legalising drugs

[Neoteny]

The libertarian in me says yes, drugs should be legalized. I think though, that only "natural drugs" should be. Marijuana, mushrooms, opium, etc. Those that grow naturally.
Synthetic drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.) I believe pose a real threat to health & welfare and should be outlawed.

I agree with this logic, if they are legalized then they should have similar laws to alcohol (illegal to drive, age limit, etc.).

Exactly. If these substances were regulated and (dare I say) taxed as alcohol & cigarettes are, then it would drive out a lot of dealers (who don't pay taxes), and provide additional revenue.
Put an age requirement on purchases (I propose 18, which is what the alcohol purchase age should be). R.J. Reynolds already has a patent on several "marijuana growing systems" just for this type of situation.

The ridiculous war on drugs has been a dismal failure, its time to get some common sense thrown into the mix.

Wooo! But synthetic drugs have been a part of our lives for a loooong time. It sounds like you feel there is a difference between using synthetics recreationally and medicinally. That's an interesting debate. And one to which I, of course, have the right answer.

As always, sir.

[Guiscard]

The libertarian in me says yes, drugs should be legalized. I think though, that only "natural drugs" should be. Marijuana, mushrooms, opium, etc. Those that grow naturally.
Synthetic drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.) I believe pose a real threat to health & welfare and should be outlawed.

I agree with this logic, if they are legalized then they should have similar laws to alcohol (illegal to drive, age limit, etc.).

Exactly. If these substances were regulated and (dare I say) taxed as alcohol & cigarettes are, then it would drive out a lot of dealers (who don't pay taxes), and provide additional revenue.
Put an age requirement on purchases (I propose 18, which is what the alcohol purchase age should be). R.J. Reynolds already has a patent on several "marijuana growing systems" just for this type of situation.

The ridiculous war on drugs has been a dismal failure, its time to get some common sense thrown into the mix.

We can tell you're a home brewer, Iz.

[Iz Man]

The libertarian in me says yes, drugs should be legalized. I think though, that only "natural drugs" should be. Marijuana, mushrooms, opium, etc. Those that grow naturally.
Synthetic drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.) I believe pose a real threat to health & welfare and should be outlawed.

I agree with this logic, if they are legalized then they should have similar laws to alcohol (illegal to drive, age limit, etc.).

Exactly. If these substances were regulated and (dare I say) taxed as alcohol & cigarettes are, then it would drive out a lot of dealers (who don't pay taxes), and provide additional revenue.
Put an age requirement on purchases (I propose 18, which is what the alcohol purchase age should be). R.J. Reynolds already has a patent on several "marijuana growing systems" just for this type of situation.

The ridiculous war on drugs has been a dismal failure, its time to get some common sense thrown into the mix.

We can tell you're a home brewer, Iz.

The one thing the Jimmy Carter administration did that made sense: legalized home brewing.

[Iz Man]

Wooo! But synthetic drugs have been a part of our lives for a loooong time. It sounds like you feel there is a difference between using synthetics recreationally and medicinally. That's an interesting debate. And one to which I, of course, have the right answer.

Of course there is a difference. Which is why drugs like heroin & cocaine are classified as "schedule-1" narcotics, because they have no medicinal value. Now I realize the flaw in that statement because marijuana is also classified as a schedule-1 narcotic. My point is that naturally occurring "narcotics" should not be classified at all.
Vicodin can be used recreationally and medicinally, so can oxycoton (sp?); are you saying heroin has medicinal value?

[Neoteny]

Wooo! But synthetic drugs have been a part of our lives for a loooong time. It sounds like you feel there is a difference between using synthetics recreationally and medicinally. That's an interesting debate. And one to which I, of course, have the right answer.

Of course there is a difference. Which is why drugs like heroin & cocaine are classified as "schedule-1" narcotics, because they have no medicinal value. Now I realize the flaw in that statement because marijuana is also classified as a schedule-1 narcotic. My point is that naturally occurring "narcotics" should not be classified at all.
Vicodin can be used recreationally and medicinally, so can oxycoton (sp?); are you saying heroin has medicinal value?

I can agree with the idea that if something doesn't have medicinal value, then it would take fewer logical gymnastics to classify it as illegal. However, I don't see any reason to give naturally occurring narcotics any more leeway over synthetics. What exactly about a narcotic's "naturalness" makes any better than a synthetic drug? Most natural drugs are from plants that are actually trying to kill us. Cannabis sativa doesn't produce THC for any other reason than to prevent us (and other animals) from doing anything with it. Some plants (such as those that produce potassium cyanide) are more effective than others. For that reason, I don't see any reason to classify natural drugs any different than synthetics.

[Iz Man]

I can agree with the idea that if something doesn't have medicinal value, then it would take fewer logical gymnastics to classify it as illegal. However, I don't see any reason to give naturally occurring narcotics any more leeway over synthetics. What exactly about a narcotic's "naturalness" makes any better than a synthetic drug? Some plants (such as those that produce potassium cyanide) are more effective than others. For that reason, I don't see any reason to classify natural drugs any different than synthetics.

Marijuana and opiates have medicinal value; and to be fair I can't say if psilocybin does or not. I'm inclined to say that it doesn't.
I see your point, but put it this way, its about control.
If apples got you "high", then they would find a way to criminalize the growing or sale of apples & apple trees. Nicotine is certainly not healthy, and yet cigarettes are a perfectly legal substance. Why? $$$$
That's why the war on drugs defies logic. With marijuana in particular, there is a huge kettle of revenue that could easily be tapped into, and yet its not.

Most natural drugs are from plants that are actually trying to kill us. Cannabis sativa doesn't produce THC for any other reason than to prevent us (and other animals) from doing anything with it.

I would argue the Cannabis plant produces THC specifically for the purpose of inducing psychoactive effects. Because cannabis gets you high doesn't necessarily mean its a defense mechanism of the plant, why not a gift to man from mother nature? Same thing with the Poppy.

Marijuana is a weed, it grows everywhere, wild or not. The fact that it is an "illegal" plant makes as much sense as making dandelions illegal.

[heavycola]

Wooo! But synthetic drugs have been a part of our lives for a loooong time. It sounds like you feel there is a difference between using synthetics recreationally and medicinally. That's an interesting debate. And one to which I, of course, have the right answer.

Of course there is a difference. Which is why drugs like heroin & cocaine are classified as "schedule-1" narcotics, because they have no medicinal value. Now I realize the flaw in that statement because marijuana is also classified as a schedule-1 narcotic. My point is that naturally occurring "narcotics" should not be classified at all.
Vicodin can be used recreationally and medicinally, so can oxycoton (sp?); are you saying heroin has medicinal value?

Heroin does have medicinal value. Doctors call it diamorphine and it is used as a painkiller, usually (I believe) in cancer patients.

(and cocaine used to be used as an anaesthetic by dentists (and as a flavouring by the coca cola company))

[MeDeFe]

Wooo! But synthetic drugs have been a part of our lives for a loooong time. It sounds like you feel there is a difference between using synthetics recreationally and medicinally. That's an interesting debate. And one to which I, of course, have the right answer.

Of course there is a difference. Which is why drugs like heroin & cocaine are classified as "schedule-1" narcotics, because they have no medicinal value. Now I realize the flaw in that statement because marijuana is also classified as a schedule-1 narcotic. My point is that naturally occurring "narcotics" should not be classified at all.
Vicodin can be used recreationally and medicinally, so can oxycoton (sp?); are you saying heroin has medicinal value?

Heroin does have medicinal value. Doctors call it diamorphine and it is used as a painkiller, usually (I believe) in cancer patients.

(and cocaine used to be used as an anaesthetic by dentists (and as a flavouring by the coca cola company))

I hear the cola part was the flavouring, the coca was to keep you going for a week without needing sleep.

[sam_levi_11]

well i have taken some bad shit in my life and got hooked but i still beleive peopl will always want it and so we should legalise it so that we can control it and take it from the dealers

[Neoteny]

I would argue the Cannabis plant produces THC specifically for the purpose of inducing psychoactive effects. Because cannabis gets you high doesn't necessarily mean its a defense mechanism of the plant, why not a gift to man from mother nature? Same thing with the Poppy.

Anthropocentric much? This really just doesn't make sense to me.

[Iz Man]

I would argue the Cannabis plant produces THC specifically for the purpose of inducing psychoactive effects. Because cannabis gets you high doesn't necessarily mean its a defense mechanism of the plant, why not a gift to man from mother nature? Same thing with the Poppy.

Anthropocentric much? This really just doesn't make sense to me.

Not at all. I'm applying the same logic to the argument.
It is just as reasonable to assert that (in this case) cannabis contains THC for its psychoactive properties as it is to assume THC is there as a "defense mechanism".
Can you say why its there? No. Nor can I. Nor should the government.

[unriggable]

THC is considered by botanists as a defense mechanism. Here's why (via example). Animals that eat grapes cannot eat them in large quantities because they contain alcohol. Alcohol slows reaction time (among other things), making the prey much easier to hunt (by predators). Since the prey that eat the grapes are hunted down easier, there are fewer animals to eat them. There you go.

[Neoteny]

I would argue the Cannabis plant produces THC specifically for the purpose of inducing psychoactive effects. Because cannabis gets you high doesn't necessarily mean its a defense mechanism of the plant, why not a gift to man from mother nature? Same thing with the Poppy.

Anthropocentric much? This really just doesn't make sense to me.

Not at all. I'm applying the same logic to the argument.
It is just as reasonable to assert that (in this case) cannabis contains THC for its psychoactive properties as it is to assume THC is there as a "defense mechanism".
Can you say why its there? No. Nor can I. Nor should the government.

Well, my version at least has roots in ecology. To make the chemicals, the plant has to expend a certain amount of energy, and one of the basics of ecology is that energy is very important and is usually not spent superfluously (an example of this would be to just get us high). Almost all energy in the natural world up to the point of humans (and I'd argue that most of ours is spent the same way) is spent in a manner to aid in reproduction or otherwise spreading genes. So you have to ask, "how is THC contributing to Cannabis sativa reproduction?" The most blatantly obvious answer is that it is a toxin to animals, just like many of the other nonessential chemicals that plants produce. This of course, prevents animals from eating, and thus destroying, and reducing it's reproductive lifespan, the plant. The reasons THC is different from KCN are that it is not as lethal to humans, does not target the same parts of the body, and has different physiological effects due to the makeup of various chemoreceptors. This does not mean it is not a toxin, it just operates differently, probably because it wasn't originally intended for us. The world really doesn't revolve around humans.

Anyhow, my point still stands. A drug is a drug. And I tend to think that they should be legalized, or at the very least, have the restrictions restructured. But their origin really should have nothing to do with the process. Especially considering we can now synthesize THC. What would be the difference between administering natural and synthetic THC in a medical environment? Even a consumer envirionment?

[HungrySomali]

THC is considered by botanists as a defense mechanism. Here's why (via example). Animals that eat grapes cannot eat them in large quantities because they contain alcohol. Alcohol slows reaction time (among other things), making the prey much easier to hunt (by predators). Since the prey that eat the grapes are hunted down easier, there are fewer animals to eat them. There you go.

Yer kidding right? Grapes dont contain alcohol. Grape juice needs to be fermented for it to have any alcohol.

And as far as THC's reason for being: Anyone who has grown and Weed outdoors in the Mid-Atlantic (US) knows that the number one threat to your plants is Deer. They love that shit. They eat it and roll around in it. Almost like catnip to cats. Maybe the plants are hoping the deer will be attracted to the very pungent odor and come eat the buds and seeds then poop em out somewhere fertile. That has always been my assumption based on practical evidence.

[unriggable]

Somali, wine is fermented only because the amount of alcohol in grapes is so small.

"The natural chemical balance of grapes is such that they can ferment without the addition of sugars, acids, enzymes or other nutrients"

-Wikipedia

[Neoteny]

THC is considered by botanists as a defense mechanism. Here's why (via example). Animals that eat grapes cannot eat them in large quantities because they contain alcohol. Alcohol slows reaction time (among other things), making the prey much easier to hunt (by predators). Since the prey that eat the grapes are hunted down easier, there are fewer animals to eat them. There you go.

Yer kidding right? Grapes dont contain alcohol. Grape juice needs to be fermented for it to have any alcohol.

And as far as THC's reason for being: Anyone who has grown and Weed outdoors in the Mid-Atlantic (US) knows that the number one threat to your plants is Deer. They love that shit. They eat it and roll around in it. Almost like catnip to cats. Maybe the plants are hoping the deer will be attracted to the very pungent odor and come eat the buds and seeds then poop em out somewhere fertile. That has always been my assumption based on practical evidence.

Yeah, I've heard of that. However, I've seen reports that THC has antidessication, antibiotic, and other deterrent effects. Additionally, I saw a study, albeit old, that showed that THC production increased in high-stress environments. This seems indicative that it is intended as a deterrent for whatever reason. If THC really was an attractant, wouldn't less stressed plants produce more THC? Why would stressed plants use the energy on THC?

I wouldn't outright deny that seed dispersal is the evolutionary "purpose" for THC, but it doesn't seem to mesh up with what I've seen. Then again, I'm not a grower.

[heavycola]

THC is considered by botanists as a defense mechanism. Here's why (via example). Animals that eat grapes cannot eat them in large quantities because they contain alcohol. Alcohol slows reaction time (among other things), making the prey much easier to hunt (by predators). Since the prey that eat the grapes are hunted down easier, there are fewer animals to eat them. There you go.

Yer kidding right? Grapes dont contain alcohol. Grape juice needs to be fermented for it to have any alcohol.

And as far as THC's reason for being: Anyone who has grown and Weed outdoors in the Mid-Atlantic (US) knows that the number one threat to your plants is Deer. They love that shit. They eat it and roll around in it. Almost like catnip to cats. Maybe the plants are hoping the deer will be attracted to the very pungent odor and come eat the buds and seeds then poop em out somewhere fertile. That has always been my assumption based on practical evidence.

Yeah, I've heard of that. However, I've seen reports that THC has antidessication, antibiotic, and other deterrent effects.

It also allows dub reggae to be fully appreciated.

[Guiscard]

It also allows dub reggae to be fully appreciated.

True, true...

[Neoteny]

Well, that would explain a lot...

[unriggable]

The point is, legalize.

[Neoteny]

The point is, legalize.

Huzzah.

[spurgistan]

So, crystal, then? Yes / no?

[heavycola]

So, crystal, then? Yes / no?

Yes.

[unriggable]

Heavycola, would you rather do her or do Che Guevera?

[heavycola]

Heavycola, would you rather do her or do Che Guevera?

Her! Che looked shit in gold foil. And i got a thing for massive hair.
Why do you ask? And why Che?