[peace*out]

To not get "off topic" in the other thread...

...Drugs can actually be very beneficial. Lemme know if you want to discuss it haha.

For starters: I know they can relive you from pain, but i'm not trying to talk about advil. I'm talking meth, crack, you - the stuff.

I have a friend who use to do drugs, and even he says not to.

hmmmmm...so anyways, here's a new topic that may be widely argued...

[unreality]

^I agree with you to some extent. Other peoples' abuse of "hard drugs" does freak me out a bit, but I don't think we should go so far as to make them (er, keep them) illegal. Think back to the alcohol prohibition. If the plant is around and people want the chems, they'll still make their own. Might as well get the good quality by knowing it's from a legit source.

the legit source is the plant... you can grow it yourself, or buy it from someone else. You can directly smoke those plants for a safer, more natural high. Head shops could sell extracts too that could also be legal, given certain guidelines. But I don't think morphine or its derivatives/analogues should be straight up sold legally... the idea actually makes me sick haha. I do think our current strategy for the "war on drugs" is terrible but that doesnt mean I think everything should be legalized with no consequences

DMT for example. That stuff can *really* mess some people up, but it's secreted in the pancreas and can be made from plants (mimbusa habillis or something, don't feel like looking in the Guide right now).

DMT is in every living thing (or most of them). In fact it directly supplies lizards' "third eye" and has been used by humans for thousands of years to access their spiritual/inner "third eye". It subjectively is similar to LSD, peyote (mescaline) and shrooms (psilocybin). I don't know where you're getting the "it can really mess people up" unless you mean temporarily

Maybe hospitals should give you the chems a few times every year for recreational use to prevent abuse? SWIM limits themselves anyway, but other people don't. This might help in that region.

Nooo I don't think that's a good idea. That would unnecessarily expose people.

Like i said, the only laws in need of dire changing are marijuana laws and the justification for scheduling hallucinogens as Schedule I.

[peace*out]

Poppy seeds in tea? Wonder what that's like.

I think they boil it down first...

HOW ITS SMOKED:

Opium's extracted from the poppies than dried out. After it's dried, the raw opium is stirred into hot (but not boiling) water until its dissolved. The brown liquid's then filtered through a cheese cloth, coffee filter, or some other sort of filter, which removes all solid plant material (such as pieces of leaf, stem, ect). The opium latex does not get trapped by the filter. The filtered water (with the dissolved latex) is then either left to evaporate by the sun, or is slowly steamed away by a low heat source. Once all of the water is gone, the purified opium resin is left behind. Some tribes smoke opium strait from the plant (raw form). Then, the latex can be smoked (or the morphine's extracted for Heroin). The smoker lights a candle or special opium lamp. A pea sized piece of opium is then put on the end of a small metal rod and is heated ABOVE the flame. The flame is not allowed to touch either the opium or the opium pipe. Once the opium warms and softens, the pipe is pre - heated above the flame too. Then, the opium is heated again briefly and molded into a small cone and put in pipe. Smoker holds bulb of pipe (that holds opium) above the flame. Than, smoker put the mouth piece into his mouth while he holds the pipe above the flame, and takes a deep breath. The hot air makes the opium sizzle, and opium evaporates into grey-white smoke. The smoker holds the air in his lungs for as long as possible.

[unreality]

MDMA, MDA, etc. Though, doesn't that come down to preference, though? An experience from opiates could be just as bad, health wise, as a bad trip from ketamine. PCP is a hallucinogen, but is just absolute shite. ..Yeah, the difference is the physical addiction, but hallucinogens can offer a psychological addiction. I know that sounds a bit.. strange, because after some it's like "Wow, that was awesome, but I really don't want to do that again soon", but.. yeah. Idk how to explain it. At least give people their codeine, maybe occasional hydro/oxy/morphine. I meh at heroin.

not to nitpick but PCP is a dissociative (like laughing gas or ketamine), not a hallucinogen. And yeah PCP is one drug I would definitely illegal, along with meth, the strong opiates, and cocaine. I don't know about MDMA but I think it should be legal only to make sure it's pure and thus safer than street variety for users, because it's not addicting (unlike other amphetamines, especially meth)

and how's that going to work?? you're saying that people can grow them, but they wont harvest them?

really?

No I mean for harvest too. I just think it's ridiculous to say that any plant should be illegal. Is "poison ivy" illegal? What about nightshade? What about even more deadly poisons? Are poison dart frogs "illegal to exist"?

[peace*out]

No I mean for harvest too. I just think it's ridiculous to say that any plant should be illegal. Is "poison ivy" illegal? What about nightshade? What about even more deadly poisons? Are poison dart frogs "illegal to exist"?

tell me about one person who goes all loopy and high on poison ivy. and it SHOULD be gone - i don't like it...

same with nightshade.

and same with poison dart frogs...

[Izzy]

the legit source is the plant... you can grow it yourself, or buy it from someone else. You can directly smoke those plants for a safer, more natural high. Head shops could sell extracts too that could also be legal, given certain guidelines. But I don't think morphine or its derivatives/analogues should be straight up sold legally... the idea actually makes me sick haha. I do think our current strategy for the "war on drugs" is terrible but that doesnt mean I think everything should be legalized with no consequences

Making them yourself just leads to a larger margin of error. It's safer and better for all people involved to just have an easier way to get them. If people die, I'm sorry, but that's sort of their fault. We really don't need the government protecting us from everything.

DMT is in every living thing (or most of them). In fact it directly supplies lizards' "third eye" and has been used by humans for thousands of years to access their spiritual/inner "third eye". It subjectively is similar to LSD, peyote (mescaline) and shrooms (psilocybin). I don't know where you're getting the "it can really mess people up" unless you mean temporarily

Well.. sort of.. http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/5meo_dmt/5meo_dmt_health.shtml

I think the bit that freaks me out most is how easy it is to make and how easy it is to screw up the process. The amount you ingest/smoke/inject is so small that it's really easy to OD. If you're sitter doesn't know what s/he's doing, you could die. ..I dunno, DMT just creeps me out. =/ It's sounds so trippy that I don't even know if I could handle it haha.

Nooo I don't think that's a good idea. That would unnecessarily expose people.

Giving crazily strong drugs to 10 year olds unnecessarily exposes people. In this utopia we're creating in our minds, adults should be able to ask for whatever drugs they want.

Like i said, the only laws in need of dire changing are marijuana laws and the justification for scheduling hallucinogens as Schedule I.

It'd be awesome if this could be put into place immediately, but opiates should be right up there with em.

[Izzy]

not to nitpick but PCP is a dissociative (like laughing gas or ketamine), not a hallucinogen. And yeah PCP is one drug I would definitely illegal, along with meth, the strong opiates, and cocaine. I don't know about MDMA but I think it should be legal only to make sure it's pure and thus safer than street variety for users, because it's not addicting (unlike other amphetamines, especially meth)

Yeah, I knew that. >_>

I just sort of think PCP, meth, and heroin are unnecessary. From what I've read, DXM is way better than PCP anyway, and it doesn't have the violence. No one needs to be up two weeks straight, just do regular amphetamines. And man, there's no need for the drug to hit you instantly. Morphine is the strongest you should do.

That doens't mean they should be illegal, though.

[peace*out]

Making them yourself just leads to a larger margin of error. It's safer and better for all people involved to just have an easier way to get them. If people die, I'm sorry, but that's sort of their fault. We really don't need the government protecting us from everything.

Not everything, but somethings...

Well.. sort of.. http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/5meo_dmt/5meo_dmt_health.shtml

I think the bit that freaks me out most is how easy it is to make and how easy it is to screw up the process. The amount you ingest/smoke/inject is so small that it's really easy to OD. If you're sitter doesn't know what s/he's doing, you could die. ..I dunno, DMT just creeps me out. =/ It's sounds so trippy that I don't even know if I could handle it haha.

I this is on my "dont even THINK about it" list...

Giving crazily strong drugs to 10 year olds unnecessarily exposes people. In this utopia we're creating in our minds, adults should be able to ask for whatever drugs they want.

[ignorance] what drugs are those? [/ignorance]

It'd be awesome if this could be put into place immediately, but opiates should be right up there with em.

Edited May 17, 2010 by peace*out

[Izzy]

Haha, oh man, it's so hard to quote when it's embedded in another quote.

Peace: I this is on my "dont even THINK about it" list...

Me: GOOD. Though, don't take my word on it. Do some research. ..I'm refraining so hard from suggesting something awesome. >_>

Peace:[ignorance] what drugs are those? [/ignorance]

Me: When I was 11, I broke a bone, and the docs sent me home with some hydrocodone. It was eyeopening, but insane. At that age, you don't even realize the high/addictive potential. It was like "I'm still in pain, I'm going to take a few more. Oh hey look, I can do push-ups despite my broken clavicle. Oh man, I feel amazing." ..I still don't know whether or not I'm happy about how everything happened.

[peace*out]

Haha, oh man, it's so hard to quote when it's embedded in another quote.

sorry

Peace: I this is on my "dont even THINK about it" list...

Me: GOOD. Though, don't take my word on it. Do some research. ..I'm refraining so hard from suggesting something awesome. >_>

Peace:[ignorance] what drugs are those? [/ignorance]

Me: When I was 11, I broke a bone, and the docs sent me home with some hydrocodone. It was eyeopening, but insane. At that age, you don't even realize the high/addictive potential. It was like "I'm still in pain, I'm going to take a few more. Oh hey look, I can do push-ups despite my broken clavicle. Oh man, I feel amazing." ..I still don't know whether or not I'm happy about how everything happened.

1) which would be...

2) :blink: :blink: great...

[Izzy]

Haha..

[Izzy]

Dude, unreality, remember when I was arguing with that chick about whether or not DXM was an opiate? She.. may be right? http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/dxm_basics.shtml Man I feel like a tool now. Though, pharmacology wise, I still think it's just a stereoisomer of whatchamacallit and doesn't actually bond with mu, hence the no addictive properties. Kappa and Delta don't really matter..

[unreality]

Dude, unreality, remember when I was arguing with that chick about whether or not DXM was an opiate? She.. may be right? http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/dxm_basics.shtml Man I feel like a tool now. Though, pharmacology wise, I still think it's just a stereoisomer of whatchamacallit and doesn't actually bond with mu, hence the no addictive properties. Kappa and Delta don't really matter..

opiate DERIVATIVE. It's *similar* structure wise but is actually a flip through 3d space from its opiate partner. You can't tell when looking at the 2d version of the molecular structure

edit: also, no matter how similar it is, or how they produce it, one tiny difference (it is a derivative after all) can COMPLETELY change how the brain handles it (and knowing that you have done both hydrocodone and DXM, you know how different the effects are), DXM binds to NMDA receptors (hence the dissociative effects) and others that put it in the category of dissociative anesthetic, like laughing gas. NOT in the category of narcotics

Edited May 17, 2010 by unreality

[Izzy]

^Yeah, that's pretty much what I ended up telling her. T'was responded with something like "Stupid teenager trying to one-up you with virtually no background in neuroscience or chemistry. Do whatever, kid." Meh.

I love Erowid haha. http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/chemistry/chemistry_compare.php

Plug in DXM and some opiate.

[peace*out]

Dude, unreality, remember when I was arguing with that chick about whether or not DXM was an opiate? She.. may be right? http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/dxm_basics.shtml Man I feel like a tool now. Though, pharmacology wise, I still think it's just a stereoisomer of whatchamacallit and doesn't actually bond with mu, hence the no addictive properties. Kappa and Delta don't really matter..

kappa? delta?

[Izzy]

kappa? delta?

Those are the opiod receptors in your central nervous system. Mu and delta are opioid receptors agonists (agonists initiate psychological responses when combined with a receptor while antagonists interferes with/prevents them) that produce physical dependence, but mu1 and mu2 are the biggest factors in this. So, if a drug, say DXM, binds with kappa and delta but not mu, that explains why it isn't really addictive. Mu and delta also produce psychic dependence. The activation of kappa opioid receptor suppresses physical and psychic dependences on mu and delta opioid receptor agonists, but the activation of delta opioid receptor potentiates the dependence on mu opioid receptor agonists.

So, someone was arguing that since DXM binds with kappa and delta, which are opiod receptors, that it's an opiate, ..but that's not really true.

There's some good info here, but I couldn't really be bothered to read it all: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2443864/

[unreality]

basically in short, for the large majority of the population, DXM is not of high concern of abuse, it even has some anti-addictive properties. Also while it is a derivative of the opiate family and is made from morphine, its properties on the human body are classified as a psychedelic dissociative and anesthetic, in the category of Nitrous Oxide (laughing gas) and Ketamine. To die/overdose from DXM you have to take an unbelievably unrealistic amount.

[Izzy]

^..Not really unrealistic amounts, just stupid amounts. Three 4 oz bottles at 15mg/tsp would put me in the lethal 20.00mg/kg range.

But there's no need to take that much, at all.

[Izzy]

On a side note, you'd have to take crazy UNKNOWN amounts of MDMA to die. Like, the number is so up there that unless you're going to blow a few thousand dollars on drugs, you'll be fine.

[peace*out]

On a side note, you'd have to take crazy UNKNOWN amounts of MDMA to die. Like, the number is so up there that unless you're going to blow a few thousand dollars on drugs, you'll be fine.

the problem is that there are people who WOULD spend a few gazillion dollars on drugs, taking crazy overboard amounts.

What i don't like here is that i only have 2 arguments, while you keep getting more...

[Izzy]

the problem is that there are people who WOULD spend a few gazillion dollars on drugs, taking crazy overboard amounts.

What i don't like here is that i only have 2 arguments, while you keep getting more...

No, I mean you would literally have to spend a few thousand dollars on MDMA if you want to die from it. Say you find a nice dealer, he sells you a 100 mg pure MDMA pill for $25. Using this as a source, 325mg/kg is the LD50 (the point when half the study dies) for rats. The number for humans is *probably going to be higher, but let's base it off of that. For simplicity's sake, let's say you're a 100kg dude. You would have to take 32500mg of MDMA to hit the lethal dose, and you probably STILL won't die. That's 325 pills (well, in an ideal world, lmao. Pills are usually more like 50 mg and cost like $30, eeping the numbers low to show a point). 325*25 = $8125. So, if you have $8125 you want to spend on a drug, to die, go ahead, but that's the LD50 for rats. For humans it might be something around 400-500mg/kg.

Now, that's a totally pointless dose, lmao. I'm sure you've heard of Ibuprofen? Around the 800 mg dose, whether or not you take more, it doesn't have any more of an effect on you. So you can take 500 mg of MDMA or 5000 mg, but the difference in feeling will be negligible.

*edit* Oh, you can die from MDMA, though. Mostly associated with dehydration, not the drug itself, though.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Izzy

[Guest]

So I'll preface this by saying that I have zero interest in doing drugs. Frankly, I find the idea of not being in control of my own mind disturbing. The hardest drug I've ever done is caffeine (in the form of tea or the occasional carbonated beverage ), so I know very little about all of the stuff being discussed here. So why should someone like me prevent someone like you (izzy, unreality) from doing these drugs? Well, if everyone who wanted to do drugs were like the two of you, who actually seem to know about that which you speak, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem is that most people are not like you. If most drugs were legal, then most people would probably use them responsibly, but there is a significant portion of the population who would abuse them, no matter how hard you try to "educate" them about proper use.

I totally agree that the "War on Drugs" is a miserable failure of a policy and like Prohibition, it's doing a lot to assist organized crime. Legalizing drugs and providing for their safe use would completely change the dynamics of these drug cartels and such like, but as I see it, it's nothing more than a fantasy since I don't see how "safe use" is attainable. The people who are liable to get into trouble for drug abuse are the people who won't care to learn (or listen) to the messages of "Use, don't abuse." They won't want to go to that site you keep referencing to learn about the drug, they will just want to do it and get high. You know that there are people like that and I think that there are enough of them that legalizing would be a problem in that sense. Some people (for a completely unknown reason in my mind ) don't want to know about "How Things Work," they just want them to work, period. They don't think about the consequences of their actions five years down the road (or even five minutes later in some cases). How can we be assured of "Safe Use" when we know people who don't want to use them safely?

Maybe you know someone now who does some drugs, who, though he's not addicted and he's smart enough not to get addicted, doesn't use drugs responsibly. Say we do leagalize most drugs. If he doesn't change his ways when he's 30 when he's got a 5 year old, how can we be sure that he's going to be taking care of that child responsibly? If he's still doing drugs, can we be sure that he'll be keeping them safely out of the kid's reach? Some drugs can cause complications for babies if the parents are doing them when the baby is born (alcohol too, I know). Do we mandate that people having a baby can't do drugs until the baby is no longer relying on the mother for sustenance? If the parents want to go on a trip, is it reasonable to assume that they'll be doing it in a place where the kid couldn't get it while they were zoned out?

I know I'm sounding a bit shrill and perhaps overzealous, but do you think that these scenarios are unreasonable to expect to occur? They give out Darwin awards for a reason. You can't expect people to use dangerous chemicals responsibly. And because children's bodies respond to drugs differently, especially regarding quantity, it's hard to say that it would be safe for parent's to bring dangerous, addictive chemicals into a household and expect everything to be hunky dory.

I also see problems with unreality's stated idea of the plants being legal. It does seem stupid for the government to say what plants you can and cannot grow, but I do think that there are complications to consider. I'm admittedly completely ignorant to the process of making drugs from the source plants, I don't know how hard it is to make cocaine from coca plants, but it seems to me that if you legalize the coca plants and the opium poppies without legalizing the drugs, then you are going to have the people who know how these drugs are made (like izzy and unreality), but are unscrupulous (I'm going to guess unlike izzy and unreality ) who see said plant in a garden as they pass by or over a fence and decide to come back later that night with a shovel. Or maybe the grower wants to make a little extra cash. What's to stop him from finding a buyer for the plants he harvests?

It just seems to me that if you legalize the plants and bring them over here without legalizing the drugs, then they're just going to move the organized crime market. Known growers crops will likely be raided. When you have a plant that can be converted into a profitable illegal substance growing in your house or yard, chances are either you or someone who knows it's there is going to abuse that knowledge to turn it from a perfectly legal plant, into something illegal. So as long as the drugs remain illegal, then I think it's ridiculous to make the plants that make the drug legal.

Then have consequences, such as the ones for drinking and driving.

I kind of get the feeling that when people realize it's in their best interest, they'll listen.

As I understand it, some of the drugs being considered here have a much stronger effect than alcohol, which is what makes them more dangerous. Yes, alcohol has killed more people, but you can also walk into any party store (if you're 21) and walk out with booze. If some of these drugs were just as accessible, you would see a drastic increase in deaths caused by indirect use (people run over, et al.).

And don't get me started on the people will do X if they know it's "in their best interest." Most people have abysmal reasoning, logical, and critical thinking skills. Most people have no clue what's in their best interests. They may think that they know, but that's no guarantee that they'll be correct. And besides, there are a category of people who say, "Consequences be darned! I'll do whatever I want, even if it kills me!" Is it right (or wrong) for the government to protect someone from themselves? It's a hard question to answer with pros and cons on both sides, so all I'm saying is that legalizing is not a cut and dried case. It would solve a lot of problems, but it would simultaneously create a whole slew of others, many of them probably completely unknown at this point.

Plus, it's political suicide to suggest such a thing in most parts of most states in the US right now. It's not even safe to suggest that you might want to legalize marijuana. So any thoughts of legalization are nothing more than thinking of a fantasy utopia, no place in reality.

[unreality]

So I'll preface this by saying that I have zero interest in doing drugs. Frankly, I find the idea of not being in control of my own mind disturbing. The hardest drug I've ever done is caffeine (in the form of tea or the occasional carbonated beverage ), so I know very little about all of the stuff being discussed here. So why should someone like me prevent someone like you (izzy, unreality) from doing these drugs? Well, if everyone who wanted to do drugs were like the two of you, who actually seem to know about that which you speak, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem is that most people are not like you. If most drugs were legal, then most people would probably use them responsibly, but there is a significant portion of the population who would abuse them, no matter how hard you try to "educate" them about proper use.

I totally agree that the "War on Drugs" is a miserable failure of a policy and like Prohibition, it's doing a lot to assist organized crime. Legalizing drugs and providing for their safe use would completely change the dynamics of these drug cartels and such like, but as I see it, it's nothing more than a fantasy since I don't see how "safe use" is attainable. The people who are liable to get into trouble for drug abuse are the people who won't care to learn (or listen) to the messages of "Use, don't abuse." They won't want to go to that site you keep referencing to learn about the drug, they will just want to do it and get high. You know that there are people like that and I think that there are enough of them that legalizing would be a problem in that sense. Some people (for a completely unknown reason in my mind ) don't want to know about "How Things Work," they just want them to work, period. They don't think about the consequences of their actions five years down the road (or even five minutes later in some cases). How can we be assured of "Safe Use" when we know people who don't want to use them safely?

Maybe you know someone now who does some drugs, who, though he's not addicted and he's smart enough not to get addicted, doesn't use drugs responsibly. Say we do leagalize most drugs. If he doesn't change his ways when he's 30 when he's got a 5 year old, how can we be sure that he's going to be taking care of that child responsibly? If he's still doing drugs, can we be sure that he'll be keeping them safely out of the kid's reach? Some drugs can cause complications for babies if the parents are doing them when the baby is born (alcohol too, I know). Do we mandate that people having a baby can't do drugs until the baby is no longer relying on the mother for sustenance? If the parents want to go on a trip, is it reasonable to assume that they'll be doing it in a place where the kid couldn't get it while they were zoned out?

I know I'm sounding a bit shrill and perhaps overzealous, but do you think that these scenarios are unreasonable to expect to occur? They give out Darwin awards for a reason. You can't expect people to use dangerous chemicals responsibly. And because children's bodies respond to drugs differently, especially regarding quantity, it's hard to say that it would be safe for parent's to bring dangerous, addictive chemicals into a household and expect everything to be hunky dory.

I also see problems with unreality's stated idea of the plants being legal. It does seem stupid for the government to say what plants you can and cannot grow, but I do think that there are complications to consider. I'm admittedly completely ignorant to the process of making drugs from the source plants, I don't know how hard it is to make cocaine from coca plants, but it seems to me that if you legalize the coca plants and the opium poppies without legalizing the drugs, then you are going to have the people who know how these drugs are made (like izzy and unreality), but are unscrupulous (I'm going to guess unlike izzy and unreality ) who see said plant in a garden as they pass by or over a fence and decide to come back later that night with a shovel. Or maybe the grower wants to make a little extra cash. What's to stop him from finding a buyer for the plants he harvests?

It just seems to me that if you legalize the plants and bring them over here without legalizing the drugs, then they're just going to move the organized crime market. Known growers crops will likely be raided. When you have a plant that can be converted into a profitable illegal substance growing in your house or yard, chances are either you or someone who knows it's there is going to abuse that knowledge to turn it from a perfectly legal plant, into something illegal. So as long as the drugs remain illegal, then I think it's ridiculous to make the plants that make the drug legal.

As I understand it, some of the drugs being considered here have a much stronger effect than alcohol, which is what makes them more dangerous. Yes, alcohol has killed more people, but you can also walk into any party store (if you're 21) and walk out with booze. If some of these drugs were just as accessible, you would see a drastic increase in deaths caused by indirect use (people run over, et al.).

And don't get me started on the people will do X if they know it's "in their best interest." Most people have abysmal reasoning, logical, and critical thinking skills. Most people have no clue what's in their best interests. They may think that they know, but that's no guarantee that they'll be correct. And besides, there are a category of people who say, "Consequences be darned! I'll do whatever I want, even if it kills me!" Is it right (or wrong) for the government to protect someone from themselves? It's a hard question to answer with pros and cons on both sides, so all I'm saying is that legalizing is not a cut and dried case. It would solve a lot of problems, but it would simultaneously create a whole slew of others, many of them probably completely unknown at this point.

I agree with most of what you said.

About the plants thing, I realize that it's unreasonable in some ways, though it came from my initial emotion that the government shouldn't make a plant illegal. But I suppose you're right. Say a certain plant contains a deadly disease that can kill everyone on earth, I wouldn't protest it being illegal, so I guess that could be extended to plants that have the potential of creating widespread problems. So I would say illegalizing them and scheduling them is acceptable (if they have harm potential like, say, the coca plant) but NOT spraying millions of gallons of pesticides and fungicides each year, killing MUCH MORE than just the illegal plant itself (and often not even the illegal plant, and that which does get through now has bad chemicals on it).

I also agree that accessibility of alcohol is what makes it the leading cause of death. But some drugs are non-conducive to driving, ie, you dont really hear of "stoned driving accidents". But I wouldn't want someone tripping out on LSD to drive a car. I don't think that happens because the kind of people who use LSD are generally highly intellectual but if it were made more accessible, idk (haha maybe you should have to pass an iq test to get it ) .. or actually, a safety test, which reminds me of an idea I had during a debate on the Drinking Age (ii think it was here on brainden, not sure).

You don't let someone drive a car without giving them a class on safety, technique, etc, and then making sure they pass a test. I think the same should be true with alcohol... and with other drugs. People should understand the categories they fall on, the positive & negative effects on the body & mind, the dosages, the street names, street prices, and have to pass levels of tests to get access. My personal philosophy is more like Anarchy haha but I know that a government's job is hard and the lines between rights and priveliges are not well defined, so having Class+Test+Permission setup would be acceptable to me. What does anyone else think about that?

About whether Government should protect Individuals from themselves, that's at the core of this debate (regardless that many substances can be used without overdue harm). Go to the extreme example... is it illegal to kill yourself? No. I agree that parents should chastise their children for some self-destructive behaviors but it's the government's responsibility to stop us from hurting others, not hurting ourselves

Plus, it's political suicide to suggest such a thing in most parts of most states in the US right now. It's not even safe to suggest that you might want to legalize marijuana. So any thoughts of legalization are nothing more than thinking of a fantasy utopia, no place in reality.

Nope I expect marijuana to be legal within 15 years. The benefits of legalization (of at the very least the hemp plant) farrrrr outweigh any negatives, it'll just take a while for politics to get over the social stigma (even though 2/3 or more of the people in many states voted Yes for more legalization, so the stigma is just perceived).

[unreality]

I expect marijuana to be legal within 15 years. The benefits of legalization (of at the very least the hemp plant) farrrrr outweigh any negatives, it'll just take a while for politics to get over the social stigma (even though 2/3 or more of the people in many states voted Yes for more legalization, so the stigma is just perceived).

In fact for the town in which I live (Ann Arbor) it has already been decriminalized (small civil fine on the level of a parking ticket)

[peace*out]

In fact for the town in which I live (Ann Arbor) it has already been decriminalized (small civil fine on the level of a parking ticket)

for some reason, i picture you saying this with a smirk...

but if you think about it, this makes it all the more accesible to people who wouldn't normally get it or even try it. probably less expensive to grow, since all you get is a small civil fine on the level of a parking ticket. Illegally, while it's more "exciting" to grab some crack or whatever, it's also less accessible because there's more to lose.

Am i missing something?

[Guest]

I also agree that accessibility of alcohol is what makes it the leading cause of death. But some drugs are non-conducive to driving, ie, you dont really hear of "stoned driving accidents". But I wouldn't want someone tripping out on LSD to drive a car. I don't think that happens because the kind of people who use LSD are generally highly intellectual but if it were made more accessible, idk (haha maybe you should have to pass an iq test to get it ) .. or actually, a safety test, which reminds me of an idea I had during a debate on the Drinking Age (ii think it was here on brainden, not sure).

You don't let someone drive a car without giving them a class on safety, technique, etc, and then making sure they pass a test. I think the same should be true with alcohol... and with other drugs. People should understand the categories they fall on, the positive & negative effects on the body & mind, the dosages, the street names, street prices, and have to pass levels of tests to get access. My personal philosophy is more like Anarchy haha but I know that a government's job is hard and the lines between rights and priveliges are not well defined, so having Class+Test+Permission setup would be acceptable to me. What does anyone else think about that?

Yeah, but if I were the sort of person who sleeps in class, I could have slept through driver's ed and still passed the test. The class/test is a joke (which makes it even scarier to me that some people can't pass it the first time ). The hands-on driving is useful, but I get the feeling that giving teenagers hand's-on experience with drugs would be frowned upon...

About whether Government should protect Individuals from themselves, that's at the core of this debate (regardless that many substances can be used without overdue harm). Go to the extreme example... is it illegal to kill yourself? No. I agree that parents should chastise their children for some self-destructive behaviors but it's the government's responsibility to stop us from hurting others, not hurting ourselves

What further complicates the situation is how you define "hurting others." If a person becomes a total addict and loses all his money and assets trying to satisfy his craving, when (if at all) does the government get to step in? He needs rehabilitation to become a producing member of society again, but he has no money, so who will pay for that rehab? If the government has to step in to help him through some program like Medicaid, then you and I, as taxpayers (once you get to the age where you have an income) are going to be picking up his tab somewhere down the line. If we know that there are going to be people like this, it seems reasonable to me that the government should be able to step in somewhere before that complete self-destruction to try to put that pin back in the before it explodes.

Nope I expect marijuana to be legal within 15 years. The benefits of legalization (of at the very least the hemp plant) farrrrr outweigh any negatives, it'll just take a while for politics to get over the social stigma (even though 2/3 or more of the people in many states voted Yes for more legalization, so the stigma is just perceived).

Note, I said "right now." They've already legalized marijuana in California, but Senator Barbara Boxer won't go on the record in support of legalization on a Federal level because she knows that her political opponents will hammer her for it. For whatever reason, the "values" voters are completely opposed to shifting their stance on drugs even an inch, even as the rest of the country inches around them. And most of the "values" voters get their marching orders from their religious leaders, most of whom insist that drugs are temptations from the Devil (at least that's my best guess as to why they oppose such things).

In fact for the town in which I live (Ann Arbor) it has already been decriminalized (small civil fine on the level of a parking ticket)

Yes, but don't let DPS at the University catch you with any. The University of Michigan still has a strict zero-tolerance policy.