and remanufacture.
we could get to the stage where we would have to be careful of caffine tablets, because we would not know if 50 of them would kill us, or just 2. we would not know how much caffine is in them anymore.

*can you think of better ways to spend that money?

Clayman · Post by **Clayman** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:54 pm

Legalize them.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 1:01 pm

Keep 'em illegal. If someone ODs from underestimating the purity of something like heroin, it's their own fault for using in the first place. Bottom line: if you need drugs to get a "high," you're really screwed up. Find something more constructive to do.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 1:14 pm

Legalize it. It would free up thousands of prison cells saving the tax payers millions. Making it illegal isn't going to stop anyone from doing drugs.

B-

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 1:19 pm

Top Gun if you have you ever used coffee, alcohol or nicotine: they may have killed you without the safeguards currently in place for those drugs (esp alcohol).

and it will say on your grave "it was my own fault for using in the first place. i was really screwed up"

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:31 pm

Legalize it, free the prisioners, and if people wanna practice social darwinism thats fine by me, just as long as they make stiff laws against doing stupid ★■◆● while intoxicated.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:15 pm

Never used any of them, roid, nor do I plan to (I don't like coffee or alcoholic beverages [plus I'm underage

], and I think cigarettes are disgusting.) I, for one, am smart enough to realize what is healthy and what is not. Those who are not, however, require some sort of outside reinforcement. If people were more intelligent and voluntarily stopped using drugs, we wouldn't need laws against them. As it is, we do.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:40 pm

Top Gun wrote:I, for one, am smart enough to realize what is healthy and what is not. Those who are not, however, require some sort of outside reinforcement.

This is where I pretend I'm smart and take your argument to the illogical extreme end and say "well why don't we make junk food illegal"?

Clayman · Post by **Clayman** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:18 pm

I say we start placing heavy fines on all acts deemed stupid by our legislators. They can do whatever the hell they want with the proceeds from said collection.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 2:56 am

I think some of you are missing the whole point as to why certain drugs are illegal in the first place.

Once you're under the influence of a drug that alters your frame of mind it no longer becomes an issue of your safety. It becomes an issue about the safety of others. The world couldn't give two-shits if you hurt yourself, but when you go outside of that and could potentially hurt others while being under the influence of something it no longer is just affecting you.

Just like everyone I believe there should be limits for things. Also that there are certain legal drugs far worse then some of those that are illegal. Even though I don't smoke weed myself to me it would be less of a risk to others then someone plastered with hard liquor or just too much beer if it were legal.

I've agreed to having them open it up and legalizing them all to filter out those who are just plain stupid and don't contribute to society at one point as well. The only problem with that is that it creates a much larger risk for not so much the safety of myself but the safety of my family and others that I care about. Same thing applies to the rest of you and your loved ones.

Thats something I wouldn't want when it really comes down to it. Sure, theres always a chance I might get killed by a drunk driver but I'd rather take my chances with that then have to worry about there being an increase of people out on the road (or anywhere for that matter) under the influence of differnet junk that could cause harm to others.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 6:37 am

Top Gun, obviously you have never smoked weed. I'm far more constructive when I'm high than when I'm sober.

Clayman · Post by **Clayman** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 9:30 am

Once you're under the influence of a drug that alters your frame of mind it no longer becomes an issue of your safety. It becomes an issue about the safety of others. The world couldn't give two-****s if you hurt yourself, but when you go outside of that and could potentially hurt others while being under the influence of something it no longer is just affecting you.

God forbid that we be socially responsible and be held account for our actions.

But if that is your position you must also logically condemn any use of alcohol, for by that standard it is far more dangerous than most recreational drugs.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 9:53 am

Zuruck wrote:Top Gun, obviously you have never smoked weed. I'm far more constructive when I'm high than when I'm sober.

Of course I haven't. And no offense, but I still think it's stupid to use some type of chemical cocktail to get into an "elevated" state of mind. If you want to stimulate your brain, try listening to some Mozart or reading a good book. And by the way, weed is far from harmless. It has an ungodly amount of carcinogenic chemicals, far more than a cigarette. Plus, I'm sure it's happened that someone has gotten nice and mellow off weed and driven his nice, mellow self into the back of someone else's car. Anything that alters your mental state is a potential danger, and it is in the best interests of the public good in making them illegal. The only reason alcohol isn't illegal is because it has been a human cultural staple for thousands of years. It's kind of hard to legislate something that's been widely used since ancient Egypt

.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:01 am

Clayman wrote:God forbid that we be socially responsible and be held account for our actions.

But if that is your position you must also logically condemn any use of alcohol, for by that standard it is far more dangerous than most recreational drugs.

Are you sure you're not just being argumentive, Clayman? I think Tyranny makes a very good point. Of course we should be responsible and held accountable for our actions, but how will that opinion comfort us when some dopehead who obviously isn't responsible causes an accident that kills one of our loved ones? I don't think him being held accountable afterward will bring any great comfort.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:04 am

Zuruck wrote:Top Gun, obviously you have never smoked weed. I'm far more constructive when I'm high than when I'm sober.

That's more than likely a matter of warped personal perception.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 6:25 pm

Top, do you think I should go to prison for the pipe I'm holding in my hand right now?

Why do people think that if something gets legalized, all of a sudden madmen will be romaing the streets in unprecedented numbers doing said now-legal activity?

If coke, pot, and all that were legalized, you'd hardly ever notice. Just because it's legal to own, doesn't mean I'm going to rush out, buy cocaine, snort up, hop in the car and plow into a family of six. Get real.

There's a law against speeding. Does that stop anybody? No. Drive 55 and see how many people fly by. If the speed limit was raised, do you really think people would be careening all over the road at 100mph+? Hardly. They'd stay just where they've always stayed. 80mph.

Laws against drugs can never stop anything from happening. If someone does snort coke and crash into someone..what law stopped that? None. So what's the point? The law after the fact remains the same. You are responsible for the accident as you were intoxicated. That won't go away. All drugs should have the same common-law in effect. You injure another party due to it's use (Car accident, set the house on fire, criminal activity), and you do allotted prison time plus restitution.

No blanket law is really effective. Like no-cellphone-when driving. 90% of the people I see on the road have a phone in their ear.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 6:42 pm

Nah, pot modifies your alpha waves, in some way(I never bothered with the details).

I'm also far more creative after a joint, then not. Especially since my brain is not wired artistically. In an extreme case, check out Alice In Chains, or STP. Their music was excellent when they were all doing heroin. They were terrible sober. They didn't need heroin tho, just a few beers and a joint.

Shame of it, it killed one of the guys from Alice In Chains.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 6:44 pm

[edit]Stupid me[/edit]

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 6:44 pm

One more thought.

"How does it relate to freedom?"

It affects your freedom by branding you a criminal before a crime has been comitted.

Clayman · Post by **Clayman** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:52 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
Clayman wrote:God forbid that we be socially responsible and be held account for our actions.

But if that is your position you must also logically condemn any use of alcohol, for by that standard it is far more dangerous than most recreational drugs.
Are you sure you're not just being argumentive, Clayman? I think Tyranny makes a very good point. Of course we should be responsible and held accountable for our actions, but how will that opinion comfort us when some dopehead who obviously isn't responsible causes an accident that kills one of our loved ones? I don't think him being held accountable afterward will bring any great comfort.

Testi pretty much responded for me, thanks Dave.

Top Gun wrote:Anything that alters your mental state is a potential danger, and it is in the best interests of the public good in making them illegal.

Man, Miles Davis puts me in more of an altered mind set than probably any drug known to man, should we ban music too?

What I see here is that everyone arguing against legalization of drugs is doing so primarily on the premise of driving while high. Making that a de facto argument for banning all use of drugs simply doesn't follow. Really, that should be a separate issue, perhaps in the same manner as alcohol, where it is legal to consume, except while or shortly before driving. None of the driving arguments hold any water in terms of whether drugs should be legalized in general. I'd love to hear some though. And in case any of you are wondering, no, I don't do any drugs (unless you count caffeine), I'm arguing on the basis of civil liberties.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:03 pm

Clayman wrote: None of the driving arguments hold any water in terms of whether drugs should be legalized in general. I'd love to hear some though. And in case any of you are wondering, no, I don't do any drugs (unless you count caffeine), I'm arguing on the basis of civil liberties.

In this disccussion, they don't hold water in reference to marijuana.

however the other, harder, more easily addictive drugs, and drugs that are easier to OD/suffer fatal effects from, do.

all this talk of legalization presumes that their would be this magical clean supply of drugs just wait for the day such a law would go into effect

Clayman · Post by **Clayman** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:42 pm

Read roid's 2nd post, it explains how that would occur. The "magic" is the black market dissolving and being replaced by legitimate commerce.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:52 pm

No, something like the current drug industry wouldn't go away overnight.

Again, leaving mary jane out of this debate...

It'll die fighting. Way too much money invested it in.

It has enough money to invest in licenses for fronts that look legitimate, and threaten any local competiton, be it homegrown or publicly sponsored out of any effective business - nothing anyone has said so far will ensure the current industry changes, or prevent it from changing into what big tabacco is now.

Legalizing drugs might give the current drug cartels a legitimate way into a country's politcal process, and that can't be good in the long run.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:29 pm

A guy at my dad's work drove a fork-lift through one of the shop's concrete walls while under the influence of weed/pot.
My dad told me once that all of the people he ever came in contact with who were doing pot were losers--they were passive to the point of worthlessness.

Civil liberties, Clayman? There are probably many things to worry about on that front that aren't bad for you.

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:24 am

legalizing in this country will never happen for 1 reason:

there is too much money to be made.

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:21 am

Never used any of them, roid, nor do I plan to (I don't like coffee or alcoholic beverages [plus I'm underage Razz], and I think cigarettes are disgusting.) I, for one, am smart enough to realize what is healthy and what is not. Those who are not, however, require some sort of outside reinforcement. If people were more intelligent and voluntarily stopped using drugs, we wouldn't need laws against them. As it is, we do.

Top Gun, i know you havn't done much research into this. As you have said, you havn't used drugs except coffee, AND you are underage. On these points i feel a little uneasy letting you get away with saying that you are of superior intelligence (and possibly knowledge) than me (not to mention others) and are therefore worthy of dictating how i should live "MY" life.

Just a little arrogent yes?

as Clayman so neatly satired after your post: people whom deem what is and isn't "ok" for you to put into your body, are just like you Top Gun, they do not have a clue about the subject of drugs. they are blissfully nieve, and will make all the laws they want, concerning things they know nothing about, happy to assume it will effect no-one they care about.

Tyranny what would you say to the suggestion that many whom (under current drug laws) are getting their kicks from alcohol, (given more choice) would switch to a safer drug?

as someone said, there is a funny idea people have that if you legalise drugs then the streets will be awash with 'zombies and vampires' (oh my). ADDING to the amount of alcohol drunken hooligans that we are all so familure with stumbling around the streets.
this assumption suggests that all drugs except alcohol, nicotine & caffine taken in any dose will turn you into souless fiend, stalking the night and scaring the children.

i shall try to undo years of fear tactics, try to ease your fears, just compare it to good old friendly alcohol. alcohol is a highly addictive drug, therefore many people drink to an excess (yesyes, there are also cultural issues at play, with bingedrinking being an quazi-internationally accepted pasttime). what effect does alcohol have on your body? i commonly have a few beers, home, friend's house, the pub, partys, anywhere, whatever, i'm fine, i walk and talk, i'm not a danger to anyone. this is the method most people take alcohol correct? as in, not to excess. just a social drug.

now remember, this is a highly addictive drug. therefore there are MANY whom constantly take alcohol to an excess, and these are often considered a danger to people, getting violent and what not (a well known sideeffect from the drug alcohol).
Alcohol is somewhat on it's own here. other drugs are not like this, only alcohol causes this all too common aggressive nature, other recreationally taken drugs don't come close. this is why it's not a good idea to mix other drugs with alcohol, not because combinations have weird effects, but because alcohol is ★■◆●ing dangerous.

part of the aggressive (and unique) nature of alcohol can be seen in it's effect on your driving. alcohol of couse diminishing your ability to drive, but with it's aggressive nature it makes you drive FASTER! people drunk generally feel they are better drivers, it's crazy, but that's alcohol for you.

a favour i'd like everyone to do. believe me it will calm your nurtured fears.
everytime you see any mention of drugs in the news, papers, whatever, especially concentrate on driving accidents/arrests: amongst all of the mentions of drugs, take a note of mentions of alcohol. if you see no mention, use your intuition, or just pick up your phone (or send an email) and check out the story yourself (like i commonly do).
you will find that in %99 of all car accidents and issues, that are catagorized as "drug related", they are actually all "alcohol related". yet the news headline will always read "drug related", even if alcohol was involved. we all know the effects alcohol has on your driving, i hardly need to revisit them.
it's astounding that of all the news articles, near ALL of them that are blaming drugs on something, you can always trace a line to alcohol being involved. the 2nd astonishing thing is how they will always blame the drugs instead of the alcohol.

"Deadly Drugs Cause Another Car Crash.
- A drugged man died yesterday when his speeding car veered slightly off the road clipping a tellephone pole. The man had traces of Alcohol, the common party drug Extasy and Cannabis in his bloodstream."

(note: science that you will not hear from the news: after injesting/smoking cannabis, THC, (the active ingredient of cannabis) starts to break down into harmless metabolites, much like how alcohol is broken down into carbohydrates. these metabolites, while having no effect at all, stay detectable in your body for upto MONTHS after your dose. The effects of cannabis wear off (depending) a couple hours after you smoke it, the metabolites produced become nothing more than indictators that you have smoked cannabis within the past MONTH or so. When a news article says that it found traces of cannabis in someone, it means that they smoked cannabis sometimes within the past month. it does NOT mean that they were high at the time.)

fliptw wrote:It'll die fighting. Way too much money invested it in.

indeed. one only has to look to the ones being payed billions of dollars to fight this drug war to see how desperate they are to keep it going.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:38 am

alcohol has been around since ancient times and that's why it's ok? You ever figure out what they were smoking in those peace pipes and hookahs? It wasn't Red Man tabacco ok, it was peyote and different forms of mind altering substances. I am also fully aware of what drugs and cigarettes contain. I don't really care, it's my choice to do it and I should be able too. I wonder what Amsterdam's crime rate is compared to a big city here. They have legalized weed, I wonder.

And Testi hit it right on the nail, you crash into someone's car, that's the crime. Whether you were drunk or high what's the difference? Then you should be in trouble, but why am I criminal because I enjoy smoking a joint before I start writing a song? I smoke a little bit for gigging out, it helps me calm myself and just play the parts.

Clayman · Post by **Clayman** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:46 am

Sergeant Thorne wrote:A guy at my dad's work drove a fork-lift through one of the shop's concrete walls while under the influence of weed/pot.
My dad told me once that all of the people he ever came in contact with who were doing pot were losers--they were passive to the point of worthlessness.

Civil liberties, Clayman? There are probably many things to worry about on that front that aren't bad for you.

An example, and one person saying that everyone they knew who smoked pot (and how does your dad know so many people on pot anyway?

) were passive. First, passive people are less likely to commit crimes, so that would nullify the argument that people on it are somehow "more dangerous." The only risk there is to themselves, not to others. Of course, the example in itself is quite a hasty generalization, I'd love to see more qualified evidence and figures to support the claim.

I wish people would stop overeating and jacking up my taxes for health care too, but that doesn't mean we should ban serving people food.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 11:10 am

I think taking drugs doesn't relate to freedom at all. Whether you take them or not, you still have the most important freedoms of all; the freedom of choice and the freedom to make a mistake.

You can still choose to take drugs. As many have pointed out, the legality of drugs has very little bearing on whether someone takes them or not. If you want to take them, chances are you know where to get them and how to use them. If you donâ??t use them, you probably have no clue where to score. The legality of drugs doesnâ??t impact your ability to make a choice. It just changes the consequences somewhat.

You can still choose to make a mistake. Some may argue that some drugs are harmless while others may argue that all drugs are bad. Either way, I think we can all agree that there are situations where taking any drug is a bad idea. However, if you are prone to indulge in your drug of choice, you are still free to make the mistake to doing so at the wrong time.

I honestly feel that it is all about choice and consequences. No matter what the law says, we are all still free to choose to do what we want. The only thing that changes are the consequences of the action.

And for the record, I have used in the past. My drugs of choice were pot and crystal (amphetamines). I have not used for about 15 years. While I donâ??t see drugs as inherently bad, I do see how they can contort your perceptions on what is real and important in life. I have known folks who treated pot like alcohol and sparked up a few times a week after a tough day at the office like others have a cocktail. I have also known folks who let pot take over their lives and couldnâ??t live with out it.

Like anything else, it is not the substance that is bad, it is how you use it and how you let it affect you.

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 11:27 am

ah yes, fergot to mention. as Zurick was eluding to. Cannabis has been smoked for thousands of years by various cultures. all kinds of drugs have been taken by various cultures for all numbers of times. Alcohol can't be singled out in that respect.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 4:13 pm

Can we stop talking about Cannabis, and say, let the other recreational drugs have their say?

Unless this thread was soley about legalization of Mary Jane.

Dedman: I think some of these peeps just want consequence free weed, besides your are 100% right.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 4:18 pm

I think he's 99% correct, which is why it's silly that there are laws saying 'You can't have it'.

The only part I differ is that it indeed steps on your freedoms

It affects your freedom by branding you a criminal before a crime has been comitted.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 9:51 pm

Testiculese wrote:I think he's 99% correct, which is why it's silly that there are laws saying 'You can't have it'.

The only part I differ is that it indeed steps on your freedoms
It affects your freedom by branding you a criminal before a crime has been comitted.

That isn't taking away your freedom. You are still free to do what ever you want. Being branded the criminal is the consequence of the action. Even criminals in prison have the freedom to do drugs.